What does it Say?

Two related passages from the bible. The first is from just after the destruction of Jericho. Joshua pronounces an oath over the fallen city.

Joshua 6:26 At that time Joshua pronounced this solemn oath: "Cursed before the LORD is the man who undertakes to rebuild this city, Jericho: "At the cost of his firstborn son will he lay its foundations; at the cost of his youngest will he set up its gates."

The second is from 1 Kings 16 when someone actually rebuilds Jericho.

1 Kings 16:34 In Ahab's time, Hiel of Bethel rebuilt Jericho. He laid its foundations at the cost of his firstborn son Abiram, and he set up its gates at the cost of his youngest son Segub, in accordance with the word of the LORD spoken by Joshua son of Nun.

The traditional interpretation that can be heard in pulpits all around Christendom is that Joshua pronounces a curse and Hiel, either ignoring the curse or in ignorance of it, brings it down upon his head when he rebuilds the city several hundred years later.

Misfortune starts at the beginning of the work with the death of his eldest son, continues throughout and finally culminates with the death of his youngest son when the work is completed. While the passage doesn’t say, it is generally assumed that any other sons Hiel may have had also perish while the rebuilding is in process.

That’s the basics, but from these basics a good preacher can launch into a wide range of lessons to be learned and the symbolic significance of the fallen walls. All in all it’s a good source for the demonstration of the power of God and the cost of disobedience.

Or is it?

There is another interpretation, one that may, or may not, be supported by archaeological evidence. Like many other things, much is in the eye of the beholder.

There is evidence that what is known as “foundation sacrifice” was widely practiced throughout Europe and the Middle East in ancient times. Certainly the Romans would bury vases and pottery containing food and drink for good luck when putting up a building. But the Romans were civilized compared to the mid-eastern tribes in biblical times.

Digs in Canaan have uncovered the remains of children or adolescents buried into building and gate foundations. It has long been suspected that child sacrifice was widespread in Canaan and even practiced by the Hebrews. The bible repeatedly admonishes kings for sacrificing their sons and daughters (see 2 Kings 16:3 and 2 Kings 17:17 for example). It’s not until King Josiah of Judah marches out with his army, tears down all the altars at which sacrifices are occurring and kills all the priests associated with the rites that the practice begins to die down (see 2 Kings 23).

So, what’s the alternative interpretation? The alternative is that Hiel, tasked with refortifying Jericho, sacrifices his eldest son at the start of the rebuilding, and his youngest son when the gates are restored, as “foundation sacrifices” to appease the gods and then the “curse” is inserted into the mouth of Joshua well after the actual events.

Keep in mind that the Northern Kingdom of Israel was polytheistic and worshipped a wide range of Canaanite deities including Baal and Yahweh.

This interpretation would line up with the Documentary Hypothesis. If you buy into that then the rebuilding of Jericho occurs well before the books of Joshua and Kings are written so it becomes very easy to put a curse into the mouth of Joshua to describe what already has occurred. The relationship between the death of Hiel’s sons and the rebuilding of Jericho would be much more obvious if they were sacrificed wouldn’t it?

You don’t like that alternative explanation? To be honest with you, if you think carefully about the traditional interpretation it’s not very complimentary to God. The traditional interpretation is that God kills two innocent children because of a curse laid down by Joshua and a sacrilege perpetrated by Hiel in order to please Ahab the then King of Israel. You remember Ahab right? He’s the one that married Jezebel.

Is that justice? Why not zap Hiel or Ahab himself? Why pick on Hiel’s children? This is not an uncommon theme in ancient times. You punish the parent by doing something nasty, and often fatal, to the children. Herodotus tells the story of how Xerxes became incensed when one of his advisors asks that his son be allowed to remain at home rather than accompany the army into Greece. Xerxes punishes the man by having his son split in half length wise and then mounted upon posts on either side of the road as the army marches through.

But Xerxes wasn’t God now was he?

Herodotus relays the story as a demonstration of what would be considered a gross injustice by the Greeks in the 5th century BCE. So how come supposedly more civilized folks admire the story of a God who perpetrates an even grosser injustice?

Personally I prefer the alternative interpretation. In that interpretation it’s men that perpetrate the evil and not the deity.