First Peoples
The Gibeonites are among the
First Peoples of Canaan, but they are not on the same page with the other First
Nations. In response to the invasion by Joshua and the Israelites, whose
interests are favored in the narrative, the kings of the lands west of the
Jordan gather as one to fight against the invaders (Josh. 9:1–2). The
Gibeonites, on the other hand, resort to trickery (9:4). They choose not to be
in solidarity with their native neighbors. It is therefore naïve, in the first
instance, to assume homogeneity among First Peoples (this applies to Second and
Third Peoples also), something we tend to do when we call them “aboriginal” or
“indigenous” because those two labels imply sameness (from a common origin).
First Peoples tricking one
another is not foreign to the book of Joshua, which opens with Rahab tricking
her king and his men (Josh. 2). “She betrays her people, slipping out of the
city with her own family as Israelite warriors set about their work of butchering
the men, women, and children among whom Rahab has lived” (Sharp 2012, 146). In
the eyes of the narrative, there is nothing problematic with First Peoples
tricking one another. This trickery shows that they are divided, and in the
process (a narrative trick!) brushes over the division among invading
Israelites. Israel does not become diverse and divided with the accommodation
of non-Israelites. Israel is divided before that, as is evident in the grumbles
of the people against Moses (Exod. 16) and disagreement with the spies (Num.
13).
The Gibeonites approach Joshua
together with the “men of Israel” (9:6). The men of Israel are not convinced
(9:7), and they question the Gibeonites. Instead of responding to the men of
Israel, the Gibeonites direct their response to Joshua (9:8–13). This suggests
that the Gibeonites have more respect for Joshua. But before Joshua states his
decision on the Gibeonites’ explanation, the men of Israel jump in to declare
their approval (9:14). They do not ask for Joshua’s opinion, nor do they
consult Yhwh. Joshua comes at the end to make a treaty that the men of Israel
have already decided. The disconnection between Joshua and the men of Israel
shows their division, and the Gibeonites expose this through their continuing
to address Joshua even though the men of Israel are the ones raising doubts. It
is unfair to expect First Peoples to be passive, homogenous, and welcoming, as
when we call them “natives.” First Peoples are diverse and dynamic, and they
have the will to resist, to side-step, to manipulate, and to differ from one
another. This is true of the Gibeonites in Joshua 9 as well as of the Hivvites
in the town of Shechem (cf. Gen. 34), which is not conquered by Joshua and
Israel but which nevertheless provides the location for Joshua’s institution of
a covenant for Israel (Josh. 24; Dor and De-Malach 2013, 59).
There is no indication in the
narrative of any communication between the Gibeonites and their First People
neighbors, but we assume that the Gibeonites would have known that the other
nations were gathering as one. In oral cultures, information can easily flow
across cultural and linguistic borders. The fluidity of (information in) oral
cultures is the grease in the wheels of trickery.
We cannot tell whether the
Gibeonites have considered the consequences of their trickery, such as native
neighbors feeling that they have been betrayed, but the Gibeonites clearly feel
that they can fool the Israelites. The identity of the Gibeonites that the
narrative constructs is not simply tied to space (i.e., the fact that they
faked their land of origin) or subsequent social status (repeated, and in the
process altered, in the two endings of the narrative, 9:18–21; 9:22–27; see
Boer 2008, 127–132), but also on account of their courage, wisdom, and
rhetorical abilities. They were daring, clever, and convincing. Not bad, we
say, for native folks!
Perhaps something about the
invading Israelite mob causes the Gibeonites to question Israelite intelligence
and to see a weakness that might be exploited. The Gibeonites trick the
Israelites so that they, the “indigenous Others” (Sharp 2012, 148), become
“enemies within” (so Boer, Butler, and Miles). “Gibeon is the supreme example
of how the land’s ancient inhabitants adapted themselves to the new situation
of Israelite control. Its residents were enslaved and continued to live in
Israel for generations; they were even among those who returned from the
Babylonian exile (Neh. 7:25)” (Dor and De-Malach 2013, 54). The Gibeonites
become “part of the inside Israel group but only as Rest or Other among the
Israelites, becoming slaves, not citizens” (Butler 2013, 33). And yet, they
survive and infiltrate the social and religious structures of Israel. “At this
level, the text may become a postcolonial celebration of the duping of dull
colonial forces” (Boer 2008, 130). In the end, this narrative subverts the assumptions
of both natural domination and homogenous identity. Who are the Israelites?
[T] he Israelites may be no more
than Gibeonites … or the Gibeonites may be understood as Israelites; or, their
story indicates a secondary narrative concerning the process by which “Israel”
itself is gradually constituted in the text. The way the Gibeonites become part
of “Israel” is one example of the way various groups constitute the textual
construction of “Israel” in the first place, as do Rahab and her family in
Joshua 2. (Boer 2008, 131)
In our cross-cultural eyes, there
is nothing controversial about the mixing of ethnicities and cultural
identities. What is controversial is the assumption of purity.
The construction of identity is
tied up with duty and labor. In the first ending of the narrative, the
Gibeonite-Israelites (Gibeonites who have become part of the Israelite
community) were to hew wood and draw water for “all the congregation” (9:21),
and in the second ending they were also to serve “the altar of Yhwh” (9:27).
The “enemies within” have duties to the community and to Yhwh. They enter
through trickery, and they become insiders by duty and labor. This privilege,
of being accepted and included because of duty and labor, is not available to
all peoples. (Jione Havea and Monica Jyotsna Melanchthon, “Culture Tricks in Biblical
Narrative,” in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Narrative, ed Danna Nolan
Fewell [New York: Oxford University Press, 2016], 567-69)
