SurfTheSite
11:1 VA YEHI KI SHEMO'A YAVIN MELECH CHATSOR VA YISHLACH EL YOVAV MELECH MADON VE EL MELECH SHIMRON VE EL MELECH ACHSHAPH
11:1 VA YEHI KI SHEMO'A YAVIN MELECH CHATSOR VA YISHLACH EL YOVAV MELECH MADON VE EL MELECH SHIMRON VE EL MELECH ACHSHAPH
וַיְהִי כִּשְׁמֹעַ יָבִין מֶלֶךְ חָצֹור וַיִּשְׁלַח אֶל יֹובָב מֶלֶךְ מָדֹון וְאֶל מֶלֶךְ שִׁמְרֹון וְאֶל מֶלֶךְ אַכְשָׁף
BN (BibleNet translation): And it happened that, when Yavin king of Chatsor heard about these events, he sent to Yovav king of Madon, and to the king of Shimron, and to the king of Achshaph.
YAVIN: Odd how many of these names that come up in Joshua, as having been conquered by him, also come up as people with whom Yisra-El fought both previously and afterwards; which would make perfect sense if it was the name of the town or country or tribe, but it is repeatedly the name of the king. So, here - see Judges 4, for the tale of Ya-El and Siysra, and of Devorah and Barak (for the last of whom see my notes at Judges 4:6). Also Psalm 83:10 for the death of Yavin. Just as a side-note, the root is probably the same one that yields Yavneh, the Rabbinical seminary granted to the Sanhedrin by General Titus as a reward for their agreement to evacuate Yeru-Shala'im in 70 CE; it would become the locus for the development of Talmudic Judaism in the decades that followed.
CHATSOR: Now one of the major archeological digs in Israel, and well worth reading the link in detail, because it will surprise you to learn just how sophisticated Kena'an was at that time, in terms of its architecture and engineering, as well as its religion and culture.
The word CHATSOR is intrinsically word-music, though we have to assume that both are in the score on this occasion. A CHATSER, from this root, is a town large enough to have a stone wall enclosing it, though it could simply be a building of significance with a walled enclosure, such as in Exodus 27:9, Nehemiah 8:16, 1 Kings 6:36 and 7:12, though originally it was any sort of enclosure, such as a fold for keeping in the sheep, though we have seen (Numbers 35:5, Deuteronomy 1:1 et al) that CHATSEROT were originally any villages, with or without enclosing fences let alone walls, though the root CHETSER is also one of two words for the colour "green" (though the more common word is Yarok), presumably because of the root's usage as a sheepfold or cattle pen.
BUT (which is different from "though") - and this is why I used the word "score" and called it "word-music" - CHATSER is also [believed to be] the root for blowing a trumpet (though it isn't the kind of trumpet that was used in the siege of Yericho), from which the straight, metal trumpet gets its name: CHATSOTRAH.
BUT (or even HOWEVER) - it doesn't work, does it? It has to be an error, surely. CHATSOTSRAH has a double Tsade (חצצרה), so it has to come from a root which has a double Tsade, does it not? And it may well be, as Gesenius suggests, that they are two completely different roots, and the one for the trumpet was simply a case of Toot-de-toot-toot, an onomatopoeiac descriptive word.
And then add to all this the fact that Re'u-Ven had a son named CHETSRON, also from this root - by whichever of the meanings, a very odd name to give your child.
YOVAV: Whereas this name makes this one appearance in the Tanach, and is never heard of again.
MADON: Given that this was a major royal city of the Beney Kena'an (Canaanites), why did Adoni-Tsedek not also call on these to fight with him against Yehoshu'a (see chapter 10)? The answer may lie at the link under the name, which places Madon (but with a question-mark) well to the north, almost at the Sea of Galilee.
SHIMRON: Why are we not given his name, or that of the king of Achshaph? (And why is sometimes Shimron, and sometimes Shomron? See the link.)
ACHSHAPH: Joshua 19:25 places it in the tribal territory of Asher, which is even further north, and west, of the question-mark beside Madon; if it is correct, and verse 2 seems to confirm it, we can now say that Yehoshu'a conquests did indeed cover the entire land that would become Yisra-El.
MELACHIM: The Yehudit word for king, rooted in the name of Moloch, who was the ruling god of most Kena'ani cities, sometimes in its dialect variant Melkart (itself sometimes written in English as Melqart). The defeat of Moloch by Yehoshu'a should be read as the equivalent, say, of the defeat of al-Lah by Jesus rather than, say, the defeat of King Louis by King Charles - a religious conquest primarily, even if it was achieved militarily. The best description of this in the Bible is the capture of Yeru-Shala'im by King David; the military achievement first, but more significantly the cutting down of the obelisk, the bringing of the Ark, the establishment of the new cult within the city.
11:2 VE EL HA MELACHIM ASHER MI TSEPHON BA HAR U VA ARAVAH NEGEV KINAROT U VA SHEPHELAH U VE NAPHOT DOR MI YAM
KJ: And to the kings that were on the north of the mountains, and of the plains south of Chinneroth, and in the valley, and in the borders of Dor on the west
BN: And to the kings who were on the north of the mountains, and those on the plains south of Kinarot, and in the valley, and on the borders of Dor on the west.
TSEPHON: The Biblical texts have an odd habit of mixing up compass points with geographical landmarks; so, here, we have Tsephon meaning "north", and then a range of unnamed mountains", but presumably those of Mounts Eyval and Gerizim, as they were the immediate locality; or was he reaching out beyond the local area, and trying to establish an axis across the region?
ARAVAH: the root-word means "plains", but the Aravah is the name for the eastern Negev desert, south of the Dead Sea not the Sea of Galilee, the opposite direction if this is being calculated from base-camp at Gil-Gal, or from the scribal vantage-point later on in Yeru-Shala'im. See my next note, but also Joshua 12:3.
TSEPHON BE HAR: "North of the mountains?" Or "In the north, on the mountain"? The latter would denote Mount Chermon (Hermon), the only significant peak in Kena'an, and often referred to simply as "the mountain". That would be even further norther of the Sea of Galilee; but the tale that follows appears to confirm that it is the mountain intended here.
KINAROT: Is that a variant of Kinneret, the Sea of Galilee? The name comes from a Kinnor, which is a harp, because the shape of the lake is highly reminiscent of a harp (isn't that cute; the villages are trumpets - CHATSEROT - noisy and shrill, but the lake district is gentle and calm like harp music!).
KJ: And to the Canaanite on the east and on the west, and to the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Jebusite in the mountains, and to the Hivite under Hermon in the land of Mizpeh.
BN: And to the Kena'ani on the east and by the sea, and to the Emori, and the Chiti, and the Perizi, and the Yevusi in the mountains, and to the Chivi under Chermon in the land of Mitspah.
KENA'ANI: Previously we have been led to understand that the Kena'ani occupied the coastal plain, but here it appears they have family to the east as well.
MIZRACH...YAM: The first is a compass point, though it comes from MI ZERACH, "from the rising", because that is the direction of the sunrise; the second is likewise a geographical landmark, Yam meaning "the sea", but it came to mean "west"... confusingly, on several occasions in the Torah, because it has also been used to mean south, when the Red Sea rather than the Mediterranean was intended. Nonetheless, the entirety of Kena'an has now been included, north, south, east and west.
EMORI: See the link.
CHITI: See the link.
PERIZI: See the link.
YEVUSI: See the link.
CHIVI: See the link.
CHERMON: See the link.
Since when was Mitspah a land? It (actually "they", because there were several) was a watchtower, and served as a shrine - or was it perhaps a city-state at this time, and saying "Mitspah" is like saying "the Vatican", but understanding "Rome"? In which case, which city-state? Or is this a way of doing geography by landmark - given that all later Beney Yisra-Elim would have known where Shemu-El's Mitspeh lay (Mitspeh in that case, rather than Mitspah; see also verse 8)?
The list in this and previous verses appears to fill in all the gaps noted in Joshua 10:40. Yehoshu'a's conquests thus far have been restricted to the tribal territories of Yehudah, Bin-Yamin and Shim'on, which is the south of the country.
11:4 VA YETS'U HEM VE CHOL MACHANEYHEM IMAM AM RAV KA CHOL ASHER AL SEPHAT HA YAM LA ROV VE SUS VA RECHEV RAV ME'OD
KJ: And they went out, they and all their hosts with them, much people, even as the sand that is upon the sea shore in multitude, with horses and chariots very many.
BN: And they went out, they and all their troops with them, vast numbers, as many as the sand that is on the seashore in multitude, with huge numbers of horses and chariots.
KJ: And when all these kings were met together, they came and pitched together at the waters of Merom, to fight against Israel.
BN: And when all these kings had agreed to participate, they came and pitched together at Mey Merom, to fight against Yisra-El.
YIVA'ADU: The root is YA'AD, which really means "to appoint" or "to designate"; so the kings don't necessarily come themselves, but agree to participate, and appoint generals.
MEY MEROM: Connected etymologically with Marah (the Bitter Lake) and Merivah, all three having the root MAR = "bitter", which also gives Mor-Yah, Mount Moriah in Yeru-Shala'im (Maria or Mary in the Christian version; the name speaks of her "bitter tears"), where both Yitschak and Jesus were taken to be sacrificed? If so, and the root of the name indicates it, this would have been a shrine to the water-goddess, Mir-Yam (Miriam). Not that is the same place, only the same etymology: Mey Merom is the name of a lake, about ten miles north of Kinneret (the Sea of Galilee), which is nowhere near either Marah, or Merivah; though it is very close to Mount Chermon, and fed by the melting snows from that mountain. Worth looking at Moreh as well for some further "bitter" connections, and at the Maror of the Passover festival.
pey break
11:6 VA YOMER YHVH EL YEHOSHU'A AL TIYRA MI PENEYHEM KI MACHAR KA ET HA ZOT ANOCHI NOTEN EL KULAM CHALALIM LIPHNEY YISRA-EL ET SUSEYHEM TE'AKER VE ET MARKEVOTEYHEM TISROPH BA ESH
KJ: And the LORD said unto Joshua, Be not afraid because of them: for to morrow about this time will I deliver them up all slain before Israel: thou shalt hough their horses, and burn their chariots with fire.
BN: But YHVH said to Yehoshu'a: "Have no fear on their account. Tomorrow at about this time I will deliver them all up, slain before Yisra-El. You shall tear the hamstrings of their horses, and burn their chariots with fire."
KA ET HA ZOT: The use of ET is usually associated with a Mo'ad, a feast or fast or festival, as in Genesis 1:14. Here it appears to be just as translated, but then see verse 10, which makes me certain that there is, yet again, a religious or at least a mythological connotation to this tale.
KJ: So Joshua came, and all the people of war with him, against them by the waters of Merom suddenly; and they fell upon them.
BN: So Yehoshu'a, and his entire army with him, came up against them by surprise, near Mey Merom; and they fell on them.
Using this link, click on map reference G4. This is the area known today as Korazim (Merom is also marked, just south of Chatsor (Hazor). Tribally, this is the territory of Yisaschar and Naphtali.
KJ: And the LORD delivered them into the hand of Israel, who smote them, and chased them unto great Zidon, and unto Misrephothmaim, and unto the valley of Mizpeh eastward; and they smote them, until they left them none remaining.
BN: And YHVH delivered them into the hand of Yisra-El, who smote them, and pursued them all the way to Upper Tsiydon, and to Misrephot Mayim, and to the valley of Mitspeh in the east; and they smote them, until not one of them was left alive.
Tsidon (Sidon on the Mediterranean coast of Lebanon) is quite some distance! But it does infer that Yehoshu'a conquered the entire land, including the territories claimed by the other tribes.
MISREPHOT MAYIM: See Joshua 13:6. Grid-reference E3 on the map linked at verse 7.
Mitspeh (מִצְפֶּה) this time; Mitspah (מִּצְפָּה) last (verse 3) - this variation in the pointing runs through the whole of the Tanach, and is not discernible from the unpointed original. On this occasion it probably indicates two different places.
But surely something is missing from the narrative? YHVH has promised to deliver them, so where is the natural or the liturgical event that made the difference: a blowing of trumpets, an earthquake, a flood from the melting snows on Chermon?
11:9 VA YA'AS LAHEM YEHOSHU'A KA ASHER AMAR LO YHVH ET SUSEYHEM IKER VE ET MARKEVOTEYHEM SARAPH BA ESH
KJ: And Joshua did unto them as the LORD bade him: he houghed their horses, and burnt their chariots with fire.
BN: And Yehoshu'a did to them as YHVH bade him: he tore the hamstrings of their horses, and burned their chariots with fire.
KA ASHER AMAR LO: In the previous verse YHVH said that he would do this; now it is Yehoshu'a doing it on YHVH's orders. So we see how the deity works, and can take this understanding back to every verse in this great work of literature. YHVH never actually "does" anything, except exist in whatever form of Nature at the time - which may be a heart attack or a volcano, or a sprouting vegetable or a coupling ram and ewe, and it may be good or bad, but it is still, simply, life, described as being DAVAR YHVH. The mythological explanation.
And why do this to the horses (why do anything harmful to them is also a reasonable question, but I am asking why specifically this)? I can imagine them sacrificing them, and then eating them - if they were sheep or goats or beef-herds. But they didn't eat horse-meat (it wasn't even on the prohibited foods list in Torah, because it didn't need to be, so averse were the Beney Yisra-El to eating horse-flesh). Tearing their hamstrings cripples them; they can't be used in war, or as racehorses; they can't even walk around a paddock and look pretty or give rides to kiddies. This is simply crude, cruelty, barbarism. Shameful!
KJ: And Joshua at that time turned back, and took Hazor, and smote the king thereof with the sword: for Hazor beforetime was the head of all those kingdoms.
BN: And Yehoshu'a turned back at that time, and took Chatsor, and smote its king with the sword: for Chatsor until that time had been the head of all those kingdoms.
BA ET HA HI: As per my note at verse 7, this is such a very precise word, used in very precise contexts, that it cannot just mean "at that time", which is a generalised "whenever"; if he is going from moon-shrine to moon-shrine, then the ET will be the new moon, the full moon, the three days of darkness between the waning and the new; if he is going by the solar calendar, then the solstices and equinoxes. But we should also note that the text uses ET, not MO'AD - so it is not about specific festivals such as the Sheloshat Regalim (three harvest festivals).
CHATSOR: was the head of which kingdom? We know from verse 1 that it was Yavin, the king of Chatsor, who summoned all the other kings and assembled the army - did he do that in the manner of George Bush telephoning Tony Blair and summoning him to the Iraq war: imperial commander to head of vassal-state? And if so, does this infer, as suggested above, that a city-state amphictyony was in place in Kena'an, and that the tribal structure of the Beney Yisra-El was in fact created now, as a means of taking it over, rather than already in existence. In all likelihood both are correct, the nomadic Beney Yisra-El doing tribally at this time what the sedentary Beney Kena'an did by towns, because at that time all socio-politico-religious structures were an attempt to mirror on Earth what was understood to be the pattern in the heavens. (Counting up the total number of royal cities conquered by Yehoshu'a may help with this - if it turns out that they were twelve - but only the royal cities, because they would have been the ones that counted, and had that name for that reason).
11:11 VA YAKU ET KOL HA NEPHESH ASHER BAH LE PHI CHEREV HACHAREM LO NOTAR KOL NESHAMAH VE ET CHATSOR SARAPH BA ESH
KJ: And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them: there was not any left to breathe: and he burnt Hazor with fire.
BN: And they smote every soul in the place with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them: not a single soul was left breathing: and he burnt Chatsor with fire.
Worth a look at the conquest of Kena'an by Ach-Mousa, to see if that and this one run in any sort of parallel. Also worth looking at the conquest by Shishak at the time of Shelomoh, though it is less likely that this is the one being remembered in this piece of Yisra-Eli folk-lore, as that period is already dealt with in the Books of Kings.
11:12 VE ET KOL AREY HA MELACHIM HA ELEH VE ET KOL MALCHEYHEM LACHAD YEHOSHU'A VA YAKEM LE PHI CHEREV HECHERIM OTAM KA ASHER TSIVAH MOSHEH EVED YHVH
KJ: And all the cities of those kings, and all the kings of them, did Joshua take, and smote them with the edge of the sword, and he utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the LORD commanded.
BN: And all the cities belonging to those kings, and all their kings, Yehoshu'a captured, and smote them with the edge of the sword, and he wiped them out entirely, as Mosheh the servant of YHVH commanded.
Where is this written? Until now it has been as YHVH commanded; so why the change?
11:13 RAK KOL HE ARIM HA OMDIM AL TILAM LO SERAPHAM YISRA-EL ZULATI ET CHATSOR LEVADAH SARAPH YEHOSHU'A
KJ: But as for the cities that stood still in their strength, Israel burned none of them, save Hazor only; that did Joshua burn.
BN: But as for those cities built on sacred burial mounds, Yisra-El burned none of them, save Chatsor alone; that Yehoshu'a did burn.
OMDIM AL TILAM: Hugely complex. First, go back to chapter 10:26, where Yehoshu'a hangs the five kings, each on his own tree; "hanging" there is "VA YITLEM - וַיִּתְלֵם", and it comes from the same root as TILAM here. From what follows, we can deduce that hanging, which was not the common way of executing defeated kings, or anyone else for that matter, was in this case a ritual act and not merely an execution, and that it had to do with the particular cult followed by them in these places. You will see, at my notes there, that I made cross-comparisons with the Crucifixion, but failed to include the death of Av-Shalom (2 Samuel 18:9 ff), though it is implicit in my link to Frazer's "Golden Bough": what Yehoshu'a is doing by hanging the kings in this manner is demonstrating to the followers of that king that their god has abandoned him, and therefore they must now follow the god Yehoshu'a's people have brought, and decalare him, Yehoshu'a, their sacred king. But no use being a sacred king in a town that has been utterly destroyed.
The root of TILAM is TEL (תל), which is used today to mean an archaeological dig, but then meant "heaps" or "mounds" (see my note to chapter 10:2), or quite simply "a hill", as in Tel Aviv, "the Hill of Spring", in modern Israel (itself named for the Tel Abib in Bavel where the exiled Yehudim lived between 586 and 536 BCE).
Did Yehoshu'a then not capture cities in the hilly regions? But we know that he did, from 10:40; endorsed in verse 16 below.
And if "heaps" or "mounds", then heaps or mounds of what? Burial grounds, self-evidently; tumuli, and therefore sacred? This seems to me an extremely plausible explanation - throughout we have been aware that we are witnessing a religious crusade, the conquest of "false" religious shrines and then their destruction, followed in some cases by their rebuilding as shrines to the approved deity. And we have questioned whether burning them made a kurban of them, the highest level of sacrifice - this verse confirms that it does. But to destroy a burial ground, a tumulus, a genizah, is an act of desecration that could not be countenanced by such dedicated ancestor-worshippers as the Beney Yisra-El. Conquer the town, yes; kill or enslave the people, yes; destroy the cultic artefacts, yes. Even hough the horses. But not the burning of the dead.
CHATSOR: Then why was this town an exception? Is there a possible connection with Chatsar-Mavet, for which see the link?
11:14 VE CHOL SHELAL HE ARIM HA ELEH VE HA BEHEMAH BAZEZU LAHEM BENEY YISRA-EL RAK ET KOL HA ADAM HIKU LE PHI CHEREV AD HISHMIDAM OTAM LO HISH'IYRU KOL NESHAMAH
KJ: And all the spoil of these cities, and the cattle, the children of Israel took for a prey unto themselves; but every man they smote with the edge of the sword, until they had destroyed them, neither left they any to breathe.
BN: And all the spoil from these cities, and the cattle, the Beney Yisra-El took as booty for themselves; but they smote every man with the edge of the sword, until they had wiped them out, not leaving so much as one man breathing.
SHELAL: But isn't this spoil the "accursed thing" that we read about previously (see chapter 6:18 and ff)? Wasn't it made clear that all booty had to be handed over to YHVH for his treasure-box? Or maybe that is simply to be understood in the current verse.
The text appears to be proud of this great achievement, of not leaving a soul alive, "not even a man pissing against a wall" as King David, and several others, will put it later on (click here). This and Sha'ul's exploits make the claim that the Beney Yisra-El are a peaceful nation and YHVH a god of mercy and compassion somewhat - tainted.
HISHMIDAM: Which is destruction, but different from the CHEREM that is usually used. We have seen this, and commented on this, repeatedly. Cherem goes with Kurban as an act of religious sacrifice; Hishmidam is simply wanton destruction.
LO HISH'IYRU KOL NESHAMAH: Does this include the women? Or were they included in the booty?
11:15 KA ASHER TSIVAH YHVH ET MOSHEH AVDO KEN TSIVAH MOSHEH ET YEHOSHU'A VE CHEN ASAH YEHOSHU'A LO HESIR DAVAR MI KOL ASHER TSIVAH YHVH ET MOSHEH
KJ: As the LORD commanded Moses his servant, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that the LORD commanded Moses.
BN: As YHVH commanded Mosheh his servant, so did Mosheh command Yehoshu'a, and so Yehoshu'a did; he left not one thing undone of all that YHVH instructed Mosheh.
Once again asserting that chain of tradition that legitimises the Mosaic Law retroactively, but also the rule of the Ezraic leadership at the time (cf Pirkei Avot 1:1).
Once again providing a war criminal with the vindication that "I was only obeying orders".
11:16 VA YIKACH YEHOSHU'A ET KOL HA ARETS HA ZOT HA HAR VE ET KOL HA NEGEV VE ET KOL ERETS HA GOSHEN VE ET HA SHEPHELAH VE ET HA ARAVAH VE ET HAR YISRA EL U SHEPHELATOH
KJ: So Joshua took all that land, the hills, and all the south country, and all the land of Goshen, and the valley, and the plain, and the mountain of Israel, and the valley of the same.
BN: So Yehoshu'a captured all that land, the hills, and all of the south country, and all the land of Goshen, and the valley, and the plain, and the mountain of Yisra-El, and the valley of the same...
The land of Goshen too! See my note in the previous chapter. Was it perhaps the name for the whole Mediterranean coast, and not just the part immediately eastwards from the Nile estuary where the Beney Yisra-El settled at the time of Yoseph? If so, how far does the name extend, because at some point it becomes the coast of Sharon? Or, as I asked above, given that Ach-Mousa began his rebellion against the Hyksos by evicting them from Egyptian Goshen, and then pursued them across the Sinai into Kena'an, sweeping all before him until he was exhausted, decided he didn't want an empire, and went home, is this in fact not an account of Yehoshu'a wars at all, but of Ach-Mousa's. Ach-Mousa, or sometimes Ahmose, depending on how you read the hieroglyphs, has almost the same meaning as Yehoshu'a: "brother of the Saviour".
Why is there a Hey ending on the second Shephalah if there is also a Vav nikud on the Tav? Or the other way around, if there is a Vav nikud on the Tav, why is there not a qamats underneath the final Hey? A very minor point of grammatics for the interest of the nerds of philology.
Which mountain is Har Yisra-El anyway? It cannot be Tsi'on or Mor-Yah, as they were not captured until David's time. Nor is it Chermon - see my notes to this above, but also the naming of it separately in the verse that follows. Eyval and/or Gerizim perhaps. Or Tavor?
11:17 MIN HA HAR HECHELAK HA OLEH SE'IR VE AD BA'AL GAD BE VIK'AT HA LEVANON TACHAT HAR CHERMON VE ET KOL MALCHEYHEM LACHAD VA YAKEM VA YEMIYTEM
KJ: Even from the mount Halak, that goeth up to Seir, even unto Baalgad in the valley of Lebanon under mount Hermon: and all their kings he took, and smote them, and slew them.
BN (traditional reading): ... from Mount Chalak, which goes up to Se'ir, to Ba'al Gad in the valley of Levanon under Mount Chermon; and he captured all their kings, and smote them, and slew them.
HECHELAK: The word is problematic. There is CHALAK, which may mean "smooth", and which appears just once as such in the Tanach, in Hosea 10:2, though many translations do not render it as "smooth", but as "deceitful" (NIV), "fickle" (NLT), "false" (ESV), "devious" (BSB), "faithless" (NASB), or even "divided" (KJ). If it does mean "smooth", there is a pass, known as "the pass of the smooth rock", naqb es-Safa, at that point on the border, described in Numbers 34:4. This was the main camel and donkey route to Chevron, passing through Wadi el-Fiqrah at its most northerly, then Wadi Maderah, named for a limestound mound that sits there, and known to the Arabs as Jebel Maderah. Limestone is of course extremely "smooth".
All of which has convinced the Biblical map-makers that HECHELAK in this verse is really HA CHALAK, and have renamed Jebel Maderah accordingly - type "Mount Helak", which is the standard English mis-spelling, into a search engine, and this is what you will find. BUT there is a problem: that the text says HECHELAK and not HA CHALAK.
Listing the Hoshe'a translations, I placed the KJ last, intentionally. It rendered CHALAK as "divided", and this is the common meaning of the root. We find it several times in the Book of Joshua (14:5, 18:2, 22:8) and many elsewheres in the Tanach (Deuteronomy 4:19, 1 Samuel 30:24, 2 Samuel 19:30, Job 39:17 et al), usually with a share of some inheritance being the subject of the division, though of course a place in which a mountain range is divided, whether by a gorge or a pass, would merit being named a "division" - so we can see a logical connection. And you will find it in any Maths classroom in any primary or secondary school, because 4 (מחולק ב) MECHULAK BE 2 = 2.
BN (revised, and very slightly extended, reading): ...from the mountain pass that goes up through Se'ir to Ba'al Gad in the valley of Levanon under Mount Chermon; and he captured all their kings, and smote them, hanging each one of them on a golden bough.
SE'IR: See the link.
BA'AL GAD: In the foothills of Mount Chermon.
LEVANON: See the link.
11:18 YAMIM RABIM ASAH YEHOSHU'A ET KOL HA MELACHIM HA ELEH MILCHAMAH
KJ: Joshua made war a long time with all those kings.
BN: Yehoshu'a made war with all those kings for a long time.
It is unusual for the text to be so imprecise. If these wars are indeed calendric, then we can state categorically that it took a single year - but a mythological year, a mesocosmic year, not necessarily an Earth-year. If, as suggested above, these latter wars were purely military, and not part of the mythological cycle, then the length of time they took is immaterial - though it would also confirm that he did not in fact take "all the land" at that time; and indeed, he never did.
11:19 LO HAYETAH IR ASHER HISHLIYMAH EL BENEY YISRA-EL BILTI HA CHIVI YOSHVEY GIV-ON ET HA KOL LAK'CHU VA MILCHAMAH
KJ: There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they took in battle.
BN: There was not one city that made peace with the Beney Yisra-El, save the Chivi who inhabit Giv-On: all the others they took in battle.
And none it would seem with whom the Beney Yisra-El sought peace either. They were the invaders after all, and if the Genesis tales are to be taken historically, it was never their land when they previously inhabited it: they were immigrant nomads, living outside the towns, and they only stayed for three generations; while the others were the indigenous peoples, defending their homeland against foreign occupiers. Plus ça change.
Once again I need to note that, historically, at precisely the epoch to which these wars of conquest were attributed, an Egyptian Pharaoh named Ach-Mousa did indeed conquer the whole land, and in very much the manner of conquest and destruction described here. But for the Egyptian pantheon, not for YHVH (which may also explain why Giv-On stands out: Giv-On = "the place of Geb"). See my notes on this throughout the Book of Shemot (Exodus), and at Joshua 9:3 in particular.
CHIVI: See the link, but also Joshua 9:7.
11:20 KI ME ET YHVH HAYETAH LECHAZEK ET LIBAM LIKRA'T HA MILCHAMAH ET YISRA-EL LEMA'AN HACHARIYMAH LE VILTI HEYOT LAHEM TECHINAH KI LEMA'AN HASHMIYDAM KA ASHER TSIVAH YHVH ET MOSHEH
KJ: For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the LORD commanded Moses.
BN: For it was YHVH's intention to harden their hearts towards war with Yisra-El in battle, so that he could impose the Cherem on them without compunction, so that he could wipe them out entirely, as YHVH instructed Mosheh.
KI ME ET YHVH HAYETAH: Taken literally, the phrase is not terribly meaningful or even grammatical: "because from YHVH it was..."
I shall comment as gently as possible on this (the harsher route would be a drawing of comparisons with "Mein Kampf" and the Charter of Hamas, both of which call for the same "obliteration" of the Jewish people, neither of which I am going to link) by saying that this is the sort of reason why Oscar Wilde described patriotism as "the last refuge of the scoundrel": a foreign invader comes to take your land, and somehow it is your fault that you do not yield; worse, you have the chutspah to resist. YHVH hardened their hearts indeed! I wonder whether the Rabbis of modern Israel ever make reference to this verse in relation to Palestinian "obstinacy". Or indeed the next one. The language of this verse fits the contemporary adjective "radical", and would have any organisation preaching it in today's world listed among the terrorists.
samech break
11:21 VA YAVO YEHOSHU'A BA ET HA HI VA YACHRET ET HA ANAKIM MIN HA HAR MIN CHEVRON MIN DEVIR MIN ANAV U MI KOL HAR YEHUDAH U MI KOL HAR YISRA-EL IM AREYHEM HECHERIYMAH YEHOSHU'A
KJ: And at that time came Joshua, and cut off the Anakims from the mountains, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the mountains of Judah, and from all the mountains of Israel: Joshua destroyed them utterly with their cities.
BN: It was at that time that Yehoshu'a came to extirpate the Anakim from the mountain, from Chevron, from Devir, from Anav, and from all the hills of Yehudah, and from all the hills of Yisra-El: Yehoshu'a wiped them out entirely, with their cities.
Who are intended by the Anakim? References in Genesis suggest that they were long gone anyway by Yehoshu'a's time, and that the areas and cities ascribed here all belonged to other people. Is Anakim then simply a synonym for "aboriginals"? Or was this a textual need, to eradicate the people from folk-lore!?
And did they leave behind any memorial, a Yad Va Shem to the extirpated people, a plaque in Prague say, a documentation centre in Vienna, a garden to commemorate any Righteous Yisra-Elim who rescued even one of them?
11:22 LO NOTAR ANAKIM BE ERETS BENEY YISRA-EL RAK BE AZAH BE GAT U VE ASHDOD NISH'ARU
KJ: There was none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained.
BN: None of the Anakim were left in the land of the Beney Yisra-El: only in Azah, in Gat, and in Ashdod, did some remain.
Elsewhere we have been told, anachronistically, that those were Pelishtim (Philistines). Gol-Yat (Goliath) and his brothers in the David story are described as "giants" (1 Samuel 17:1-7), so it may be that there is a confusion between residual Anakim and early Pelishtim, based on the description of the Anakim themselves as "giants" (though actually, from what we get in the Tanach, of their physical appearance, their customs, their tatooing, their jewelery, their tendency towards the prehensile, I would suggest that the Anakim were probably an aboriginal offshoot of the Masai (that should be Maasai please, with two "a"s) of Kenya, Tanzania and the upper Nile.
AZAH: See the link.
GAT: See the link.
ASHDOD: See the link.
11:23 VA YIKACH YEHOSHU'A ET KOL HA ARETS KE CHOL ASHER DIBER YHVH EL MOSHEH VA YITNAH YEHOSHU'A LE NACHALAH LE YISRA-EL KE MACHLEKOTAM LE SHIVTEYHEM VE HA ARETS SHAKTAH MI MILCHAMAH
KJ: So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war.
BN: So Yehoshu'a took the whole land, according to all that YHVH had said to Mosheh; and Yehoshu'a gave it as an inheritance to Yisra-El, according to their divisions, by their tribes. And the land rested from war.
Except that he didn't take the whole land, and it didn't rest from war, as we shall see in the following chapters.
pey break
YOVAV: Whereas this name makes this one appearance in the Tanach, and is never heard of again.
MADON: Given that this was a major royal city of the Beney Kena'an (Canaanites), why did Adoni-Tsedek not also call on these to fight with him against Yehoshu'a (see chapter 10)? The answer may lie at the link under the name, which places Madon (but with a question-mark) well to the north, almost at the Sea of Galilee.
SHIMRON: Why are we not given his name, or that of the king of Achshaph? (And why is sometimes Shimron, and sometimes Shomron? See the link.)
ACHSHAPH: Joshua 19:25 places it in the tribal territory of Asher, which is even further north, and west, of the question-mark beside Madon; if it is correct, and verse 2 seems to confirm it, we can now say that Yehoshu'a conquests did indeed cover the entire land that would become Yisra-El.
MELACHIM: The Yehudit word for king, rooted in the name of Moloch, who was the ruling god of most Kena'ani cities, sometimes in its dialect variant Melkart (itself sometimes written in English as Melqart). The defeat of Moloch by Yehoshu'a should be read as the equivalent, say, of the defeat of al-Lah by Jesus rather than, say, the defeat of King Louis by King Charles - a religious conquest primarily, even if it was achieved militarily. The best description of this in the Bible is the capture of Yeru-Shala'im by King David; the military achievement first, but more significantly the cutting down of the obelisk, the bringing of the Ark, the establishment of the new cult within the city.
11:2 VE EL HA MELACHIM ASHER MI TSEPHON BA HAR U VA ARAVAH NEGEV KINAROT U VA SHEPHELAH U VE NAPHOT DOR MI YAM
וְאֶל הַמְּלָכִים אֲשֶׁר מִצְּפֹון בָּהָר וּבָעֲרָבָה נֶגֶב כִּנֲרֹות וּבַשְּׁפֵלָה וּבְנָפֹות דֹּור מִיָּם
BN: And to the kings who were on the north of the mountains, and those on the plains south of Kinarot, and in the valley, and on the borders of Dor on the west.
TSEPHON: The Biblical texts have an odd habit of mixing up compass points with geographical landmarks; so, here, we have Tsephon meaning "north", and then a range of unnamed mountains", but presumably those of Mounts Eyval and Gerizim, as they were the immediate locality; or was he reaching out beyond the local area, and trying to establish an axis across the region?
TSEPHON BE HAR: "North of the mountains?" Or "In the north, on the mountain"? The latter would denote Mount Chermon (Hermon), the only significant peak in Kena'an, and often referred to simply as "the mountain". That would be even further norther of the Sea of Galilee; but the tale that follows appears to confirm that it is the mountain intended here.
KINAROT: Is that a variant of Kinneret, the Sea of Galilee? The name comes from a Kinnor, which is a harp, because the shape of the lake is highly reminiscent of a harp (isn't that cute; the villages are trumpets - CHATSEROT - noisy and shrill, but the lake district is gentle and calm like harp music!).
DOR: Which is located on the Mediterranean coast and was one of the major harbours of the Phoenicians for many centuries; more or less where Caesarea stands today. However there is also an Ein Dor, in the southern foothills of Mount Tavor, in the heartland of Israel - it was from here that Sha'ul summoned a medium to call up the spirit of the prophet Shemu-El (Samuel) in 1 Samuel 28.
11:3 HA KENA'ANI MI MIZRACH U MI YAM VE HA EMORI VE HA CHITI VE HA PERIZI VE HA YEVUSI BA HAR VE HA CHIVI TACHAT CHERMON BE ERETS HA MITSPAH
11:3 HA KENA'ANI MI MIZRACH U MI YAM VE HA EMORI VE HA CHITI VE HA PERIZI VE HA YEVUSI BA HAR VE HA CHIVI TACHAT CHERMON BE ERETS HA MITSPAH
הַכְּנַעֲנִי מִמִּזְרָח וּמִיָּם וְהָאֱמֹרִי וְהַחִתִּי וְהַפְּרִזִּי וְהַיְבוּסִי בָּהָר וְהַחִוִּי תַּחַת חֶרְמֹון בְּאֶרֶץ הַמִּצְפָּה
BN: And to the Kena'ani on the east and by the sea, and to the Emori, and the Chiti, and the Perizi, and the Yevusi in the mountains, and to the Chivi under Chermon in the land of Mitspah.
KENA'ANI: Previously we have been led to understand that the Kena'ani occupied the coastal plain, but here it appears they have family to the east as well.
MIZRACH...YAM: The first is a compass point, though it comes from MI ZERACH, "from the rising", because that is the direction of the sunrise; the second is likewise a geographical landmark, Yam meaning "the sea", but it came to mean "west"... confusingly, on several occasions in the Torah, because it has also been used to mean south, when the Red Sea rather than the Mediterranean was intended. Nonetheless, the entirety of Kena'an has now been included, north, south, east and west.
EMORI: See the link.
CHITI: See the link.
PERIZI: See the link.
YEVUSI: See the link.
CHIVI: See the link.
CHERMON: See the link.
Since when was Mitspah a land? It (actually "they", because there were several) was a watchtower, and served as a shrine - or was it perhaps a city-state at this time, and saying "Mitspah" is like saying "the Vatican", but understanding "Rome"? In which case, which city-state? Or is this a way of doing geography by landmark - given that all later Beney Yisra-Elim would have known where Shemu-El's Mitspeh lay (Mitspeh in that case, rather than Mitspah; see also verse 8)?
The list in this and previous verses appears to fill in all the gaps noted in Joshua 10:40. Yehoshu'a's conquests thus far have been restricted to the tribal territories of Yehudah, Bin-Yamin and Shim'on, which is the south of the country.
11:4 VA YETS'U HEM VE CHOL MACHANEYHEM IMAM AM RAV KA CHOL ASHER AL SEPHAT HA YAM LA ROV VE SUS VA RECHEV RAV ME'OD
וַיֵּצְאוּ הֵם וְכָל מַחֲנֵיהֶם עִמָּם עַם רָב כַּחֹול אֲשֶׁר עַל שְׂפַת הַיָּם לָרֹב וְסוּס וָרֶכֶב רַב מְאֹד
BN: And they went out, they and all their troops with them, vast numbers, as many as the sand that is on the seashore in multitude, with huge numbers of horses and chariots.
The phrasing here is not only highly poetical, but also remarkably reminiscent of a very specific poem, Mosheh and Mir-Yam (Miriam)'s "Song at the Reed Sea" in Exodus 15 - see in particular verse 4. As though YHVH has conquered one solar system, but all the other galaxies in the Cosmos are now ganging up against him (and if they lose!)
11:5 VA YIVA'ADU KOL HA MELACHIM HA ELEH VA YAVO'U VA YACHANU YACHDAV EL MEY MEROM LEHILACHEM IM YISRA-EL
11:5 VA YIVA'ADU KOL HA MELACHIM HA ELEH VA YAVO'U VA YACHANU YACHDAV EL MEY MEROM LEHILACHEM IM YISRA-EL
וַיִּוָּעֲדוּ כֹּל הַמְּלָכִים הָאֵלֶּה וַיָּבֹאוּ וַיַּחֲנוּ יַחְדָּו אֶל מֵי מֵרֹום לְהִלָּחֵם עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל
BN: And when all these kings had agreed to participate, they came and pitched together at Mey Merom, to fight against Yisra-El.
YIVA'ADU: The root is YA'AD, which really means "to appoint" or "to designate"; so the kings don't necessarily come themselves, but agree to participate, and appoint generals.
MEY MEROM: Connected etymologically with Marah (the Bitter Lake) and Merivah, all three having the root MAR = "bitter", which also gives Mor-Yah, Mount Moriah in Yeru-Shala'im (Maria or Mary in the Christian version; the name speaks of her "bitter tears"), where both Yitschak and Jesus were taken to be sacrificed? If so, and the root of the name indicates it, this would have been a shrine to the water-goddess, Mir-Yam (Miriam). Not that is the same place, only the same etymology: Mey Merom is the name of a lake, about ten miles north of Kinneret (the Sea of Galilee), which is nowhere near either Marah, or Merivah; though it is very close to Mount Chermon, and fed by the melting snows from that mountain. Worth looking at Moreh as well for some further "bitter" connections, and at the Maror of the Passover festival.
pey break
11:6 VA YOMER YHVH EL YEHOSHU'A AL TIYRA MI PENEYHEM KI MACHAR KA ET HA ZOT ANOCHI NOTEN EL KULAM CHALALIM LIPHNEY YISRA-EL ET SUSEYHEM TE'AKER VE ET MARKEVOTEYHEM TISROPH BA ESH
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל יְהֹושֻׁעַ אַל תִּירָא מִפְּנֵיהֶם כִּי מָחָר כָּעֵת הַזֹּאת אָנֹכִי נֹתֵן אֶת כֻּלָּם חֲלָלִים לִפְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת סוּסֵיהֶם תְּעַקֵּר וְאֶת מַרְכְּבֹתֵיהֶם תִּשְׂרֹף בָּאֵשׁ
BN: But YHVH said to Yehoshu'a: "Have no fear on their account. Tomorrow at about this time I will deliver them all up, slain before Yisra-El. You shall tear the hamstrings of their horses, and burn their chariots with fire."
KA ET HA ZOT: The use of ET is usually associated with a Mo'ad, a feast or fast or festival, as in Genesis 1:14. Here it appears to be just as translated, but then see verse 10, which makes me certain that there is, yet again, a religious or at least a mythological connotation to this tale.
11:7 VA YAVO YEHOSHU'A VE CHOL AM HA MILCHAMAH IMO ALEYHEM AL MEY MEROM PIT'OM VA YIPLU BA HEM
וַיָּבֹא יְהֹושֻׁעַ וְכָל עַם הַמִּלְחָמָה עִמֹּו עֲלֵיהֶם עַל מֵי מֵרֹום פִּתְאֹם וַיִּפְּלוּ בָּהֶם
BN: So Yehoshu'a, and his entire army with him, came up against them by surprise, near Mey Merom; and they fell on them.
VE CHOL AM HA MILHAMAH: Not going to make the mistake of Ha Ai again, and just send a small troop! (Joshua 7:3)
Using this link, click on map reference G4. This is the area known today as Korazim (Merom is also marked, just south of Chatsor (Hazor). Tribally, this is the territory of Yisaschar and Naphtali.
PIT'OM: Yehoshu'a's army consists of tens of thousands - a mere thirty thousand were sent to set up an ambush at Ai in Joshua 8:3 - so it is hard to imagine that the Yavin and his allies could have been taken by surprise, or even that it could have happened "suddenly", which is to say quicker than they had anticipated. The only time that armies don't put out look-outs is when the whole country is in synagogue for Yom Kippur! And yet PIT'OM is what it says.
11:8 VA YITNEM YHVH BE YAD YISRA-EL VA YAKUM VA YIRDEPHUM AD TSIYDON RABAH VE AD MISREPHOT MAYIM VE AD BIK'AT MITSPEH MIZRACHAH VA YAKUM AD BILTI HISH'IR LAHEM SARID
11:8 VA YITNEM YHVH BE YAD YISRA-EL VA YAKUM VA YIRDEPHUM AD TSIYDON RABAH VE AD MISREPHOT MAYIM VE AD BIK'AT MITSPEH MIZRACHAH VA YAKUM AD BILTI HISH'IR LAHEM SARID
וַיִּתְּנֵם יְהוָה בְּיַד יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּכּוּם וַיִּרְדְּפוּם עַד צִידֹון רַבָּה וְעַד מִשְׂרְפֹות מַיִם וְעַד בִּקְעַת מִצְפֶּה מִזְרָחָה וַיַּכֻּם עַד בִּלְתִּי הִשְׁאִיר לָהֶם שָׂרִיד
BN: And YHVH delivered them into the hand of Yisra-El, who smote them, and pursued them all the way to Upper Tsiydon, and to Misrephot Mayim, and to the valley of Mitspeh in the east; and they smote them, until not one of them was left alive.
Tsidon (Sidon on the Mediterranean coast of Lebanon) is quite some distance! But it does infer that Yehoshu'a conquered the entire land, including the territories claimed by the other tribes.
MISREPHOT MAYIM: See Joshua 13:6. Grid-reference E3 on the map linked at verse 7.
Mitspeh (מִצְפֶּה) this time; Mitspah (מִּצְפָּה) last (verse 3) - this variation in the pointing runs through the whole of the Tanach, and is not discernible from the unpointed original. On this occasion it probably indicates two different places.
But surely something is missing from the narrative? YHVH has promised to deliver them, so where is the natural or the liturgical event that made the difference: a blowing of trumpets, an earthquake, a flood from the melting snows on Chermon?
11:9 VA YA'AS LAHEM YEHOSHU'A KA ASHER AMAR LO YHVH ET SUSEYHEM IKER VE ET MARKEVOTEYHEM SARAPH BA ESH
וַיַּעַשׂ לָהֶם יְהֹושֻׁעַ כַּאֲשֶׁר אָמַר לֹו יְהוָה אֶת סוּסֵיהֶם עִקֵּר וְאֶת מַרְכְּבֹתֵיהֶם שָׂרַף בָּאֵשׁ
BN: And Yehoshu'a did to them as YHVH bade him: he tore the hamstrings of their horses, and burned their chariots with fire.
KA ASHER AMAR LO: In the previous verse YHVH said that he would do this; now it is Yehoshu'a doing it on YHVH's orders. So we see how the deity works, and can take this understanding back to every verse in this great work of literature. YHVH never actually "does" anything, except exist in whatever form of Nature at the time - which may be a heart attack or a volcano, or a sprouting vegetable or a coupling ram and ewe, and it may be good or bad, but it is still, simply, life, described as being DAVAR YHVH. The mythological explanation.
And why do this to the horses (why do anything harmful to them is also a reasonable question, but I am asking why specifically this)? I can imagine them sacrificing them, and then eating them - if they were sheep or goats or beef-herds. But they didn't eat horse-meat (it wasn't even on the prohibited foods list in Torah, because it didn't need to be, so averse were the Beney Yisra-El to eating horse-flesh). Tearing their hamstrings cripples them; they can't be used in war, or as racehorses; they can't even walk around a paddock and look pretty or give rides to kiddies. This is simply crude, cruelty, barbarism. Shameful!
Or maybe Yehoshu'a didn't hamstring them. Maybe YHVH hamstrung them, and this was the divine intervention that won the war. How might that have happened (how does that statement not contradict the paragraph immediately before?)? If these were cavalry horses, trained to fight in fields, on plains, in flatlands, but they have now found themselves engaged PIT'OM, before they were expecting it, because Yehoshu'a arrived sooner than they had calculated, pushing the battle up from the plains into the hills (Korazim is very hilly, especially around Mey Merom and westwards into the Lebanon); so the horses find themselves climbing, with armed men on board, jumping rocks, scaling difficult terrain. So it is indeed simply Nature, simply Life. But it is also divine intervention, through the PIT'OM. The world, as seen through the religious lens.
samech break
11:10 VA YASHAV YEHOSHU'A BA ET HA HI VA YILKOD ET CHATSOR VE ET MALKAH HIKAH VE CHAREV KI CHATSOR LEPHANIM HI ROSH KOL HA MAMLACHOT HA ELEH
samech break
11:10 VA YASHAV YEHOSHU'A BA ET HA HI VA YILKOD ET CHATSOR VE ET MALKAH HIKAH VE CHAREV KI CHATSOR LEPHANIM HI ROSH KOL HA MAMLACHOT HA ELEH
וַיָּשָׁב יְהֹושֻׁעַ בָּעֵת הַהִיא וַיִּלְכֹּד אֶת חָצֹור וְאֶת מַלְכָּהּ הִכָּה בֶחָרֶב כִּי חָצֹור לְפָנִים הִיא רֹאשׁ כָּל הַמַּמְלָכֹות הָאֵלֶּה
BN: And Yehoshu'a turned back at that time, and took Chatsor, and smote its king with the sword: for Chatsor until that time had been the head of all those kingdoms.
BA ET HA HI: As per my note at verse 7, this is such a very precise word, used in very precise contexts, that it cannot just mean "at that time", which is a generalised "whenever"; if he is going from moon-shrine to moon-shrine, then the ET will be the new moon, the full moon, the three days of darkness between the waning and the new; if he is going by the solar calendar, then the solstices and equinoxes. But we should also note that the text uses ET, not MO'AD - so it is not about specific festivals such as the Sheloshat Regalim (three harvest festivals).
CHATSOR: was the head of which kingdom? We know from verse 1 that it was Yavin, the king of Chatsor, who summoned all the other kings and assembled the army - did he do that in the manner of George Bush telephoning Tony Blair and summoning him to the Iraq war: imperial commander to head of vassal-state? And if so, does this infer, as suggested above, that a city-state amphictyony was in place in Kena'an, and that the tribal structure of the Beney Yisra-El was in fact created now, as a means of taking it over, rather than already in existence. In all likelihood both are correct, the nomadic Beney Yisra-El doing tribally at this time what the sedentary Beney Kena'an did by towns, because at that time all socio-politico-religious structures were an attempt to mirror on Earth what was understood to be the pattern in the heavens. (Counting up the total number of royal cities conquered by Yehoshu'a may help with this - if it turns out that they were twelve - but only the royal cities, because they would have been the ones that counted, and had that name for that reason).
11:11 VA YAKU ET KOL HA NEPHESH ASHER BAH LE PHI CHEREV HACHAREM LO NOTAR KOL NESHAMAH VE ET CHATSOR SARAPH BA ESH
וַיַּכּוּ אֶת כָּל הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר בָּהּ לְפִי חֶרֶב הַחֲרֵם לֹא נֹותַר כָּל נְשָׁמָה וְאֶת חָצֹור שָׂרַף בָּאֵשׁ
BN: And they smote every soul in the place with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them: not a single soul was left breathing: and he burnt Chatsor with fire.
Worth a look at the conquest of Kena'an by Ach-Mousa, to see if that and this one run in any sort of parallel. Also worth looking at the conquest by Shishak at the time of Shelomoh, though it is less likely that this is the one being remembered in this piece of Yisra-Eli folk-lore, as that period is already dealt with in the Books of Kings.
11:12 VE ET KOL AREY HA MELACHIM HA ELEH VE ET KOL MALCHEYHEM LACHAD YEHOSHU'A VA YAKEM LE PHI CHEREV HECHERIM OTAM KA ASHER TSIVAH MOSHEH EVED YHVH
וְאֶת כָּל עָרֵי הַמְּלָכִים הָאֵלֶּה וְאֶת כָּל מַלְכֵיהֶם לָכַד יְהֹושֻׁעַ וַיַּכֵּם לְפִי חֶרֶב הֶחֱרִים אֹותָם כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה מֹשֶׁה עֶבֶד יְהוָה
BN: And all the cities belonging to those kings, and all their kings, Yehoshu'a captured, and smote them with the edge of the sword, and he wiped them out entirely, as Mosheh the servant of YHVH commanded.
Where is this written? Until now it has been as YHVH commanded; so why the change?
11:13 RAK KOL HE ARIM HA OMDIM AL TILAM LO SERAPHAM YISRA-EL ZULATI ET CHATSOR LEVADAH SARAPH YEHOSHU'A
רַק כָּל הֶעָרִים הָעֹמְדֹות עַל תִּלָּם לֹא שְׂרָפָם יִשְׂרָאֵל זוּלָתִי אֶת חָצֹור לְבַדָּהּ שָׂרַף יְהֹושֻׁעַ
BN: But as for those cities built on sacred burial mounds, Yisra-El burned none of them, save Chatsor alone; that Yehoshu'a did burn.
OMDIM AL TILAM: Hugely complex. First, go back to chapter 10:26, where Yehoshu'a hangs the five kings, each on his own tree; "hanging" there is "VA YITLEM - וַיִּתְלֵם", and it comes from the same root as TILAM here. From what follows, we can deduce that hanging, which was not the common way of executing defeated kings, or anyone else for that matter, was in this case a ritual act and not merely an execution, and that it had to do with the particular cult followed by them in these places. You will see, at my notes there, that I made cross-comparisons with the Crucifixion, but failed to include the death of Av-Shalom (2 Samuel 18:9 ff), though it is implicit in my link to Frazer's "Golden Bough": what Yehoshu'a is doing by hanging the kings in this manner is demonstrating to the followers of that king that their god has abandoned him, and therefore they must now follow the god Yehoshu'a's people have brought, and decalare him, Yehoshu'a, their sacred king. But no use being a sacred king in a town that has been utterly destroyed.
The root of TILAM is TEL (תל), which is used today to mean an archaeological dig, but then meant "heaps" or "mounds" (see my note to chapter 10:2), or quite simply "a hill", as in Tel Aviv, "the Hill of Spring", in modern Israel (itself named for the Tel Abib in Bavel where the exiled Yehudim lived between 586 and 536 BCE).
Did Yehoshu'a then not capture cities in the hilly regions? But we know that he did, from 10:40; endorsed in verse 16 below.
And if "heaps" or "mounds", then heaps or mounds of what? Burial grounds, self-evidently; tumuli, and therefore sacred? This seems to me an extremely plausible explanation - throughout we have been aware that we are witnessing a religious crusade, the conquest of "false" religious shrines and then their destruction, followed in some cases by their rebuilding as shrines to the approved deity. And we have questioned whether burning them made a kurban of them, the highest level of sacrifice - this verse confirms that it does. But to destroy a burial ground, a tumulus, a genizah, is an act of desecration that could not be countenanced by such dedicated ancestor-worshippers as the Beney Yisra-El. Conquer the town, yes; kill or enslave the people, yes; destroy the cultic artefacts, yes. Even hough the horses. But not the burning of the dead.
CHATSOR: Then why was this town an exception? Is there a possible connection with Chatsar-Mavet, for which see the link?
11:14 VE CHOL SHELAL HE ARIM HA ELEH VE HA BEHEMAH BAZEZU LAHEM BENEY YISRA-EL RAK ET KOL HA ADAM HIKU LE PHI CHEREV AD HISHMIDAM OTAM LO HISH'IYRU KOL NESHAMAH
וְכֹל שְׁלַל הֶעָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וְהַבְּהֵמָה בָּזְזוּ לָהֶם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל רַק אֶת כָּל הָאָדָם הִכּוּ לְפִי חֶרֶב עַד הִשְׁמִדָם אֹותָם לֹא הִשְׁאִירוּ כָּל נְשָׁמָה
BN: And all the spoil from these cities, and the cattle, the Beney Yisra-El took as booty for themselves; but they smote every man with the edge of the sword, until they had wiped them out, not leaving so much as one man breathing.
SHELAL: But isn't this spoil the "accursed thing" that we read about previously (see chapter 6:18 and ff)? Wasn't it made clear that all booty had to be handed over to YHVH for his treasure-box? Or maybe that is simply to be understood in the current verse.
The text appears to be proud of this great achievement, of not leaving a soul alive, "not even a man pissing against a wall" as King David, and several others, will put it later on (click here). This and Sha'ul's exploits make the claim that the Beney Yisra-El are a peaceful nation and YHVH a god of mercy and compassion somewhat - tainted.
HISHMIDAM: Which is destruction, but different from the CHEREM that is usually used. We have seen this, and commented on this, repeatedly. Cherem goes with Kurban as an act of religious sacrifice; Hishmidam is simply wanton destruction.
LO HISH'IYRU KOL NESHAMAH: Does this include the women? Or were they included in the booty?
11:15 KA ASHER TSIVAH YHVH ET MOSHEH AVDO KEN TSIVAH MOSHEH ET YEHOSHU'A VE CHEN ASAH YEHOSHU'A LO HESIR DAVAR MI KOL ASHER TSIVAH YHVH ET MOSHEH
כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה אֶת מֹשֶׁה עַבְדֹּו כֵּן צִוָּה מֹשֶׁה אֶת יְהֹושֻׁעַ וְכֵן עָשָׂה יְהֹושֻׁעַ לֹא הֵסִיר דָּבָר מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה אֶת מֹשֶׁה
BN: As YHVH commanded Mosheh his servant, so did Mosheh command Yehoshu'a, and so Yehoshu'a did; he left not one thing undone of all that YHVH instructed Mosheh.
Once again asserting that chain of tradition that legitimises the Mosaic Law retroactively, but also the rule of the Ezraic leadership at the time (cf Pirkei Avot 1:1).
Once again providing a war criminal with the vindication that "I was only obeying orders".
11:16 VA YIKACH YEHOSHU'A ET KOL HA ARETS HA ZOT HA HAR VE ET KOL HA NEGEV VE ET KOL ERETS HA GOSHEN VE ET HA SHEPHELAH VE ET HA ARAVAH VE ET HAR YISRA EL U SHEPHELATOH
וַיִּקַּח יְהֹושֻׁעַ אֶת כָּל הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת הָהָר וְאֶת כָּל הַנֶּגֶב וְאֵת כָּל אֶרֶץ הַגֹּשֶׁן וְאֶת הַשְּׁפֵלָה וְאֶת הָעֲרָבָה וְאֶת הַר יִשְׂרָאֵל וּשְׁפֵלָתֹה
BN: So Yehoshu'a captured all that land, the hills, and all of the south country, and all the land of Goshen, and the valley, and the plain, and the mountain of Yisra-El, and the valley of the same...
The land of Goshen too! See my note in the previous chapter. Was it perhaps the name for the whole Mediterranean coast, and not just the part immediately eastwards from the Nile estuary where the Beney Yisra-El settled at the time of Yoseph? If so, how far does the name extend, because at some point it becomes the coast of Sharon? Or, as I asked above, given that Ach-Mousa began his rebellion against the Hyksos by evicting them from Egyptian Goshen, and then pursued them across the Sinai into Kena'an, sweeping all before him until he was exhausted, decided he didn't want an empire, and went home, is this in fact not an account of Yehoshu'a wars at all, but of Ach-Mousa's. Ach-Mousa, or sometimes Ahmose, depending on how you read the hieroglyphs, has almost the same meaning as Yehoshu'a: "brother of the Saviour".
Why is there a Hey ending on the second Shephalah if there is also a Vav nikud on the Tav? Or the other way around, if there is a Vav nikud on the Tav, why is there not a qamats underneath the final Hey? A very minor point of grammatics for the interest of the nerds of philology.
Which mountain is Har Yisra-El anyway? It cannot be Tsi'on or Mor-Yah, as they were not captured until David's time. Nor is it Chermon - see my notes to this above, but also the naming of it separately in the verse that follows. Eyval and/or Gerizim perhaps. Or Tavor?
11:17 MIN HA HAR HECHELAK HA OLEH SE'IR VE AD BA'AL GAD BE VIK'AT HA LEVANON TACHAT HAR CHERMON VE ET KOL MALCHEYHEM LACHAD VA YAKEM VA YEMIYTEM
מִן הָהָר הֶחָלָק הָעֹולֶה שֵׂעִיר וְעַד בַּעַל גָּד בְּבִקְעַת הַלְּבָנֹון תַּחַת הַר חֶרְמֹון וְאֵת כָּל מַלְכֵיהֶם לָכַד וַיַּכֵּם וַיְמִיתֵם
BN (traditional reading): ... from Mount Chalak, which goes up to Se'ir, to Ba'al Gad in the valley of Levanon under Mount Chermon; and he captured all their kings, and smote them, and slew them.
HECHELAK: The word is problematic. There is CHALAK, which may mean "smooth", and which appears just once as such in the Tanach, in Hosea 10:2, though many translations do not render it as "smooth", but as "deceitful" (NIV), "fickle" (NLT), "false" (ESV), "devious" (BSB), "faithless" (NASB), or even "divided" (KJ). If it does mean "smooth", there is a pass, known as "the pass of the smooth rock", naqb es-Safa, at that point on the border, described in Numbers 34:4. This was the main camel and donkey route to Chevron, passing through Wadi el-Fiqrah at its most northerly, then Wadi Maderah, named for a limestound mound that sits there, and known to the Arabs as Jebel Maderah. Limestone is of course extremely "smooth".
All of which has convinced the Biblical map-makers that HECHELAK in this verse is really HA CHALAK, and have renamed Jebel Maderah accordingly - type "Mount Helak", which is the standard English mis-spelling, into a search engine, and this is what you will find. BUT there is a problem: that the text says HECHELAK and not HA CHALAK.
Listing the Hoshe'a translations, I placed the KJ last, intentionally. It rendered CHALAK as "divided", and this is the common meaning of the root. We find it several times in the Book of Joshua (14:5, 18:2, 22:8) and many elsewheres in the Tanach (Deuteronomy 4:19, 1 Samuel 30:24, 2 Samuel 19:30, Job 39:17 et al), usually with a share of some inheritance being the subject of the division, though of course a place in which a mountain range is divided, whether by a gorge or a pass, would merit being named a "division" - so we can see a logical connection. And you will find it in any Maths classroom in any primary or secondary school, because 4 (מחולק ב) MECHULAK BE 2 = 2.
In theoretical conclusion then, the name Mount Halak, or even Chalak, is almost certainly an error - the Cheddar Gorge is in Cheddar, not in Gorge, as the Mont Blanc Tunnel runs under Mont Blanc, and not Mount Tunnel. The geographical location is probably correct, and modern map-makers have christened the place (I don't think I mean "christened", but "jewished" doesn't sound right either) Nahal Tsin (Nahal Zin in most English versions).
But I have said "theoretical conclusion", because there is another aspect to this, and a very surprising one at that. For the Hosea verse I sent you, as I generally do now that their site is fully up and running, to Sefaria.org, and perhaps you didn't notice, not just how very different there translation is, but how much J.G. Frazer would have enjoyed it, had he only known that this is a standard, conventional, accepted, traditional, orthodox Jewish translation. The opening three words, the ones that matter to us, CHALAK LIBAM ATAH (חָלַ֥ק לִבָּ֖ם עַתָּ֣ה), are not translated with either "smoothness" or "division" for CHALAK, but... "Now that his boughs are broken up..." I leave you to fill in the rest of the mythological explanation for yourself.
BN (revised, and very slightly extended, reading): ...from the mountain pass that goes up through Se'ir to Ba'al Gad in the valley of Levanon under Mount Chermon; and he captured all their kings, and smote them, hanging each one of them on a golden bough.
SE'IR: See the link.
BA'AL GAD: In the foothills of Mount Chermon.
LEVANON: See the link.
11:18 YAMIM RABIM ASAH YEHOSHU'A ET KOL HA MELACHIM HA ELEH MILCHAMAH
יָמִים רַבִּים עָשָׂה יְהֹושֻׁעַ אֶת כָּל הַמְּלָכִים הָאֵלֶּה מִלְחָמָה
BN: Yehoshu'a made war with all those kings for a long time.
It is unusual for the text to be so imprecise. If these wars are indeed calendric, then we can state categorically that it took a single year - but a mythological year, a mesocosmic year, not necessarily an Earth-year. If, as suggested above, these latter wars were purely military, and not part of the mythological cycle, then the length of time they took is immaterial - though it would also confirm that he did not in fact take "all the land" at that time; and indeed, he never did.
11:19 LO HAYETAH IR ASHER HISHLIYMAH EL BENEY YISRA-EL BILTI HA CHIVI YOSHVEY GIV-ON ET HA KOL LAK'CHU VA MILCHAMAH
לֹא הָיְתָה עִיר אֲשֶׁר הִשְׁלִימָה אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּלְתִּי הַחִוִּי יֹשְׁבֵי גִבְעֹון אֶת הַכֹּל לָקְחוּ בַמִּלְחָמָה
BN: There was not one city that made peace with the Beney Yisra-El, save the Chivi who inhabit Giv-On: all the others they took in battle.
And none it would seem with whom the Beney Yisra-El sought peace either. They were the invaders after all, and if the Genesis tales are to be taken historically, it was never their land when they previously inhabited it: they were immigrant nomads, living outside the towns, and they only stayed for three generations; while the others were the indigenous peoples, defending their homeland against foreign occupiers. Plus ça change.
Once again I need to note that, historically, at precisely the epoch to which these wars of conquest were attributed, an Egyptian Pharaoh named Ach-Mousa did indeed conquer the whole land, and in very much the manner of conquest and destruction described here. But for the Egyptian pantheon, not for YHVH (which may also explain why Giv-On stands out: Giv-On = "the place of Geb"). See my notes on this throughout the Book of Shemot (Exodus), and at Joshua 9:3 in particular.
CHIVI: See the link, but also Joshua 9:7.
11:20 KI ME ET YHVH HAYETAH LECHAZEK ET LIBAM LIKRA'T HA MILCHAMAH ET YISRA-EL LEMA'AN HACHARIYMAH LE VILTI HEYOT LAHEM TECHINAH KI LEMA'AN HASHMIYDAM KA ASHER TSIVAH YHVH ET MOSHEH
כִּי מֵאֵת יְהוָה הָיְתָה לְחַזֵּק אֶת לִבָּם לִקְרַאת הַמִּלְחָמָה אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמַעַן הַחֲרִימָם לְבִלְתִּי הֱיֹות לָהֶם תְּחִנָּה כִּי לְמַעַן הַשְׁמִידָם כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה אֶת מֹשֶׁה
BN: For it was YHVH's intention to harden their hearts towards war with Yisra-El in battle, so that he could impose the Cherem on them without compunction, so that he could wipe them out entirely, as YHVH instructed Mosheh.
KI ME ET YHVH HAYETAH: Taken literally, the phrase is not terribly meaningful or even grammatical: "because from YHVH it was..."
I shall comment as gently as possible on this (the harsher route would be a drawing of comparisons with "Mein Kampf" and the Charter of Hamas, both of which call for the same "obliteration" of the Jewish people, neither of which I am going to link) by saying that this is the sort of reason why Oscar Wilde described patriotism as "the last refuge of the scoundrel": a foreign invader comes to take your land, and somehow it is your fault that you do not yield; worse, you have the chutspah to resist. YHVH hardened their hearts indeed! I wonder whether the Rabbis of modern Israel ever make reference to this verse in relation to Palestinian "obstinacy". Or indeed the next one. The language of this verse fits the contemporary adjective "radical", and would have any organisation preaching it in today's world listed among the terrorists.
samech break
11:21 VA YAVO YEHOSHU'A BA ET HA HI VA YACHRET ET HA ANAKIM MIN HA HAR MIN CHEVRON MIN DEVIR MIN ANAV U MI KOL HAR YEHUDAH U MI KOL HAR YISRA-EL IM AREYHEM HECHERIYMAH YEHOSHU'A
וַיָּבֹא יְהֹושֻׁעַ בָּעֵת הַהִיא וַיַּכְרֵת אֶת הָעֲנָקִים מִן הָהָר מִן חֶבְרֹון מִן דְּבִר מִן עֲנָב וּמִכֹּל הַר יְהוּדָה וּמִכֹּל הַר יִשְׂרָאֵל עִם עָרֵיהֶם הֶחֱרִימָם יְהֹושֻׁעַ
BN: It was at that time that Yehoshu'a came to extirpate the Anakim from the mountain, from Chevron, from Devir, from Anav, and from all the hills of Yehudah, and from all the hills of Yisra-El: Yehoshu'a wiped them out entirely, with their cities.
Who are intended by the Anakim? References in Genesis suggest that they were long gone anyway by Yehoshu'a's time, and that the areas and cities ascribed here all belonged to other people. Is Anakim then simply a synonym for "aboriginals"? Or was this a textual need, to eradicate the people from folk-lore!?
And did they leave behind any memorial, a Yad Va Shem to the extirpated people, a plaque in Prague say, a documentation centre in Vienna, a garden to commemorate any Righteous Yisra-Elim who rescued even one of them?
11:22 LO NOTAR ANAKIM BE ERETS BENEY YISRA-EL RAK BE AZAH BE GAT U VE ASHDOD NISH'ARU
לֹא נֹותַר עֲנָקִים בְּאֶרֶץ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל רַק בְּעַזָּה בְּגַת וּבְאַשְׁדֹּוד נִשְׁאָרוּ
BN: None of the Anakim were left in the land of the Beney Yisra-El: only in Azah, in Gat, and in Ashdod, did some remain.
Elsewhere we have been told, anachronistically, that those were Pelishtim (Philistines). Gol-Yat (Goliath) and his brothers in the David story are described as "giants" (1 Samuel 17:1-7), so it may be that there is a confusion between residual Anakim and early Pelishtim, based on the description of the Anakim themselves as "giants" (though actually, from what we get in the Tanach, of their physical appearance, their customs, their tatooing, their jewelery, their tendency towards the prehensile, I would suggest that the Anakim were probably an aboriginal offshoot of the Masai (that should be Maasai please, with two "a"s) of Kenya, Tanzania and the upper Nile.
AZAH: See the link.
GAT: See the link.
ASHDOD: See the link.
11:23 VA YIKACH YEHOSHU'A ET KOL HA ARETS KE CHOL ASHER DIBER YHVH EL MOSHEH VA YITNAH YEHOSHU'A LE NACHALAH LE YISRA-EL KE MACHLEKOTAM LE SHIVTEYHEM VE HA ARETS SHAKTAH MI MILCHAMAH
וַיִּקַּח יְהֹושֻׁעַ אֶת כָּל הָאָרֶץ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהוָה אֶל מֹשֶׁה וַיִּתְּנָהּ יְהֹושֻׁעַ לְנַחֲלָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל כְּמַחְלְקֹתָם לְשִׁבְטֵיהֶם וְהָאָרֶץ שָׁקְטָה מִמִּלְחָמָה
KJ: So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war.
BN: So Yehoshu'a took the whole land, according to all that YHVH had said to Mosheh; and Yehoshu'a gave it as an inheritance to Yisra-El, according to their divisions, by their tribes. And the land rested from war.
Except that he didn't take the whole land, and it didn't rest from war, as we shall see in the following chapters.
pey break
No comments:
Post a Comment