excerpt from Joshua and the Promised Land
by Roy H. May, Jr.
The "Peasant rebellion" theory or model of occupying the land is founded on the social world of Canaan in the 13th century B.C.E. Before its occupation by the Israelites, Canaan was dominated by city-states. There were many city-states clustered throughout the region (thirty-one are listed in Joshua 12:7-24 just in the region of Canaan). In this ancient form of political, economic, and social organization, each city was independent of another and each was ruled by its own king. The king lived in the city surrounded by his royal bureaucracy composed of the aristocratic families. The royal army was garrisoned inside the city walls. Most of the city people were humble shopkeepers, service providers, and artisans. The city was also the center of religious life. Thus, the city dominated all aspects of life.
Agricultural and pasture lands surrounded the city. These lands were often parceled out as large farms to the king's aristocratic bureaucrats. They lived in the city while tenants and field workers tilled the soil for them. Other lands were worked by "free" farmers who lived in small towns or villages without wars or fortifications. But, the king was the owner of all the land, farm animals, and seed. In return for land, animals, and seed, the peasant farmners paid a special tax or tribute. Generally it was a tenth of all they produced. They also provided free labor services for public projects and were drafted as foot soldiers. (23) Tribute was the main source of the king's income that was used to support him and his army, and to pay for public works and other concerns of the city-state. Thus, the farmers and field workers produced the city-state's income. They also shouldered the biggest economic burdens through payment of tribute and labor services.
Undoubtedly the city-state system was more than irksome for the mass of rural cultivators who had to support it. It was highly exploitative of their labor and resources. Furthermore, since the king was the official owner of everything, their situation was always dependent on him. Many farmers and field workers were more than ready for a change.
Clearly during the preceding century, and most likely at the time of the conquest in about 1200 B.C.E., there was considerable social unrest throughout Canaan. Diplomatic correspondence sent by various Canaanite and Syrian city-state kings to the Egyptian pharaoh complained of the 'apiru (or habiru). (This word may be related to "Hebrew"). These were rebellious outlaws who raided camel caravans or hired out as mercenaries to the various kings. However, they were always ready to turn on their employer if someone else offered a better deal. Apparently they severely disturbed public order. For this reason, they were of interest to the pharaoh who worried about the stability of his waning empire. The 'apiru were produced by a society in crisis. They give evidence of social discontent.
In this conflictive social situation, groups of Israelites, who were deeply influenced by the Moses-Exodus tradition, began crossing the Jordan River. Other Israelites had already settled there and mingled with the native population. These Israelites demanded land. They claimed their God Yahweh promised land to the landless. Angry Canaanite peasants and 'apiru made common cause with them. They also wanted land. Together they rebelled against the kings and the cities. Instead of being expelled from the land, Canaanite peasants received land! The people of the countryside overthrew the urban centers.
The Warfare
What was this warfare like? The text is clear that it was war
against kings and cities. Joshua 12:7-24 lists them explicitly. (24)
Dreher calls this the second due to understanding the Book of
Joshua: the war for the Promised Land was not against the people of
the countryside, but against royal urbanites. (25) Kings and cities
(like Canaanites) are theological symbols of opposition to Yahweh.
In the Book of Joshua, they represent the powerful who monopolize
the land. Yahweh is against this. This domination and injustice
is the reason kings and cities must be destroyed. (26)
The guerrilla-type warfare suggested in Judges 1 and 5 is different from that fought by standing armies under unified command because of its often uncoordinated battle strategies among individual commanders, lightening attacks on economic targets, and piece-meal territorial strongholds.
The "Song of Deborah" in Judges 5, one of the oldest pieces of literature in the Old Testament, is the nearest glimpse we have of the revolt itself. (27) This text suggests that the fundamental conflict, initially at least, involved payment of tribute and other policies that gouged peasants of whatever profit they managed to gain (v. 19b, reference to silver). The warfare is pictured as guerrilla action (v. 6, raiding camel caravans) and banditry (v. 7, plundering). It was a peasant army (v. 11) led by individual commanders (v. 9), including women such as Deborah (v. 7). Furthermore, some tribes were slow to join (v. 16), and not all the tribes even participated (v. 17), indicating tribal autonomy. What tied the tribes together was their belief in Yahweh as liberator and promiser of land (v. 5).
Beyond this, we scarcely know anything about the warfare. The stories in the Book of Joshua are graphic, but they tell us very little.
The Battle of Gibeon
This interpretation of the conquest as a war waged by farmers and
field workers and other poor against powerful kings and wealthy
urbanites helps explain the battle of Gibeon (9:1-10:1-15).
Although the biblical text refers to Gibeon and three other towns
as "cities" (10:2 claims it was a "large city"), archaeologists
believe that they were no more than unwalled villages. They had no
king and had joined together as a federation of peasant villages.
They were rural towns, not urban cities. (28)
Because of rising levels of violence, the Gibeonites decided to avoid trouble and guarantee their security by seeking a treaty with the Israelites. Perhaps they were in basic agreement with the Israelite cause, although there is no direct evidence of that. The Gibeonites resorted to flattery, trickery, and submission. They successfully negotiated the treaty. Not surprisingly, a lot of Israelites didn't like the arrangement since the Gibeonites had used deception. Furthermore, their loyalties weren't clear. The treaty, however, prohibited the Gibeonites Furthermore having their own army They were allowed only domestic functions (v.27). Israel assumed their defense.
The Gibeonite alliance with Israel implied a political victory for Israel and strengthened its position against the cities. This so frightened five area kings that they launched an all-out attack against the Gibeonite village federation (10:1-5). The Gibeonites called on the Israelites to honor their treaty obligations to defend them against the Amorite kings.
This led to one of the most fearsome battles of the whole rebellion (10:6-15). According to biblical tradition, so determined was Yahweh, through Joshua's army, to protect the unwalled villages against the cities that miraculous giant hailstones fell on the Amorites. Then, to extend the number of hours for the battle and assure an Israelite victory, time was extended by making the sun and the moon stand still (vs. 12-13)! In biblical accounts about Yahweh, the Divine Warrior often used miracles to achieve victory. Of course the original meaning of this ancient poem is obscure. However, as part of ancient tradition it emphasized the importance that the defense of the Gibeonites had for Yahweh. The biblical account emphasizes that Yahweh sided with villagers, not kings.
Canaanites and the Religion of Yahweh
During the uprising, Canaanite peasants and 'apiru were
converted to the religion of Yahweh. Religion probably was a
compelling factor in their joining with the Israelites. Promised
land as God's gift, the divine command to take it, freedom from
Egyptian slavery, and a commitment to social equality attracted
Canaan's disgruntled and oppressed rural (and urban) population.
This new religion offered freedom! Thus Yahwism was central to the
formation of Israel.
Some Questions Answered
The peasant rebellion model responds to the contradictions,
historical problems, and questions of logic found in the Book of
Joshua. This model accounts for Canaanites still remaining in the
land and for an "incomplete" conquest. It also takes into account
the three clues we have so far mentioned: (1) Rahab as representing
the low class and outcast people of Canaan and suggesting allies in
the cities; (2) warring against kings and cities and not the
countryside, and (3) not taking all the land at once.
This model reflects a different ethical focus. At the very
least it undermines the story of extermination and removal of
Indigenous Peoples from their land. Instead, land is taken by
needy farmers and social outsiders, putting the entry into Canaan
in a different ethical framework.
23. Génesis 47:13-26. See Jorge Pixley, Historia sagrada, historia popular: Historia de Israel desde los pobres (1220 A.C. a 135 D.C.) (San José: DEI, 1989), p. 12. (return to text)
24. This presents some historical problems. Various cities mentioned, Jerusalem for example, were not captured by Israel until many years later during the time of David and Solomon. (return to text)
25. Dreher, "Josué," p. 65. Dreher notes that while the words "Canaan" and "Canaanite" are used 22 times, "king" is used 108 times, and the term "city" appears 153 times. (return to text)
26. Gordon Mitchell, Together in the Land: A Reading of the Book of Joshua. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 134 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), p. 133. (return to text)
27. Carlos A. Dreher, "A formação social do Israel pré-estatal, Uma tentativa de reconstução histórica, a partir do cântico de Débora (Jz 5)," in Estudos Teológicos 2 (1986), pp. 169-201. See also Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahwah, pp. 503-507, for a similar discussion of Judges 5. Gottwald notes that the enemies named in Judges 5 are kings, rulers, caravans, warriors, horses, chariots, and the army commander Sisera. All these relate to the royal, urban upper class. (return to text)
28. Robert G. Boling, Joshua: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary, The Anchor Bible (Garden City and New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1982), pp. 262-63, 288. Earlier we explained that the word "inhabitants" should best be translated as "rulers." Here, however, Boling believes the context makes clear that reference is to the general population, not kinds. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahwah, pp. 521-24, nevertheless, argues that "rulers/authorities" is the most accurate of non-monarchical cities, thus significantly separating the Gibeonites from the other city-states. (return to text)
 Order the Study Guides |
 Visit our other Joshua pages |
|
The Joshua
Website is a resource from:
Created by the Joshua Project Team who would appreciate your feedback. |
