The Battle of Gibeon
excerpt from Joshua and the Promised Land
by Roy H. May, Jr.
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 dear. The treaty, however, prohibited the Gibeonites from having their own army. They were allowed only domestic functions (v. 27). Israel assumed their defense.
28. Boling, Joshua, 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 kings. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh, pp. 521-24, nevertheless, argues that "rulers/authorities" is the most accurate translation, but urges not in the sense of "kings." He argues that they were the leaders of non-monarchical cities, thus significantly separating the Gibeonites from the other city-states. (return to text)
Return to Joshua: Worn-out Woodcutters and Watercarriers
 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. |
