Conquest or Settlement?
History and Theology in Joshua and Judges
Dennis Bratcher
I. Introduction II. The Historical Issues
in Joshua and Judges A. The Perspective of the
Book of Joshua B. The view from the Book of
Judges C. Summary of the issues D. Historical perspectives
on the entry into the Land III. Literary
Perspectives on Joshua and Judges A. Source analysis in Joshua
and Judges B. Holistic literary approaches to
Joshua and Judges IV. History as Theology
There has been much debate over the relationship of the Old Testament
books of Joshua and Judges, especially in terms of their reliability as
historical documents. Unfortunately, the historical issues have tended
to dominate most discussion of the books and have made it difficult in
some cases to read the books in terms of discerning theological intent.
On the other hand, many people simply are not aware of the historical
issues within the books, either because of a lack of familiarity with
the details of the books or because certain views of Scripture have
prevented asking historical questions. This can lead not only to an
unreasonable naiveté about the complexity of Israel's early history, but
also to a distorted perception of what the traditions actually say about
God and his relationship with his people.
We should not ignore the historical issues or pretend they are not as
severe as they are. Honesty in biblical study compels us to ask the
historical questions and use all the available methods at our disposal
to address those questions. But then neither should we allow those
historical issues to obscure what the traditions might be saying in
terms of confession about God, as Scripture for the Church. Scripture is
not a book of history that only recites the facts. Finally, it is a book
of Faith that bears witness to us of God's work in human history, and
what that meant in the lives of people, and through that what it means
for us. So, here we will briefly survey some of the historical issues in
these two books, look at a sampling of historical solutions as well as
some of the literary perspectives, and then propose a theological
reading of the books that does not place the historical issues as
central. That theological reading will arise more from the literary
dynamic of the two books as part of the larger biblical witness rather
than on any final solution of the historical issues.
From the beginning, we should distinguish the kinds of questions that
we will ask of the biblical text and not confuse them. If we ask
historical questions, such as questions of when, or where, or how, then
the methods that we use to investigate those questions will need to be
tools that will produce answers to those historical questions. Likewise,
if we ask theological questions, tools that help us seek answers of data
will not likely help us find the theological message of the writings. It
is not that these methods are not complimentary; it is that each of them
serves a different purpose. The greatest danger is that we will ask one
set of questions, for example questions of history, and then assume that
because we have answered theologically what the text says about God that
we have also answered the data questions about history.
Yet, historical questions produce historical answers while theological
questions produce theological answers. We might ask, "when did this
happen?" If by using methods of historical investigation we conclude
that a certain time period was 1290-1050, this does not say anything
about the theological confession about God to which the same passages
may bear witness. We may debate the date, how we arrived at it, evidence
to support a different date, or even question whether they kept time in
the same way that we do. But the answer to that question of date does
not tell us anything about the Israelites' testimony to God (theology).
It is true that some of those historical answers may raise questions
about some of the theological assumptions we often make about the text.
But that is one of the roles of the historical questions, to bring to
light inadequate or mistaken linking of theological and historical
concerns.
On the other hand, it should be stated clearly that nothing that will
be said here about the historical questions will ever challenge the
fundamental assumption of the Old Testament, that God revealed himself
in real human history in real times and places. The Bible cannot be
divorced from that thorough historical grounding, which keeps in from
becoming just another set of myths about cosmic gods who have no real
connection to human history. The biblical confession is unequivocal and
consistent that God acts in human history, and that the Scripture of the
Old (and for Christians the New) Testament bear faithful witness to that
revelation (see Revelation and Inspiration of
Scripture).
That confession demands that we set the biblical witness against the
background of human history. By that very nature of being historical it
also compels us to ask historical questions. And yet, the message of
Scripture is not that history. It is that distinction that will help us
hear both the historical and theological dimensions of these books.
Both books recount the story of Israel's settlement in the land of
Canaan and their first couple of centuries in the land. The first half
of Joshua describes the actual entry of the Israelites into the land and
the early battles for control of key cities (1-12). The second half of
the book details how the land was divided among the tribes of Israel
(13-22), as well as a concluding covenant ceremony in which the people
committed themselves to the worship of God (23-24).
The Book of Judges tells us of continued struggles in the land as local
tribal chieftains or warlords (Heb: shophet, pl. shophtim,
"judge") led isolated campaigns to free the Israelites from recurrent
oppression at the hands of surrounding people. The book is organized in
regular cycles that mark the rise of new leaders, a cycle given in
outline form early in the book (2:10-23). The stories of Gideon and the
consequences of his leadership (6-9), Samson and the ongoing struggle
against the Philistines (13-16), as well as a general summary of
Israel's intertribal fighting that nearly destroyed them (17-21)
occupies over one half of the book (see The Judges
of Israel).
Without careful reading, the two books appear as a sequential narrative
of Israel's rise to power as a dominant force in Canaan. This has been
the traditional view of the books, that they recounted an orderly
chronological account of the conquest of Palestine by the Israelites.
The very idea of a "conquest" of the land has become a traditional way
of describing Israel's entry into the land.
Yet there are obvious hints that the two books may not be as
straightforwardly sequential as they appear from a casual reading.
For example, after telling of an almost unbroken chain of victories over
the Canaanites, the Book of Joshua concludes by reporting the death and
burial of Joshua (24:29-30). The Book of Judges begins by reinforcing
this sequential narrative: "After the death of Joshua. . . " (1:1).
There follows a long list of defeats and setbacks, including the threat
of syncretism with the worship of Ba'al practiced by the inhabitants of
the land, with the implication that this happened following Joshua's
death. Yet the second chapter of Judges still has Joshua leading
the people during these defeats and only later reports his death
(2:8-10). On a historical level this suggests that these are at
least partially overlapping accounts of the same time period, adapted to
a schematized or patterned presentation of history to emphasize
theological themes.
An even closer examination of the two books reveals a much more
complex situation that raises both historical and theological questions,
not only about the reliability of the accounts as straightforward
history but also about the very nature of Israel's entry into Palestine.
The debates surrounding this issue have been intense and at times
acrimonious, ranging from those who deny any historical validity to the
accounts to those who insist that every detail of the accounts is
absolutely and totally accurate. There have been agendas applied to the
issue from both directions, with some using a denial of the possibility
of anything miraculous occurring as a basis to deny the historical
accuracy, to other using an idea of the inerrancy of Scripture to assert
absolute accuracy.
In between these two extremes are biblical scholars and historians who
try to evaluate the actual biblical texts in order to understand what
the texts themselves communicate. Using both the methods of historical
investigation and the tools of biblical study, they have attempted to
understand the biblical texts on their own terms apart from the dogmas
and ideologies of either side. It is that endeavor that we will survey
here.
On the surface, the book of Joshua seems to present the Israelite entry
into Canaan as a single campaign of unified Israel under the command of
Joshua. The invasion appears very "clean." The Israelites entered from
the east, quickly subdued the closest Canaanite cities, and then moved into
the central highlands around Shechem.
After celebrating the early victories at Jericho and Ai, and making
alliances with some of the Canaanites (Gibeonites), they spread out
through the land as a unified army, first to the South and then to the
North. In lightning raids against the Canaanite strongholds that
virtually wiped out the Canaanite inhabitants (11:20), Joshua and the
army of "all Israel" took the entire land leaving little but mop-up
operations and the task of dividing the conquered territory between the
twelve tribes. The Israelites enjoyed peace and security as the last
rested from war. (10:40-42; 11:14-20, 23; 12:7; cf. also 18:1, 10;
21:43-45; 23:1). At the conclusion of the conquest narratives, a
thematic verse summarizes this section of the book (11:23):
So Joshua took the whole land, according
to all that the LORD had spoken to Moses; and Joshua gave it for an
inheritance to Israel according to their tribal allotments. And the land
had rest from war.
There is some archaeological evidence that seems to confirm Joshua's
version of a rapid conquest of the land. For example, there are a number
of Canaanite fortress cities that are listed in the Joshua account as
destroyed or taken by Joshua and the unified Israelite army: Hazor
(11:10, 14), Lachish (10:31-32), Debir (10:38-39), and Eglon (10:34-35).
Excavations at some of these Canaanite cities show evidence of a massive
destruction followed by new occupation levels, which would be consistent
with a sudden invasion. Also, cities not
listed as captured, or specifically listed as not taken show little
if any evidence of destruction.
Yet even within the Joshua traditions there are accounts that seemingly
conflict with the idea of a rapid and total conquest. On the one hand,
there are sweeping statements about Israel's total victory over all the
inhabitants of the land (10:40-42):
So Joshua defeated the whole land, the
hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their
kings; he left no one remaining, but utterly destroyed all that
breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua defeated them
from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, as far as
Gibeon. Joshua took all these kings and their land at one time, because
the LORD God of Israel fought for Israel.
"These kings and their land," in the context of this chapter refers
specifically to King Adoni-zedek of Jerusalem (10:1), King Hoham of
Hebron, King Piram of Jarmuth, King Japhia of Lachish, and King Debir of
Eglon (10:3). However, there are cities, such as Jerusalem, as well as
others that are listed as taken or included within the boundaries of the
tribes that raise other difficulties. In fact, the "clean" conquest that
appears on the surface of the book of Joshua becomes increasingly
difficult as the book is probed more deeply.
In spite of the overall impression, a closer reading of the details of
the Joshua account reveals that the book actually tells us about only
limited conquests of Canaanite territory, mainly in the territory of
Benjamin (Jericho), Judah (Hebron, Debir), and Naphtali (Hazor). In
fact, the first nine chapters of Joshua recount only the capture of two
cities (Jericho and Ai), and the settlement of the territory of Gibeah
by making an alliance with the Canaanites who lived there. Chapters
10-11 only briefly recount all the other conquests. Yet these are mostly
the battles between Israel and the kings of Canaanite city-states who
banded together to try to stop Israel's entry into the land.
There are no reports about conquests in the central highlands of
Ephraim (Shiloh, Bethel) and Manasseh (Shechem), even though this was
the "staging ground" for the early tribal conquests (8:30-35, 18:1 ff;
cf. 24:1-28). The Israelites simply moved into this territory, even
though it is obvious from the presence of ancient Ba'al shrines at
important cities and throughout the area that it had been inhabited for
some time. Most of the battles recounted are on the fringes of the
territory as they entered the land, or are against Canaanites who were
making retaliatory raids against the Israelites as they settled into the
central highlands surrounding Shechem (ch. 10-11).
While the northern conquests seem to go better, the battles in the
South, along the coasts, and around the Megiddo Plain (Plain of
Esdraelon and the Valley of Jezreel) do not seem nearly as successful as
some of the lists and accounts in some places of Joshua indicate. For
example, the list of conquered cities in chapter 12 includes some that
Samuel and Kings report were not taken until the time of David and
Solomon some 200-250 years later (Jerusalem, Gezer, Taanach, Megiddo,
Dor). Other passages outside the city lists, both within Joshua and in
other traditions, acknowledge that these cities were not taken in
Joshua's time but came under Israelite control much later. Even the
Joshua tradition knows that the Israelites did not take Jerusalem in the
time of Joshua: (15:63)
But the Jebusites, the inhabitants of
Jerusalem, the people could not drive out; so the Jebusites dwell with
the people of Judah at Jerusalem to this day.
This is confirmed in 1 Samuel where the capture of Jebus from the
Jebusites, the city that would become Jerusalem, is a key event in the
account of David's reign as King (5:6-7):
And the king and his men went to
Jerusalem against the Jebusites. . . David took the stronghold of Zion,
that is, the city of David.
And yet, the defeat of the king of Jerusalem and the incorporation of
Jerusalem into the tribal territory is mentioned in Joshua both in the
battle reports (ch. 10) and in the list of cities captured by all Israel
under the leadership of Joshua (12:10, 18:28). Likewise, Joshua reports
that the king of Gezer was defeated by all Israel (10:33, 12:12), his
city incorporated into the territory of the tribe of Ephraim (16:3), and
then given to the Levites as one of the Levitical cities (21:21). Yet
the Joshua traditions also remember that the city of Gezer was never
controlled by the Israelites under Joshua (16:10):
They did not, however, drive out the
Canaanites who lived in Gezer: so the Canaanites have lived within
Ephraim to this day but have been made to do forced labor.
This is confirmed in the Book of Judges (1:28-29):
When Israel grew strong, they put the
Canaanites to forced labor, but did not in fact drive them out. And
Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer; but the
Canaanites lived among them in Gezer.
The introductory comment "when Israel grew strong" suggests that some
time passed before Israel could gain any degree of control of Gezer.
Here we might ask the logical question how it was that the Israelites
could force the inhabitants of Gezer to do forced labor for them,
effectually making them slaves, yet could not force them out of the
city. A comment a few verses later in Judges may provide us some clue
(2:2):
For your part, do not make a covenant
with the inhabitants of this land; tear down their altars.' But you have
not obeyed my command. See what you have done!
This suggests that contrary to the assertions in Joshua about killing
all the Canaanite inhabitants of the land (e.g., 6:21), the Israelites
actually incorporated at least some Canaanites into Israelite society.
This is one of the first solid clues that Israel's entry into the land
may have been much more complex than the Joshua account appears to
present on the surface.
Later traditions confirm that Gezer was not under Israelite control
until the time of Solomon when it was given to him by Pharaoh after he
had captured the city from the Canaanites (1 Kings 9:16-71a):
Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up and
captured Gezer and burnt it with fire, and had slain the Canaanites who
dwelt in the city, and had given it as dowry to his daughter, Solomon's
wife; so Solomon rebuilt Gezer. . .
There are also other tensions within the book of Joshua between the
accounts as they first appear on the surface, and another memory that
surfaces on closer inspection. For example, there is tension between the
idea of total conquest by all Israel and the memory of limited local
conquests by individual tribes or local military leaders (cf. 18:2-3).
While the idea of "all Israel" is a prominent theme throughout Joshua,
there are still echoes of individual tribes struggling to overcome local
opposition. For example, the fall of the stronghold of Debir is credited
in one place to "all Israel" under Joshua (10:38-39):
Then Joshua, with all Israel, turned
back to Debir and assaulted it, and he took it with its king and all its
towns; they struck them with the edge of the sword, and utterly
destroyed every person in it; he left no one remaining; just as he had
done to Hebron, and, as he had done to Libnah and its king, so he did to
Debir and its king.
Yet, there is also the memory that Debir was taken by Caleb and his
family who had emerged as tribal leaders of Judah, and specifically by
his brother Othniel. Both are identified as "descendants of Kenaz," or
Kennizites (Josh 15:6, 15:7). While Caleb was always identified with the
tribe of Judah, the Kennizites were remembered as Canaanites (cf. Gen
15:19, Num 32:12). We know that other Canaanite peoples had joined the
Israelites, for example, the Kenites, the people of Moses' wife (Jud
1:16). So it is entirely possible that Caleb's family had Canaanite
ancestry. In any case, the Joshua traditions remember that the city of
Debir was taken by Caleb's brother Othniel, who would later become one
of Israel's judges (15:15-17; cf. Jud 1:11-16; 3:9-10).
And [Caleb] went up from there against
the inhabitants of Debir; now the name of Debir formerly was
Kiriath-sepher. And Caleb said, "Whoever smites Kiriath-sepher, and
takes it, to him will I give Achsah my daughter as wife." And Othniel
the son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took it. . .
There is even a tradition that recounts Joshua himself pleading with
the individual tribes to take the territory that had been assigned to
them. Accounts in the first half of the book described complete and
totally control of the land under Joshua and "all Israel," with the land
then divided between the tribes while the "land had rest from war." Yet
accounts later in the book seem to describe a situation quite different
in which the allotments were made to each tribe who were then
responsible themselves for taking the territory assigned to them
(18:1-3):
Then the whole congregation of the
Israelites assembled at Shiloh, and set up the tent of meeting there.
The land lay subdued before them. There remained among the Israelites
seven tribes whose inheritance had not yet been apportioned. So Joshua
said to the Israelites, "How long will you be slack about going in and
taking possession of the land that the LORD, the God of your ancestors,
has given you?"
Here the tension is obvious even within a few verses, as the
perspective of the land having already been subdued (v. 1) is
immediately followed by the assumption that seven tribes had not yet
taken their assigned territory (vv. 3-4). The early chapters of Judges
support this perspective that individual tribes were still fighting to
take their territory (Jud 1:3, 17).
There are still other indications within the book of Joshua of a memory
that the conquest was not as all encompassing as some other passages in
the book might indicate.
Josh 13:13 Yet the people of Israel did
not drive out the Geshurites or the Maacathites; but Geshur and Maacath
dwell in the midst of Israel to this day.
Josh 17:12 Yet the descendants of
Manasseh could not take possession of those cities [Bethshean, Ibleam,
Dor, En-dor, Taanach, Megiddo]; but the Canaanites persisted in dwelling
in that land. . .
Even at Joshua's impending death, the traditions acknowledge that there
was a great deal of the land that had not yet come under Israelite
control (13:2-6a):
This is the land that still remains: all
the regions of the Philistines, and all those of the Geshurites (from
the Shihor, which is east of Egypt, northward to the boundary of Ekron,
it is reckoned as Canaanite; there are five rulers of the Philistines,
those of Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath, and Ekron), and those of the
Avvim, in the south, all the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah that
belongs to the Sidonians, to Aphek, to the boundary of the Amorites, and
the land of the Gebalites, and all Lebanon, toward the east, from
Baal-gad below Mount Hermon to Lebo-hamath, all the inhabitants of the
hill country from Lebanon to Misrephoth-maim, even all the Sidonians.
Beyond the repeated emphasis on "all Israel" in certain places in
Joshua, there is little evidence that Israel was an "all" united army.
In fact, internal evidence in Joshua, and as we shall see even more
strongly in Judges, seems to show a group of very loosely allied yet
fiercely independent tribes that were as quick to fight each other as
they were outsiders rather than being a unified people. These factious
tribes seemed to have fought localized battles and united only in
limited ways for limited objectives.
There is also a memory within the Joshua traditions that in spite of
the claims of total conquest in places, some of the tribes were actually
displaced from their original allotments because they could not conquer
the cities given to them. For example, the tribe of Dan was originally
assigned territory in the southwestern foothills at the northern edge of
the Philistine territory (19:40-46):
The seventh lot came out for the tribe
of Dan, according to its families. And the territory of its inheritance
included Zorah, Eshta-ol, Ir-shemesh, Sha-alabbin, Aijalon, Ithlah,
Elon, Timnah, Ekron, Eltekeh, Gibbethon, Baalath, Jehud, Bene-berak,
Gath-rimmon, and Me-jarkon and Rakkon with the territory over against
Joppa.
Ekron, along with Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath, and Gaza, was the
northernmost of the five main cites that formed the Philistine
Pentapolis, the heart of Philistine power (13:3). The Philistines were
far stronger than the Israelites at the time. They had superior arms
that included a formidable chariotry as well as iron weapons (cf. Judg
1:19). The Israelites would not learn how to work iron for nearly two
centuries (cf. 1 Sam 13:19-21), and what weapons they had were made of
relatively soft bronze. In spite of reports in Joshua of Philistine
cities being taken, the Philistines were not subdued until the time of
David, and even then remained in the land.
The Danites simply could not take the Philistine strongholds, and were
likely harassed by the Philistines who were not too happy about
newcomers trying to occupy their territory. Driven from their assigned
land the tribe of Dan moved to the far north and settled there, which
gave rise to the saying "from Dan to Beersheba" (Judg 20:1), meaning the
whole country from north to south. The Joshua traditions refer
matter-of-factly to this reassignment of territory (Josh 19:47-48; cf.
Jud 18):
When the territory of the Danites was
lost to them, the Danites went up and fought against Leshem, and after
capturing it and putting it to the sword they took possession of it and
settled in it, calling Leshem, Dan, after the name of Dan their
ancestor. This is the inheritance of the tribe of Dan, according to
their families -- these cities with their villages.
In a similar manner, the western half of the tribe of Manesseh was
assigned the territory that lay along the eastern Megiddo Plain to the
Jordan Valley, the site of one of the strongest Philistine fortresses in
the area at Beth-shean (or Beth-shan). They complained to Joshua about
their allotment under the guise that they had not been given enough
land, when it seems apparent that they simply could not take the
Philistine garrisons in the area (17:12, 16):
Yet the Manassites could not take
possession of those towns; but the Canaanites continued to live in that
land. . . . The tribe of Joseph said, "The hill country is not enough
for us; yet all the Canaanites who live in the plain have chariots of
iron, both those in Beth-shean and its villages and those in the Valley
of Jezreel."
Joshua was not sympathetic to their plight and told them that they
would have to defeat the Philistines in order to have their land
(17:17-18). Yet, later traditions tell us that even in the time of Saul
some 200 years later, Beth-Shean was still a Philistine fortress on
whose walls the mutilated body of Saul and his sons were hung as
Philistine war trophies (1 Sam 31:12).
There are even hints that some of the tribes were forced to merge with
other tribes, or perhaps were decimated in this period by the
Philistines. For example, there is some evidence that the tribe of
Simeon was absorbed into the tribe of Judah (Josh 19:9; cf. Judg 1:17).
The inheritance of the tribe of Simeon
formed part of the territory of Judah; because the portion of the tribe
of Judah was too large for them, the tribe of Simeon obtained an
inheritance within their inheritance.
Simeon's territory recorded in Joshua lies at the western and southern
edges of Judah, the territory closest to the Philistine strongholds
along the southwestern coast. The tribe of Simeon, even though portrayed
as part of Judah, plays little role in Israel's history and is not
mentioned again after the 6th century BC.
Likewise, the tribe of Gad shared its territory with the tribe of
Rueben on the eastern side of the Jordan (Deut 3:12). Also, the tribes
that were assigned territory occupied by other Canaanite strongholds
along the Megiddo Plains (Issachar and Western Manasseh) and along the
Phoenician Coast (Asher) virtually disappear from Israel's history
during the period of the Judges.
There are several other historical difficulties that arise from the
book of Joshua, both from external evidence and from within the book
itself. For example, even though there are destruction levels in some of
the Canaanite cities mentioned in Joshua, as noted above, there is no
evidence to link Israel to the destruction levels, either in time frame
or physical artifacts. That the cities were suddenly destroyed is
obvious from the excavations. Warfare was common in the ancient world,
and even from other biblical records, we know that there was constant
warfare among the many city-states into which Canaan was divided. But
there are problems in establishing a certain chronology of Israel's
entry into the land, related to various views on the date of the Exodus
(see Date of the Exodus). Various
estimates range from 1440 to 1290 BC. Without a clear time frame, there
is little way definitely to link Israel to the destruction of these
cities.
All this simply suggests that what appears on the surface of the book
of Joshua is not the whole story. What appears to be a "clean" and
simple entry into the land with the straightforward conquest and
subjugation of the Canaanites by a unified people under the leadership
of Joshua, may have been a much more protracted affair and had an
exceedingly more complex history. It also suggests that even traditions
within the book of Joshua, a "minority voice" in the book, were familiar
with that more complicated history.
This raises questions that go deeper than the historical questions
about the nature of the Israelite entry into the land. If the book
itself preserves the memory of that other more difficult and more
complicated version of Israel's occupation of Canaan, why does the
present reading of the book so simplify the story? Was the book
deliberated constructed to focus on one aspect of the story, while
unhesitatingly providing the details of a different version of that
history? If one aspect was emphasized, what was the purpose of doing so?
And what was the purpose of providing details that would bring the
historical aspects of that version into question?
Here, we have obviously raised questions that cannot be answered by
investigating just the historical problems of the book. There are far
more questions, first of literary composition, and then questions of
intent and purpose, which in this context are finally theological
questions. And here it is obvious that the very historical questions
that arise from a closer reading of the book and need to be addressed by
historical research, also reveal a whole set of theological questions
that invite us to delve deeper into the traditions to understand them.
As we move from Joshua into the book of Judges, the tone and mood of
the writing changes considerably. While the main themes of Joshua are
emphasized by the promise "I will be with you" (1:5; cf. 23:10) and the
refrain "the land had rest from war," (11:23), Judges presents a much
more somber perspective. From the beginning of the book, the people are
fragmented and beleaguered by powerful Canaanites who are pressing them
from all sides. The confidence that permeates the book of Joshua has
disappeared, replaced by a sense of desperation in the face of enormous
obstacles. The thematic comments of Judges are the opening question,
"Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites?" (1:1), and the
concluding commentary, "all the people did what was right in their own
eyes" (21:25).
Scattered tribes who were desperately trying to gain a stable foothold
in the land have replaced the idea of "all Israel." While the Israelites
were entrenched in the land, they were constantly pressed on every side
by surrounding peoples. Even though the Book of Joshua had reported the
death of Joshua in a period when the "land had rest from war," the Book
of Judges clearly places Joshua still in leadership during this
chaotic scramble for survival amid ongoing defeats and failures to take
key cities (Jud 2:6). After the death of Joshua in the Book of
Judges the leadership of Israel passed into the hands of local military leaders who arose to address
specific crises. Most of these leaders were inept and terribly flawed.
Even the well-known figures of Gideon and Samson are more like
anti-heroes. Gideon was a cowardly Ba'al worshipper who led his entire
family into Ba'al worship (8:27). Sampson, in spite of his Nazarite vows
and God-given strength, was more concerned with Philistine women than he
was with the welfare of Israel, a vice that cost him his life. The best
leader in this entire period was a woman, Deborah, who proved to be a
capable civil as well as a military leader (4:5).
In general, the book portrays an increasingly deteriorating situation.
The people continually abandoned the worship of God and adopted the
fertility religion of the Canaanites. The leaders were unable to bring
any unity to the people and could not provide any spiritual leadership.
Besides the obvious differences in the perspective of the two books,
there are also differences in historical details between the books. The
perspective of failure and hardship that had been only an underlying
strand of Joshua emerges in Judges as the main topic. This is evidenced
in several specific examples that serve to highlight the differences.
We have already noted that one of the main themes of the Book of Joshua is the idea
of "all Israel" fighting a unified campaign against the Canaanites (3:7,
17, 4:14, 7:23, 8:21, 24, 23:2). Yet the minority voice of Joshua also
preserves the memory of individual campaigns by individual tribes, such
as Judah's campaign against Debir (15:13) and Western Manasseh and
Ephraim struggling against the Philistines in the Megiddo Plain (17:16).
In the Book of Judges, there is never a unified Israel. From the beginning of
the book isolated tribes are fighting for their very survival against
superior forces in isolated campaigns. In Judges, this idea of
independent tribes fighting for their own territory is even connected
with the leadership of Joshua:
2:6 When Joshua dismissed the people, the
Israelites all went to their own inheritances to take possession of
the land.
Judah and Simeon made an alliance to defeat Adoni-Bezek of the
Perizzites (1:1-7). Judah campaigned against Canaanites in Hebron and
the southern desert, sometimes with the aid of Simeon (1:8-21) and were
more successful than most of the tribes in securing their territory.
Western Manasseh and Ephraim continued, largely unsuccessfully, to fight
the Philistines along the Megiddo Plain (1:22-29). Zebulon, Asher, and
Naphtali all tried unsuccessfully to drive the Canaanites from their
territory, but settled for moving in among them (1:30-33). The Amorites,
a general term for Canaanites, forced the tribe of Dan to remain in the
hill country (1:34-36).
Rather than sweeping claims of conquest, Judges interprets the failure
of the people to take the land as a test from God, either to see if they
would remain faithful to God (2:22-23), or to teach the young people who
had not yet learned war how to fight (3:1-2). The book also sees the
Israelites' struggles to secure the land as a judgment for failing to
remain faithful to God and allowing the worship of Baal to flourish
(2:11-15, 20).
As the book unfolds in recounting the exploits of the shophtim
it becomes more apparent that they are local leaders rather than "all
Israel" leaders. Othneil led Judah in campaigns against Arameans from
the northeast (3:7-11). Ehud led the Benjamites against the Moabites who
were raiding across the Jordan from the east (3:12-30). Deborah led the
Ephraimites against the Canaanite city-state of Hazor (4-5), while
Gideon led a small band from Manasseh against a Midianite and Amalekite
coalition (6-8). Jephthah raised an army from among Manasseh and Gilead
to fight the Ammonites who were trying to expand their territory across
the Jordan (11), and precipitated a brief civil war because he did not
invite the Ephraimites to participate (12:1-6). Finally, Samson became
the hero of the tribe of Dan because of his harassment of the
Philistines (13-16).
To further emphasize the scattered nature of the tribes and the
apparent total lack of unity, the Book of Judges concludes with accounts
of a destructive civil war. The tribe of Benjamin was nearly annihilated
because they chose to fight rather than recognize the authority of the
other tribes over them.
All of this serves to highlight the fact that Judges agrees with the
minority voice in Joshua that the Israelite settlement in the land was
much more complicated than the smooth operation that the first chapters
of Joshua portrays. This again raises serious historical questions about
Israel's entry into the land and the nature of the conquest. But it also
raises questions about the nature of the material in Joshua and Judges,
and how we should hear that material as Scripture.
C. Summary of
the Issues
Joshua presents the entry into the land as a rapid conquest in which
the Israelites eliminated all opposition and possessed all of the land
as they obeyed God and followed his leadership. They were led by a
single leader appointed by God and achieved success because God fought
for them and was with them. The impression given is that Israel was a
tightly unified people working together as one, unified in their worship
of God and in their goal of settling the land and eliminating the
Canaanites from the land.
Yet within Joshua there is a minority voice, another memory that
acknowledges the entry into the land was anything but smooth, and that
Israel was not a unified people. It consistently acknowledges that there
was a great deal of land left unconquered, and that the process of entry
into the land could be seen more in terms of settlement rather than
conquest.
Judges presents the Israelites as a minority, precariously holding onto
small enclaves of land within a much larger and stronger Canaanite
majority. Following the minority voice of Joshua, it acknowledges that
many of the territories or cities reported as subdued under Joshua by
all Israel were not taken until much later or by actions of individuals
or alliances of tribes. The impression is given that Israel was a very
loosely confederated collection of individual tribes who sometimes came
together for a common cause. They were plagued by disunity both socially
and religiously, lacked any stable leadership, and often fought among
themselves.
This raises the primary historical questions of the two books. Was
Israel's entry into the land by conquest or by settlement? Did Israel
enter the land suddenly as a strongly unified conquering people? Or did
they migrate into the area over a period of time gradually spreading
over the land as they were able to gain enough strength to challenge the
Canaanite city-states? Or was it some combination of conquest and
settlement, in which they fought some initial battles on the fringes of
Canaanite territory to establish a foothold in the land, and then
gradually infiltrated into Canaanite territory over a period of
centuries? Or was there even a more complicated history in which they
allied themselves with some Canaanite city-states and fought others, at
the same time that they joined up with remnants of ancestral tribes who
had remained in the central highlands around Shechem since the time of
Abraham? Or was the whole entry into the land nothing more than a
peaceful migration of people who were forced into fighting battles as
the people of the land resisted being crowded by newcomers, and the
conquest stories are only tribal legend?
And these questions then lead to literary questions about the
relationship between the Books of Joshua and Judges. The traditional
view has been that the books are sequential, with Joshua telling the
story of the initial successful settlement in the land under the
leadership of Joshua, while Judges tells of a later time after the death
of Joshua when God was punishing the people for disobedience. Yet, is it
possible, in light of the minority voice in Joshua, that the books are
not as sequential as traditionally thought? Is it possible that the
differences in the books may not even be as much historical as they are
theological? That is, much like the different versions of the Gospels,
do the two books simply present a different emphasis of essentially the
same period in Israel's history? To this question we will return.
Of course, historians and biblical scholars have offered various
theories to address these questions. For various reasons, as noted at
the beginning of this study, the historical questions have tended to
dominate study of this material. As a result, many of the theories are
to answer the historical questions raised by the books, since this has
tended to be the area of most concern even to those who want to use the
Bible as Scripture. While there are many variations and refinements of
the historical approach, most of them can be summarized under four major
categories.
This view favors the majority voice of Joshua as being the historical
core of the traditions. It also assumes the biblical books are primarily
a historical record of Israel's entry into the land preserved within the
community simply because they were historical records. A well-known
proponent of this perspective is Yezekiel Kaufmann.
This perspective basically accepts the traditional way of viewing the
books. It assumes that the accounts are basically historically reliable
as they stand in the Bible with the character of Joshua as the focal
point. He led the Israelites in a near total conquest of the land in a
series of lightning strikes against the Canaanites, successful because
God led them into the battles and fought for them. Judges portrays a
much later time when the Israelites had abandoned the worship of God,
and therefore were suffering under God's condemnation. All of the
failures of the people can be traced to their disobedience. The entire
account is of military battles being fought; there was no peaceful
occupation of the land at any time.
What appear to be discrepancies in the accounts could be explained if
we had more information. Lacking that, we simply have to accept the
majority voice of Joshua as the most reliable and suspend judgment on
anything that does not fit with the idea of a literal and absolute
conquest of the land as portrayed in Joshua 1-11 unless or until we have
more information.
This perspective tries to balance Joshua and Judges as historical
sources, but actually favors the evidence of archaeological data and
historical reconstruction built from them as more reliable sources of
historical evidence than the biblical texts. William F. Albright, G. E.
Wright, and John Bright are well-know proponents of this perspective,
although they would differ in details.
This view sees the traditions of a conquest of the land as a valid
historical memory of Israel, but one that has been greatly modified by
tradition and the retelling of the story within the community over the
centuries. While the basic details of the biblical traditions need to be
taken seriously as preserving that historical memory, they cannot be
taken literally or at face value without some corroborating evidence
that would lend support to them. Where archaeology cannot directly
support the biblical traditions, they should not be taken as reliable
history, although they may still preserve valid historical memory. We
simply have no way to know in cases where there is no supporting
evidence. Some scholars at this point would feel much more free to
speculate about the actual history, while others would insist that we
should follow the biblical text in the absence of contrary evidence.
So this view tends to lean heavily on archaeology to support the basic
history, assuming that the biblical story line has been heavily
schematized and simplified in the biblical accounts. This view would see
Joshua as a leader in early Israel, but one that become a hero figure in
later generations. As a result, the traditions expanded his role and
attributed some of the actions of later figures, for example some of the
conquests of David, to him to validate his position as God's leader of
the people.
This view leans toward Judges, as well as the minority voice of Joshua,
as a more reliable source of early Israel's history. The majority voice
of Joshua is rejected as being too idealized and too heavily influenced
by theological and tribal agenda to be of much value. The methods
employed are far more historical, trying to reconstruct history from
ancient documents, artifacts, and preserved traditions in order to build
a historical stage on which to set the biblical material. As a result,
there is heavy dependence on comparative religion, as well as logical
interpretation and reconstruction of history, a technique common in the
late 19th and early 20th centuries. Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth are the
most well known advocates of this approach.
Israel's movement into the land is seen as a relatively peaceful
migration of tribes who gradually settled among the city-states of
Palestine. After an extended period of consolidation in the 11th and
10th centuries, the settlement climaxed in a period of expansion under
the leadership of David in the 9th and early 8th centuries. The
Israelites who first entered the land joined remnants of family units
who had not joined the migration to Egypt with Jacob and had remained
through the centuries in the central highlands around Shechem. They
fought isolated battles as they expanded their territory and encroached
into Canaanite controlled areas. But there were no "all Israel" wars,
which was a romanticized nationalistic ideal projected back into this
period from a much later time, reflected in the book of Joshua. Joshua
himself was only a local Ephraimite leader who gradually became
associated with the "all Israel" ideal. There was no "people" until the
tribal confederation portrayed in Joshua 24. This covenant ceremony
became the focal point for the rise of the unified people that would
become the nation of Israel.
This perspective rejects both Joshua and Judges as reliable historical
accounts, and rather depends on modern social theory to address the
historical issues. The methods employed are a specific type of social
theory that sees progression and development in society as the result of
class struggle between the "haves" and the "have nots." This view sees
the biblical traditions as largely folklore that arose out of the social
progression of a group trying to justify its own national identity.
Proponents of this perspective are George Medenhall and Norman Gottwald.
In this view, the idea of "tribe" should be understood as a social
unit, not a family unit. The relationships that appear as family
relationships in the traditions are actually ways to describe social
relationships and interactions. The conflict present in the accounts
between Israelites and Canaanites should be understood as an internal
class struggle between peasant villagers (Israelites) and wealthy city
dwellers (Canaanites), a struggle between the "haves" and the "have
nots." This struggle was precipitated in Canaan by the influx of a small
core group of escaped slaves, the original Israelites, who rallied the
people to rise up in rebellion against the oppression of the dominant
class. The association of all the later Israelites with the early events
of the exodus, Sinai, and entry into the land is a projection back into
history of the story of the group that emerged as a dominant "tribe" in
the area. They simply adopted the story of the small group of escaped
slaves that first entered the land and made it a national heritage.
These different perspectives on the historical issues of the books each
attempt to construct a plausible historical scenario of the material in
Joshua and Judges. As can be seen from this brief survey, there are
arguments on all sides of the issue, some depending more on the biblical
texts in various ways while others depend more on evidence external to
the text, reconstruction, and speculation. But the diversity of the
opinions, none of which provides adequate explanation to all aspects of
the biblical text, suggests that in asking historical questions we may
be asking questions that the text itself cannot answer, or perhaps was
never intended to answer. This has led biblical scholars to turn to
other methods for addressing the apparent historical discrepancies in
the books.
These perspectives use a literary approach in examining the text,
asking questions of how the tradition developed, how the books were
composed, what the relationship might be between the books (and to other
biblical traditions) in terms of story line, what is actually intended
to be communicated, history and methods of composition, and possible
sources. Of course, some of these methods are just as speculative as
historical reconstruction. But many have found that examining the texts
in terms of literary dynamic and intent has produced a better
understanding of the texts than trying to answer the historical
questions.
As we might expect, there are a variety of perspectives in a literary
approach. However, all begin with a basic assumption: the biblical
texts, however soundly they are rooted in history, are finally literary
works and should be examined in terms of literary questions and methods.
That simply means that the study of the biblical material may use
historical aspects of the text if possible, but that the primary focus
is the text themselves and the story they communicate.
We should note that, in similar ways to historical investigation, some
of the literary methods do not have a direct or theological intent. That
is, the immediate goal of literary analysis is not to reach theological
statements, but to understand the books as literature produced by a
certain community in history. That may well yield theological results,
since the community is a faith community and these are religious texts.
But the immediate goal of these approaches is to learn more about the
text as a literary work.
Here also we should distinguish different uses of the term "literary",
since it is used in three major ways. First, in its broad meaning,
"literary" simply means a focus on the text, as opposed to the history
of which the text tells or in which it was produced. In this sense,
literary methods include any technique of investigation that is
primarily concerned with a document or piece of writing as literature.
Second, a much more technical meaning of the term emerged in the 19th
century in which literary analysis was directly connected to historical
research. It referred to the study of various strands of tradition or
sources, whether oral or written, that were used to compose a document.
The study of these sources was a prolegomena, as Julius Wellhausen put
it, to historical investigation, trying to establish reliable sources
for the study of history. The first two perspectives surveyed below are
generally of this type.
Third, today literary criticism is still a technical term but used much
more broadly to refer to the study of the inner workings of a document,
things like plot development, rhetorical dynamic, features such as irony
and satire, word play, structure, the use of certain patterns or forms,
all the features that go into making a piece of literature. The last two
perspectives below work from this broader definition.
This "new literary criticism" is far less connected with historical
issues, although most do not neglect it completely. However, in some of
the more radical developments in literary criticism, such as
structuralism, there is no need to place a piece of literature into a
historical context. It is assumed that the "meaning" of literature by
its very nature is self-contained within the piece of literature.
We cannot take time here to trace the development of source analysis,
although a couple of observations are necessary. As mentioned above,
source analysis arose as an adjunct to historical investigation in
trying to establish the reliability of documents as historical
resources. In its early phases, literary analysis was concerned with
establishing the oldest strand that went into the composition of a
literary work. Historians assumed that the earliest strand would be the
most historically reliable. However, as the emphasis began to shift more
to the text itself rather than to the history it could illuminate, the
concern shifted to sources as clues to the compositional technique of
the literature, and therefore as clues to the nature of the work itself.
Much of the early source work focused on the Pentateuch, the first five
books of the Old Testament (see JEDP: Sources in the
Pentateuch). The general conclusion was that the Pentateuch was a
composite work that grew out of the life of the community of Faith over
several centuries rather than beings composed at one time by Moses
himself. Later study allowed a larger role for the older Mosaic
traditions, but did not change the perspective that the book in its
final form was the product of a long development with a variety of
strands of tradition. Much like the different views of the four Gospels,
the Pentateuch was formed from different strands of traditions that
circulated in Israel representing different perspectives on Israel's
history (see The Synoptic Problem).
As scholars applied the methods of source analysis and viewed the
Pentateuch in terms of various strands of tradition or sources, the
question arose about the extent of those sources. That is, could sources
be seen in other places in the Old Testament beyond the Pentateuch?
This issue revolved around the relationship of the Book of Deuteronomy
to the writings both before and after it. While Deuteronomy had been
traditionally included as the last book of the Pentateuch, it is also
obvious that it relates very closely to the book of Joshua that follows
it since the story line of entry into the land from the Pentateuch
continues in Joshua. And, as we have seen, Joshua has close connections
with Judges, while Judges in turn sets the stage for the rise of the
monarchy recounted in Samuel and Kings.
This relationship of the books of Joshua through Kings had long been
recognized in Jewish tradition where they are known together as The
Former Prophets (the Latter Prophets are the prophetic books of Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Book of the Twelve so-called Minor Prophets).
The new question was how to understand the literary relationship of
Deuteronomy as part of the Pentateuch to the material in the Former
prophets, and especially in Joshua.
The first approach to this issue simply extended the results of study
of the Pentateuch to the Former Prophets. Scholars had identified
several specific strands of tradition in the Pentateuch and so they
concluded that the connection of Deuteronomy with Joshua and the books
that followed could be explained by tracing the same strands of
tradition into the Former Prophets, at least through the early chapters
of Joshua. In this view, even though Deuteronomy was recognized to be a
separate strand of tradition from much of the rest of the Pentateuch
(labeled the D tradition or source), it was seen as part of an unfolding
story that continued through Joshua. Joshua was the fulfillment of the
promises of possessing the land made throughout the Pentateuch and
especially in Deuteronomy.
While Joshua shared the same perspective as the narratives in the
Pentateuch, Judges was seen as a different kind of writing, taking the
story in a different direction both in terms of literary structure and
in terms of content and theological themes. As a result, the strands of
tradition together were grouped as Gen-Exod-Lev-Num-Deut-Josh, with
Jud-Sam-Kings forming a later set of traditions that told Israel's
history in a different way (this follows the Hebrew canon in which Ruth
and Chronicles are not seen as part of this history; see Canons of the Hebrew Bible). In effect, this
lengthened the Pentateuch ("five books") to a Hexateuch ("six books").
The term Hexateuch was simply a way to refer to the idea that Joshua
should be seen with the books of the Pentateuch and separate from Judges
through Kings.
While the idea of a Hexateuch could explain the relationship of
Deuteronomy with Joshua, problems with this proposal quickly emerged.
The sources that could be seen rather easily in the Pentateuch, and upon
which the while idea rested, could not be easily traced in Joshua if at
all. Also, while the relationship of Deuteronomy and Joshua was clear,
how that relationship should be seen in terms of the other four books of
the Pentateuch remained uncertain since Joshua had little connection
with those four books. Likewise, there was no adequate explanation, if
all six books were to be seen as comprising a common set of traditions,
why Deuteronomy should have influenced Joshua so heavily, but not have
influenced the books preceding it more. Also, the idea of a Hexateuch
separated Joshua from the rest of the Former Prophets, something
unlikely considering the close connections between the minority voice in
Joshua and Judges that we have already seen.
The whole issue of the literary relationship of the Pentateuch and the
Former Prophets went a different direction with the work of Martin Noth.
While his ideas are detailed and have been extended and revised by
others, his basic proposal was that the book of Deuteronomy along with
the Former Prophets should be seen as an independent work reaching its
final form during the Israelite exile to Babylon.
The entire work, Deuteronomy along with Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and
Kings, incorporated many older traditions and perhaps even earlier
versions of Deuteronomy itself. In its final exilic development it
interpreted Israel's history from that later perspective (c. 580-550
BC). Deuteronomy was the introduction to this entire historical work
that was called the Deuteronomic History. This accounted for the close
connection of Deuteronomy with Joshua and the books that followed. As a
result, the strands of traditions together were grouped as
Gen-Exod-Lev-Num, while the Deuteronomic History included
Deut-Josh-Jud-Sam-Kings as a unified literary work. This in effect
reduced the Pentateuch to a Tetrateuch ("four books").
Historically, the implications of this perspective is much more
far-reaching than the Hexateuch proposal. While the Hexateuch was not
used to argue a literal historical record for the material of either
Joshua or Judges, it did allow a more traditional approach to the
historical issues. Generally, the traditions of both the Hexateuch and
the remaining Former Prophets were thought to be very old traditions.
With Joshua connected with Deuteronomy, the sequential unfolding of
settlement in the land, with later apostasy in the period of the Judges,
was more likely.
However, with the Tetrateuch approach, the entire account of settlement
in the land was seen as a very late development in Israel's history, at
least in the form it appears in the books now. While various scholars
took the historical questions more seriously than others in working with
this approach, to many this suggested that these later traditions were
not as reliable as historical records since they were actually written
500-700 years after the events in a radically different historical
context. Later studies were more ready to allow greater validity to oral
tradition in the ancient world, as well as allowing very old strands of
tradition to be incorporated into the final work. Still, the effect of
this approach was to push the historical issues into the background in
favor of seeing the Deuteronomic History as more of a social or
theological interpretation of history rather than simply the recording
of historical data.
B. Holistic
literary approaches to Joshua and Judges
Noth's proposal has been widely accepted since it allows us to explain
many of the features of the biblical text for which historical or source
approaches could not. Some have not accepted his perspective for fear of
what it might do to certain theories about the nature and authority of
Scripture. Yet, in many ways it provides a perspective from which to
take the biblical traditions seriously apart from the magnitude of
historical problems that emerge in Joshua and Judges. Still, many have
challenged his proposal on other grounds than just certain view of
Scripture.
From slightly different perspectives both Brevard Childs and James
Sanders raised questions that went beyond dealing with traditions and
sources from which the books were composed. The new questions they
raised sought to understand how the books related to each other in terms
of functioning together as part of the canon of Scripture for a
community or communities of Faith.
The fact remains that in spite of all the previous proposals, the
actual canon of Scripture has been a Pentateuch followed by the account
of Israel's settlement in the land. Both Jewish and Christian
communities, even with the slightly different order of the Christian
canon in the Former Prophets, have always understood the books in some
kind of unfolding order, from Pentateuch to Historical Books/Former
Prophets. This concern with canon takes that order seriously, yet
without returning to a position that allows the historical questions to
override the biblical text itself. It was not the biblical text that
forced the various divisions, but the assumptions in asking historical
questions and using historical methods that led to trying to sort the
material out along historical lines. This does not suggest that the
historical methods did not produce helpful results, only that finally
they do not deal adequately with the biblical text as Scripture for the
Church.
The perspective of a canonical whole asserts that how the community of
Faith arranged the biblical material, whether by redactors or authors,
whether from oral tradition or documents, whether ancient or newer
traditions, is the governing factor in how we should see the material.
The primary question is not, "what were the sources from which this
document was composed?" or even "what strands of tradition can we
identify in this work." The primary question, at least for those who are
part of a community of Faith, is simply, "how shall we understand this
material as it has been passed on to us." This perspective emphasizes
the communication of the material as it stands in its present form
rather than imposing other categories on the text that force us to read
it in different ways.
This has significant implications for how we see the relationship
between Joshua and Judges, as well as the relationship of those books to
the larger canon. From this view, Deuteronomy, with its summary of the
exodus, focus on the giving of torah at Sinai, as well as the covenant
curses and blessing with which the book concludes, is clearly the
conclusion of the Pentateuch. The central section of the book includes a
reiteration of many of the Mosaic instructions, and so must be seen in
relation to the torah traditions of Exodus through Numbers. Yet, it
awaits the crossing of the Jordan and entry into the land to fulfill
what the exodus and the promises to Abraham had begun, and so ends in
expectation of the future.
Joshua assumes this emphasis on the instructions from God to his people
about how to live in their world (the torah; while we often think
of "law," the Hebrew term torah
actually means "instruction;" see Torah as
Holiness). In fact, faithfulness to those instructions becomes the
primary focus as the people enter the land, both from the ending of
Deuteronomy and the beginning of Joshua. Likewise Judges uses
faithfulness to God's instructions as the criteria for evaluating the
spiritual status of the people throughout the book. Failure to follow
those instructions is one reason given in Judges for the hardship that
the people endured at the hands of the Canaanites.
Rather than dependence on just the Book of Deuteronomy for this
emphasis on faithfulness, Joshua and the books following depend on the
entire preceding tradition from creation to the exodus contained in the
Pentateuch. Specifically, the twin themes of God's grace (exodus) and
faithful response (Sinai) that have unfolded throughout most of the
Pentateuch in the exodus and Sinai narratives, provide the groundwork
upon which the entry to the land is built. The Former Prophets track the
outworking of the implications of the exodus and the giving of the
torah
at Sinai through Israel's subsequent history.
So, there is an integral relationship between Joshua and the
Pentateuch. It is not on the level of sources or traditions, but in
terms of what was important to the community who shaped these
traditions, how Israel lived out in the land the implications of the
covenant they had made with God at Sinai following the Exodus. This
suggests that the unity of the material is a thematic or theological
unity, and not a unity (or disunity) of sources. It also suggests that
the sequence and organization of the material is not chronological and
not dependent on sources, but is theological and dependent on the
testimony of the community to their own history.
This also suggests that the material of the Former Prophets, while
closely connected thematically with the Pentateuch, is a significantly
different kind of material. There is a clear break between the formative
era of the exodus and the wilderness wandering and the later entry into
the land. While Joshua succeeded Moses as leader, the roles of the two
men were radically different. It was left to Joshua to put into practice
in the land the principles that God had revealed to Moses in the desert.
The movement into the land in the first chapters of Joshua was far more
than a geographical move; it was a significant shift in the way Israel
related to God. The "land" becomes its own theological symbol as the
traditions unfold, the place where faithfulness to God will be tested,
the place where life must actually be lived as God's people.
The canonical approach to reading Joshua and Judges as part of a larger
literary work in conjunction with the Pentateuch has been modified in
various ways as further suggestions have been made. Yet, it has remained
the primary way to understand the material beyond a purely historical
reading.
Noth's proposal of a Deuteronomic History reaching its final form in
the time following the exile of Israel to Babylon, with the Book of
Deuteronomy as its anchor, has remained widely accepted although
modified. Rather than seeing the book in terms of sources or
compositional strategies, now the emphasis is on the Deuteronomic
History as the post-exilic communities' theological interpretation of
their entire history from the perspective of exile. Most would
acknowledge an earlier form of Deuteronomy that is much older than the
present book, but reworked and edited in light of the events of the
exile. Likewise, the traditions in Joshua and Judges are understood as
very old traditions, but occur in their present form as the result of
being cast into a new interpretive framework in light of the exile.
It is really this interpretative framework that is emphasized in
talking about a Deuteronomic History or the Deuteronomist who composed
it. The interpretative framework is both historical and theological.
Historically, the traditions are read in light of the outworking of
Israel's history into the post-exilic era, a time when Israel had been
driven from the land and enslaved by foreign powers. Theologically, the
torah and covenant traditions become the criteria for reading Israel's
subsequent history in the exile. These come together since Israel's
history in the exilic came to a disappointing end, a failure that the
community attributed to Israel's unfaithfulness in keeping the
commitment to God that the people took to themselves at Sinai. The
interpretative framework then is a theological perspective of Israel's
history read in terms of faithfulness to God.
In light of all this, we can return to some of the historical questions
raised at the beginning. There are still no answers to those specific
historical problems. But perhaps it is more obvious now that some of
those historical problems are important to us because we have not heard
the biblical text as the faith community of Israel intended it to be
heard. That is, we have asked historical questions when the books are
not history. This does not suggest that they are fictional; that
reaction is as much a part of our own biases in favor of our modern
categories as were the assumptions that allowed the historical problems
to dominate the books in the first place. But it does say that there is
a theological dimension to the books that simply does not concern itself
with historical harmony, and will not yield to historical questions. In
fact, the very dissenting voices in Joshua and Judges that raise the
historical questions may provide us the best clue to how we can hear the
books theologically.
While there are historical elements within both accounts of Joshua and
Judges, the primary purpose of neither account is purely or even
primarily historical, so asking historical questions is not really
helpful in understanding the books. The primary purpose of the books as
they are preserved by the Community of Faith as Scripture is
confessional and theological. They review and tell Israel's history from
the time of entry into the land until the rise of the monarchy in terms
of obedience and faithfulness to God. They tell of Israel's blessings
when the people were faithful and of awful consequences when they were
not. They bear witness to the work of God in the world, both His
self-revelation in history and the community's response to that
revelation, both positively and negatively. So rather than asking "what
really happened?" a historical question, we should ask "what is the
community telling us about God?" a confessional and theological
question.
Rather than seeing the two books in opposition to each other, or trying
to ignore or rationalize the obvious discrepancies in the books, a
better means of access to the theological message is to ask how the
books relate to each other theologically, and in the larger context of
Scripture. For this, it might be helpful to work with a graphic. This
admittedly schematizes the accounts, but does so to highlight the larger
literary structure of both Pentateuch and Former Prophets to illustrate
the confessional themes that govern both blocks of material.
First, note the perspective from which Israel viewed its history. If
Noth is at all correct that the entire Deuteronomic History presents
Israel looking back on its history from after the exile, then the
perspective of the entire work is from a time after the last event in 2
Kings, the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of Israel and its king
to Babylon. That event becomes the interpretive lens through which all
of the material is to be read, much as the Gospel accounts in the New
Testament are to be read through the lens of the final events recorded
there, the resurrection of Jesus.
Since that event is the loss of the land and, at least for the time
being, the ending of God's people, the history is told in terms of that
ending and that failure. The dominating question, then, in looking at
Israel's history was, "how did this happen?" How could a people who had
such a heritage of promise and experience of the grace of God come to
such a dismal failure? This becomes the interpretive framework in which
the rest of the history is cast.
The central books in this holistic reading are Deuteronomy, which
summarizes the requirements of God for his people and calls them to
faithfulness, and the two books of Joshua and Judges, which provide the
pivot of the interpretative framework.
In this perspective, the book of Joshua is a theological reflection on
the results of obedience; when God's people are faithful and live Torah,
He is with them and brings His promises to fulfillment (Deut 30:20). As
it stands within the canon, it recalls God's faithfulness and the
possibilities that exist in an obedient people enabled by God's grace.
The end of Joshua (24:14-15) reflects a sermonic call to respond to His
gracious self-revelation in faithfulness.
This means that the purpose of the book is not to duplicate "what
happened" as Israel entered the land in a dispassionate way. Its purpose
is to highlight the points at which the people were faithful to God and
the blessings that faithfulness brought to the people. The Joshua
traditions remember that not everything went smoothly as Israel entered
the land, which the minority voice in the book is not at all embarrassed
to tell. But the purpose is to relate the successes the people had to
the call to faithfulness in Deuteronomy and the Pentateuch. The fact
was, with all the reverses and failures Israel faced, and as difficult
as it was to settle in the land, they did settle in the land. That very
fact was enough to celebrate the blessings of God and the fulfillment of
the promises to the fathers.
As far as the historical details, we should admit that there are some
discrepancies in how the story is told in Joshua and how it is told in
Judges and later traditions. But that should never be allowed to become
the sole criteria of the reliability of the traditions or the truth
about God to which it bears witness. It is only with assumptions forced
by modern categories of thinking, such as absolute inerrancy or
historical positivism, which makes such criteria the judge of Scripture
in either direction (see The Modern Inerrancy
Debate).
This also means that the book of Judges serves a companion role to
Joshua, a theological reflection on disobedience and the consequences
that unfold from sin. When God's people failed to live torah, He would
no longer fight for them and would allow the consequences of their sin
to work out. Canonically, it serves as an anticipation of Israel's
failure, a foreshadowing of the end of Israel in the exile. All of
Israel's history from the entry into the land to the Exile is
anticipated in the failures portrayed in Judges. The end of Judges
(21:25) anticipates how those consequences of sin would continue to work
out in Israel's history. This is not a prophetic prediction of that
failure, but a theological reflection on history from those who had
already experienced it and were looking back at the traditions.
But there is an even more significant theological overtone in shaping
the traditions in this way. While the Deuteronomic History serves as a
theological critique of Israel's history, it also confesses something
about how God works in the world. If the past has worked out in terms of
consequences for sin and blessing for obedience, there is some hint that
this understanding may well set the stage for the future as well. With
Deuteronomy as the summary of God's requirements and a call to
faithfulness, it might serve in the present as the people were in exile
as much as in the past. In other words, while the book of Deuteronomy is
set in Israel's past as the people were about to enter the land, it was
reinterpreted to apply to the context of the exile. In that context, the
call to obedience is no longer a recounting of history, but a very much
contemporary call to respond to God's grace in the present.
This suggests that Joshua and Judges may be far more than just the
theological recounting of history. They may be paradigms for response to
God in any time. That is, Joshua extols the positive results and hope for
a future that faithfulness to God and response to his grace entails. On
the other hand Judges graphically illustrates the consequences of
unfaithfulness to God and the rejection of God's instructions for "what
is right" in our own eyes. This is not timeless truth; but is clearly a
truth about God that transcends the historical context in which it is
presented.
And so, the final impact and significance of Joshua may well be that
call to faithfulness that is willing to launch into an unknown future on
the promise that "I will be with you," because that is the only way to
live in the land as God's people. And the final impact and significance
of Judges may well be the warning of the consequences of failing to be
God's people, of the dangers of allowing the adulteration of worship and
commitment to God, and the endings that come because God's people refuse
to follow torah in favor of their own way.
The historical issues in the book cannot be dismissed. But with this
message, they seem less important.
-Dennis Bratcher, Copyright
©
2008, Dennis
Bratcher, All Rights Reserved
See Copyright and User Information Notice |
Home
>
Bible Topics > Issues in
Biblical Interpretation
> this page
