Early 4th-century AD manuscript of Joshua from Egypt, inCoptic translation
TheBook of Joshua[a] is the sixth book in theHebrew Bible and theOld Testament, and is the first book of theDeuteronomistic history, the story of Israel from the conquest ofCanaan to theBabylonian exile.[2]: 42 It tells of the campaigns of theIsraelites in central, southern and northern Canaan, the destruction of their enemies, and the division of the land among theTwelve Tribes, framed by two set-piece speeches, the first by God commanding the conquest of the land, and, at the end, the second byJoshua warning of the need for faithful observance of the Law (torah) revealed toMoses.[3]
The consensus among scholars is that the Book of Joshua is historically problematic and should be treated with caution in reconstructing the history of early Israel.[4] The earliest parts of the book are possibly chapters 2–11, the story of the conquest; these chapters were later incorporated into an early form of Joshua likely written late in the reign of kingJosiah (reigned 640–609 BC), but the book was not completed until after the fall ofJerusalem to theNeo-Babylonian Empire in 586 BC, and possibly not until after the return from theBabylonian exile in 539 BC.[5]: 10–11
Many scholars interpret the book of Joshua as describing what would now be consideredgenocide.[6] Other scholars counter that calling what the book of Joshua relates a "genocide" is anachronistic.[7]
Joshua passing the River Jordan with the Ark of the Covenant, painted byBenjamin West, 1800
Chapter 1 commences "after the death ofMoses"[8] and presents the first of three important moments in Joshua marked with major speeches and reflections by the main characters; here firstGod, and thenJoshua, make speeches about the goal of conquest of thePromised Land; in chapter 12, the narrator looks back on the conquest; and in chapter 23 Joshua gives a speech about what must be done ifIsrael is to live in peace in the land.[9]: 49
God commissions Joshua to take possession of the land and warns him to keep faith with theMosaic covenant. God's speech foreshadows the major themes of the book: the crossing of theJordan River and conquest of the land, its distribution, and the imperative need for obedience to the Law. Joshua's own immediate obedience is seen in his speeches to the Israelite commanders and to theTransjordanian tribes, and the Transjordanians' affirmation of Joshua's leadership echoesYahweh's assurances of victory.[10]: 175
The Ark Passes Over the Jordan (watercolor c. 1896–1902 byJames Tissot)
Rahab, a Canaanitewoman of the Bible, sets in motion the entrance into Canaan by the Israelites.[11] To avoid repeating failed attempts byMoses to have notable men of Israel predict the success rate of entry into Canaan mentioned in thebook of Numbers, Joshua tasks two regular men with entering Jericho as spies. They arrive at Rahab's house and spend the night. The king of Jericho, having heard of possible Israelite spies, demands that Rahab reveal the men. She tells him that she is unaware of their whereabouts, when in reality, she hid them on her roof under flax. The next morning, Rahab professes her faith in God to the men and acknowledges her belief that Canaan was divinely reserved for the Israelites from the beginning. Because of Rahab's actions, the Israelites are able to enter Canaan.[11]
The Israelites cross theJordan River through a miraculous intervention ofGod with theArk of the Covenant and arecircumcised atGibeath-Haaraloth (translated ashill of foreskins), renamedGilgal in memory.Gilgal sounds likeGallothi, "I have removed", but is more likely to translate as "circle of standing stones". The conquest begins with thebattle of Jericho, followed byAi (central Canaan), after which Joshua builds an altar to Yahweh atMount Ebal in northern Canaan and renews theCovenant in a ceremony with elements of a divine land-grant ceremony, similar to ceremonies known fromMesopotamia.[10]: 180
The narrative then switches to the south. TheGibeonites trick the Israelites into entering an alliance with them by saying that they are notCanaanites. Despite this, the Israelites decide to keep the alliance byenslaving them instead. An alliance ofAmorite kingdoms headed by the Canaanite king ofJerusalem attacks the Gibeonites but they are defeated withYahweh's miraculous help of stopping theSun and theMoon, and hurling down largehailstones (Joshua 10:10–14). The enemy kings were eventually hanged on trees. TheDeuteronomist author may have used the then-recent 701 BC campaign of theAssyrian kingSennacherib in theKingdom of Judah as his model; the hanging of the captured kings is in accordance withAssyrian practice of the 8th century BC.[12]
With the south conquered the narrative moves to the northern campaign. A powerful multi-national (or more accurately, multi-ethnic) coalition headed by the king ofHazor, the most important northern city, is defeated at theBattle of the Waters of Merom with Yahweh's help. Hazor itself is then captured and destroyed. Chapter 11:16–23 summarises the extent of the conquest: Joshua has taken the entire land, almost entirely through military victories, with only the Gibeonites agreeing to peaceful terms with Israel. The land then "had rest from war" (Joshua 11:23, repeated at 14:15). Chapter 12 lists the vanquished kings on both sides of theJordan River: the two kings who ruled east of the Jordan who were defeated under Moses' leadership (Joshua 12:1–6; cf. Numbers 21), and the 31 kings on the west of the Jordan who were defeated under Joshua's leadership (Joshua 12:7–24). The list of the 31 kings is quasi-tabular:
Map of theHoly Land,Pietro Vesconte, 1321, showing the allotments of the tribes of Israel. Described byAdolf Erik Nordenskiöld as "the first non-Ptolemaic map of a definite country."[13]1759 map of the tribal allotments of Israel
Having described how the Israelites and Joshua have carried out the first of their God's commands, the narrative now turns to the second: to "put the people in possession of the land." Joshua is "old, advanced (or stricken) in years" by this time.[14]
This land distribution is a "covenantal land grant":Yahweh, as king, is issuing eachtribe its territory.[10]: 183 The "Cities of Refuge" andLevitical cities are attached to the end, since it is necessary for the tribes to receive their grants before they allocate parts of it to others. The Transjordanian tribes are dismissed, affirming their loyalty to Yahweh.
The book reaffirms Moses' allocation of land east of the Jordan to the tribes ofReuben andGad and the half-tribe ofManasseh,[15] and then describes how Joshua divided the newly conquered land ofCanaan into parcels, and assigned them to the tribes bylot.[16] Joshua 14:1 also makes reference to the role ofEleazar the priest (ahead of Joshua) in the distribution process.[17] The description serves a theological function to show how thepromise of the land was realized in the biblical narrative; its origins are unclear, but the descriptions may reflect geographical relations among the places named.[18]: 5
The wording of Joshua 18:1–4 suggests that the tribes of Reuben, Gad,Judah,Ephraim and Manasseh received their land allocation some time before the "remaining seven tribes",[19] and a 21-member expedition set out to survey the remainder of the land with a view to organising the allocation to the tribes ofSimeon,Benjamin,Asher,Naphtali,Zebulun,Issachar andDan. Subsequently, 48cities with their surrounding lands were allocated to theTribe of Levi.[20]
Joshua completed the division of the land in its boundaries, and the children gave a portion to Joshua, by the commandment of the Lord. They gave to him the city for which he asked,Thamnath Sarach gave they him in Mount Ephraim, and Joshua built the city, and dwelt in it. And Joshua took the stone knives with which he hadcircumcised the children of Israel, which were in the way in the wilderness, and he placed them in Tamnath Sarach.[21]
By the end of chapter 21, the narrative records that the fulfilment of God's promise of land, rest and supremacy over the enemies of the Israelites was complete.[22] The tribes to whom Moses had granted land east of the Jordan are authorized to return home toGilead (here used in the widest sense for the wholeTransjordan district),[23] having faithfully 'kept the charge'[24] of supporting the tribes occupying Canaan. They are granted "riches... with very much livestock, withsilver, withgold, withbronze, withiron, and with very much clothing" as a reward.[25]
Joshua, in his old age and conscious that he is "going the way of all the earth",[26] gathers the leaders of the Israelites together and reminds them of Yahweh's great works for them, and of the need to love Yahweh.[27] The Israelites are told – just as Joshua himself had been told[28] – that they must comply with "all that is written in the Book of the Law of Moses",[29] neither "turn[ing] aside from it to the right hand or to the left" (i.e. by adding to the law, or diminishing from it).[30]
Joshua meets again with all the people atShechem in chapter 24 and addresses them a second time. He recounts the history of God's formation of the Israelite nation, beginning with "Terah, the father ofAbraham andNahor, [who] lived beyond theEuphrates River and worshiped other gods."[31] He invited the Israelites to choose between serving the Lord who had delivered them fromEgypt, or the gods which their ancestors had served on the other side of the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land they now lived. The people chose to serve the Lord, a decision which Joshua recorded in the Book of the Law of God. He then erected a memorial stone "under the oak that was by the sanctuary of the Lord" in Shechem.[32] The oak is associated with the Oak ofMoreh where, during his travels in this area, Abram built an altar after the Lord appeared to him.[33][34]Thus "Joshua made a covenant with the people", literally "cut a covenant", a phrase common to theHebrew,Greek, andLatin languages. It derives from the custom ofsacrifice, in which the victims were cut in pieces and offered to thedeity invoked in ratification of the engagement.[35]
The people then returned to their inheritance, i.e., their allocated lands.[36]
The death of Eleazar and his burial in land belonging toPhinehas in the mountains of Ephraim.[40]
There were no Levitical cities given to the descendants ofAaron in Ephraim, so theologiansCarl Friedrich Keil andFranz Delitzsch supposed the land may have been atGeba in the territory of theTribe of Benjamin: "the situation, 'upon the mountains of Ephraim', is not at variance with this view, as these mountains extended, according to Judges 4:5, etc., far into the territory of Benjamin".[41]
In some manuscripts and editions of theSeptuagint, there is an additional verse relating to the apostasy of the Israelites after Joshua's death.
The Book of Joshua is ananonymous work. TheBabylonian Talmud, written in the 3rd to 5th centuries AD, attributed it toJoshua himself, but this idea was rejected as untenable byJohn Calvin (1509–64), and by the time ofThomas Hobbes (1588–1679) it was recognised that the book must have been written much later than the period it depicted.[9]: 26–30 There is now general agreement that it was composed as part of a larger work, theDeuteronomistic history, stretching from theBook of Deuteronomy to theBooks of Kings,[10]: 174 composed first at the court of kingJosiah in the late 7th century BC, and extensively revised in the 6th century BC.[9]: 63
"Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon" (sculpture by Shmuel Bar-Even)
The prevailing scholarly view is that Joshua is not a factual account of historical events.[4][42][43]: 4 The apparent setting of Joshua in the 13th century BC[43] corroborates with theBronze Age Collapse, which was indeed a time of widespread city-destruction. However, with a few exceptions (Hazor,Lachish), the destroyed cities are not the ones the Bible associates with Joshua, and the ones it does associate with him show little or no sign of even being occupied at the time.[44]: 71–72 The archaeological evidence shows thatJericho andAi were not occupied in the Near EasternLate Bronze Age,[45] although recent excavations at Jericho have questioned this.[46]
According toEerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, the story of the conquest represents the nationalistpropaganda of the 8th-century BC kings ofJudah and their claims to the territory of theKingdom of Israel;[42] incorporated into an early form of Joshua written late in the reign of kingJosiah (reigned 640–609 BC). The Book of Joshua was probably revised and completed after thefall of Jerusalem to theNeo-Babylonian Empire in 586 BC, and possibly after the return from theBabylonian exile in 538 BC.[5]: 10–11
In the 1930sMartin Noth made a sweeping criticism of the usefulness of the Book of Joshua for history.[47] Noth was a student ofAlbrecht Alt, who emphasizedform criticism (whose pioneer had beenHermann Gunkel in the 19th century) and the importance ofetiology.[47][48] Alt and Noth posited a peaceful movement of the Israelites into various areas of Canaan, in contradiction to the Biblical account.[49] American archaeologistWilliam F. Albright questioned the "tenacity" of etiologies, which were key to Noth's analysis of the campaigns in Joshua.
The site ofEt-Tell (identified asAi) was first excavated byJudith Marquet-Krause.[50] Her investigations in the 1930s showed that the city, an early target for conquest in the putative Joshua account, had existed and been destroyed, but in the 22nd century BC.[47] Some alternate sites for Ai, such as Khirbet el-Maqatir or Khirbet Nisya, have been proposed which would partially resolve the discrepancy in dates, but these sites have not been widely accepted.[51] In 1951,Kathleen Kenyon showed that City IV atTell es-Sultan (Jericho) was destroyed at the end of theMiddle Bronze Age (c. 2100–1550 BC), not during theLate Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 BC). Kenyon argued that the early Israelite campaign could not be historically corroborated, but rather explained as an etiology of the location and a representation of the Israelite settlement.[52][53] Although this destruction is dated to 16th century by carbon dating, scholars propose that this destruction could be ascribed to eitherAhmose I (1549–1524 BC), whose royal signet was found in the necropolis in a slightly later LB I tomb, orTuthmose III (1479–1425 BC), whose scarab was recovered from a cemetery northwest of Jericho.[54]
More recently,Lorenzo Nigro of the Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan has argued that there was a later settlement (City V) at the site during the 14th and 13th centuries BC.[46][55] He states that the expedition detected Late Bronze Age II layers in several parts of the tell, although its upper layers were heavily cut by leveling operations during the Iron Age, which explains the low amount of 13th-century materials.[56] Nigro says that the idea that the Biblical account should have a literal archaeological correspondence is erroneous, and "any attempt to seriously identify something on the ground with biblical personages and their acts" is hazardous.[57]
In 1955,G. Ernest Wright discussed the correlation of archaeological data to the early Israelite campaigns, which he divided into three phases per the Book of Joshua. He pointed to two sets of archaeological findings that "seem to suggest that the biblical account is in general correct regarding the nature of the late thirteenth and twelfth-eleventh centuries in the country" (i.e., "a period of tremendous violence").[58] He gives particular weight to what were then recent digs at Hazor byYigael Yadin.[58]
ArchaeologistAmnon Ben-Tor of theHebrew University of Jerusalem, who replaced Yadin as the supervisor of excavations at Hazor in 1990, believed that recently unearthed evidence of violent destruction by burning verifies the Biblical account of the city's conquest by the Israelites.[59] In 2012, a team led by Ben-Tor and Sharon Zuckerman discovered a scorched palace from the 13th century BC in whose storerooms they found 3,400-year-old ewers holding burned crops.[59] Sharon Zuckerman did not agree with Ben-Tor's theory, and claimed that the burning was the result of the city's numerous factions opposing each other with excessive force.[60]
In her commentary for theWestminster Bible Companion series, Carolyn Pressler suggested that readers of Joshua should give priority to its theological message ("what passages teach about God") and be aware of what these would have meant to audiences in the 7th and 6th centuries BC.[61]: 5–6 Richard Nelson explained that the needs of thecentralised monarchy favoured a single story of origins, combining old traditions of anexodus from Egypt, belief in anational god as "divine warrior," and explanations for ruined cities,social stratification and ethnic groups, and contemporary tribes.[62]: 5
Lester L. Grabbe states that when he was studying for his doctorate (more than three decades before 2007), the "substantial historicity" of the Bible's stories of the patriarchs and the conquest ofCanaan was widely accepted, but today it is hard to find a historian who still believes in it.[63]
Ann E. Killebrew writes that, while archaeological findings atHazor and theMount Ebal altar and a few literary elements suggest that the Book of Joshua may preserve some real memories of Israel's early history in Canaan, "consensus exists that, whatever its sources (either oral and/or written), the conquest account as narrated is historically problematic and should be treated with caution."[64]
In 2005,Pierre de Miroschedji published an article in the journalLa Recherche. He wrote:
In general, no serious archaeologist today believes that the events narrated in the Book of Joshua have any real historical basis. Archaeological surveys, especially in the early 1990s, have revealed that the Israelite culture arose in the hills of the central part of the country, as a continuation of the Canaanite culture of the previous era.[65]
The consensus of historians is that the ancient Israelites did not enter Canaan from outside and did not conquer it in a military campaign.[66][67][68]
"there is little that we can salvage from Joshua's stories of the rapid, wholesale destruction of Canaanite cities and the annihilation of the local population. It simply did not happen; the archeological evidence is indisputable."This is the judgment of one of the more conservative historians of ancient Israel. To be sure, there are far more conservative historians who try to defend the historicity of the entire biblical account beginning with Abraham, but their work rests on confessional presuppositions and is an exercise in apologetics rather than historiography. Most biblical scholars have come to terms with the fact that much (not all!) of the biblical narrative is only loosely related to history and cannot be verified.[69]
The overarching theological theme of the Deuteronomistic history is faithfulness and God's mercy, and their opposites, faithlessness and God's wrath. In theBook of Judges, theBooks of Samuel, and theBooks of Kings, theIsraelites become faithless and God ultimately shows his anger by sending his people into exile.[76] But in Joshua Israel is obedient, Joshua is faithful, and God fulfills his promise and gives them the land as a result.[61]: 3–4 Yahweh's war campaign inCanaan validates Israel's entitlement to the land[77]: 158–159 and provides a paradigm of how Israel was to live there: twelve tribes, with a designated leader, united bycovenant in warfare and in worship of Yahweh alone at a single sanctuary, all in obedience to the commands ofMoses as found in theBook of Deuteronomy.[78]: 162
The Book of Joshua takes forward Deuteronomy's theme of Israel as a single people worshippingYahweh in the land God has given them.[77]: 159 Yahweh, as the main character in the book, takes the initiative in conquering the land, and Yahweh's power wins the battles. For example, the walls ofJericho fall because Yahweh fights for Israel, not because the Israelites show superior fighting ability.[5]: 7–8 The potential disunity of Israel is a constant theme, the greatest threat of disunity coming from the tribes east of the Jordan. Chapter 22:19 even hints that the land across the Jordan is unclean and that the tribes who live there have secondary status.[5]: 9
Land is the central topic of Joshua.[43]: 11 The introduction to Deuteronomy recalled how Yahweh had given the land to the Israelites but then withdrew the gift when Israel showed fear and only Joshua andCaleb had trusted in God.[79]: 33 The land is Yahweh's to give or to withhold, and the fact that he has promised it to Israel gives Israel an inalienable right to take it. Forexilic andpost-exilic readers, the land was both the sign of Yahweh's faithfulness and Israel's unfaithfulness, as well as the centre of their ethnic identity. In Deuteronomistic theology, "rest" meant Israel's unthreatened possession of the land, the achievement of which began with the conquests of Joshua.[62]: 15–16
The Taking of Jericho (watercolor c. 1896–1902 by James Tissot)
William G. Dever writes that Joshua "carries out a systematic campaign against the civilians of Canaan – men, women and children – that amounts togenocide"[80] although other scholars reject using "genocide" as a label to describe the conquest.[81][verification needed][82][verification needed]This practice was known asherem, as described in Deuteronomy 20:17, which entailed notreaties with the enemy, nomercy, and nointermarriage.[10]: 175 "The extermination of the nations glorifies Yahweh as a warrior and promotes Israel's claim to the land," while their continued survival "explores the themes of disobedience and penalty and looks forward to the story told in Judges and Kings."[62]: 18–19 The divine call for massacre atJericho and elsewhere can be explained in terms of cultural norms (Israel was not the onlyIron Age state to practiceherem) and theology (e.g. to ensure Israel's purity, fulfill God's promise, judge the Canaanites for their "sexual misconduct").[83][10]: 175 The violent language within the story has also been taken by several scholars as being hyperbolic, drawing comparisons between the biblical account and extrabiblical military reports.[84][85]
Patrick D. Miller in his commentary on Deuteronomy, writes that "there is no real way to make such reports palatable to the hearts and minds of contemporary readers and believers," and that the "tension between the Israelites and its neighbors was fundamentally a religious conflict," writing further for the need to understand what the reports teach "so that they make some sense to us in the whole." Miller writes further that the "Deuteronomistic history in Joshua through Second Kings is a story of constant or recurring apostasy" and that for the Israelites, maintaining their allegiance with Yahweh "required, in their sight, removal of all temptation."[79]: 40–42 Nissim Amzallag sees similarities between Joshua's conquest and thereturn of Judean exiles inEzra-Nehemiah but compared to the former, the Judeans merely refrained from intermarrying the "Canaanites". These "Canaanites" were most likely non-exiled Judeans, who were contaminated with "foreign influence".[86]
Obedience versus disobedience is a constant theme of the work.[87]: 79 Obedience ties in the Jordan crossing, the defeat of Jericho andAi, circumcision and Passover, and the public display and reading of the Law. Disobedience appears in the story ofAchan (stoned for violating theherem command), theGibeonites, and the altar built by the Transjordan tribes. Joshua's two final addresses challenge the Israel of the future (the readers of the story) to obey the most important command of all, to worship Yahweh and no other gods. Joshua thus illustrates the central Deuteronomistic message, that obedience leads to success and disobedience to ruin.[62]: 20
The Deuteronomistic history draws parallels in proper leadership betweenMoses, Joshua andJosiah.[62]: 102 God's commission to Joshua in chapter 1 is framed as a royal installation. The people's pledge of loyalty to Joshua as the successor of Moses recalls royal practices. The covenant-renewal ceremony led by Joshua was the prerogative of the kings of Judah. God's command to Joshua to meditate on the "book of the law" day and night parallels the description of Josiah in 2 Kings 23:25 as a king uniquely concerned with the study of the law. The two figures had identical territorial goals; Josiah died in 609 BC while attempting to annex the former Israel to his own kingdom of Judah.[88]
Some of the parallels with Moses can be seen in the following, and not exhaustive, list:[10]: 174
Joshua sentspies to scout out the land near Jericho, just as Moses sent spies from the wilderness to scout out thePromised Land[89]
Joshua led the Israelites out of the wilderness into the Promised Land, crossing the Jordan River as if on dry ground,[90] just as Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt through theRed Sea, which they crossed as if on dry land[91]
Joshua's vision of the "commander of Yahweh's army" is reminiscent of the divine revelation to Moses in theburning bush[93]
Joshua successfully intercedes on behalf of the Israelites when Yahweh is angry for their failure to fully observe the "ban" (herem), just as Moses frequently persuaded God not to punish the people[94]
Joshua and the Israelites were able to defeat the people at Ai because Joshua followed the divine instruction to extend his sword,[95] just as the people were able to defeat theAmalekites as long as Moses extended his hand that held thestaff of God[96]
Joshua is "old, advanced in years" at the time when the Israelites can begin to settle on the promised land, just as Moses was old when he died having seen, but not entered, the Promised Land[97]
Joshua served as the mediator of the renewed covenant between Yahweh and Israel at Shechem,[98] just as Moses was the mediator of Yahweh's covenant with the people atMount Sinai/Mount Horeb.
Before his death, Joshua delivered a farewell address to the Israelites,[99] just as Moses had delivered his farewell address.[100]
Moses lived to be 120[97] and Joshua lived to be 110.[101]
Joshua Leading the Israelites Across the Jordan on 10th of Nisan
The Book of Joshua deals with the conquest of the Land of Israel and its settlement, which are politically charged issues inIsraeli society. In her article "The Rise and Fall of the Book of Joshua in Public Education in the Light of Ideological Changes in Israeli Society," Israeli biblical scholar Leah Mazor analyzes the history of the book and reveals a complex system of references to it expressed in a wide range of responses, often extreme, moving from narrow-minded admiration, through embarrassment and thunderous silence to a bitter and poignant critique.[102] The changes in the status of the Book of Joshua, she shows, are the manifestations of the ongoing dialogue that Israeli society has with its cultural heritage, with its history, with the Zionist idea, and with the need to redefine its identity.
David Ben-Gurion saw in the war narrative of Joshua an ideal basis for a unifying nationalmyth for the State of Israel, framed against a common enemy, theArabs.[103] He met with politicians and scholars such as Biblical scholarShemaryahu Talmon to discuss Joshua's supposed conquests and later published a book of the meeting transcripts; in a lecture at Ben-Gurion's home, archaeologistYigael Yadin argued for the historicity of the Israelite military campaign pointing to the conquests ofHazor,Bethel, andLachish.[103]Palestinian writerNur Masalha claimed that Zionism had presented the1948 Arab-Israeli War (which saw the creation of theState of Israel) as a "miraculous" clearing of the land based on Joshua, and the Bible as a mandate for the expulsion of the Palestinians.[104]
The biblical narrative of conquest has been used as an apparatus of critique against Zionism. For example, Michael Prior criticizes the use of the campaign in Joshua to favor "colonial enterprises" (in general, not only Zionism), which have been interpreted as validatingethnic cleansing. He asserts that the Bible was used to make the mistreatment of Palestinians more morally palatable.[105] A related moral condemnation can be seen in "The political sacralization of imperial genocide: contextualizing Timothy Dwight'sThe Conquest of Canaan" by Bill Templer.[106] This kind of critique is not new;Jonathan Boyarin notes howFrederick W. Turner blamed Israel'smonotheism for the very idea of genocide, which Boyarin found "simplistic" yet with precedents.[107] In her tenure asMinister of Education,Israeli leftist politicianShulamit Aloni often complained about the centrality of the book of Joshua in the curricula, as opposed to the secondaryness of humane and universal principles found in theBooks of the Prophets. Her attempt to change the Bible study program was unsuccessful.[108]
Harvard Bible professor and conservative RabbiShaye J. D. Cohen stated he is not happy with the genocide chapters being part of the Torah, and he would remove those from it, if it were his choice.[6]
^abAchtemeier, Paul J.; Boraas, Roger S (1996).The Harper Collins Bible Dictionary. Harper San Francisco.ISBN978-0-06-060037-2.
^abKillebrew 2020, p. 83: "Although a few elements of the conquest narrative suggest an authentic historical component, consensus exists that, whatever its sources (either oral and/or written), the conquest account as narrated is historically problematic and should be treated with caution."
Lemos 2016, pp. 27–28, 30: "Thus reads Deuteronomy 20:16–172—startling verses from a passage whose regulations on war are in many ways exemplified by the conquest narrative found in Joshua 1–12. Robert Coote has referred to these events as "an orgy of terror, violence, and mayhem."3 Certainly, most contemporary readers recoil upon reading the account of the annihilation of Canaanite cities,4 and many scholars who have written on them have referred to the events described with the term "genocide."5"
Lemos, Tracy Maria (2016). "Dispossessing Nations: Population Growth, Scarcity, and Genocide in Ancient Israel and Twentieth-Century Rwanda". In Olyan, Saul M. (ed.).Ritual Violence in the Hebrew Bible. Oxford University Press. pp. 27–66.doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190249588.003.0003.ISBN978-0-19-024958-8.
Joseph, Simon J. (2014).The Nonviolent Messiah: Jesus, Q, and the Enochic Tradition. Fortress Press. p. unpaginated.ISBN978-1-4514-8443-4. Retrieved23 December 2024.... many scholars now doubt the historicity of the conquest narratives of Joshua 6– 11,[67] the ethics of divinely mandated genocide are inescapably problematic.[68] There is simply no denying that the Torah's narratives of genocide ...
Trimm, Charlie (2021). Taylor, Tristan S. (ed.).A Cultural History of Genocide in the Ancient World. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. p. 38.doi:10.5040/9781350034686.ch-1.ISBN978-1-350-03468-6.Genocide scholars frequently refer to the biblical accounts in Joshua as genocidal without discussion, assuming that simply quoting the relevant texts will convince anyone of their identity as genocide (Chalk and Jonassohn 1990: 61–3; Moshman 2008: 82–3). Some biblical scholars who accept the historicity of the events agree with this assessment. For example, looking at the events from the perspective of the New Testament, C. S. Cowles argues that "a radical shift in the understanding of God's character and the sanctity of all human life occurred in between the days of the first Joshua and the second Joshua (i.e., Jesus) is beyond dispute" (2003: 41).
Trimm 2021, p. 49: "In sum, the records of the ancient Near East provide us with some events that could potentially fit the title of genocide. However, upon closer examination it is difficult to find examples of genocide in the ancient Near East due to very different cultural ideas. While mass killing certainly happened, the core element of killing people because of their group identity is missing, especially related to ethnic or religious identities."
Hinlicky, Paul R.; Reno, R.; Jenson, Robert; Wilken, Robert; Radner, Ephraim; Root, Michael; Sumner, George (2021)."Rahab, confessing YHWH, tricks her king, saving Joshua's spies and her own family 2:1–24".Joshua (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible). Baker Publishing Group. p. unpaginated.ISBN978-1-4934-3113-7. Retrieved28 December 2024.anachronistic imposition of the contemporary notion of genocide on Joshua by pointing to the cultural-religious matrix of herem rather than to the modern racial-biological-genetic matrix of genocide
^abcdefgYounger, K. Lawson Jr (2003)."Joshua". In Dunn, James D. G.; Rogerson, John William (eds.).Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Eerdmans.ISBN978-0-8028-3711-0.
^abCoote, Robert B. (2000)."Conquest: Biblical narrative". In Freedman, David Noel; Myers, Allen C. (eds.).Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Eerdmans. pp. 275–276.ISBN978-90-5356-503-2.In sum, the biblical conquest of Canaan, though employing more ancient forms, motifs, and traditions, originated as such as a reflex of the revanchist reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah. The episodes of Jericho, Ai, and Gibeon which form the bulk of the Conquest account [...] are complex narratives which address numerous issues, but their main purpose is to intimidate potential opponents of Davidic centralization.
^abcAlbright, W. F. (1939). "The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in the Light of Archaeology".Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.74 (74):11–23.doi:10.2307/3218878.JSTOR3218878.S2CID163336577.
^Noort, Ed. 1998. "4QJOSHª and the History of Tradition in the Book of Joshua,"Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages,24 (2): 127–144.
^Rendsburg, Gary A. (1992). "The Date of the Exodus and the Conquest/Settlement: The Case for the 1100S".Vetus Testamentum.42 (4):510–527.doi:10.2307/1518961.JSTOR1518961.
^Kenyon, Kathleen M. (1967). "Jericho".Archaeology.20 (4):268–275.JSTOR41667764.
^Kenyon, Kathleen M. (2013) [1951]. "Some Notes on the History of Jericho in the Second Millennium B.C.".Palestine Exploration Quarterly.83 (2):101–138.doi:10.1179/peq.1951.83.2.101.
^Nigro, Lorenzo (2023). "Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Late Bronze Age: An Overall Reconstruction in the Light of most Recent Research". In Soennecken, Katja; Leiverkus, Patrick; Zimni, Jennifer; Schmidt, Katharina (eds.).Durch die Zeiten - Through the Ages: Festschrift für Dieter Vieweger / Essays in Honour of Dieter Vieweger. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. pp. 599–614.ISBN978-3-579-06236-5.
^abWright, G. Ernest (1955). "Archaeological News and Views: Hazor and the Conquest of Canaan".The Biblical Archaeologist.18 (4):106–108.doi:10.2307/3209136.JSTOR3209136.S2CID165857556.
^de Miroschedji, Pierre (1 November 2005). "Les archéologues réécrivent la Bible".La Recherche (in French) (391): 32.D'une façon générale, aucun archéologue sérieux ne croit plus aujourd'hui que les événements rapportés dans le livre de Josué ont un fondement historique précis. Des prospections archéologiques, au début des années 1990, en particulier, ont révélé que la culture israélite a émergé dans les collines du centre du pays, en continuité avec la culture cananéenne de l'époque précédente.
^Lawson Younger Jr., K. (2004)."Early Israel in Recent Biblical Scholarship". In Baker, David W.; Arnold, Bill T. (eds.).The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches. Baker Publishing Group. p. 200.ISBN978-0-8010-2871-7.Besides the rejection of the Albrightian 'conquest' model, the general consensus among OT scholars is that the Book of Joshua has no value in the historical reconstruction. They see the book as an ideological retrojection from a later period—either as early as the reign of Josiah or as late as the Hasmonean period.
^Ehrlich, Carl S. (1999)."Joshua, Judaism and Genocide". In Congress, E.A.J.S.; Borrás, Judit Targarona; Sáenz-Badillos, Ángel (eds.).Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century, Volume 1: Biblical, Rabbinical, and Medieval Studies. Brill. p. 117.ISBN978-90-04-11554-5.It behooves us to ask, in spite of the fact that the overwhelming consensus of modern scholarship is that Joshua is a pious fiction composed by the deuteronomistic school, how does and how has the Jewish community dealt with these foundational narratives, saturated as they are with acts of violence against others?
^Brettler, Marc Zvi (2014)."נביאים NEVIʾIM". In Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi (eds.).The Jewish Study Bible (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 951.ISBN978-0-19-997846-5.Recent decades, for example, have seen a remarkable reevaluation of evidence concerning the conquest of the land of Canaan by Joshua. As more sites have been excavated, there has been a growing consensus that the main story of Joshua, that of a speedy and complete conquest (e.g. Josh. 11.23: 'Thus Joshua conquered the whole country, just as the LORD had promised Moses') is contradicted by the archaeological record, though there are indications ofsome destruction and conquest at the appropriate time.
^Laffey, Alice L (2007)."Deuteronomistic history". In Orlando O. Espín; James B. Nickoloff (eds.).An introductory dictionary of theology and religious studies. Liturgical Press.ISBN978-0-8146-5856-7.
^Prior, Michael (2002). "Ethnic Cleansing and the Bible: A Moral Critique".Journal of Holy Land and Palestine Studies.1 (1):37–59.doi:10.3366/hls.2002.0003.
^Templer, Bill (1 December 2006). "The political sacralization of imperial genocide: contextualizing Timothy Dwight's The Conquest of Canaan".Postcolonial Studies: Culture, Politics, Economy.9 (4):358–391.doi:10.1080/13688790600993230.S2CID154858344.
den Braber, Marieke; Wesselius, Jan-Wim (November 2008). "The Unity of Joshua 1–8, its Relation to the Story of King Keret, and the Literary Background to the Exodus and Conquest Stories".Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament.22 (2):253–274.doi:10.1080/09018320802661218.S2CID162220089.
Harstad, Adolph L. (2005).Joshua. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Pub. House.ISBN978-0-570-06319-3.
Havrelock, Rachel (2013). "The Joshua Generation: Conquest and the Promised Land".Critical Research on Religion.1 (3): 309.doi:10.1177/2050303213506473.S2CID144093420.
Hawk, L. Daniel (13 March 2012). "The Truth about Conquest: Joshua as History, Narrative, and Scripture".Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology.66 (2):129–140.doi:10.1177/0020964311434872.S2CID145540152.
Hess, Richard S. (2008). "The Jericho and Ai of the Book of Joshua". In Hess, Richard S.; Klingbeil, Gerald A.; Ray, Paul J. Jr. (eds.).Critical issues in early Israelite history. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. pp. 33–46.ISBN978-1-57506-804-6.
Jacobs, Paul F. (2000)."Jericho". In Freedman, David Noel; Myers, Allen C. (eds.).Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Eerdmans.ISBN978-90-5356-503-2.
Japhet, Sara (1979). "Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles".Journal of Biblical Literature.98 (2):205–218.doi:10.2307/3265510.JSTOR3265510.
Pienaar, Daan (1 January 2004). "Some observations on conquest reports in the Book of Joshua".Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages.30 (1).hdl:10520/EJC101285.ISSN0259-0131.
Prior, Michael (September 2002). "Ethnic Cleansing and the Bible: A Moral Critique".Holy Land Studies.1 (1):37–59.doi:10.3366/hls.2002.0003.
Thompson, Leonard L. (1981). "The Jordan Crossing: ?idqot Yahweh and World Building".Journal of Biblical Literature.100 (3):343–58.doi:10.2307/3265959.JSTOR3265959.
Van Seters, John (January 1990). "Joshua's campaign of Canaan and near eastern historiography".Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament.4 (2):1–12.doi:10.1080/09018329008584943.
Wazana, Nili (2014). "Chapter 1: "Everything Was Fulfilled" versus "The Land That Yet Remains"". In Berthelot, Katell; David, Joseph E.; Hirshman, Marc (eds.).The gift of the land and the fate of the Canaanites in Jewish thought. Oxford University press. pp. 13–35.ISBN978-0-19-995982-2.
Wood, W. Carleton (1916). "The Religion of Canaan: From the Earliest Times to the Hebrew Conquest (Concluded)".Journal of Biblical Literature.35 (3/4):163–279.doi:10.2307/3259942.JSTOR3259942.
Zevit, Ziony (1983). "Archaeological and Literary Stratigraphy in Joshua 7–8".Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.251 (251):23–35.doi:10.2307/1356824.JSTOR1356824.S2CID163691750.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_John_Martin_-_NGA_2004.64.1.jpg)
