Continued: Chapter VI-The Wars Of Conquest

D. The Habiri

In 1888 the famous records that are now known as the Tell el-Amarna Tablets were unearthed in Egypt. They proved to be the archives of the foreign office of the court of Amenhotep III and IV (Akhenaten). Many of these letters were written by the vassal kings of Egypt who were reigning in the petty states of Syria and Palestine. They were constantly writing to the Pharaoh to come immediately to their relief. Otherwise, the country, said they, would be captured by invaders who were coming in from the east. In these records they are known as the Sagaz and the Habiri. The former are mentioned in letters coming from the northern section of the country, whereas the latter are set forth in those written by princes in the southern part of Palestine.

For instance, Rib-Adda of Gebal wrote frantically to Pharaoh imploring him to send aid immediately lest the king's authority be in jeopardy. Two letters from this place are given by Barton in his Archaeology and the Bible. In both of these he referred to the "sons of Ebed-Ashera." There is some uncertainty in regard to the significance of this expression. Some scholars, however, see in it a reference to the tribe of Asher, whose lot lay on the maritime coast above Haifa. Geographically these "sons of Ebed-Ashera" are correctly located in order to be identified as the tribe of Asher.

Ebed-Hepa of Jerusalem frantically appealed to Pharaoh to come to his relief by sending mercenary troops; otherwise, declared the affrighted Ebed-Hepa, all the authority and power of Pharaoh would soon be lost. This ruler was a vassal of Amenhotep IV, the heretic king. This vassal called his master's attention to the fact that the Habiri were overrunning the country and that in a year's time the king's territory would be lost.

Who were the Habiri? Various answers are given. Some have thought that they were of the tribe of Heber, who, according to Genesis 46:17 and Numbers 26:45, descended from Asher. This position is unlikely since such a small group of people could not terrify Ebed-Hepa in any such manner as his letters indicate. On the other hand, others identify them as being a branch of the Hittites. The reason advanced for this position is that one of the Boghaz-Kuei Tablets, discovered by Winckler in 1907, presents a list of the Hittites' gods, designating them as the "gods of the Habiri." This bit of evidence is not at all convincing. On this point Barton declares, "This is, however, not decisive, as the gods may have been Semitic gods, whom, after the fashion of antiquity, the Hittite scribe had identified with the deities of his own country." The example of the addition of foreign gods to the national pantheon was no uncommon occurrence among the nations of antiquity. Hence, as Barton states, this reference to the "gods of the Habiri" cannot be relied upon as evidence that the Habiri were Hittites. At the same time other scholars, for different reasons, deny that the Habiri were the Hebrew people.

Nevertheless others of equal scholarship see in these letters indisputable evidence of the Hebrew invasion of the land under Joshua. Even Barton holds to this view, at the same time asserting that it has difficulties. One objection which he raises is that Ebed-Hepa wrote to Amenhotep IV who belonged to the 18th dynasty. In his opinion, however, the Exodus occurred under Merneptah, a Pharaoh of the 19th dynasty. Upon this theory the Hebrews were in Egypt when Ebed-Hepa made his frantic appeals. But as has already been shown in a preceding chapter, the Exodus did actually occur under the reign of Amenhotep II of the 18th dynasty. Their flight from Egypt, given in terms of the current chronology, was about 1447 B.C.E. The wilderness wanderings continued for forty years. The entrance into Canaan, therefore, would have occurred about 1407 B.C.E. It is admitted by scholars in general that these letters come from the period 1400-1360 B.C.E. This is the time of the Hebrew conquest spoken in terms of the current chronology. Since, however, there is much uncertainty concerning the Egyptian chronology, as is seen by a glance at the positions taken by experts in this field, we may be certain that these letters were written at the time of the Hebrew entrance and conquest of the land. This is made absolutely certain by the Jericho discoveries, which, as we have seen, place the Exodus in the reign of Amenhotep II.

In this connection I wish to make another quotation from The Bible Comes Alive.

"In the year 1888, an old peasant woman in Egypt, rummaging about at a place called Tel el Amarna, lighted upon the ruins of a Pharaoh's Record Office. She found a collection of three hundred and twenty clay tablets inscribed with cuneiform writing in the Babylonian language. The decipherment proved them to have been written by the petty kings and governors of Palestine and Syria, and sent to the then ruling Pharaoh--Amenhotep III, and his successor, Amenhotep IV, better known as Akhenaton. They are dated between 1400 and 1360 B.C. Our readers are already aware, that the Egyptians had been conquering and controlling Palestine, and Syria, while Moses led the Israelites in the Wilderness; as a result, an Egyptian suzerainty had been established over the conquered countries. The Tel el Amarna Letters contained appeals to Egypt for help against invaders from the other side of the Jordan, named the Habiru and the Sagaz.

"The decipherment, the translation, and the grouping of these letters in their proper sequence, have presented, and still present, many bewildering problems. But the identification of the Sagaz with the Habiru is now generally agreed. And reference has already been made to the identification of the Habiru with the Hebrews. This too is now meeting with general recognition. It has become clear that the Tel el Amarna Letters contain enemy versions of Joshua's invasion, written by Canaanite, Amorite, and Jebusite chiefs. The trouble is to fit them into the course of events. They extend over perhaps forty years, and numbers of people, of whom we know nothing, are mentioned in them."

When the news was spread throughout the land that Joshua had penetrated into the interior by the capture of Ai, the people were thrown into consternation. The inhabitants of Gibeon, Beeroth, Kiriath-jearim, and Chephirah immediately formed an alliance known as the Hivite League. Being convinced that the Israelites would subject the land, the inhabitants of Gibeon, the chief city of this confederacy, by strategy and deceit entered into covenant relationship with Joshua at Gilgal. Their perfidy was soon discovered by Israel. Nevertheless, on account of the sacredness of the covenant and oath, Joshua was true to his treaty obligations.

Soon another group of nations formed a confederacy to oppose the Hivite League and the Israelites. This second union of states was known as the Amorite League. It consisted of Jerusalem, Hebron, Lachish, Jarmuth, and Eglon. Realizing the critical situation in which they were placed, they planned immediately to attack the Hivite Alliance in order to destroy it. Messengers were dispatched immediately by the Gibeonites to Joshua at Gilgal, calling upon him to come with haste to their relief. The Israelites responded. By forced march during the night they were on the tableland the next morning. The battle was set and raged fiercely.

The tenth chapter of Joshua is one of great importance from many standpoints. It records the setting of the battle and the participants. In it is also found what is usually termed "the long day of Joshua." The late Professor Maunder, in his volume The Astronomy of the Bible, has given us a very enlightening exposition of the geographical location and the conditions connected with this marvelous superhuman intervention in behalf of the Chosen People. According to him, the topography and geography of the locality harmonize perfectly with the astronomy implied in the passage. There is nothing incredible in the account concerning the prolonging of the day and the winning of the victory. The God who can create the universe and sustain it is able indeed to intervene in behalf of the people whom He has chosen to be the channel through which He will bless the world. If one admits the existence of a personal God who created the universe and in whom we live, move, and have our being, he must admit the possibility of miraculous intervention. This latter truth is a corollary of the first proposition.

If one will but open his mind to receive the truth and will investigate the statements as they are presented, he can easily see the facts as they are embedded in this text.

Often, instead of reading the Bible itself with an open mind, skeptics procure works teaching infidelity and skepticism. A certain infidel boasted of his unbelief. Upon being asked what books he read he referred to the works of Ingersoll, Paine, et al. When questioned closely if he had ever read the Bible one time, he finally admitted that he never had. The health of the body depends upon the nature of the food which is eaten; the health of the heart and soul, likewise, depends upon the intellectual and spiritual food upon which one feasts.

Speaking in a figure one may say that truth is modest and will never force herself upon him who does not seek her association. The Scriptures are so constructed that those who are hunting for difficulties will find many seeming contradictions; but the truth-seeker will make a thorough, sympathetic investigation of the facts and endeavor to find harmony. According to the best legal authorities, testimony which, especially in minor details seems to be contradictory, but in the outstanding features agrees in general is considered the very best of evidence. Hence the seeming difficulties to which atheists and infidels have pointed as proof against the divine origin of the Scriptures, when studied honestly and conscientiously with a desire to know the truth, vanish into oblivion.

Two illustrations will suffice to show how these seeming difficulties vanish. The miracle of the prolonged day in the time of Joshua (Josh. 10) has been to some a stumbling block. Various explanations have been given of this record. The existence of a Supreme Omnipotent Being being granted, no one should have any difficulty with this miracle. According to the record the day was prolonged in order that Joshua might complete the victory. At his command the sun and moon stood still. Did these heavenly bodies really stand still or did the earth cease rotating on its axis? Or did the Almighty by miraculous intervention intensify refraction and reflection so that those bodies seemed to stand still (the language of appearance)? People today who believe in the rotundity of the earth still speak of the rising and the setting of the sun. This usage is the language of appearance. It will never be settled scientifically as to which of these methods was used. The great fact established by historical testimony is that there was miraculous intervention which prolonged that day. A faint echo of this miracle is heard in the Greek world in the fable of Phaeton, who was driving the chariot of the Sun and threw everything into disorder, thus causing one day wholly unlike all before and after it. Likewise, another faint echo is heard in the Chinese record: "Some traces of this miracle are discovered in the Chinese records, as well as in the disfigured account of Statius and Ovid."

Another seeming flat contradiction disappears in the light of the knowledge of the Hebrew text. In II Kings 8:17 it is stated that Joram king of Judah reigned eight years in Jerusalem, dying forty years old. In verse 26 the statement is made that his son, Ahaziah, was twenty-two years old, ascended the throne and reigned one year. In II Chron. 22:2 the statement is made that Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign and reigned one year. Thus the records appear in the English translation. There is a seeming contradiction. The father is forty years old when he dies; the son is 42, mounts the throne, reigns one year, and dies at 43. No son can be older than his father. This seeming difficulty vanishes when one realizes the fact that the Hebrew expression translated "when he began to reign" also is grammatically rendered "in his kingdom" or "in his reign." Since the son could not be two years older than the father and since the Hebrew expression has two meanings, that significance must be chosen in the Chronicles passage which will accord with the facts. When it is seen that Ahaziah was the son of Athaliah, who was the daughter of Jezebel of the house of Omri, of the Northern Kingdom, and when the years are counted from the usurpation of the throne by Omri to the death of Jehoram and it is seen that there were exactly forty-two years, the only conclusion to be drawn is that the writer of Chronicles was speaking of the length of the dynasty instead of the age of Ahaziah when he mounted the throne.

In the latter part of Joshua 10 we find an account of the progress of the battle and the territories won. In the last paragraph, however, is a resume of the operations in the south. Here we learn that Joshua conquered the country from Gibeon on the north of Jerusalem to Kadesh-barnea on the south. The list of the cities shows that this territory did not include the plains of the Philistines, but rather the section known as the shephalah and the high table land of Judaea.

Although the blanket statement is made that Joshua conquered this section of the land, we see from other statements of Scripture that certain cities were not captured. For instance, Jerusalem was not taken until David stormed it. Gezer was first conquered by Solomon. The conquests, therefore, mentioned in Joshua 10 refer to the overwhelming of the armies of these various cities that opposed Joshua and the taking of the country at large. Some of the strongholds such as those two just mentioned withstood the Israelites, as we shall presently see.

"And it came to pass, when Jabin king of Hazor heard thereof, that he sent to Jobab king of Madon, and to the king of Shimron, and to the king of Achshaph, 2 and to the kings that were on the north, in the hill-country, and in the Arabah south of Chinneroth, and in the lowland, and in the heights of Dor on the west, 3 to the Canaanite on the east and on the west, and the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Jebusite in the hill-country, and the Hivite under Hermon in the land of Mizpah" (Josh. 11:1-3).

At the conclusion of the southern campaign Joshua led his forces northward against the coalition that had been formed by Jabin king of Hazor. The enemy on this occasion was more powerful and formidable than in the previous campaign. New difficulties had arisen. Joshua was far from his base of supplies at Gilgal. A new type of warfare loomed before him. In the former campaign they had fought in the hills and stormed cities. In this northern area they were met by chariots and horses on the open plain.

The battle was fought in the vicinity of Hazor near Lake Huleh. The enemy fled in every direction and Joshua was completely victorious. The ancient site of Hazor is known under the modern name of El Kedah, one of the largest sites in Palestine, being, according to Marston, 3600 feet by 1800. On the southern side of the city was an enclosure on a mound that dominated the entire situation, the height of which was about 165 feet above the neighboring road. Garstang claims that it enjoyed its greatest prosperity around 1800 B.C., when the Hyksos were in power in Egypt. At this time, of course, it was under their complete control, for archaeology has revealed their special type of fortification. With the passing of the centuries its splendor faded. Thothmes III in 1478 B.C.E. captured it. This, of course, was a natural setback. Nevertheless, because of its natural strength it played an important role in northern Palestine. It still remained the center for strong military operations. From Joshua 11:4 we learn that the kings mentioned in the passage quoted at the beginning of this section, "went out, they and all their hosts with them, much people, even as the sand that is upon the seashore in multitude, with horses and chariots very many."

The Lord gave Joshua special encouragement, urging him not to fear, but to trust, for He declared that He would deliver the Canaanites into Israel's hands. Thus with this divine assurance Joshua led his forces into battle, accomplishing a complete rout of the enemy.

Since the attack and the destruction of Hazor played such an important part in the Biblical record, I must give the terse Scriptural statement concerning it:

"And Joshua turned back at that time, and took Hazor, and smote the king thereof with the sword: for Hazor beforetime was the head of all those kingdoms. 11 And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them; there was none left that breathed: and he burnt Hazor with fire. 12 And all the cities of those kings, and all the kings of them, did Joshua take, and he smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed them; as Moses the servant of Jehovah commanded. 13 But as for the cities that stood on their mounds, Israel burned none of them, save Hazor only; that did Joshua burn" (Josh. 11:10-13).

From this quotation it is clear that the writer wants us to understand that Hazor alone was burned at this time. This is seen by the fact that he twice mentioned its having been burned: "and he burnt Hazor with fire" (vs. 11.); and "Israel burned none of them, save Hazor "only" (vs. 13). There can be no doubt, therefore, about the destruction of Hazor at this time. Notwithstanding these plain declarations many of the critical scholars in the classrooms of the great institutions of learning speak ex cathedra, affirming that there was no such destruction of Hazor at that time. All references to the burning of Hazor they apply to the days of Deborah and Barak some 140 years later (Judges 4 and 5). Not-withstanding this professorial omniscience Garstang, in his excavating the ancient site of Hazor, found "that the pottery evidence pointed to the fact that the city had been destroyed by fire about the middle of the Bronze Age (1400 B.C.), long before the date assigned to Deborah by commentators and critics." The issue, therefore, is clearly drawn between the critics, on the one hand, and the stubborn bold facts of archaeology on the other. But, one may ask, could the destruction of this stronghold, by any chance, be the one recorded in Judges 4 and 5? Information comes to us from one of the Tell el-Amarna letters, dated about 1380 B.C.E., which was written by an Egyptian envoy in the north of Palestine to the reigning Pharaoh. It reads as follows: "Let my Lord the King recall what Hazor and its king have already had to endure." This information Sir Charles Marston gives us in New Bible Evidence, page 128. The archaeological evidence, therefore, points conclusively to the destruction by fire of not only Hazor, but also Ai and Jericho. The pottery dates these events in the middle of the late Bronze Age, about 1400 B.C.E. Thus the spade has brought forth evidence confirmatory of the Biblical narrative.

A summary of the Israelitish occupation of Palestine is found in Joshua 11:16-20:

"So Joshua took all that land the hill-country, and all the South, and all the land of Goshen and the lowland, and the Arabah, and the hill-country of Israel, and the lowland of the same; 17 from mount Halak, that goeth up to Seir, even unto Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon under mount Hermon and all their kings he took, and smote them, and put them to death. 18 Joshua made war a long time with all those kings. 19 There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: they took all in battle. 20 For it was of Jehovah to harden their hearts to come against Israel in battle that he might utterly destroy them, that they might have no favor, but that he might destroy them, as Jehovah commanded Moses."

Following this resumé we have a paragraph (vss. 21-23) which speaks of Joshua's annihilating "the Anakim" from the land. Thus Israel, by the help of God, entered and partially conquered the land promised to them--the central plateau.

The name of Joshua appears on one of the Tell el-Amarna tablets which reads as follows:

"As the King my Lord liveth, Job is not in Pella. For two months he has been in hiding. Ask then Benjamin, ask then Tadua, ask then Joshua." This is given by Sir Charles Marston in The Bible Comes Alive, page 90. This tablet was written by one Mut Baal to an Egyptian official whose name was Yanhamu. He wrote in confirmation of a previous letter relative to Job, king of Pella, who had fled from the community. Pella was an important city on the east side of the Jordan somewhat southeast of Bethshean. Of course, it was captured by the Israelites prior to the taking of Jericho. The translation of this portion of the tablet as given by Barton is as follows: "As the King my Lord lives, Job is not in Pihilim! Indeed, two months ago he broke way (?). As to this, ask Biennima; ask Tadua; ask Jeshuia (Joshua). Further by the estate (?) of Di-marduk, the city of Ashtar was helped." The tablet mentions the Ghor (the Jordan rift), Dumah, Edrei, Aroer, Magdalla, and Jabesh. All of these towns are well-known to Biblical students. The name Biennima, doubtless, is the Hebrew word Benjamin, and Jeshuia is likewise Joshua. Professor A. T. Olmstead, in History of Palestine and Syria, believes that in this tablet we have a contemporary document. The mention of these well-known peoples and cities cannot be accidental. The tablet, therefore, has the stamp of historicity and genuineness upon it. But what are the implications of this unusual tablet? Sir Charles Marston offers this suggestion: "What was the Egyptian interest in Pella? What was the Egyptian association with Joshua? The passage is enigmatical; it suggests that Benjamin, Tadua, and Joshua were friends of Yanhamu. Although it may contain the innuendo that, since the king of Egypt was not taking effective steps to drive out the Hebrews, their leaders are assumed to be friends. Archaeological discoveries in Palestine, taken as a whole, favor the hypothesis, that if the Israelites did not actually conquer and occupy Canaan with the aid of the Egyptians, they did so with their connivance." There seems sufficient ground to justify the conclusions of Marston on this point.

The suggestion thrown out in Sir Charles language quoted above leads to the further consideration of the question as to what part the Egyptians played in the Hebrew conquest of Canaan. Among the Tell el-Amarna Tablets we see that the vassal kings in Palestine appealed to Pharaoh for relief. None have been discovered in any place showing that the needed assistance was granted. As to why they did not, one cannot be dogmatic. Was Egypt losing her grip upon Palestine? Were there internal disorders within her boundaries which did not permit her bolstering her power in Canaan? These questions probably should receive an affirmative answer.

The suggestion has been made that the probable cause contributing to indifference on the part of the Pharaohs toward the appeal from Palestine lay in the fact that there was a religious revival which swept the country around 1400 B.C.E. Preparation for this religious awakening was made in the reign of Amenhotep III and came to its full expression in the reign of the heretic king Amenhotep IV (Akhenaton). These monarchs, especially the latter, turned from revolting polytheism, which was the foundation of Egyptian civilization, to a type of monotheism which by some scholars is traced back to Semitic sources. Akhenaton became engrossed in his religious reforms so that he paid little attention to the cries for help from Palestine. When this fact is recognized we can readily see why he disregarded their appeals. The Hebrews were also monotheists. His ethics and morals together with his outlook upon life corresponded more nearly to theirs than to the general conceptions of the degraded Canaanites. Naturally, therefore, he would favor the Hebrews and disregard their foes.

Promises with reference to the Lord's sending "the hornet" are found in Exodus 23:28 and Deuteronomy 7:20. Was He talking about the literal insect? Or was He using it in an enigmatical way? Professor Garstang calls our attention to the fact that Thothmes III and his successors used the hornet as their emblem. In his final speech to the Tribes at Shechem, Joshua, speaking for God, declared: "And I sent the hornet before you which drove them out from before you, even the two kings of the Amorites; not with thy sword nor with thy bow" (Joshua 24:12). On this point Sir Charles Marston made the following comment:

"These two kings are specifically referred to as Sihon and Og (Deut. III: 2, 3, and 8). And their defeat made the Israelites masters of the whole country east of the Jordan. If that were with Egyptian help or connivance, it would account for the fact that Mut Baal was referring the Egyptian official to Joshua, and others, for information about Pella, a city east of the Jordan in Israelite occupation. Further light is cast on the course of political events by the religious history of this period."

In view of these archaeological facts it is altogether possible that the use of "hornet" in the Scripture might be a veiled reference to Egypt. On this point, however, let us not be too dogmatic. The Lord does use men and means to accomplish His purposes. Well could the Psalmist in view of these facts praise God in the following words:

1. We have heard with our ears, 0 God,
   Our fathers have told us,
   What work thou didst in their days,
   In the days of old.

2. Thou didst drive out the nations with thy hand;
   But them thou didst plant:
   Thou didst afflict the peoples;
   But them thou didst spread abroad.

3. For they gat not the land in possession by their own sword,
   Neither did their own arm save them;
   But thy right hand, and thine arm, and the light of thy countenance,
   Because thou wast favorable unto them (Ps. 44:1-3).

II. THE UNCONQUERED PORTION OF THE LAND

Though Israel waged war long against the inhabitants of the land, she was not able to conquer all of the territory. This fact was in accordance with the prediction which the Lord made at Sinai saying, "I will not drive them out from before thee in one year, lest the land become desolate, and the beasts of the field multiply against thee" (Ex. 23:29). A comprehensive statement of the land which was not occupied by Israel is found in Joshua 13:1-7:

"1 Now Joshua was old and well stricken in years; and Jehovah said unto him, Thou art old and well stricken in years, and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed. 2 This is the land that yet remaineth: all the regions of the Philistines, and all the Geshurites; 3 from the Shihor, which is before Egypt, even unto the border of Ekron northward, which is reckoned to the Canaanites; the five lords of the Philistines; the Gazites, and the Ashdodites, the Ashkelonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites; also the Avvim, 4 on the south; all the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah that belongeth to the Sidonians, unto Aphek, to the border of the Amorites; 5 and the land of the Gebalites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrising, from Baal-gad under mount Hermon unto the entrance of Hamath; 6 all the inhabitants of the hill-country from Lebanon unto Misrephoth-maim, even all the Sidonians; them will I drive out from before the children of Israel: only allot thou it unto Israel for an inheritance, as I have commanded thee. 7 Now therefore divide this land for an inheritance unto the nine tribes, and the half-tribe of Manasseh."

Some have seen a contradiction between the summary statements of Joshua 10:40-43 and 11:21-23, on the one hand, and chapter 13:1-7, on the other. They find in this literary phenomena evidence of composite authorship. There is no contradiction whatsoever in the passages when they are allowed to speak for themselves. Those bringing this accusation overlook the fact that language is used in two different senses: absolute and relative. We employ both methods in everyday life as well as in literary works. In terms of these uses I would say that the summary statements in chapters 10 and 11 are used in the relative sense, whereas the specific account found in chapter 13 is a detailed statement put in absolute terms. In view of these facts there is no evidence for the claim of composite authorship.

There are those who likewise see a contradiction between the records found in Joshua concerning the conquest of the land and that appearing in Judges 1. To these critics this chapter is a different version of the conquest of the land. We are told that the land was invaded from two directions: from the south by Judah and associates (the Leah tribes), and from the east by Ephraim and his associates (the Rachel tribes). For such a theory there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, if one will only look at the facts of the contexts as they are presented.

Continued on next page