The Project of History
And all that He did to the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the other side of the Jordan, to Sihon king of Heshbon, and to Og king of Bashan, who was in Ashtaroth. Joshua 9:10 Chabad
And – I’ve provided the opening of this verse in Hebrew. Do you notice anything unusual? Did you see that there’s a vertical line between the first two words? What’s that all about (and that’s not the only odd thing here)?
וְאֵ֣ת | כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָֹ֗ה לִשְׁנֵי֙ מַלְכֵ֣י הָֽאֱמֹרִ֔י אֲשֶׁ֖ר
To answer that question, we need to think about the context of this entire story; the story of the deception of the Gibeonites.
The project of history isn’t just to accurately recount the facts. That’s merely an event catalogue. Something like a newsreel without sound. No, history isn’t just events. History is what happened and why it happened. Without the motivation behind the action, we learn nothing. So, let’s apply this principle to the story of the Gibeonites—and discover something quite interesting in the grammar.
Why did the Gibeonites attempt to delude the Israelites? The answer is simple: they were afraid. They heard that Israel destroyed Jericho. They knew what happened at Ai. Israel was on the march, and any tribe in the way was going to be exterminated. Their God was more powerful than any of the other gods of the region. But they also knew that approaching Israel because of fear would not result in a treaty. No treaties were possible with anyone in Canaan. So, they had to convince Israel that they were not from Canaan, and that they posed no threat whatsoever to the invading army. They decided to pose as people from far away. That, however, wasn’t quite enough. They also needed to engender compassion. Thus, the tattered condition, the powerlessness, the utter weakness. That was the visible part of the deception. But there was also an oral part, and that’s where this verse comes in. They claim that all they really want to do is to join Israel, to serve Israel, and to fall under the protection of Israel’s God. In the previous verse, they reference God’s might over Egypt (the most powerful kingdom of the time). Then they recount God’s victory over a series of kings (Sihon and Og). Now ask yourself, when did Israel encounter Sihon and Og? Both of these kingdoms were East of the Jordan, that is to say, they were encountered and defeated when Moses was the leader before Israel crossed the river. Do you find this odd? Why wouldn’t the Gibeonites refer to the immediate battles, the defeat of Jericho and Ai? Why recall “ancient” history?
Motivation! The “Why?” question. If I want to convince you that the present situation doesn’t apply, that I am not motivated by fear, then I certainly won’t bring up precisely those things that I am afraid of. The Gibeonites don’t dare mention Jericho or Ai because that would indicate they were local (and knew the cities) and were in fear of Israel. So, they only reference things that happened before crossing the Jordan. Now, how does the Hebrew grammar suggest this?
That little vertical line indicates that there’s a minor pause, and that what follows is to be considered as a single thought. It’s not a sequence, e.g., the king of this and then the king of that. No, it’s one event, e.g., kings defeated. Furthermore (and this is the grammar part), the opening word just isn’t sensible. Why? Because it’s the letter vav attached to an untranslatable direct object marker. But there isn’t any direct object, unless, of course, what follows the vertical line (the entire rest of the sentence) is one thing, that is, the direct object of some prior verb. And that’s the amazing little point hinted at in the odd thing in this verse. If only we took the time to really read for the depth of the text. If only we weren’t content until we could answer the question, “Why?”
Topical Index: history, why, depth grammar, Gibeonites, motivation, Joshua 9:10
