Outline of Joshua

Introduction—speeches by Yahweh and Joshua 1:1-18

Comprehensive conquest of the land 2:1-12:24 Crossing the Jordan chaps 3-5 “What do these stones

mean to you?” Victories at Jericho (5:13-6:27), Ai (7:1-8:29), and

Gibeon (9:3-27) Altar at Shechem inscribed with blessings and

curses 8:30-35 (cf. Deut 11:29-30; 27:1-8) Battle reports

Kings of the south 10:28-43 Kings of the north 11:1-23 Entire land—list of kings 12:1-24

Outline continued

Israel’s settlement in the land—boundary and province lists Reuben, Gad and ½ Manasseh in Trans-jordan 13:8-33 Judah 14:1-15:63 (15:20-63 is a list of provinces within Judah) Joseph tribes 16 Ephraim;17:1-13 western Manasseh Benjamin 18:11-28 Simeon 19:1-9 Zebulun 17:10-16 Issachar 17:17-23 Asher 17:24-31 Naphtali 17:32-39 Dan 19:40-48 Cities of refuge and Levitical cities 20:1-21:42 Yahweh gave entire land 21:43-45

But see 13:1-7; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-13; 19:47 that admit that not all the land was taken

Outline continued

Final episodes 22:1-24:33 Reuben, Gad, and half

Manasseh go home—altar to link them with Cis-Jordan ch. 22

Joshua’s farewell discourse 23:4-16

Covenant making at Shechem 24:1-28

Intermarriage and apostasy would lead to loss of the land

Death of Joshua (24:29-30) and Eleazar (24:33); burial of Joseph (24:32)

Josh 21:43-45

Joshua 23:15 But just as all the good things that the LORD your God promised concerning you have been fulfilled for you, so the LORD will bring upon you all the bad things, until he has destroyed you from this good land that the LORD your God has given you.23:16 If you transgress the covenant…and go and serve other gods…then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you, and you shall perish quickly from the good land he has given to you.

Joshua: the Conquest Model

apparently faithful to the Bible—some advocates of this theory tried to force evidence to reinforce the Bible’s reliability/authority

What caused the destruction: Israelites? Philistines? natural catastrophes, such as prolonged drought?

William Foxwell Albright

More on conquest model

archaeological “confirmation:” Lachish, Bethel, Hazor, Tell Beit Mirsim show destruction layers

40 cities mentioned in Joshua—only a few seem to attest 13c destruction—but there was some military action in 13 c BCE

Hazor, in northern Israel

Conquest Model: Problems

Jericho--no city from 1300-1100 BCE

Ai--gap between 2400-1200 BCE

Gibeon--no Late Bronze city 1550-1200

also Hebron, Heshbon, Dibon (latter two in Transjordan), Hormah (Num 21:3), and Arad did not exist at the time of Joshua

Jericho

Conquest Model: Presuppositions

Radical discontinuity between Israel and its Canaanite neighbors

Cultural change is caused by invasion of new people

No booty for soldiers (Achan stoned for infidelity)

Relationship between this theory and imperialism/colonialism in Europe and USA?

Stoning of Achan

Problems with the conquest model:

Yahweh as a divine warrior The land was taken from

Canaanites. Archeology shows continuity in

material culture before and after Israelite presence

A number of cities simply were not destroyed.

Are the historical problems with this model good news or bad?

“If Jericho was not razed, is your faith vain?”

Peaceful Immigration Model

Israel settled in areas between older cities—nomadic ideal

Israel possessed Shechem (8:30-35; chap. 24), but no conquest account of this city.

Arameans and Philistines also wandered in.

Little continuity of this model with the biblical tradition; stories of conquest are etiological (Ai = “ruin”)

Move into land is without theological significance; emphasis in Bible is on promise of land to matriarchs and patriarchs

Embarrassing Holy Wars were not fought

Albrecht Alt

Martin Noth

Peaceful Immigration Model: Presuppositions Early Israel was nomadic

according to this model; but early Israelites actually raised crops and livestock; had sophisticated ceramics

camel not domesticated until 1200

Hence those who entered the land from Transjordan were not true nomads.

Caricature of Bedouin life by armchair European scholars

Amphictyony?

Peasants’ Revolt Model for Early Israel Amarna (14c) Palestine

ruled by city kings in class conscious society. Forced labor; taxes

These kings complained about lawless “Apiru” or “habiru”

Israelites in the book of Exodus described as “mixed multitude” (12:38)

Peasants’ Revolt

Fugitives from Egypt galvanized Palestinian peasants into full-scale revolt (70 families became 250,000 people; treaty with Gibeonites)

archaeological continuity between Late Bronze and Iron ages explained

Rahab the prostitute (lower class); Rahab is saved because of her fidelity. cf. Judg 1:22-26 (an informer from Bethel helps them find way into the city)

Rahab and two Israelite spiesMarc Chagall

Results of Peasants’ Revolt

democratization of housing

equality of land distribution

hostility to kingship and hierarchy of every kind; harboring of runaway slaves encouraged

but this model is least like biblical picture and is a caricature of Canaanite life.

Four Room House

Theological implications of Revolt Model The battles in early Israel

were not imperialism or invasion but a mighty blow for justice

Connection of Yahweh with justice is central and original, not peripheral or secondary

unity of Israel is ideological or theological, that is, covenantal, not ethnic

More Theological Implications of Revolt Model Yahweh is the one who puts down the mighty

from their thrones (See Magnificat, Song of Hannah)

“Conquest” was more political than religious Crimes against property are not capital

crimes in the Bible; no class distinctions in biblical law

People of Israel were largely indigenous

Revolt Model: Weaknesses

Was covenant unity so early? Why does the Bible indicate that the majority of

people came from outside the land Are the Apiru really Hebrews? Israelites settled in hill country because they were

unable to defeat royal strongholds Egalitarian villages also exist outside the confines of

premonarchic Israel, i.e., in Transjordan Philosophies of Mendenhall (quietistic Lutheran) and

Gottwald (strong Marxist influence)

Gradual emergence model

Many new, unwalled settlements in hill country.

Merneptah stela (right) Collar-rim storage jars Similar, but poorer pottery

to previous centuries No pig bones Israel originated in

CanaanPlundered is Thehenu [Libya], Khatti is at peace; CANAAN is plunderedAshkelon is conquered; Gezer is seized; Yanoam is non-existent. Israel is laid waste, his seed is no more.KHARU has become a widow because of Egypt

Gradual emergence continued

How does this model square with the biblical account?

Why did people migrate to highlands from lowlands?

What ideology, if any, lies behind this model? (anti-Zionist? Denigration of Bible?)

This model offers no explanation for the most distinctive qualities of Israel, such as the God who liberates people from slavery or even the background of Yahweh

Hill country population explosion

14th century 12,000; 12th century 55,000; 10th century 75,000

This growth leads us to infer there was some migration from outside, not just the settling down of nomads.

This migration from outside explains not only the population growth, but also why these hill country people became Yahwists.

Hyperbole and reality

A Blitzkrieg Joshua 1-12; Num 21:21-35; 32:39-42

Entry of Hebrew tribes slow and variegated; much land remains to be conquered Josh 13:1-7; Judg 1:1-2:5

Peaceful settlement (Num 32:1-38) and coexistence (Judg 1:21 Benjaminites did not drive out Jebusites from Jerusalem)

Military action by some Israelite tribes (Judges 5)

Joshua 24

Joshua and his household were Yahweh worshippers (as for me and my household we will serve Yahweh), who had embraced Yahwism in the desert. Two Egyptian texts from the 14th and 13th centuries mention a place yhw’ in southern Transjordan

The group Joshua met in Canaan were “Israel” who originally worshipped other gods (the gods your ancestors served in the region beyond the River)

An Alternate Scenario

Early “Israel” was mainly composed of various groups of hill country, indigenous villagers

A small group of “Hebrews” joined these villagers after having picked up Yahwism in the desert areas south-east of Canaan. They entered peacefully, but also took part in military attacks. Not every attack leaves archeological evidence

No single model can do justice to the emergence of Israel in Canaan.

Theology in Joshua

Deut 31:7 The promise of the gift of the land is to be carried out through Joshua

Joshua 2-12 this promise was fulfilled to a “T.” Hence the land is Yahweh’s great gift

Josh 21:45 None of the promises failed

Josh 23:15-16 But judgment is certain if covenant transgressed, or if Israel would serve other gods

Theology in Joshua

24:31 Israel served Yahweh all days of Joshua

Judg 2:10-11 The next generation did what was evil in the eyes of Yahweh

Group or ethnic identity

Possession of the land—also reports of unoccupied lands

Obedience to the commands of Moses—also disobedience to commands

Annihilation of peoples—peoples remain Only the covenant in which the people

choose the God who has chosen them is life as a defining characteristic of the people 24:1-27

Translations of Josh 21:45

Not a word of the LORD’s promises to the house of Israel went unfulfilled; they all came true NEB

All of the good promises that the LORD had given Israel came true. NLT

The LORD kept every one of the promises that he had made to the people of Israel. TEV

Not one of all the good promises that the LORD had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass. NRSV

Joshua 10:20

When Joshua and the men of Israel had slain them with a very great slaughter, until they were wiped out, and when the remnant which remained of them had entered into the fortified cities, all the people returned to Joshua at the camp of Makkedah.

Historical texts will be ideologically slanted, but ideological texts will commonly contain historical material

“Joshua” may be a metaphor for Josiah, but that does not mean that all the data are untrue