Joshua Studies

The Conquest as a Religious Act 

The structure and content of the book of Joshua portrays the conquest of the land as a religious act of holy war. In the preparation for the conquest (1-5) the role of God is shown (1:2-5) as well as Joshua’s own responsibility (6-9). Throughout the story there is a lack of military language and strategy. The Israelites sanctify themselves. They follow the Ark. They circumcise themselves, celebrate Passover, and set up memorial stones after crossing the river. Joshua also has a Theophany like Moses. In the conquest itself (6-12) the military plan for Jericho resembles a cultic event. Yahweh fights for Israel (2; 10). The “kherem” or the “devotion to destruction” for the LORD is also established, and when Achan breaks “kherem” he and all associated with him is destroyed. In the allocation of the land (13-22), all of the tribes receive an allotment, God’s promise to Israel is fulfilled, the Levitical cities are established, and the inheritances are determined by “lot” (14:2; 19:51). In Joshua’s closing speeches and addresses it is stressed that God gave the Land (23:1, 3, 5, 9-10), he stresses obedience, warns about disobedience, and performs a covenant ceremony. In this is seen: God’s saving action (1-13), the command for the Israelites to either choose Yahweh or not (14-15), the declaration to serve Yahweh (16-18, 21-24), the recording of the covenant (25-27). All these show how the conquest is a religious act.

Joshua as a Second Moses 

Joshua is also portrayed as a second Moses. They both send spies into the land (Num. 13:1-3; Josh. 2:1), both led Israelites across a body of water (Ex. 14-15; Josh. 3-4), both had a Theophany (Ex. 3:1-6; Josh. 5:13-15), both carry the role of intercessor (Ex. 32:11-12; Josh. 7:7-10), there is a similarity between the lifting of Moses’ staff and Joshua’s sword in battle (Ex. 17:10-13; Josh. 8:18, 26), both are conquerors of territory (Num. 21; Josh. 1-12), and both give farewell addresses (Deut. 4-30; Josh. 23-24). Joshua is also portrayed as a faithful deuteronomistic leader with the extermination of the Canaanites (Deut. 7:1-2; 16; Josh. 6:21; 10:40; 11:15, 23), the Covenant Renewal (Deut. 11:29-30; 27:3-4; Josh. 8:30-34), also, the written Copy of the Law, the removal of bodies from trees (Deut. 21:22-23; Josh. 8:29; 10:26-27), Celebration of Passover (Deut. 16:1; Josh. 5:10), regulations for those who surrender (Deut. 20:10-11; Josh. 9:6, 8, 15), and he selects Cities of Refuge (Deut. 19:1-2, 8-10; Josh. 20:1-3, 7-8).

Joshua in Archaeology 

In Joshua, the portrayal of the conquest differs from recent archaeological data. Different historical/sociological models have been developed by scholars to explain the conquest in light of the Bible’s account and archaeology. One is the Conquest Theory. Support for this theory is that in archaeology certain cities showed Late Bronze destruction, such as Bethel, Hazor, and Debir. The problems with this theory are that many sites did not show destruction levels during this time period, such as Ta’anach, Megiddo, Jokneam, and, Makkedah. And some sites were not inhabited at all, including Jericho, Gibeon, and Ai. W.F. Albright was the main proponent of the Conquest Theory, along with scholars such as G. Ernest Wright and John Bright. Another theory was the Peaceful Infiltration Model, supported by Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth. The support for this is that it corresponded with both archaeology and the biblical text. Joshua 13:1; 23; 12 indicate that the destruction was not actually total. Also, cities said to be conquered in Joshua are shown to be unconquered in Judges, including Ta’anach, Megiddo, Gezer, Debir, Hazor, Jerusalem, and Dor. The problems with this model included methodological issues including a “romanticized” version of Bedouin life. Another theory was the Peasant Revolt Theory, supported by George Mendenhall and Norman Gottwald. Support showed that there was a sharp rise in the population of the central highlands during this time. The problem was difficulty accounting for the population explosion.

Joshua in the Context of the Deuteronomistic History 

The conquest of Joshua also relates to Deuteronomy. As previously stated, the promise of God in Moses is fulfilled in Joshua, Joshua follows the laws of Deuteronomy, and Joshua sets the stage for the rest of the Deuteronomistic History. He is a king-like figure like Josiah, he is faithful to God’s Law, and he establishes Israel in the Land with specific instructions. Later, Israel abandons the laws and becomes chaotic and conquered. However, Josiah restores the Law in later times. Joshua and Josiah book end each other. They are both king-like figures, both copy the Law, both read it to the assembly, and both celebrate the Passover. Not to mention the obvious similarities in both of their names.

Martin Noth and Frank Moore Cross on the composition of the Deuteronomistic History

Martin Noth believed that the individual designated “Dtr” was responsible for the work of Joshua through Kings. Dtr was both editor and author of the composition, and worked with the available sources to form the Deuteronomistic History as it appears today. He edited available material and served as a creative author at times. Dtr composed his work around and near the date 562 B.C. Noth believed Joshua through Kings represented a unified work. Evidence for this is seen in the special role of Deuteronomy in the text. He believed that Dtr composed Deuteronomy 1:1-4:43. The purpose of the work was to explain the reason of the destruction of Israel by the Assyrians in 721 B.C. The leaders and the people of the composition are evaluated on the basis of the Law Code found in Deuteronomy 12-26. Noth sees a unity in the work in Deuteronomistic language and style, in the strategic speeches (Josh. 1; 23; 1 Sam. 13; 1 Kgs. 8:14), and in the summarizing reflections (Josh. 12; Judg. 2:11; 2 Kgs. 17:7). He sees this in the chronology laid out (1 Kgs. 6:1) of the 480 years. Noth believed Dtr was associated with Josiah’s reign. Joshua and Josiah are compared to each other in a positive light. Dtr also makes Judah look good and shows that the Laws of Deuteronomy should be followed.

Frank Moore Cross believed there were two additions to the Deuteronomistic History which are called “Dtr1” and “Dtr2.” Dtr1 was pre-exilic and Dtr2 was exilic. Starting with Dtr1, there are two themes present in the text: The sin of Jeroboam, and God’s faithfulness towards David. The fall of the Northern Kingdom is blamed on Jeroboam’s sin (2 Kgs. 17:20-*3). In Dtr1, a prophet is seen denouncing the altar placed at Bethel (1 Kgs. 13:2-5). Dtr1 seems to anticipate the reform of Josiah. In the work, Davidic kings are portrayed as mostly good, especially Josiah. The work of Dtr1 is then seen as a message to the North to return to the worship of Yahweh at the Jerusalem sanctuary during the time of Josiah’s reign. It speaks also to Judah, saying the Kingdom’s restoration depends on the nation’s return to the Covenant with Yahweh as well as the whole-hearted return of the king to the ways of David.

Dtr2 is then seen as the exilic addition to the text, according to Cross. He believed that the redactor brought the work up to date during the Exile, and recorded the Fall of Jerusalem. Dtr2 reshapes history, blaming the Fall of Jerusalem on the wickedness of Manasseh (2 Kgs. 21:7-14). He shows that Josiah is repentant after the discovery of the Law (2 Kgs. 23:25b-27). Passages of the text are addressed to captives, emphasizing the fact that Yahweh will not forget the Covenant of their Fathers and promising return from their captivity and their restoration if they would repent, etc. (Deut. 4:27-31; 30:1-10; 1 Kgs. 8:25b, 46-53). Cross believed Dtr2 was completed around 500 B.C. and that it attempted to transform the history into a sermon to Judean exiles.