Narratives of Identity: Gibeonites and Choctaws

by Catherine Schmid

Catherine Schmid, a 2012 MAR. graduate from ATS, is on the board of a woman’s shelter/drug abuse and prevention agency.

In the book of Joshua, chapter nine is a surprising change of course for this narrative of conquest. Flush from early successes, Joshua had just gathered the people together to hear “all the words of the law, blessings and curses, according to all that is written in the book of the law” (8:34 NRSV[1]; cf. 1:8). Immediately then to encounter yet another story of deceit, disobedience, and self-determination concerning this same assembly (who were ostensibly so well-informed) is at best unexpected and alarming. Had not Israel already learned the lesson of obedience the hard way? A Canaanite harlot and her family had been absorbed into Israel because of a covenant-breaking oath made by Joshua’s spies (2:14; 6:22; cf. Deut. 7:2). Israel had witnessed first-hand that consequences of breaking faith with Yahweh (Josh. 7:1, 5) were only reversed as Achan’s deceit was uncovered (7:25–26). The ensuing rout at Ai confirmed the LORD’s restored presence and Israel’s dependence upon Yahweh for victory (7:26; 8:7–8, 26). Surely now the conquest of the Promised Land would proceed as planned (1:5–6).

But the implied author of Joshua injects yet one more interruption into his account that calls into question the identities of both Israel and Israel’s ‘enemies’. It seems that there are additional lessons to be learned in the taking of the land, and it will be through the indigenous people of Canaan that Israel will learn them. Who are ‘outsiders’, and who belong to the people of God? To whom do the Israelites owe their loyalty? And what role does Yahweh play in the formation of God’s people? In many ways Joshua 9:1–27 serves as a rhetorical ‘wake-up call’ for its readers[2]—a ‘reality check’ that speaks hard truths to a triumphalism which extols universal “obedience and integrity.”[3] And if it is true that “narratives encode our convictions, validate our beliefs, voice our anxieties, and assemble the events of our lives and memories into a meaningful coherence,”[4] then Joshua 9 is as useful and revelatory for contemporary readers as it was for the nation of Israel as it reflected on its possession of the Promised Land. What has and does form our identity today? And what are we to make of our own history of conquest?

As chapter 9 begins, the narrative describes what for the book as a whole are escalating tensions. From a point of view outside of the Promised Land, attention is drawn to a gathering of kings who rule over a large amount of delineated territory (v. 1), and readers can clearly see the huge task that still remains in order to possess the land. A detailed list of Israelite enemies speaks to the diversity of opposition with which Israel has to contend and hints that the reputation of Joshua’s prowess is spreading (6:27).[5] Careful listeners will catch the repetition of ‘hearing’ that is sounded in v. 1 and recall that previously others had “heard” as well (2:10; 5:1). But unlike the reaction of the citizens of Jericho and the kings whose hearts had then “melted” in fear, 9:1–2 relates the formation of a council of war as the kings of the south unite to resist Joshua’s invasion. Thus, whereas up to this point all military actions have been Israelite offensives, now the Canaanite guard is up: the kings know that Israel can indeed suffer defeat (7:5).[6] The author’s message is clearly that Israel must now prepare to defend itself from others (9:2; 10:5).

Narrative tensions continue to build in 9:3–15 as the Gibeonites, of whom readers-as-spies are given privileged information (vv. 3–5),[7] act “with cunning” and devise an elaborate scheme in order to hide their true identity from Joshua and his forces. Thus the reader knows what Israel initially does not—that these Canaanites are seemingly up to no good with their “dry and moldy” provisions and “worn-out” sacks, wineskins, sandals, and clothes (9:5). With this detailed description, one might assume that the narrator seeks to underscore the Gibeonites’ untrustworthiness. Perhaps their planned delegation is actually part of the kings’ strategy to fight the Israelites. After all, as readers soon come to see (v. 7), the Gibeonites are part of the Hivites mentioned in v. 1, and Israelites have learned from experience that they certainly cannot be trusted. It was, after all, Shechem the Hivite who by raping Dinah, Jacob’s daughter, “committed an outrage in Israel” (Gen. 34:7).[8] And it was against Shechem’s clan that the Israelites themselves had fashioned a ruse of their own, first insisting that every male be circumcised, “a mark of incorporation into the covenant community,”[9] and then slaughtering the hapless invalids as they healed (Gen. 34:25).

However, it seems “the narrative problem from the Gibeonite perspective is survival,”[10] and the narrator goes to great pains to make this point. Like the kings in v. 1, the Gibeonites too have “heard,” but now the reader knows the content of the message they received: Joshua’s annihilation of Jericho and Ai (9:3; cf. v. 24). From this Canaanite point of view, the reader is inclined to see these cunning deceivers in a more positive light, for their careful preparations seem to speak more to “prudence” than to “malicious intent,”[11] as they, like the Israelites themselves, use deception for advantageous purposes (e.g., Gen. 27; Josh. 8:4ff). What is more, the Gibeonite plan is well-organized, even down to what they intend to say to the Israelites when they arrive (v. 11). Their reported speech is a witness to the reader that this delegation speaks with one voice under the authority of their “elders and all the inhabitants of [their] country” (v. 11). Through rapid-fire and extensive dialogue the narrator shows these tricky Gibeonites to be worthy of grudging respect. Unlike the kings who “heard” and “gathered together with one accord to fight Joshua and Israel” (v. 1–2), the Gibeonites “hear” and sue for peace (vv. 6, 11, 15). Therefore, despite the “shrewd artifice” of these indigenous people,[12] readers are predisposed to view them as fairly sympathetic and strong characters.[13] For all intents and purposes, these Canaanites “demonstrate a community integrity and unity that has heretofore marked the Israelite nation.”[14]

Thus, with this behind-the-scenes knowledge readers are invited to stand alongside Israel and Joshua as they confront the Gibeonites’ claim and demand: “We have come from a far country; so now make a treaty with us” (v. 6). Surely, the Israelites will see through this ruse! The narrator offers hope for such a response with Israel’s opening query of these apparently travel-weary strangers: “Perhaps you live among us; then how can we make a treaty with you” (v. 7)? The “men of Israel”—like the Gibeonites themselves—thus allude to the “issue of compliance”15 at hand, which is the covenant stipulation as set forth by Moses that commands annihilation of all peoples in the land of promise (Deut. 20:10–18). The Gibeonites’ reply is a direct appeal to Joshua—“We are your servants” (v. 8; also 9, 11, 24)—an offer any vassal would make before a suzerain in treaty negotiations.16 Joshua appears to rise to the Gibeonites’ appealing bait.[17] His further interrogation (v. 8) gives them a chance to elaborate their initial lie, something they do with practiced and breathless force as the narrator gives them center stage to voice a restated claim of distance travel (v. 9a, 11), a confession of faith in Yahweh which “surpasses the language of diplomacy,”[18] and an offer of their provisions as a way to ‘seal the deal’ with the Israelites. Readers are left to stand helplessly by as the “leaders partook of their provisions, and did not ask direction from the LORD” (v. 14), thereby affirming the Gibeonites’ assertion.[19] Thus Joshua grants them the treaty they desired, “guaranteeing their lives” (v. 15, 26), and the leaders (with marked irony) swear an oath to them by the name of the One of whom they did not inquire (v. 19).

The next section, 9:16–27, now shifts to the Israelite point of view as the leaders are implicated for their hasty covenant-making. With a conventional temporal marker—“when three days had passed” (v. 16; cf. 1:10; 2:16, 22; 3:2)—the narrator reveals what any reader of this tale of deception would expect: the “discovery of the masquerade.”[20] Israel has “heard” and now knows what the reader has known all along—that the Gibeonites are “their neighbors and were living among them” (v. 16). Indeed, they have been hiding in plain sight! How this was revealed to them is not known, but this information is de-stabilizing at best. Not only have the people of God entered into a proscribed covenant, but they have done so with a group seemingly more populous than they had been led to believe (v. 17). To make matters worse, no attack on these deceivers is now possible because of the oath sworn to them; murmuring breaks out, and the leaders are put on the defensive (v. 18). The community is “fractured” because of “disobedience,”[21] and the narrator makes this disintegration plain through the multiplication of terms: “Israelites,” “congregation,” and “leaders” (vv. 18–19) speak to diverse interests and commitments. The people, ironically, are the ones concerned with covenant obedience, while the Israelite leadership is hampered by their ill-advised oath.

Joshua, who has been predominantly in the background thus far, now comes forward to summon the Gibeonites to a “court” of accountability.[22] As with the covenant made with Rahab and her family (2:14), he was seemingly not a part of the negotiations with Gibeon, but now he calls them to task for their deception (v. 22). His questioning finally brings out the truth of the Gibeonites’ motivation as they confess their guilt to him: “We were in great fear for our lives because of you, and did this thing” (v. 24). His verdict in the manner of a curse does not void the covenant between them but fits the “crime.”[23] What the leaders had prescribed as a remedy to their dilemma (v. 20) is now confirmed by Joshua’s pronouncement: “some of you shall always be slaves, hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God” (v. 23). With a final note of irony, the implied author shows that the Gibeonites’ self-identification as Israel’s and Joshua’s servants will indeed be realized; thus “the Gibeonites unknowingly take on their own punishment.”[24] But strikingly, these ‘outsiders’, whom Israel had been commanded to destroy (Deut. 7:2), are to serve the nation at the very heart of its worship life—at “the altar of the LORD” (Josh. 9:27). Any lingering doubt as to whether the Gibeonites’ ruse would successfully spare them from destruction is put to rest. Joshua was as good as his word: he “saved them from the Israelites” (v. 26) and then rescued them from the Amorite kings (10:6).

Who are Israelites?

The narrative of Joshua 9 bears striking similarities with the covenant renewal ceremony found in Deuteronomy 29. Numerous textual affinities can be noted: clothes and sandals which have and have not “worn out” (Deut. 29:5; Josh. 9:4–5); food which is fit for consumption or “dry and moldy” (Deut. 29:6; Josh. 9:5); an account of the defeat of the kings Sihon and Og (Deut. 29:7; Josh. 9:10); references to “leaders,” “elders,” and “the men of Israel” (Deut. 29:10; Josh. 9:6, 11, 14, 18–20); the Israelites’ lack of “a mind to understand, or eyes to see, or ears to hear” (Deut. 29:4) and their inability to discern the Gibeonites’ trick (Josh. 9:14); and most significantly, “those who cut your wood and those who draw your water” (Deut. 29:11; Josh. 9:21, 23, 27). Whether the implied author of Joshua 9 intended this narrative to be a meditation on Moses’ farewell address, or whether the relationship is to be found in the opposite direction,[25] the picture of covenant-making and the critical role of obedience which are present in both texts are a key to its meaning, both for its implied audience and for readers today.[26]

When Moses summoned “all Israel” on the plains of Moab to review the terms of the covenant (Deut. 29:12), he spoke to a diverse group of people: men, women, children, “the aliens who are in your camp, both those who cut your wood and those who draw your water” (v.11), and “with those who are not here with us today” (v. 15). He reminded them of “all that the LORD did” (v. 2) in bringing them to the Promised Land and of the “great wonders” they had experienced along the way (v. 3; Josh. 9:10). It was because of Yahweh’s care that they had not suffered their clothes wearing out or their food rotting (vv. 5–6) and had defeated the Transjordanian kings who had opposed them (vv. 7–8). Moses admonished all those in attendance, therefore, “to diligently observe the words of this covenant, in order that you may succeed in everything that you do” (v. 9).

However, disobedience had already wreaked havoc during their wanderings in the wilderness. Infidelity to Yahweh had meant that one generation had to pass away before the people could enter the land (Num. 14:22–23), and Moses warned of the temptations that may already be causing hearts to turn away from the LORD (Deut. 29:18; cf. Josh. 24:23). “All who hear the words of this oath and bless themselves, thinking in their hearts, ‘We are safe even though we go our own stubborn ways’ ” (Deut. 29:19) should beware of God’s promised curses. In fact, in important ways the cursed people of Canaan, who in Joshua 9 look a lot like the Israelites’ idealized image of themselves—a “tricky” people demonstrating “unanimity”[27] and offering a profound confession of Yahweh’s mighty acts—are already a part of the people gathered on the plains of Moab. “Israel is Gibeon writ large.”[28]

It appears then that the implied author of Joshua 9 is speaking about more than just an illicit covenant made with a “foreigner who comes from a distant country” (Deut. 29:22). Instead, the issue of Israelite identity is in the narrative foreground: who and what defines the nation of God? Both the Gibeonites and Israelites have no inherent right to a covenant relationship either with each other or with God. Indeed, if the Mosaic covenant in all its stipulations were strictly followed to the letter, “all the curses written in this book will descend on them [both], and the LORD will blot out their names from under heaven” (Deut. 29:20).[29] The Gibeonites have a claim in the people of God only because their ruse went undiscovered by a “blind” Israel,[30] and Israel survives because of the compassion of Yahweh, who mercifully does not act “according to normal, covenantal expectation.”[31]

For the book of Joshua then, loyalty to Yahweh is of primary importance (23:11–13; 24:14, 16–18, 23, 27).[32] When ‘outsiders’ look like ‘insiders’ and enemies become covenantal partners, something other than “a rigorous concept of the people of Israel, descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” is at play.[33] The identity of God’s people, it seems, is dependent upon the grace and mercy of Yahweh. God still fights for disobedient Israel (Josh. 10:14) because of how they related to persons in their midst (Josh. 9:7, 16, 22) who were different than themselves.[34] The story in Joshua 9 therefore is a striking portrait of Yahweh’s intentions: “As God once mercifully dealt with the deceitful Israelites, so Joshua now does with the Gibeonites, who are an accurate personification of the relationship between God and Israel.”[35] Thus, in one key sense of the meaning of shalom, the covenant of peace between Gibeon and Israel (9:15; cf. 10:1) completes the people of God.[36]

Who are Mississippians?

A contemporary narrative which demonstrates many points of affinity with Joshua 9 is that of the story of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians and the relationships it has had with the United States of America and the State of Mississippi. It is impossible in the scope of this paper to do justice to the history of the Choctaw people, but a brief overview of their story will make clear that the themes of deception, annihilation, hidden things, servitude, and (most importantly) identity run through their narrative history as well. Roland Boer asks of the Joshua text, “Whom do the Gibeonites represent? Conquered native people who avoid death by a trick? Or Israelites uncertain about their own identity?”[37] One could ask similar questions of the Choctaw narrative as well: What should be made of these indigenous people, and where do they belong? What is more, who indeed is a Mississippian?

My interest in the Choctaws stems from 1976–77 when my husband and I in various capacities served the tribe (then numbering approximately 3000[38]) as volunteers with the Mennonite Church. Our service unit related as well to two Choctaw congregations, and my husband and I attended the Nanih Waiya church, where we often heard the legend of that “mother mound” out of which the Choctaw ancestors arose “wet and moist.”[39] Alarmed at the poverty, rampant alcoholism, and paternalistic practices of the Bureau of Indian Affairs administration, we heard too about days gone by when tribal circumstances were much worse.

The story was told that conditions at the turn of the 20th century were so horrendous for the Choctaws that in 1916 missionary advocates for the tribe—in order to solicit federal assistance—had physically taken Choctaw representatives to Washington, DC, in order to prove that there really were Choctaws in Mississippi, where it was reportedly “illegal” to be an Indian. In point of fact, any “journey” taken from a “far country” (Josh. 9:6, 12) occurred in the opposite direction, as an investigation team traveled to Mississippi to witness first-hand “the social isolation and economic poverty”[40] of the tribe. There were indeed Choctaws “living among” Mississippians (Josh. 9:7, 16, 22), but practically speaking, they (like the Gibeonites) were hiding in plain sight. Federal testimony was given that most Choctaw children were unable to attend schools—black or white—and lived with their families either on small, unproductive and heavily mortgaged farms or as sharecroppers in “decrepit shacks and often on the verge of starvation.”[41] Tuberculosis was a constant scourge, and illiteracy was common. Most Choctaw, in fact, spoke no English at all.[42]

What had occurred to this proud people to bring them to such destitution? At the turn of the 19th century, the Choctaws were part of the Five Civilized Tribes of the southeast—farming people known to be peaceful, loyal allies of the new nation and interested in adopting European ways of life. By 1830 the tribe numbered in excess of 19,000 individuals.[43] But successive federal administrations hungered for their vast land-holdings east of the Mississippi River. The pressures of western expansion and the need for military security[44] trumped Choctaw land claims, and through a series of treaties between the tribe and the federal government—which culminated in the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek in 1830—the Choctaws ceded all of their land east of the Mississippi River to the United States. Provisions were made as well for tribal removal from its ancestral lands to Indian Territory, where they were promised “domestic tranquility … and protection from foreign invasion. No whites … would be allowed to enter the [Choctaw] nation without [their] consent.”[45] However, unlike the covenant and oath Israel made with Gibeon which were upheld through war and “continue to this day” (Josh. 10:6–7; 9:27), the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek and those treaties that came before it were abrogated by the federal government almost at the time of their signings.[46] In essence, like the Jordan River for the Israelites, the Mississippi River became that boundary which most of the Choctaw people were forced to cross as they traveled on the Trail of Tears into their “promised” (but soon-to-be forsaken) land in Oklahoma. As the Gibeonites compromised their independence to avoid annihilation, the Choctaws ceded their rights to their land to stay alive as a tribe.

Yet an important provision of the 1830 treaty allowed any Choctaws to remain in Mississippi with rights to acreage, but only if they registered and lived on their claim for five years. In actuality, the competition for farm land suitable for the burgeoning cotton industry meant that injustice, fraud, harassment, and land speculation kept most of the remaining 5,000 Choctaws landless and dependent on white plantation owners to whom they were servile (Josh. 9:21).[47] Sadly, Christianity—which initially was seen as a way to civilize and integrate the Indian population into white society—became “an agent of separation”[48] in the segregated South. Choctaws, who were not welcome in white churches, viewed the white community with reciprocal suspicion and hostility, and unlike the Gibeonites and Israelites, deception played a key role in widening the gap between whites and Indians: “Long time ago, after the wars with Indians, they commenced having preaching for Indians, and got them together, and then carried them off West and deceived us … we will never forget it.”[49]

Throughout the 1800s, tribal numbers continued to dwindle. By the turn of the 20th century, the aforementioned tribal conditions seemed to predict the end of the Choctaws in Mississippi (cf. Josh. 8:22; 9:3). But federal intervention with the establishment of the Choctaw Indian Agency at Philadelphia, MS, in 1918 aided in the founding of schools and improved health conditions. Under the 1934 Federal Indian Reorganization Act, a Choctaw government was created, and reservation land was purchased in Neshoba and surrounding counties. The Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians was officially recognized by the United States in 1945, and around the time of my husband’s and my term of service in the mid-70s, a tribal chief was once again elected by the people. But being persons of ‘color’ still meant hard times in Mississippi—nearly 80% of the tribe was unemployed and prospects looked dim.

After our departure in June of 1977, circumstances for the tribe began to change dramatically. Chief Phillip Martin, ironically known as “The Moses of the Choctaws,”[50] sought to reverse the tribe’s situation and successfully began to fill up what had been an empty industrial park. By the late 1990s, the tribe (now numbering 9000+) had achieved almost full employment, and two tribal-owned and operated casinos, a water park, and championship-quality golf courses meant that the Choctaws were one of the state’s largest employers, “operating 19 businesses and employing more than 7,800 people.”[51] For a tribe that 100 years earlier had hid out in the hinterlands of Mississippi with no recognized identity and no legal claims, the turnaround is striking indeed. At Chief Martin’s death, well-deserved accolades included this from Gov. Haley Barbour: “he was a great Mississippian and will be missed.”[52]

Like the book of Joshua, Choctaw history is “not only a story of wars, removals and death, but also one of compromises and creative reinvention, of … communities continually remaking themselves in order to survive.”[53] The Gibeonites and Choctaws each demonstrate creative initiative in the face of impending doom that defies expectations. As well, the actions of Israelites and white Mississippians invite reflection on issues of dominance, justice, and greed. The ambiguities of deception, compromise, and identity are common to both narratives and blur the lines that distinguish enemies from covenant partners and aliens/natives from fellow citizens. Clearly, what determines civilized behavior and where one’s loyalty is due get complicated as histories of conquests are written. But the “simple” plot of both of these narratives remains to be pondered: indigenous people who have claims to the land long before conquerors take it away each find a way back “home”[54]—this time fully incorporated with their former enemies as a new people ready to face the world together.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Blenkinsopp, Joseph. “Are There Traces of the Gibeonite Covenant in Deuteronomy.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (1966): 207–219.
• Boer, Roland T. “Green Ants and Gibeonites: B. Wongar, Joshua 9, and Some Problems of Postcolonialism.” Semeia 75 (1996): 129–152.
• Bordewich, Fergus M. “How to Succeed in Business: Follow the Choctaws’ Lead.” Smithsonian 26, no. 12 (March 1996): 70.
• Boykin, Deborah. “Choctaw Indians in the 21st Century.” Mississippi Historical Society. http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/articles/10/Choctaw-indians-in-the-21st-century (accessed December 11, 2011).
• Child Welfare Information Gateway. “Project Protecting Our Native Young (PONY).” http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/site_visit/choctawfinal.pdf (accessed December 13, 2011).
• Coote, R. B. “The Book of Joshua.” In New Interpreter’s Bible. Vol. 2, edited by Leander Keck, 636–649. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998.
• Creach, Jerome F. D. Joshua. Interpretation. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003.
• DeRosier, Arthur H., Jr. The Removal of the Choctaw Indians. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1970.
• Eslinger, Lyle. Into the Hands of the Living God. JSOTSup, 84. Decatur, GA: Almond Press, 1989.
• Halpern, Baruch. “Gibeon: Israelite Diplomacy in the Conquest Era.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 37 (1975): 303–316.
• Hawk, L. Daniel. “Avatar in Three Dimensions.” Ashland Theological Journal 42 (2010): 1–11.
• ———. Every Promise Fulfilled: Contesting Plots in Joshua. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1991.
• ———. Joshua. Berit Olam. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000.
• ———. Joshua in 3-D: A Commentary on Biblical Conquest and Manifest Destiny. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2010.
• Hess, Richard S. Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008.
• Kearney, Peter J. “Role of the Gibeonites in the Deuteronomic History.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 35 (1973): 1–19.
• Kidwell, Clara Sue. Choctaws and Missionaries in Mississippi, 1818–1918. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995.
• Mbuwayesango, Dora. “Joshua.” In Global Bible Commentary, edited by Daniel Patte, 64–73. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2004.
• McConville, J. Gordon, and Stephen N. Williams. Joshua. Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans. 2010.
• Mitchell, Gordon. Together in the Land: A Reading of the Book of Joshua. JSOTSup 134. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
• Nelson, Richard D. Joshua: A Commentary. Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997.
• Polzin, Robert. Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History. New York: The Seabury Press, 1980.

Notes

1. All subsequent Scripture references are from the New Revised Standard Version.
2. Gordon Mitchell, Together in the Land: A Reading of the Book of Joshua, JSOTSup 134 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 190.
3. L. Daniel Hawk, Every Promise Fulfilled: Contesting Plots in Joshua (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1991), 144.
4. L. Daniel Hawk, “Avatar in Three Dimensions,” Ashland Theological Journal 42 (2010): 1.
5. J. Gordon McConville and Stephen N. Williams, Joshua, Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2010), 47.
6. Richard S. Hess, Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 193.
7. Hawk, Every Promise, 82.
8. Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Are There Traces of the Gibeonite Covenant in Deuteronomy,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 28 (1966): 214. See also Baruch Halpern, “Gibeon: Israelite Diplomacy in the Conquest Era,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 37 (1975), 313.
9. Mitchell, Together in the Land, 176.
10. Richard D. Nelson, Joshua: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 129.
11. Hess, Joshua, 195.
12. Nelson, Joshua, 133.
13. Jerome F. D. Creach, Joshua, Interpretation (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 84.
14. Hawk, Joshua, 139.
15. L. Daniel Hawk, Joshua in 3-D: A Commentary on Biblical Conquest and Manifest Destiny (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2010), 105.
16. Creach, Joshua, 85; see also, Mitchell, Together in the Land, 170.
17. Hawk, 3-D, 106.
18. Mitchell, Together in the Land, 169.
19. Nelson, Joshua, 130.
20. Ibid., 127.
21. Hawk, 3-D, 108.
22. Creach, Joshua, 86.
23. Mitchell, Together in the Land, 171.
24. Ibid.
25. Peter J. Kearney, “The Role of the Gibeonites in the Deuteronomic History,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 35 (1973): 1.
26. Robert Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History (New York: The Seabury Press, 1980), 119.
27. Hawk, Joshua, 139.
28. Polzin, Moses, 120.
29. Ibid., 119.
30. McConville and Williams, Joshua, 49.
31. Lyle Eslinger, Into the Hands of the Living God, JSOTSup, 84 (Decatur, GA: Almond Press, 1989), 48.
32. Hawk, Every Promise, 143.
33. McConville and Williams, Joshua, 50.
34. Dora Mbuwayesango, “Joshua,” Global Bible Commentary, ed. Daniel Patte (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2004), 69.
35. Polzin, Moses, 120.
36. A debt of gratitude is owed to Wes Sutermeister for this insight.
37. Roland T. Boer, “Green Ants and Gibeonites: B. Wongar, Joshua 9, and Some Problems of Postcolonialism,” Semeia 75 (1996): 148.
38. Child Welfare Information Gateway, “Project Protecting Our Native Young (PONY); Site Visit Highlights: Tour,” 8, http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/site_visit/choctawfinal.pdf (accessed December 13, 2011).
39. Fergus M. Bordewich, “How to Succeed in Business: Follow the Choctaws’ Lead,” Smithsonian 26, no. 12 (March 1996): 70. For curiosity’s sake, see Deut. 29:19b.
40. Clara Sue Kidwell, Choctaws and Missionaries in Mississippi, 1818–1819 (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995), 193.
41. Kidwell, Choctaws and Missionaries, 194.
42. Bordewich, “Follow the Choctaws’ Lead,” 70.
43. Ibid.
44. Deborah Boykin, “Choctaw Indians in the 21st Century,” Mississippi Historical Society, http://mshistory.k12.ms.us/articles/10/Choctaw-indians-in-the-21st-century (accessed December 11, 2011).
45. Arthur H. DeRosier, Jr. The Removal of the Choctaw Indians (New York: Harper, 1972), 125.
46. For a Choctaw reflection on this sad state of affairs, see George W. Harkins, “Farewell Letter to the American People,” Sequoyah Research Center, American Native Press Archives, www.anpa.ualr.edu/trailOfTears/Letters/1831DecemberGeorgeWHarkinstotheAmericanPeople.htm.
47. Kidwell, Choctaws and Missionaries, 165–169.
48. Ibid., 177.
49. Ibid.
50. Stephen Miller, “Remembrances: ‘Moses’ of the Choctaws Led the Indian Tribe to Prosperity,” Wall Street Journal, February 6, 2010 (Eastern edition), A.5.
51. Boykin, “Choctaw Indians.”
52. The Neshoba Democrat on the Web, “Chief Phillip Martin said to be ‘Moses’ of the Choctaw Indians,” (February 10, 2010), neshobademocrat.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=297&ArticleID=20395 (accessed December 13, 2011).
53. Bordewich, “Follow the Choctaws’ Lead,” 70.
54. R. B. Coote, “The Book of Joshua,” in New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 2, ed. Leander Keck (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 642.