JOSHUA, BOOK OF. The sixth book of the OT, and the first book of the Prophets (נְבִיאִ֔ים), the second great division of the Heb. canon. It is named after Joshua (q.v.), the leader of the Israelites during their invasion and settlement by tribes in the Promised Land.
A. Background. The events set forth in the Book of Joshua follow immediately after those of the lifetime of Moses. The cultural and historical setting for the conquest of Pal. is similar to that of the Exodus and wilderness journey. The data for determining this background are supplied by the Biblical records and archeological research. The patriarchs sojourned in Canaan during what archeologists call the Middle Bronze Age (2100-1550 b.c.). This was a time of change with the influx of new peoples such as the Amorites. In the 19th and following centuries strongly-fortified Hyksos cities began to dot the land. Abraham arrived at Shechem and Bethel (Gen 12) c. 2000 b.c. during the two centuries when settlements existed in the Negeb (2100-1900) to sustain the caravan routes to Egypt (Gen 12:9; 13:1-3; 20:1; 24:62). Genesis 14 suggests a time after the collapse of the Sumer. Ur III dynasty (2113-1991) but before the strong first dynasty of Babylon under Hammurabi (1792-1750), when several kings in Mesopotamia might well have formed a coalition for mutual assistance to raid the asphalt pits and copper mines S of the Dead Sea.
Joseph prob. rose to power as vizier of Egypt during that country’s illustrious twelfth dynasty (1991-1786). It is known that Pharaoh Sesostris III (1878-1843) broke the power of the landed nobility, “reducing the monarchs to the status of servants of the crown and doing away with their feudal states” (W. C. Hayes, The Sceptre of Egypt, I [1953], 196). The explanation of how he accomplished this may possibly be found in Genesis 47:13-26, the account of Joseph’s buying up the fields of Egypt for Pharaoh. The cultural milieu of the Joseph narratives is thoroughly Egyp., and the international political situation seems peaceful enough throughout the land, unbroken by the later strife caused by the foreign Hyksos rule in the Delta of Egypt (1730-1570). The seat of government remained in the Memphis area just S of Cairo throughout the twelfth and thirteenth dynasties. The region of Goshen would have been a comfortable distance from the palace (Gen 46:28-34).
The new king who rose against (qûm ’al) Egypt and “who did not know Joseph” (Exod 1:8), i.e. who refused to recognize Joseph’s contribution to Egypt’s history, was likely a Hyksos ruler in the Nile Delta region. If the Hyksos afflicted instead of favored the Israelites, forcing them to build Pithom and Raamses (the Hyksos capital also known as Avaris or Tanis, most likely to be identified with the site of Qantir in the NE Delta), this would explain why Israel did not flee Egypt when native Egyptians thrust out the Hyksos before 1550 b.c.
The Pharaohs of the eighteenth dynasty (1567-1320) evidently continued to enslave the Israelites until Moses finally led them into Sinai, c. 1445 b.c., 480 years before Solomon began to build the Temple (1 Kings 6:1). The Exodus would have occurred during the reign of Amenhotep II (1450-1425), following the long reign of the mighty Thutmose III (1483-1450), the oppressor of Israel from whom Moses fled after killing the Egyp. taskmaster (Exod 2:15). While the capital of these kings was at Thebes in Upper Egypt, they had subsidiary palaces at Memphis, Heliopolis (near Cairo), and prob. Bubastis where Pharaoh could be in residence during the time of the plagues. The Exodus occurred 430 years after Israel had come to dwell in Egypt (Exod 12:40), or as the LXX and Samaritan texts indicate, after he had come to dwell in Canaan and in Egypt, returning with his family and flocks from Padan-aram. According to the eighteenth dynasty date for the Exodus, Joshua would have led Israel across the Jordan c. 1405 b.c., at the close of the Late Bronze I Age (1550-1400). After making the tribal allotments, Joshua lived on until 1390-1380, or even later. The period of the Judges lasted over 300 years until Saul was anointed king c. 1040 b.c. This is known as the early date view of the Exodus and Conquest.
An alternate view dates Joseph’s career to the Hyksos period and the Exodus during the reign of Pharaoh Rameses II (1304-1237) or even of his successor Merneptah. A stela of the latter mentioning Israel as being in Canaan makes any later date for the Exodus highly improbable. They base their interpretation on the appearance of the name Raamses in Exodus 1:11, on the settled Edomite and Moabite towns and line of fortresses which archeologists claim were not built until the 13th cent. b.c., and on the widespread destruction of Canaanite cities c. 1250-1200. Those who hold this late date view arbitrarily take the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 to be a conventional number for twelve generations, supposedly lasting forty years each, but in actuality only about twenty-five years each. The Exodus would be only 300 years before Solomon began his Temple, or c. 1270 b.c. Jephthah’s figure of 300 years from Moses’ capture of Heshbon to his own day (Judg 11:26) cannot be taken literally, and the periods of rest (and perhaps of oppression as well) in the era of the Judges must be foreshortened and/or drastically overlapped.
Even more serious to the careful interpretation of Scripture, the adherents of the late date view find it necessary to reject the Biblical picture of a unified movement of all twelve tribes from Egypt to Canaan under Moses and Joshua. They believe they must account for certain extra-Biblical evidence, such as a seeming 14th cent. b.c. date for the destruction of Jericho and the occurrence in inscrs. of Seti I and Rameses II of the name Asher as a territory in southern Phoenicia. Some scholars admit that the Habiru mentioned in the Amarna Letters (c. 1390-1360) refer to bands of Heb. Israelites. By suggesting conflicting data in the supposed late documents that make up the sources of the Pentateuch and Joshua (the so-called JEDP theory), such scholars believe they are able to reëvaluate the Biblical statements and to see some of the Israelite tribes entering Pal. c. 1400 b.c. and others c. 1250 b.c. Some tribes supposedly may have infiltrated from the N, some from Kadesh-barnea into the Negeb, and some crossed the Jordan to attack Jericho. Some tribal groups may never have left Canaan to sojourn in Egypt. For an extreme fragmentation of the settlement of Canaan by the various clans or tribes, which later amalgamated under the name of Israel, see N. K. Gottwald, A Light to the Nations (1959), 152-165.
This picture of the conquest and settlement differs greatly from that presented in the books of Moses and of Joshua. The Bible indicates that all twelve sons of Jacob were with him in Egypt, all twelve tribes were at Mount Sinai when God gave them the covenant and the laws and were numbered there, all were present at Kadesh-barnea, and all encamped at Abel-shittim where another census was taken. All twelve tribes crossed the Jordan together with Joshua and erected two monuments of twelve stones each, all assembled at Mount Ebal, and all the tribes received their territorial allotments from either Moses or Joshua before they began to settle. To argue for two or three successive waves of conquest or infiltration is to invalidate the Biblical record.
According to the early date view, by the time of the Israelite invasion of Canaan, Pharaoh Amenhotep III (1417-1379) was losing interest in his Asiatic territories. The campaigns of Thutmose III and his successors into Pal. and the oppressive administration of their oft-corrupt commissioners had seriously weakened the feudal system and towns established by the Hyksos. Most of the petty kings of Canaan and Syria soon revolted from Egypt or stopped paying annual tribute. Cuneiform tablets found at Tell el-Amarna in Egypt, the site of the capital of Amenhotep’s son Akhenaten (1379-1362), are part of the royal archives of these two pharaohs. The majority were letters from vassal princes in Palestine and Syria pleading for aid from the Pharaoh against neighboring city-states or against the SA-GAZ or the Habiru. Apparently most of these pleas went unanswered. The silence in the books of Joshua and Judges concerning Egypt thus may be explained by the fact that Egypt had a weak foreign policy from Amenhotep III until Seti I (1318-1304), the next pharaoh to march into Pal. Even then the Egyp. armies did not always attempt to invade the mountains but stuck to the coastal route when going to campaign against the Hittites in Syria.
The Amarna tablets show that the Book of Joshua accurately portrays the political situation in Canaan—a country divided into numerous small feudal city-states prone to war with one another. It is perhaps significant that none of the extant Amarna letters come from or mention Jericho, Ai, Bethel, or Gibeon, cities destroyed or controlled by Joshua and the Israelites. Cities not captured or not permanently occupied by Israel are those from which letters were sent to Egypt requesting help—Jerusalem, Gezer, Lachish, Jarmuth, and Eglon. The Amarna correspondence seems to reflect the situation in Pal. early in the period of the Judges, although prob. not during the time of the conquest itself under Joshua. (See SOTI, pp. 253-259.)
By the period of Joshua and the Judges Canaanite religion had become exceedingly degraded. The chief emphasis was upon fertility and sex. The Ras Shamra (Ugaritic) tablets reveal the licentious and brutal characteristics of Baal, Anath, Ashtoreth, Asherah, and other deities. The extant relics of fertility cult practices and serpent worship unearthed at Beth-shan, Megiddo, Hazor, Gezer, etc., and evidence of child sacrifice as in a foundation at Dothan bear mute testimony to the need for strong measures on the part of the invading Israelites. Since sacred prostitution and other religious practices were spiritually contaminating one can understand why God commanded Israel to exterminate the seven nations in Canaan. In holy war they and their cities were to be devoted to destruction lest the religious life of God’s people be endangered through contact with such idolatrous peoples (W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity [1957], pp. 230-235, 281; SOTI, p. 261).
B. Authorship and date. The Book of Joshua in its present form appears to be a literary unit, composed by an anonymous author. Critical scholars have insisted that the book is a composite work of several source documents, later compiled, revised, and supplemented by various deuteronomic editors. When one recognizes the different types of literary materials found in the Book of Joshua—narrative, topographic description, exhortation—there remain no strong arguments against the internal unity or that would demand explanation by resorting to the fiction of editing and re-editing.
Artur Weiser and Gerhard von Rad are typical of modern critics in their views of the sources used in Joshua (Weiser, The Old Testament: Its Formation and Development, 4th ed. [1961], 143-147; von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I [1962], 296-305). They say that the Book of Joshua belongs to the Pentateuch in that it continues the story of those books, but the method of using the various strands or sources is different. The basis of Joshua 1-12 is mainly the “E” (Elohist) strand, though later revised by the Deuteronomic school. In chs. 2-9 “E” has transformed old Benjaminite traditions, presumably nurtured at the Benjaminite tribal sanctuary of Gilgal, into a narrative of the conquest of central Canaan by the whole of Israel under Joshua. In ch. 10 “E” uses a piece of an old Ephraimite heroic saga in which the figure of Joshua was original and combines it with a song about Joshua out of the book of Jashar (Josh 10:12-14), and in ch. 11 employs an equally isolated Galilean tradition. A few traces of the Yahwist or “J” (Jehovistic) writer still may be seen in 5:13, 14; 9:6, 7; 17:14-18. These “E” and “J” strands were not shaped until early in the monarchy. A major Deuteronomic revision that agreed with the E tradition of the conquest of Canaan took place around the time of King Josiah, perhaps to reflect the northward expansion of the kingdom of Judah during his reign. The “D” (Deuteronomistic) additions were chiefly chs. 1; 10:16-43 and 11:10-12:24 (lists of captured towns and kings); 21:43-22:6; and ch. 23. Chapter 24 is substantially “E” with “D” editing. Later, in the time of Ezra, the “P” (Priestly) writer(s) added most of the contents of chs. 13-21, and 22:7-34. For the JEDP theory or documentary hypothesis see Pentateuch.
Other liberal scholars, esp. Martin Noth (Das Buch Joshua, 1938) and John Bright (IB, II, 541-548), reject this analysis, claiming that it is impossible to trace out Pentateuchal documents in Joshua. The only literary contact on which a majority of scholars are agreed is with Deuteronomy, so the Book of Joshua is described as “thoroughly Deuteronomic” in its present form.
It is true that the author of the Book of Joshua did make use of sources. He specifically refers to the book of Jashar (10:13) and indicates that Joshua ordered a description of the land to be written (18:9). Joshua himself wrote the words of the covenant renewal and various statutes and ordinance for the people in the book of the law of God at Shechem (24:25, 26). Furthermore, a comparison of 6:26 with 1 Kings 16:34 suggests that Joshua also wrote down the oath which he made regarding Jericho and the curse upon any future rebuilding; the passage in 1 Kings says literally that Hiel restored Jericho at the cost of his two sons, according to the word of the Lord which He spoke “by Joshua the son of Nun” (1 Kings 16:34).
Joshua cannot have been the final author of the book bearing his name. It records his death (24:29, 30). While the Talmud attributes the book to Joshua, it explains that this death notice was written by Eleazar the priest, and that his son Phinehas appended the last v. (24:33) to finish the book (Baba Bathra, 14b-15b). Several events are mentioned which did not occur until after Joshua’s death: Caleb’s conquest of Hebron (15:13b, 14; cf. Judg 1:1, 10, 20), Othniel’s capture of Debir (Josh 15:15-19; cf. Judg 1:1, 11-15), and the migration of the Danites to Leshem (Josh 19:47; cf. Judg 17; 18) at a time after idolatry was tolerated in Israel which was not until after Joshua’s death (Josh 24:31). The author employs the name Hormah (12:14; 15:30; 19:4) for the town of Zephath, which was not changed until the days of the Judges (Judg 1:16, 17). The phrase “all the land of the Hittites” (Josh 1:4) in referring to Syria SW of the Euphrates would not have been historically accurate until the takeover of that territory by King Suppiluliumas c. 1350 b.c. The phrase is not in Deuteronomy 11:24.
On the other hand, the author was an eyewitness of some of the events he described. He speaks of the Lord’s blocking Jordan “until we were passed over” (Josh 5:1, consonantal Heb. text, italics mine). He identifies Israel’s previous generation by saying, “To them the Lord swore that he would not let them see the land which the Lord had sworn to their fathers to give us” (5:6, italics mine). Rahab was still living at the time of writing (6:25). After outlining their boundaries the author himself addresses Judah directly: “This shall be your south boundary” (15:4). Consider also his detailed narratives (2:3-22; 3:14-17; 4:8-18; 7:16-26) and the repeated use of preconquest place names (15:9, 49, 54).
The book must be pre-Solomonic, since Canaanites still held Gezer (Josh 16:10; cf. 1 Kings 9:16); pre-Davidic, because Jerusalem was still inhabited by the Jebusites (Josh 15:8, 63; cf. 1 Sam 5:5-9); before the reign of King Saul who massacred many Gibeonites and planned to destroy them all (2 Sam 21:1-9), because the Gibeonites were still servants around the Tabernacle at the time of writing (Josh 9:27); and earlier than the 12th cent. in that Sidon rather than Tyre is considered to be the leading city of Phoenicia (11:8; 19:28). The people of that region are called Sidonians (13:4-6), whereas Tyre gained the ascendancy over Sidon c. 1200 b.c. It would seem that the book was written prior to the 12th cent., for the Philistines were not yet considered to be a menace, occupying at that time only a part of the “south,” The Negeb, along with the Geshurites and the Avvim; and the territory as a whole was reckoned as Canaanite (13:2b-4a; the Philistines are mentioned only here in Joshua). Not until after 1200 b.c. according to the Egyp. records of Rameses III did the Philistines come in force to the Palestinian coastal plain. For corroborating archeological evidence see K. M. Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land (1960), pp. 221-232.
Since the author follows the style that Moses employed in writing the Book of Deuteronomy, and since he seemingly had access to Joshua himself in order to learn of the leader’s private confrontation with the Lord near Jericho (Josh 5:13-15), a proposed author has been Phinehas, the last person named in the book (24:33). Phinehas, the son and successor of Eleazar the high priest, stood firmly for the Lord at Peor (Num 25:7-13) and fought the Midianites, killing Balaam (31:6-8). He, rather than Joshua, is the prominent figure in settling the dispute over the altar erected by the two and one-half eastern tribes in the Jordan valley (Josh 22:10-34). He would have been about forty years old at the time of the invasion of Canaan, apparently having been born in Egypt before the Exodus (Exod 6:25). Joshua may have lived until c. 1380 b.c., Eleazar a few more years, and Phinehas until perhaps 1360-1350 b.c., living to be eighty or ninety years old. Thus Phinehas could have written during the judgeship of Othniel (Judg 3:8-11; cf. Josh 15:17). He was given a town in the hill country of Ephraim (Josh 24:33).
On the other hand, there are indications that the writer may have been an unnamed priest closely associated with Phinehas, but who resided within Judah, perhaps even in Hebron, one of the cities of refuge (Josh 20:7; 21:13). Special interest is shown in Hebron in describing its being assigned to Caleb before any other allotments were made (14:6-15), in relating its recapture by Caleb (15:13, 14; cf. 10:36, 37), and in naming it not only first but with special notation among the forty-eight cities for the Levites (21:11-13). The far greater familiarity with the territory finally occupied by the tribe of Judah (cf. the detailed account of the southern campaign, 10:1-43) and the lengthy list of the borders and towns of Judah (15:1-63) may indicate that this became the author’s homeland. He only sketchily traces the borders of the important Joseph tribes to the N, even though within them lay both Shiloh and Shechem (chs. 16; 17). If he lived in Judah, it is understandable that he might list the geographical areas of that territory first without specifying that the hill country near the Negeb belonged to Judah (11:16). Since there is repeated mention of the fact that no territorial inheritance was allotted to the tribe of Levi (13:14, 33; 14:3, 4; 18:7), perhaps he was a Levite if not a priest (see J. J. Lias, “Joshua,” Pulpit Commentary, III, xi, xii). Whoever the author, his book evidences thorough knowledge of and dependence on the fourth and fifth books of Moses (e.g., cf. the description of Aroer in Josh 13:9 with that in Deut 2:36).
C. Destination and purpose. Just as Moses wrote down the words and works of God and had the scroll(s) placed beside the Ark of the covenant in the sanctuary to remain there as a witness to the nation (Deut 31:9, 24-27), so also later prophets such as Samuel wrote additional material “in the book” (MT, בַּסֵּ֔פֶר, 1 Sam 10:25) and laid it up before the Lord. Evidently true prophets of the Lord were enrolled in the register of the house of Israel (Ezek 13:9), implying that they and their writings were accepted during their own lifetime as having divine authority. The Book of Joshua would likewise have been added to the sacred Scriptures of Moses soon after writing, and kept along with them in the Tabernacle for the benefit of God’s chosen people and their anointed leaders. The Scriptures were to be read periodically at the time of the annual feasts and on special occasions of covenant renewal, as in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh 8; 9).
The Book of Joshua was written to continue the sacred history of Israel begun in the Pentateuch. Deuteronomy set forth the historical basis of God’s election of Israel and fully stated the covenant (or theocratic constitution) which was revised and mediated to Israel afresh by Moses before his death. The Book of Joshua proceeds to show how this chosen people under the covenant became established in its Promised Land. Herein is found the record of Yahweh’s faithfulness to His covenants with the patriarchs and with the nation first given to it at Sinai. This Scripture is to inspire and guide God’s people to corresponding covenant loyalty and unity and high morale in future generations.
The fundamental purpose of all of the prophetical books of the Heb. canon is to exhort and warn Israel to return and adhere to the Mosaic covenant (Neh 9:30; Zech 7:8-12). This book teaches that He is fully able to perform all of His good promises to His people (Josh 21:45), that He is ever guiding them and overruling in the dangers that beset them. By comparing the lengthy record of Achan’s sin and punishment (7:1, 18, 19, 20, 24) with the brief report of the northern campaign (11:1-15) with all of its military features, for instance, it becomes apparent that there is a selection of materials in the account of the conquest—much interesting factual data is obviously omitted. The clear aim is to set forth moral and religious lessons and to demonstrate that Israel is God’s chosen agent for the carrying forward of His purposes on earth.
D. Canonicity. In the Heb. Bible Joshua heads the division known as the Former Prophets, which covers Israelite history from the Conquest to the Babylonian Exile, including the Books of Joshua, Judges, 1, 2 Samuel, and 1, 2 Kings in the Eng. Bible.
As already noted, Martin Noth and others claim that this theological history of Israel in Pal. began with the Book of Deuteronomy as its introduction. It is clear, however, in Jewish history that Deuteronomy always has been considered as part of the Torah, as one of the five books of the law. In 2 Kings 14:6 the statement that King Amaziah followed what was written in the book of the law of Moses is accompanied by a quotation in full of Deuteronomy 24:16. Both in the translation’s foreword and in the text Ecclesiasticus distinguishes between the law and the prophets (45:21; 48:22-49:12). When asked which is the great commandment in the law, Jesus Christ replied by quoting Deuteronomy 6:5 (Matt 22:36-38). Likewise He attributed the provision for divorce in the law (found in Deut 24:1-4) to Moses (Matt 19:8), not to some later writer. The apostles continued to recognize statements in Deuteronomy as belonging to Moses (Acts 3:22, citing Deut 18:15) or as written in the law of Moses (1 Cor 9:9, citing Deut 25:4; Heb 10:28-30, referring to Deut 17:6; 19:15; 32:35, 36). Josephus clearly states that the Jews of his day had five books belonging to Moses, and thirteen by prophets who wrote down what was done in their times from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes (Jos. Apion 1. 7, 8).
Further difficulties for the theory of a deuteronomic history of Israel occur in the lack of any recognizable deuteronomic framework (the covenant renewal pattern of Deut and Josh) for the Books of Judges through 2 Kings. The deuteronomic style which purportedly characterizes Joshua is not evident in Judges, as the critics S. R. Driver and C. F. Burney admit.
The older theory that Joshua was the sixth book of a late Jewish collection dubbed the “Hexateuch” is also unrealistic. This view seems first to have been suggested by Alexander Geddes (1792, 1800). It was developed in line with the documentary (JEDP) theory of the Pentateuch by such critical scholars as Bleek, Knobel, and Nöldeke in the 19th cent. The classic presentation in Eng. of the Hexateuchal analysis and its defense is J. E. Carpenter and G. Harford-Battersby, eds., The Hexateuch (2 vols.; 1900). It was argued that there must be a suitable conclusion to the story of Israel’s beginnings described in the first five books of the OT. The theme of the Promised Land permeates the Pentateuch from Abraham to the Israelites’ wilderness wanderings; without Joshua the narrative would be incomplete. Furthermore, source analysis spotted the familiar Pentateuchal documents in the sixth book. Especially the P source was thought to be present in Joshua but not in the subsequent books of Judges-2 Kings.
The term Hexateuch has no basis, however, in Jewish tradition. There is no evidence that Joshua was ever considered as forming a unit with the five books of Moses. Evidence already has been given that the law always was distinguished from the other books. Joshua was not included in the annual and triennial systems of reading the law, whereas selections from Joshua were included in the Haphtaroth (selected readings from the Prophets).
As E. J. Young (Introduction to the Old Testament [1949], p. 158) points out, there are linguistic peculiarities in the Pentateuch which do not appear in Joshua. In the former the pronoun hû (הוּא, H2085) is commonly used for both genders, but not in Joshua. The name Jericho is spelled yerēhô in the Pentateuch (e.g. Num 22:1; Deut 32:49) but yerîhô in Joshua. The phrase “Yahweh, the God of Israel” occurs fourteen times in Joshua but is very rare in the Pentateuch.
Even from the standpoint of documentary analysis the idea of a Hexateuch is inconsistent. In Genesis-Numbers the Priestly source supposedly provides the framework, but in Joshua P appears only in chs. 13-22, the section about the land allotments. If the alleged sources of the Pentateuch are continuous and run through Joshua, why is P completely absent from Deuteronomy and from Joshua 1-12, 23, 24?
The strongest argument against a Hexateuch is that the Samaritans considered only the Pentateuch to be canonical, but not the Book of Joshua. Yet Joshua contains various elements which would have commended it to Samaritan sectarianism. It features Shechem (their city of Nablus is next to Shechem) as a city of refuge and the center where all the tribes of Israel were gathered for the covenant renewal ceremony (24:1) and where Joseph’s bones were finally buried (24:32). No intimation of Jerusalem’s future importance as Israel’s center of worship is to be found. It even describes the formal reading of the law by the entire nation at the foot of Mount Gerizim (8:33), where the Samaritans later worshiped (cf. John 4:20). As G. L. Archer concludes, “the only possible explanation for the failure of the Samaritans to include Joshua in their authoritative canon was that it was not actually a part of the Mosaic Torah. The Torah must, therefore, have existed as a separate Pentateuch at the time of the Samaritan schism” (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction [1964], p. 253).
Actually, the connection of Joshua with Deuteronomy is no closer than its connection with Judges. Both the Books of Joshua and Judges begin with an identical formula, “Now after the death of...,” the word “now” representing the Heb. waw consecutive introducing וַיְהִ֗י. The most logical explanation is that the Scriptures are one record, since by divine inspiration they have one ultimate Author. Thus each human writer, performing the function of a prophet, added to the existing Word that already had been recorded and recognized as canonical. On the other hand, the various higher critical theories have proved to be destructive of one another, without proposing an explanation in line with Jewish tradition and the Bible’s own testimony concerning itself.
That the Book of Joshua was accepted by the Early Church as the Word of God may be seen in the quotation from Joshua 1:5 to be found in Hebrews 13:5, “for he has said, ‘I will never fail you nor forsake you.’” Numerous other references may be found in the NT to persons and events mentioned in Joshua, showing that there was no doubt as to the authenticity of its record.
E. Text and translations. The Heb. text of Joshua contains relatively few corruptions. B. J. Roberts lists five or six minor scribal errors that have crept into the MT of this book (The Old Testament Text and Versions [1951], pp. 96-98). The Heb. MSS from the Qumran caves, esp. the fragments from Cave IV, indicate that there was existent in Pal. a Heb. text of Joshua in the tradition of the LXX. The DSS “establish once for all that in the historical books the Septuagint translators faithfully and with extreme literalness reproduced their Hebrew Vorlage” (F. M. Cross, Jr., The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies [1958], p. 134). Whether the LXX-type text is superior to the MT must be decided in the case of each individual reading.
In general, however, it would seem that no important corrections are suggested by the LXX. Its rendering of geographical names is unreliable. A. S. Geden lists a number of slight variations in the last six chs. of Joshua on the part of the LXX from the MT (“Joshua, Book of,” ISBE [1929], III, 1751). There remains some question as to which LXX recension, the Lucianic or the shorter form, preserves the more original text. The other ancient VSS, with the exception of Jerome’s tr. of the Vul. from the Heb., are secondary, rendered from the Gr. LXX.
F. Special problems. These may be designated as theological, archeological, and exegetical.
1. Theological problem. Many preachers and writers have sensed a contradiction between the goodness and love of God and Yahweh’s command to exterminate the Canaanites (Deut 7:1-5; 20:16-18; Josh 11:20). Typical is the view that “the God of Joshua is infinitely remote from the God of Jesus,” that He is “a purely nationalistic deity, a God of Battles whose power is chiefly manifested in the prosecution of Holy War” (H. G. May and B. M. Metzger, eds., The Oxford Annotated Bible [1962], p. 263).
In answering such a charge we must recognize that God is one, that He does not change, that He is the same both in the OT and the NT. He shows love and mercy to the heathen (e.g. to Nineveh, Jonah 4:11) as well as to Israel in the OT; and He shows wrath and takes vengeance on the wicked and idolaters in the NT (e.g. on the money-changers, John 2:14-16; cf. Rom 2:1-9; Eph 4:17-24; 5:3-11; 2 Thess 1:5-9; Rev 21:8). God is no respecter of persons. Equally severe judgment was inflicted upon false prophets and idolaters among the ranks of Israel (Exod 32:25-29, 35; Deut 13:1-18). God warned His own chosen people of the consequences of disobedience, and later executed punishment upon them by the sword of cruel nations. He will do so again in the end time when Jerusalem will be besieged and trodden down yet once more (Luke 21:24; Rev 11:2; 13:5).
But why exterminate the Canaanites? Were they actually more wicked in Joshua’s day than other idolatrous peoples on earth? The Aztecs and Mayas of Central America, for instance, practiced human sacrifice. But in His inscrutable wisdom God selected Canaan, not another region, as the land which He promised to Abraham. He considered it to be at the center (lit., “navel”) of the earth (Ezek 38:12; cf. 5:5); hence it would exert an influence on the rest of the world throughout history out of all proportion to its size.
Were the Canaanites more responsible? In Joshua’s time Canaan benefited from civilizations on either side which were already illustrious and old. Furthermore, the Canaanites were sinning against spiritual light. In the days of Melchizedek and Abraham they had a witness from the one true God, they saw divine judgment fall upon Sodom and its sister cities, and before the Conquest they quaked at His mention (Josh 2:8-11). God delayed judging Canaan because in Abraham’s time “the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete” (Gen 15:16). Baalism had not yet developed: Baal is never mentioned in the patriarchal narratives, and El was still the high god of the Canaanites according to the Ugaritic epics. By 1400 b.c. the Canaanite civilization and religion had become one of the weakest, most decadent, and most immoral cultures of the civilized world. Many of its repulsive practices were prohibited to Israel in Leviticus 18. In view of the sexual perversions listed, it is more than likely that venereal diseases ravaged a large part of the population. Hence stern measures were required to prevent decimation of the Israelites by the spread of these and other diseases such as malaria and smallpox. Contagion would be possible by sudden fraternization before immunity could develop (R. E. D. Clark, The Christian Stake in Science [1967], pp. 55, 150). Yet in His control of history God grants freedom of will and motive to His agents. He is not therefore responsible for their greed and atrocities.
Finally, remember that in the midst of wrath Yahweh remembered mercy. Rahab and her family were spared, delivered from death “by grace through faith.” For the significance of people and things cursed and devoted to destruction (Josh 6:17-21; 8:21-29) see [http://biblegateway/wiki/Devoted (Things) DEVOTED THINGS]; for the concept of holy war (Josh 5:13-15) see War, Warfare.
2. Archeological problems. The proper interpretation and dating of mute archeological findings taxes the skill of the most experienced excavator. With regard to Jericho Kathleen M. Kenyon believes her excavations have shown that the strong Middle Bronze Age Hyksos city lay abandoned from c. 1550 to c. 1400 b.c. Most of the evidence for a town during the Late Bronze Age had been removed by previous expeditions or had disappeared through erosion. But burials in tombs and stratification on the town site (a portion of a house floor with an oven and juglet) testify to occupation in the Late Bronze Age II. Miss Kenyon dates this to the 14th cent. b.c., but not the 13th. Her dating, based on meager evidence, is within fifty years of the early date of the Conquest, but clearly does not aid the late date theory (“Jericho,” AOTS [1967], pp. 271-275).
The identification of Ai with any known archeological site cannot yet be established. The imposing ruins of et-Tell, two m. ESE of Bethel and covering an area of c. twenty-five acres, well fits the Biblical geographical description (Josh 7:2; 8:9, 12). French (1933-1935) and American (1964, 1966) expeditions have discovered, however, that there was no Middle or Late Bronze occupation of the mound. While it was one of the best-fortified cities in the Early Bronze Age (c. 2900-2500) and villagers settled there from 1200 to 1000 b.c., “nothing in the present evidence warrants an identification of the village with the city of Ai captured by Joshua as described in Joshua 8:1-29” (J. A. Callaway, “The 1964 ’Ai [et Tell] Excavations,” BASOR #178 [1965], 27f.). Soundings in the vicinity at Khirbet Haiyân, in a yard of a resident of the modern village of Deir Dibwan, and at Khirbet Khudriya have produced no remains of a settlement as early as the OT period. Perhaps Ai was ENE of Bethel, at or near Rimmon (Judg 20:45). This puzzle has spawned such attempted explanations as Ai being simply a military outpost of Bethel, leaving no occupational debris; or Joshua 7, 8 really refers to the destruction of Bethel (cf. Judg 1:22-25), the story being changed aetiologically to explain the ruins of et-Tell.
3. Exegetical problem. The proper understanding of the so-called “long-day” passage (Josh 10:12-14) remains a crux interpretum for the Biblical scholar. Did God miraculously prolong the daylight about a whole day? A number of modern commentators have suggested that instead of asking for a lengthened day, Joshua prayed that the sun and moon would, lit., be dumb or keep silent, i.e., cease their normal “speech” of shining. The reason for this request is that following their all-night forced march from Gilgal Joshua’s troops would become exhausted quickly by having to pursue the Amorites in the hot sunlight. God answered miraculously by sending an unseasonal storm with destructive hailstones (see WBC, pp. 217f.; SOTI, pp. 259ff.).
J. S. Holladay (“The Day[s] the Moon Stood Still,” JBL, LXXXVII [1968], 166-178) presents an alternate view in keeping with the ancient practice of observing the astral bodies. If the full moon first appears opposite the rising sun on the fourteenth day of the lunar month, i.e. at mid-month, things are in balance and normal and prosperity and victory will ensue (e.g., “The Creation Epic,” V, 18, tr. in ANET, p. 68). Hence Joshua asked for the sun and moon to stand in opposition at dawn as a sign or good omen of victory, that this day might be auspicious, even as Gideon asked for signs with respect to his fleece.
G. Content and outline. The Book of Joshua divides easily into two equal parts: conquest (chs. 1-12) and settlement (chs. 13-24). In the first division Joshua must both lead Israel across the Jordan and break the fighting potential of the Canaanites. The Lord enabled him to face the problems of his own doubts (1:1-9); of the two and one-half eastern tribes (1:12-18); of the defenders of Jericho who would perhaps be patroling the western bank of the Jordan—but the spies reported that the terrified inhabitants had barricaded themselves in Jericho (ch. 2); of fording the flooded Jordan (chs. 3; 4); and of dealing with “the reproach of Egypt” by circumcising the men of Israel at Gilgal (5:2-9).
By means of the sound military strategy of “divide and conquer,” and by brilliant field tactics Joshua was enabled to capture the key fortresses guarding the trade routes to the highlands. In times of crisis divine power was manifested to reduce strong cities (ch. 6) or to wipe out superior armies (10:10, 11); but usually Joshua employed tactics known to Hitt. commanders of that day, such as surprise attacks, night marches, rapid marches by a “flying column,” and destruction of enemies in the open and burning their cities rather than long sieges and stationing garrisons in every captured town (JNES, XXV [1966], 162-191). Since it was a holy war, sin in his own camp could not go unpunished (ch. 7) and worship and covenant ceremony must have priority over further conquest (8:30-35). Failure to seek the mind of the Lord as to the identity of the Gibeonites led Joshua to make an unholy alliance that generations later erupted in much bitterness and grief (ch. 9; 2 Sam 21:1-14).
In the second division Israel’s settlement lists embrace Joshua’s territorial allotments made at Gilgal (chs. 13-17) and at Shiloh (chs. 18-21), including the cities of refuge and Levitical towns, before the tribes had begun to colonize their portions. The method of delineating borders by naming towns and topographical landmarks was also used at that time by the Hittites in Syria. The partitioning of the land was no simple task, but a complex one that demanded wisdom, careful direction, and considerable time.
Joshua’s final acts sought to prepare the nation to love and continue on with their faithful God after his own decease. Peace was restored between eastern and western tribes (ch. 22); he urged the officials to cleave to the Lord (ch. 23); and he gathered all the people to Shechem to lead them formally and solemnly to pledge anew their covenant allegiance to God (ch. 24).
H. Theology. Meaning is found in Israel’s history as one understands the theology of Yahweh’s covenants with her. The Promised Land is given by God to His people as their conditional inheritance, contingent upon obedient loyalty to the Mosaic covenant. In each generation the tribes must renew the vows taken by their ancestors at Sinai. This step of recommitment they take upon Joshua’s exhortation (24:14-24). God is shown to be utterly faithful to His covenants with the patriarchs and the theocratic nation by fighting for them, winning their battles, and settling the tribes in their promised homeland (4:23, 24; 10:14; 11:6-8; 21:43-45; 23:3, 9, 10; 24:2-13, 18). The triumph of faith is stressed in Joshua as it portrays an entire nation marching unitedly to victory in total dependence upon the Lord.
The spiritual victory which God provides in Christ is beautifully pictured in this book. The very name “Joshua,” the Gr. form of which is “Jesus,” means “Yahweh is salvation.” The redemptive history of Israel’s crossing the Jordan, battling the Canaanites, and possessing her inheritance illustrates the Christian’s spiritual experience of conflict, triumph, and blessing in the “heavenlies” or spirit realm (Eph 1:3; 2:6; 6:12) through the mighty power of God (Eph 1:19, 20; 6:10).
According to Isaiah 49:8 the predicted Messiah will be a second Joshua whom God gives as a covenant to the people to establish the land and apportion the desolate heritages (cf. Josh 1:6). Paul teaches that the events of the Exodus and the Conquest are highly typical (1 Cor 10:1-11). Therefore Joshua has typical significance for us, prefiguring Jesus as the captain of our salvation (Heb 2:10). As Joshua led the people of God into the Promised Land and allotted their territories, so Jesus brings believers today into Promised Rest (Heb 4:8, 9; Acts 20:32; 26:18). As Joshua interceded for Israel when the nation sinned and was defeated (Josh 7:6-15), so Jesus is our Advocate who intercedes continually for His own (Rom 8:34; Heb 7:25; 1 John 2:1). As Joshua led the Israelites to victory over the enemies of God, so Christ makes possible victory over sin (Rom 8:37; 2 Cor 1:10; 2:14) and over Satan (Heb 2:14, 15; 1 John 3:8).
Bibliography' See also entries under Joshua. F. R. Fay, “Joshua,” Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (1870); C. F. Keil, “Joshua,” KD (1874); W. G. Blaikie, “Joshua,” ExB (1893); J. Garstang, Joshua-Judges: The Foundation of Bible History (1931); M. L. Margolis, The Book of Joshua in Greek (1931-1938); H. J. Blair, “Joshua,” NBC (1953); J. Bright, “Joshua,” IB (1953); Y. Kaufmann, The Biblical Account of the Conquest of Palestine (1953); G. E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (1955); K. Elliger, “Tribes, Territories of,” IDB (1962), IV, 701-710; J. Rea, “Joshua,” WBC (1962); S. Gevirtz, “Jericho and Shechem,” VT, XIII (1963), 52-62; I. Jensen, Joshua: Rest-Land Won (1966); Y. Aharoni, The Land of the Bible (1967).