I. Treaties and Land Grants

The tradition of comparing suzerain-vassal treaties has a long history in analyzing the forms of various biblical texts¹. It may seem to provide a means of access to understanding the structure and purpose of the book of Joshua. Some treaties include boundary lists within a larger context of historical circumstances and agreements between parties, similar to the boundary lists in Joshua 13–19. They provide a background both for the covenant making reports of 8,30-35 and chap. 24, as well as assistance in understanding the form of the latter. However, as will be argued, it is not vassal treaties in general, nor even those that occur with boundary inscriptions, but agreements in the form of land grants that provide the most productive basis for comparison with the biblical form of the book of Joshua². Such grants are found throughout the ancient Near East in Hittite, Ugaritic, and Akkadian. Although they have been used as sources for comparisons with biblical covenants of Abraham and David, their

_____________________
494

form is not fixed (unlike the suzerain-vassal treaties) nor can they be described as unconditional ³.

        Thus the understanding of royal land grants does not lie within the larger context of ancient Near Eastern treaties. This appears to be the one point concerning royal grants that has general agreement. Treaties as a whole preserve a fixed structure, whether they occur in the second millennium or first millennium BCE. In all cases the suzerain-vassal treaty begins with a prologue consisting of the self-identification of the suzerain. This is followed at some point by stipulations, by witnesses, and by curses. In the second millennium BCE, the treaties also preserve a historical review after the prologue and a set of blessings after the curses ⁴. However, there are important differences between treaties and royal grants⁵. The former protect the rights of the suzerain whereas the latter preserve the rights of the vassal. Thus the treaty’s curses are directed against the rights of the vassal, whereas the curses of the grant are designed for anyone who attempts to violate the vassal’s rights that have been guaranteed by the suzerain.

        Having established distinctions between treaties and land grants, however, it is not the case that the royal grants of land can be grouped together as the same type. Nor is it true that they possess any necessary relationship with biblical grants such as that of Genesis 12,1-3 (cf. chaps. 13-22), where Abram is promised land and descendants; and 2 Samuel 7, where a perpetual dynasty is given to David and his descendants. For Kalluveetil, the following differences are significant: loyalty is not a prerequisite in the biblical grants but it is in the royal grants; the ancient Near Eastern royal grants establish a deeding of land with the decree, whereas the biblical grants provide a promise of land and dynasty that awaits fulfillment; the promise to Abram is one that occurs in contexts with other promises and concerns and cannot be

_____________________
495

isolated as a separate document⁶. Knoppers critiques the connection between royal land grants and the biblical promises to Abram and David⁷. He notes that, unlike the treaties, there are neither structures or terms distinctive to ancient Near Eastern royal grants. They are diverse in their form and phrases. Not only are the terms and language irregular in the grants themselves; they are found in texts that are not royal grants. He also observes that the apparent unconditionality of the biblical promises does not always occur in the ancient Near Eastern royal grants. In particular, texts from the West Semitic worlds of Alalakh and Ugarit often attach various demands of loyalty to their grants of land. Yet these might be expected to serve as the models for the West Semitic "grants" to Abram and David.

II. AT 456

        Even the grants from the West Semitic world of Alalakh and Ugarit must be distinguished. Those from Ugarit represent deeds in which the king provides gifts of lands within the city-state to loyal subjects for services rendered. They remain part of the lands of Ugarit and are thus understood as a kind of property exchange, in which the land becomes available for use by the loyal servant. However, one Middle Bronze Age text from Alalakh is exceptional in that its largely preserved text details the gift from one king to another (although a vassal) of a city and its villages and lands in exchange for loyal services rendered in a recent battle. AT 456 is a unique West Semitic cuneiform document that allows the reader to glimpse the literary form of a royal land grant enacted on the scale of an entire city state.

        In light of these considerations, we may consider the question of the book of Joshua as a land grant. The book of Joshua has been a source of discussion regarding its form and structure ⁸. However,

_____________________
496

unlike the promises to Abram and David, the text of Joshua does not promise something. Rather, like the royal grants, it claims to record the actual deeding of land to the tribes of Israel, whose vassal status in relation to God is undeniable. Like many of the royal grants, it demands loyalty or faithfulness to the suzerain (chaps. 7-8, 23-24). Further, the book of Joshua exists as a discrete document; not one that is embedded in other contexts. Finally, the book of Joshua is marked by its conditionality in relation to the giving of the land. Israel will receive the land only so long as it faithfully adheres to its suzerain’s wishes.

        Thus the land grant from Middle Bronze Age Alalakh Level VII, AT 456, provides a unique text that invites comparison in form and purpose with the sixth book of the Hebrew Bible. This is not an arbitrary comparison. Rather, AT 456 is the only royal land grant that: (1) includes the gifts of a major area on the size of a city state, with all its subsidiary lands and villages (rather than a royal grant of a parcel of land or a village such as one finds at Ugarit); (2) is nearly complete in its preserved tablet; and (3) originates in a West Semitic cultural context, i.e. Middle Bronze Age Alalakh. The tablet, found by Sir Leonard Woolley at Tell Atchana and presently housed in the Hatay Museum in Antakya, is a significant example of a land grant whose major structural elements parallel those of the book of Joshua⁹.

_____________________
497

1. AT 456.1-30 and Joshua 1-12

Obverse 1. URU i-ma-arKI qa-du x na-waKI		The city of Emar togther with its pasture land(?),
2. URU za-a[r-r]a-atKI 10		the towns of Za[rr]at,
3. URU [x - x - x]-naKI		...na,
4. URU na-as$-tar-béKI		Nashtarbe,
5. URU h~a-as$-na-apKI		H~ashnap,
6. URU ka-az-zu-weKI		Kazzuwe,
7. URU am-ma-ak-keKI		Ammakke,
8. URU pa-ar-re-e		(and) Parrê,
9. a-na [p]u-h~a -at URU ú-wi-ia-aKI		in exchange for Uwiyê.
10. URU at-ra-teKI		The town of Atrate
11. a-na pu-h~a-at e-pí-ri zu-na-a[d]-deKI		in exchange for the land of the towns of Zunadde,
12. i-ba-as$-s\u		which is(?),
13. URU a-ma-me[KI]		Amame,
14. [UR]U a-ú-s\u-unKI]		Aushun,
15. URU h~a-al-li-we[KI]		Halliwe,
16. URU zi-ki-ir[-li(?)KI]		Zikirli(?),
17. URU mu-ra-ar[KI]		Murar,
18 URU ir-ri-diKI URU ia-ri-im-l[i-im]		and Irride - Yarimlim [ruled them(?)]

        Of the 75 lines that are more or less preserved, the first 18 constitute a list of towns. This town list represents places exchanged and ruled by Abbael and his brother Yarimlim. Given the history of conflict and conquest that follows in lines 19-30, it is reasonable to assume that lines 1-18 represent a situation that pertained before the events described in the following lines. Thus these lines form part of a historical record that may be compared with the first twelve chapters

_____________________
498

of Joshua, whose purpose will be noted below in the discussion of lines 19-30. However, these lines may also be compared with Joshua 13-21 insofar as they appear to represent places allotted, at least in part, to Yarimlim.

        These towns constitute places acquired and held by different rulers, similar to the town lists of the tribes in Joshua 13–19. Further parallels occur with respect to Joshua 20 and 21¹¹. These chapters contain the towns of refuge and the towns designated for the Levites. The latter are of special interest in two ways. First, the towns are given, each with their "pasture lands" or, more accurately, "their immediate environs; their outlying districts" (Heb. migr^es]e=hen). This term occurs some fifty-seven times in Joshua 21, designating that each of the towns that the Levites possess also includes this additional area. The same expression occurs in Akkadian in the first line of AT 456, URU i-ma-ar (KI)

_____________________
499

19. Izi-it-ra-a-du h~a-za-an-nu s\a [ir-ri-di([K]I)		Zitraddu, the governor of [Irridi],
20. [a-]na ia-ri-im-li-im il-li-ik[-ma]		revolted against Yarimlim and
21. pa-ni mu-us$-na-a-du h~a-ab-ba-t[im]       is9-b[a-a]t(?)		[then he sei]zed(?) robber bands(?)
22. [a]-na URU ir-ri-diKI URU.KI-s\u ú-      [s\e]-ri-ib-s\u-ma		and brought them to Irridi, his city.
23. [ma-]a(?)-tam ka-la-s\a it-ti ab-ba-     [A]N LU[GAL ù]		(23-24) He incited the whole      land to rebel against Abbael
24. ú-s\a-ak-ki-ir-ma i-na ta-a[r(?)...]
25. ù ka-ak-ki-im da-an-ni-im [. . .]		The mighty weapon...
26. i-na kaspim h~ura4s9im uqnêm dus\im ù      [ka-ak-]ki-im		with silver, gold, lapis lazuli,-     crystal(?), and the great [wea]pon
27. ra-bi-im s\a dIM URU ir-ri-diK[I i]s9-     ba-at-ma		of the weather god. (As for     Abbael,) he seized Irridi and
28. ih~-te-pí ù mu-us\-na-a-du a-ia-bi-s\u		destroyed the enemy bands(?).
29. is9-s9a-ba-at a-na URU h~a-la-abKI		To Aleppo
30. i-na s\u-ul-mi-im i-tu-ra-am-ma		he returned in peace.

        Lines 19-30 record the historical circumstances that establish the destruction of Yarimlim’s city and the manner in which Abbael gained back the lands that had revolted against his rule. This historical

_____________________
500

perspective establishes the circumstances in which Abbael was able to hand over the grant of the city of Alalakh to his brother Yarimlim. Chapters 1–12 of Joshua provide a similar perspective. They also describe the necessary events of warfare that led Israel to a context where it could receive its allotment. Of special interest is the sense in which God, as the giver, fights for Israel and thereby does the primary work of destroying and driving out the inhabitants, and giving Israel the land (6,2-21; 8,1-2; 10,11-14.30.32.42; 11,6-8.20)¹⁵. The nation receives the land as it enters and takes possession of what God has given.

        The gifts of the city of Alalakh and the additional town of Murar are a reward for the loyalty of Yarimlim. There is no mention of Yarimlim’s activity in the war; only that of Abbael and the enemy, Zitraddu. Although the circumstances described are entirely different, this resembles Joshua 1–12¹⁶. God gives the enemies and their land

_____________________
501

into the hands of Israel. This key idea of the land as a gift is affirmed before and sometimes during every major conflict¹⁷. The emphasis is upon the work of God. Although Joshua and Israel are mentioned, they are merely witnesses who view the work of God and reap the benefits of divine gifts. The same is true of Yarimlim and his lack of direct involvement in the war, at least as related in the text. The focus is upon Abbael who makes the cities a gift to Yarimlim. It is not the burning of Yarimlim’s former city, or any acts of loyalty that he might have accomplished in the battle, that formed the basis for the gift. Rather, it is Abbael’s own work and subsequent generosity that receives the emphasis, both in terms of the battle and the subsequent gifts of Alalakh and Murar.

        Some specific points of comparison have to do with this battle account and those found in Joshua 10 and 11, the southern and northern campaigns. In all cases the battle account begins by naming the chief enemy and the town that he governs: Zitraddu of Irridi (AT 456.19), Adoni-zedek of Jerusalem (Josh 10,1), Jabin of Hazor (Josh 11,1). In all cases this is followed by an incitement by the enemy that brings others into the battle (AT 456.23-24; Josh 10,3-5; 11,1-4). In both AT 456.25-27 and Josh 10,11 divine weapons are mentioned that have meteorological associations, either with the weather deity or with stones from heaven.

        A further point of parallel has to do with the final line in this section of the Alalakh text. It describes how there was peace in the land at the end of the battle. The same idea occurs in Josh 11,23, after the last battle in the book. This description of the land as possessing "rest" from war contains the first use of the root, s\qt@ , in the biblical text.

2. AT 456.31-39a and Joshua 13–21

31. URU ir-ri-di!KI!-mi-i KI h~e-pé-em		<He said;> "Irridi is destroyed.
32. a-na a-h~i-ia a-na-ad-di-in		Will I give it to my brother?
33. [a]-na pu-h~a-at URU ir-ri-diKI		In exchange for Irridi
34. [s\a it-ti-]s\u ik-ki-ru[-ú.-ma]		[that] rebelled [against] him
35. [as9-bat-t]u-ma e[h~-pu-ú]		[and that I captur]ed and d[estroyed,]
36. [URU a-la-l]a-ah~[KI . . .]		[Alal]akh
37. [a-na ia]-ri-im-li-i[m a-na-ad-di-in]		[I will give to Ya]rimlim.

_____________________
502

38. ù URU mu-ra-arKI e-li zi-i[t-ti-s\u]		The town of Murar, in addition to     [his shar]e,
39a. ú-ri-id-di-s\u		I will add to it."

        The mention of the allocation of these cities to Yarimlim forms the next part of AT 456. Thus lines 31-39a resemble the allotments of Joshua 13–21. Although they are much more detailed in the biblical text, they nevertheless form a parallel element. Both texts name specific places as a gift that the chief leader who has won the battle gives to the loyal ally. While it is true that some of the texts in Joshua 13–21 preserve boundary descriptions, these are clearly not the only texts in these chapters. They do not occur for every tribe nor are they always complete when they do occur¹⁸. There is therefore a larger context to the boundary descriptions and town lists than marking specific boundaries for the inheritances of the various tribes. That context is best understood in terms of a land grant document such as AT 456. This document does not necessarily preserve specific boundaries, but is concerned to list the towns that are given to the recipient. The same is true of the towns listed in Joshua. In virtually every case both the town lists and the boundary descriptions utilize population centers in assigning allotments.

        Although the biblical lists provide names of actual places and may have served juridical purposes at some time in Israel’s history, they are not composed without regard to literary structure. The comprehensive and precise form of the first allotment named west of the Jordan River, that of Judah in Joshua 15, contrasts with the less well structured and sketchier allotment descriptions of the tribes as one moves further along in the chapters (Joshua 16–19) and proceeds north in the geography. This has led to various observations about the priority of Judah and the implicit criticism of the northern tribes¹⁹.

        There may also be conscious literary formation at work in the parallel section of the land grant of Alalakh. Only Alalakh and Murar are given to Yarimlim. Although Alalakh is depicted as Yarimlim’s share (zi-i[t-ti-s\u]), Murar is a gracious, additional gift to the loyal brother. This is suggested by the final word in the Abbael’s promise, ú-ri-id-di-s\u, "I shall add it." It is perhaps more than coincidental that the

_____________________
503

first word in this section, the name of the destroyed city that Yarimlim formerly ruled, URU ir-ri-di (KI), sounds like the final word, ú-ri-id-di-s\u "I will add to it". This word play forms an envelope around the central allotment in the text, and it provides a literary connection between the destroyed city and the supplemental gift that Yarimlim adds to the bestowal of Alalakh. Compare this with the note on Joshua’s advanced age that appears at the beginning of the allotment in Josh 13,1 and recurs after the allotment is finished as the first verse of chap. 23. This also provides a literary envelope for the account of the allotment of the land. Although dealing with completely different subject matter, the two envelope constructions frame these key sections as literary boundaries that define the allotted territories named between them.

3. AT 456.39b-62 and Joshua 22,1–24,15 [also vv. 16-27]

39b-42²⁰. Abbael swore the oath to Yarimlim and cut the neck of a lamb, <saying:> "If I take back what I have given you <may I be cursed.>"
43-50a. If ever in the future Yarimlim sins against Abbael, or [if] he gives away Abbael’s secret to another king, or if he lets go of the hem of Abbael’s garment and grasps the hem of another king’s garment, his towns and lands he shall [forfeit].
50b-57a. If a descendant of Yarimlim sins against Abbael (or a descendant of Abbael), if he rel[ease]s the h[em] of Abbael’s garment, (or that of a descendant of Abbael), and if he seizes the hem of another king’s garment, his towns and lands he shall forfeit.
57b-62. If a descendant of [Y]arimlim [tries to] sell his town their older brother shall bu[y it] and give it to a descendant of Abbael. He shall not give it to another person. 

        Lines 39b-62 constitute the remainder of the unbroken text and describe an agreement in which the two parties slaughter a lamb and bind themselves by oaths in which the grant of the cities to Yarimlim becomes conditional, based upon the loyalty of this man to his brother. Although the slaughtering of the lamb may have parallels elsewhere in the Bible, no direct parallel exists in the book of Joshua²¹. It is perhaps of interest that the description of the altar built by the Transjordan tribes was misunderstood as serving the purpose of offerings and animal sacrifices (chap. 22,23-29), and that this is soon

_____________________
504

followed by Joshua’s own covenant making ceremony (Josh 24,1-15 [also vv. 16-27]), itself related to the earlier covenant making act in the same place where sacrifices occurred (8,30-31)²². Thus the association of animal sacrifices with sealing an agreement does appear in Joshua and has allusions in the final chapters after the allotments.

        The actual agreements in both AT 456 and Joshua 23–24 contain two groups of exhortations to loyalty (AT 456 lines 43-49a, 50b-55; Josh 23,6-11; 24,14-15) followed in every case by warnings of losing the gifts given if there is disloyalty (AT 456 lines 49b-50a; 56-57a; Josh 23,12-13; 24,20)²³.

43-49a. If ever in the future Yarimlim sins against Abbael, or [if] he gives away Abbael’s secret to another king, or if he lets go of the hem of Abbael’s garment and grasps the hem of another king’s garment,		49b-50a. his towns and lands he shall [forfeit].
50b-55. If a descendant of Yarimlim sins against Abbael (or a descendant of Abbael), if he rel[ease]s the h[em] of Abbael’s garment, (or that of a descendant of Abbael), and if he seizes the hem of another king’s garment,		56-57a. his towns and lands he shall forfeit.

        It is significant that there are two sets in both texts. In the Alalakh grant, the first set addresses Yarimlim while the second one deals with his descendants. Yet these two addressees are not as distinctive as may first appear. Both exhortations identify the subject in relation to Yarimlim and both refer to the future. Thus s\um-ma ur-ra-am s\e-ra-am Iia-ri-im-li[-im] "If ever in the future, Yarimlim," is not unlike s\um-ma wa-ar-ki-it Iia-ri-im-li-i[m] "If a descendant of Yarimlim." As in

_____________________
505

Joshua, so in the Alalakh text, the emphasis lies upon both the present generation and future generations of those who benefit by the grant. The same "sin" or disloyalty is also repeated in both Alalakh clauses, using similar idioms.

        In the book of Joshua, the first group constitutes the main part of Joshua’s charge to Israel in chap. 23, while the second section appears at the end of the covenant description of chap. 24 and occurs as a dialogue with Israel who insist on affirming their loyalty (vv. 16-18. 21.22.24). In both cases, however, the double exhortation and warning serve to reinforce the importance of the stipulations and the conditional nature of the gift that has just been given. This observation is true regardless of the possibly different origins for Joshua 23 and 24. The similarity of expressions in both Alalakh exhortations may suggest that these texts are not original with their document, either. In both cases, however, the repetition of the charge and warning serves rhetorically to emphasize the exhortation to loyalty.

4. AT 456.68-76 and Joshua 24,16-33

        The final lines of AT 456, lines 68-76, appear on the upper and lower edges of the tablet. They include a list of witnesses to the land grant and agreement, as well as the fact that Yarimlim was caused to swear divine oaths (lines 75-76, ni-is\ ila4ni (MESŠ) ú-s\a-az-ki-ru). As customary as this may be for agreements, it is nevertheless of note that this parallels one of the final sections in the last chapter of the book of Joshua. There the people agree with Joshua that they are witnesses against themselves to observe the clauses of the covenant (Josh 24,22). Their statements on loyalty take on the character of oaths before God, using the customary language of sworn promises, "far be it from me" (Heb. h9a4l|=la4h) and the asseverative kî, "surely" (Josh 24,16.21). The point is that both texts include witnesses and oaths to further enforce the land grant and the promises of the recipient regarding loyalty.

III. Conclusion

        If the town list in the first 18 lines of the preserved text of AT 456 forms part of the historical background that continues through line 30, then this land grant resembles the book of Joshua in every major part of its structure: (1) a narrative background explaining the circumstances leading to the allotment; (2) the allotment itself with mention of specific towns and recipients; (3) the repeated stipulations

_____________________
506

requiring loyalty from the grant recipient to the grantor, coupled with warnings of the loss of the grant for disloyalty; and (4) witnesses and oaths to enforce the agreement.

        This correlation with an ancient Near Eastern text provides the clearest and most complete similarities with major features of the book of Joshua. Of course, a single text, such as AT 456, does not establish a genre. Indeed, the diversity of forms in land grants has been demonstrated. Land grants that bestowed towns and cities were unusual, especially in West Semitic archives. However, the proximity of forms between this text and Joshua remains too close to be coincidental. AT 456 provides the only West Semitic example of a royal grant that includes the outright gift of cities and towns while preserving a conditionality and other aspects of a distinctive style of land grant, one found elsewhere only in the book of Joshua.

        This comparison provides a comprehensive and pre-deuteronomistic form in which to situate the book of Joshua. However, the rarity of this "form" and its sporadic appearance can demonstrate little about the overall date of the book or the incorporation of this form as a structuring device. The pattern of Joshua as a land grant document may have been received by the deuteronomist and incorporated into the larger history as it now appears. The structure of the book of Joshua provides a formal basis for the theological presentation of the book of Joshua as one in which the nation of Israel received its long promised land as a gift from God and as part of a covenant that preserved that people’s unique relationship with its God and affirmed the requirement of God’s sole lordship over his people.

SUMMARY

        Despite a variety of attempted identifications of the book of Joshua, or portions of it, with other ancient Near Eastern legal documents, the form of the royal land grant remains the closest of those studied in terms of structure and content. In particular, the form of this type of document, as illustrated in the archive of the Middle Bronze Age site of Alalakh, provides an important and useful set of parallels with those found in the sixth book of the Bible. The essay considers the strengths and weaknesses of identifying the book of Joshua in this manner, as well as its implications for the interpretation of the book. In addition, the origin of these documents in the West Semitic world invites consideration of a specific genre or literary type that flourished in those cultures and perhaps provided a link for related documents in the Mesopotamian and Mediterranean worlds.

© 2002 Biblica

________________________________

NOTES

NOTES

¹ See the overviews of the literature in P. KALLUVEETIL, Declaration and Covenant (AnBib 88; Rome 1982); D.J. MCCARTHY, Old Testament Covenant. A Survey of Current Opinions (Oxford 1972). For a survey of the theology of covenant and the discussion of its appearance in Israel’s history, see R. DAVIDSON, "Covenant Ideology in Ancient Israel", The World of Ancient Israel. Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives (ed. R.E. CLEMENTS) (Cambridge 1989) 323-347. Any review of this discussion should take into account those who see covenant as a later development, e.g, E.W. NICHOLSON, God and His People. Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament (Oxford 1986), as well as the arguments for its early appearance, e.g. K.A. KITCHEN, "The Rise and Fall of Covenant, Law and Treaty", TynB 40 (1989) 118-135.

² Nevertheless, the particular texts of Joshua 23 and especially 24 have been studied in relation to the question of treaty/covenant form: R.S. HESS, "West Semitic Texts and the Book of Joshua", Bulletin for Biblical Research 7 (1997) 63-76, especially 74-75; K.A. KITCHEN, "Egypt, Qatna, and Covenant", UF 11 (1979) 453-464; IDEM, "The Rise and Fall of Covenant, Law and Treaty", TynB 40 (1989) 118-135; IDEM, "The Patriarchal Age. Myth or History?" BArR 21/2 (March/April 1995) 52-56; W.T. KOOPMANS, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative (JSOTSS 93; Sheffield 1990).

³ For comparisons between land grants and biblical covenants, see M. WEINFELD, "The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East", JAOS 90 (1970) 184-203 (for the objections cited here, see p. 185); IDEM, "Addenda to JAOS 90 (1970), 184ff.", JAOS 92 (1972) 468-469; IDEM, The Promise of the Land. The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites (Berkeley, CA 1993) 222-264. G.N. KNOPPERS, "Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant: A Parallel?", JAOS 116 (1996) 670-697, provides the most comprehensive survey and critique of this comparison.

⁴ V. KOROSŠEC, Hethitische Staatsverträge. Ein Beitrag zu ihren juristischen Wertung (Leipziger Rechtswissenschaftliche Studien, 60; Leipzig 1931).

⁵ WEINFELD, "The Covenant of Grant," 185.

⁶ KALLUVEETIL, Declaration and Covenant, 180 n 234.

⁷ KNOPPERS, "Ancient Near Eastern".

⁸ Much has been written since the classic analysis of a Deuteronomistic redactor constructing etiologies, war accounts, boundary lists, and place name lists into the book of Joshua, as set forth by M. NOTH, Das Buch Josua (HAT 7; Tübingen 1953) 9-16. Although commentaries continue to examine multi-layered strata (cf. V. FRITZ, Das Buch Josua [HAT I/7; Tübingen 1994]; R. NELSON, Joshua A Commentary [OTL; Louisville 1997]), a variety of literary and linguistic approaches have appeared recently: L. ALONSO SCHÖKEL, "Arte narrativa en Josué-Jueces-Samuel-Reyes", EstBíb 48 (1990) 145-169; D.M. GUNN, "Joshua and Judges", The Literary Guide to the Bible (eds. R. ALTER and F. KERMODE) (Cambridge, MA. 1987) 102-121; L.D. HAWK, Every Promise Fulfilled. Contesting Plots in Joshua (Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville 1991); R.S. HESS, "Studies in the Book of Joshua", Themelios 20/3 (May 1995) 12-15; H.J. KOOREVAAR, De Opbouw van het Boek Jozua (Heverlee 1990); G. MITCHELL, Together in the Land. A Reading of the Book of Joshua (JSOTSS 134; Sheffield 1993); M. OTTOSSON, Josuaboken. En programskrift for davidisk restauration (Acta Universitatis upsalienses, Studia biblica pusaliensia 1; Stockholm 1991); L. ROWLETT, Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence. A New Historicist Analysis (JSOTSS 226; Sheffield 1996); N. WINTHER-NIELSEN, A Functional Discourse Grammar of Joshua. A Computer-Assisted Rhetorical Structure Analysis (ConBOT 40; Stockholm 1995). Recent commentaries that attempt to provide a literary analysis of the book include, among others, L.D. HAWK, Joshua (Berit Olam; Collegeville 2000); R.S. HESS, Joshua. An Introduction & Commentary (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries 6; Downers Grove and Leicester 1996); D.M. HOWARD, JR., Joshua (The New American Commentary 5; Nashville 1998). For a competent review of the literature, cf. E. NOORT, Das Buch Joshua. Forschungsgeschichte und Problemfelder (Erträge der Forschung 292; Darmstadt 1998).

⁹ For the original publication of the copy, transliteration, translation, and comments on the text, see D.J. WISEMAN, "Abban and Alalah}", JCS 12 (1958) 124-129. Important readings were proposed by A. DRAFFKORN, "Was King Abba-An of Yamh}ad a Vizier for the King of H}attus\a?", JCS 13 (1959) 94-97. See also R.S. HESS, "Land Grant AT 456* (2.137)", The Context of Scripture (eds. W.W. HALLO – K.L. YOUNGER, JR.) (Leiden 2000) II, 369-370. The transliterations of Wiseman and Draffkorn-Kilmer, and the translation of Hess will be followed here. The author is grateful to Professor D.J. Wiseman and to Professors M. Dietrich and O. Loretz for access to their unpublished notes on this text; and to successive directors of the Hatay Museum for permission to collate this text, most recently in March of 1997.

¹⁰ Or S[arbat. For the individual place names, their possible site identifications, and what is known of them from the literature and archaeology, see F. ZEEB, "Die Ortsnamen und geographischen Bezeichungen der Texte aus Alalah} VII", UF 30 (1998) 829-886 (835 for Zarrat). Zeeb’s readings are followed here for these place names.

¹¹ For comparisons with chs. 13-21 and ancient Near Eastern town lists and boundary descriptions, see R.S. HESS, "Asking Historical Questions of Joshua 13-19: Recent Discussion Concerning the Date of the Boundary Lists", Faith, Tradition, History. Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context (eds. A.R. MILLARD – J.K. HOFFMEIER – D.W. BAKER) (Winona Lake 1994) 191-205; IDEM, "Late Bronze Age and Biblical Boundary Descriptions of the West Semitic World", Ugarit and the Bible. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible. Manchester, September 1992 (eds. G. BROOKE – A. CURTIS – J. HEALEY) (Ugaritisch-Biblische Literatur Band 11; Münster 1994) 123-138; IDEM, "A Typology of West Semitic Place Name Lists with Special Reference to Joshua 13-21", BA 59/3 (September 1996) 160-170; C.R. KRAHMALKOV, "Exodus Itinerary Confirmed by Egyptian Evidence", BArR 20/5 (September/October 1994) 54-62, 79; M. WEINFELD, "The Pattern of the Israelite Settlement in Canaan", Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986 (ed. J.A. EMERTON) (VTS 40; Brill 1988) 270-283; IDEM, "Historical Facts behind the Israelite Settlement Pattern", VT 38 (1988) 324-332; IDEM, The Promise of the Land, 22-51. Of special interest is the work of A.M. KITZ, "Undivided Inheritance and Lot Casting in the Book of Joshua", JBL 119 (2000) 601-618. While her study on lot casting provides illuminating parallels with the relevant Joshua texts, the relation of Sumerian inheritance texts raises some questions. These texts demonstrate several similarities between the concepts and forms of the land division, especially chaps. 18–19, and implicitly provide a rationale for the first half of the book as a means to clear the land of unwanted "squatters". However, (1) specifics of the form vary considerably in appearance and sequence, (2) there is no parallel with these texts in the West Semitic world (3) nor with the use of lot casting to dissolve undivided inheritance, (4) there is an absence of key phrases such as "dwell together," and (5) the theological overlay of a strong emphasis upon God’s part in "clearing" the land as well as the conditional nature of the gift of the land to Israel (23,12-13) cast doubt upon inheritance texts as a key to understanding the conquest, allotment, covenant, and oath swearing in the book of Joshua.

¹² DRAFFKORN, "Was King Abba-An", 94 note 3; CAD N1, XI, 250. See also J. BARR, "migra4s\ in the Old Testament", JSS 29 (1984) 15-31; HESS, Joshua, 280-283; and Alalakh Text 56, which also mentions this term in an allotment.

¹³ DRAFFKORN, "Was King Abba-An", 94 note 6, surmises that the indentation of the phrase in lines 9 and 11 means that it refers only to those towns listed above and prior to the phrase, not to the towns of lines 13-18.

¹⁴ See HESS, Joshua, 277: "Chapters 20-21 appear after the tribal allotments because they represent a second phase in the land grants. Firstly, God gave the Promised Land to Israel (chs. 13-19). Secondly, Israel gave back some of this land, setting it aside for specific purposes" .

¹⁵ HESS, Joshua, 44, 46-47.

¹⁶ There has been much discussion on the forms of Joshua 1–12. For chaps. 1–5, whose forms have been analyzed mainly in terms of biblical and West Semitic mythic parallels, see F.M. CROSS, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA 1973) 103-105; J. A. WILCOXEN, "Narrative Structure and Cult Legend: A Study of Joshua 1-6", Transitions in Biblical Scholarship (ed. J.C. RYLAARSDAM) (Essays in Divinity 6; Chicago 1968) 43-70; N. WINTHER-NIELSEN, "The Miraculous Grammar of Joshua 3-4", Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics (ed. R.D. BERGEN) (Dallas – Winona Lake 1994) 300-319.
For chs. 6–12, whose forms resemble ancient Near Eastern themes, conquest accounts, and ideologies, see D.E. FLEMING, "The Seven-Day Siege of Jericho in Holy War", Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine (eds. R. CHAZAN – W.W. HALLO – L.H. SCHIFFMAN) (Winona Lake 1999) 211-228; R.S. HESS, "Joshua 1-12 as a Centrist Document", "Dort ziehen Schiffe dahin...", Collected Communications to the XIVth Congress of the International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Paris 1992 (eds. M. AUGUSTIN – K.-D. SCHUNCK) (BEAT 28; Frankfurt am Main 1996) 53-67; IDEM, "Non-Israelite Personal Names in the Book of Joshua", CBQ 58 (1996) 205-214; IDEM, "Rhetorical Forms in Joshua 10:4", "Und Moses schrieb dieses Lied auf". Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient. Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen (eds. M. DIETRICH – I. KOTTSIEPER) (Münster 1998) 363-367; IDEM, "Joshua 10 and the Sun that Stood Still", Buried History 35/1 (1999) 26-33; J.K. HOFFMEIER, "The Structure of Joshua 1-11 and the Annals of Thutmose III", Faith, Tradition, and History, 165-179; D. MERLING, SR., The Book of Joshua. Its Theme and Role in Archaeological Discussions (Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series 23; Berrien Springs 1996); A.R. MILLARD, "Back to the Iron Bed: Og’s or Procrustes?", Congress Volume: Paris: 1992 (ed. J.A. EMERTON) (VTS 61; Leiden 1995) 193-203; J. VAN SETERS, "Joshua’s Campaign of Canaan and Near Eastern Historiography", SJOT 4 (1990) 1-12; K.L. YOUNGER, JR., Ancient Conquest Accounts. A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing (JSOTSS 98; Sheffield 1990).

¹⁷ Cf. Josh 1,3; 6,2; 8,1; 10,8, 11, 30, 32; 11,6.

¹⁸ This point should not be overlooked. The presence of boundary lists in texts of the West Semitic world can be found in treaties, but also occur in house and property sale contracts, as at Emar. See HESS, "Late Bronze Age".

¹⁹ HAWK, Every Promise Fulfilled, 102-113; HESS, Joshua, 238-239; MITCHELL, Together in the Land, 108; OTTOSSON, Josuaboken.

²⁰ For this general translation, see HESS, "Land Grant," 370.

²¹ On the question of the legitimacy of comparisons that have been made, see R.S. HESS, "The Slaughter of the Animals in Genesis 15:18-21 and Its Ancient Near Eastern Context", He Swore an Oath. Biblical Themes from Genesis 12-50 (eds. R.S. HESS – P.E. SATTERTHWAITE – G.J. WENHAM) (Cambridge 1993) 55-65.

²² Cf. HESS, "The Slaughter of the Animals"; A. MALAMAT, "A Note on the Ritual of Treaty Making in Mari and the Bible", IEJ 45 (1995) 226-229.

²³ On the conditionality of the Alalakh grant, see KNOPPERS, "Ancient Near Eastern Royal Grants", 686. The Akkadian of 43-50a is: s\um-ma ur-ra-am s\e-ra-am IIa-ri-im-li-[im] a-na ab-ba-AN ú-h~a-at@-t@ú-ú!-ma! [s\um-ma a]-wa-tam ab-ba-AN i-qa-ab-bu-s\um ú-s\e-[is9]-sú-ú s\um-ma qa-ra-an TÚG ab-ba-AN ú-wa-as\-s\a-ru-ma qa-ra-an TÚG LUGAL s\a-ni-im i-s9a-ab-ba-tu i-na URU.KI.H}À ù e-pè-ri it-[ta-as9-s9]i. The Akkadian of 50b-57a is: ù s\um-ma wa-ar-ki-it Iia-ri-im-li-i[m a-n]a ab-ba-AN ù wa-ar-ki-it ab-ba-AN ú-h~a-at@-t@ú-s\[u(?)-ma(?)] [s\]um-ma qa-ra-an TÚG ab-ba-AN ù qa-r[a-an] TÚG wa-ar-ki-it ab-ba-AN ú-wa-[as\-s\a-ru]-ma [q]a-ra-an TÚG LUGAL s\a-ni-im i-s9a-a[b-ba-tu] [i-na] URU.KI.H}À-s\u ù e-pé-ri-s\[u] [it]-ta-as9-s9i. The transliteration follows DRAFFKORN, "Was King Abban-AN," and WISEMAN, "Abban".