the conquest narrative in joshua

The Conquest Narrative

Joshua 6:1-12:24

Study Method

• Biblical/ Theological– What are the biblical and theological purposes &

themes of the conquest narrative?• Archeological/ Historical– What are some historical and archeological trends

associated with the book of Joshua?• Moral/Apologetic– Can issues with the ban be resolved without

impugning the character of God & Scripture?

Biblical/Theological

God is faithful to his Covenant, fighting for his people as they seek to gain the goal and desire of their faith- rest in the land under the covenant blessings afforded by the presence of their warrior-king himself, Yahweh.


• The themes of the Pentateuch run throughout the book of Joshua. (Waltke) – The drama of salvation history now comes to the climatic

moment of crossing the Jordan to dispossess the Canaanites from their land.

– As Yahweh elected Moses, he now chooses Joshua to succeed him; and as he chose Canaan for his holy land, he now assigns the tribes their portions in it.

– The covenant relationship between Yahweh and all Israel is affirmed. It consists of Yahweh's promises and Israel's pursuit of them in faith and of Yahweh's law and Israel's disobedience to his standards.

Biblical/Theological• Themes of the Book (ESV)

– The Lord’s abiding presence as the key to strength and courage (e.g., 1:5, 9).– The centrality of the Lord’s instructions for succeeding in one’s mission and

acting with insight; land and rest as divine gifts (1:7–8).– The ability of the Lord to save the “outsider” (Rahab), and the danger of the

“insider” falling away (Achan; see chs. 2 and 7).– The Lord as divine Warrior and the reality of judgment when iniquity is full

(e.g., 10:42; 11:19–20).– The danger of presumption and failure to inquire of the Lord (e.g., 9:14).– The Lord as protector of the covenant (e.g., 10:1–15, esp. v. 11).– The unity of the people of God (18:1–10; 22:34).– The sovereignty of God in giving his people place and rest (1:13; 11:23; 21:43–

45).– The faithfulness of God in fulfilling all his good promises (1:2; 21:43–45).– The necessity of removing false gods and worshiping God alone (ch. 24).


• Lasor, Hubbard, and Bush in Old Testament Survey (1996) found three major theological themes in Joshua:– The Promise-Keeping God- God had promised through the covenant

to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to deliver the Israelites from Egypt, out of the wilderness, and into the land of Canaan. He was faithful to His Promise. Concept of Promise/Fulfillment.

– The Covenantal Idea- God’s covenant worked out primarily through the conquest of Canaan. The concepts of Land and Herem (“The Ban”) viewed within the context of Israel’s “prophetic outlook” (p. 152)

– The Achievement of Rest- Joshua focused on rest from slavery, the wilderness, and war. Israel broke the covenant to enter into God’s rest as seen in the prophets.


• Jericho's fall: firstfruits of war (6:1-27)– Jericho was the first of the cities to be taken by Israel after a seven-

day period. It was burned by fire and the only survivors of the city were the prostitute Rahab and her family members. There was a pronouncement of a curse for the one who rebuilt this city.

• Israel's failure: Achan's sin; corporate guilt (7:1-26)– The next city to be conquered was Ai, but Israel was defeated because

Achan kept some of the ‘devoted things’ for himself. He and his family were killed in the Valley of Achor.

• Israel's renewal: Ai's defeat (8:1-35)– Ai was then attacked again by Israel and thus, defeated the second

time in an ambush attack. Israel was permitted this time to take the city’s spoil and livestock as plunder.


• Israel's Canaanite covenant: the Gibeonite ruse (9:1-27)– The Gibeonites were described as “acting with cunning” and they

pretended to be a people from a distant country so that Israel would make an peace alliance with them.

• Defense of Gibeon, conquest of the South (10:1-43)– Israel defeats the Amorites and the “sun stands still” until Israel

gained the victory which came from Yahweh. Five Amorite Kings were killed after they tried to flee and hide in the Cave of Makkedah. God “threw down large stones from heaven on them”. The Southern cities were then defeated in Canaan.

• Conquest of the north and a list of defeated kings (11:1-12:24)– The cities of the North were conquered and Joshua did all that God

commanded Moses.

Archeological

• One of the main issues within Joshua studies is how Israel came to obtain the land.

• Theories Concerning How Israel Gained the Land– Israel Gained the Land as the Result of War– Israel Gained the Land by a Peaceful Migration– Israel Gained the Land as a Result of a Revolt– Israel Gained the Land as the Result of the Transition

between the Late Bronze and Iron Ages– Israel Gained the Land as the Result of Imagination

Israel Gained the Land as the Result of War

• The Israelites gained the land of Canaan through war with the current inhabitants. – Albright saw in the nearly universal destructions at

the end of the Late Bronze Age archeological evidence of a military conquest of Canaan by the Israelites, much along the lines of the Biblical stories.

• Major proponent is W.F. Albright– Called "Albright's Theory"– Others include

• Yadin, Lalamat, V. Philips Long, K.A. Kitchen, F. Merrill

Critique

• Proponents selectively choose both archeological and biblical evidence. – The destruction evidence isn't clearly distinguishable from

other common ANE peoples and causes. – There is a lack of archeological evidence for the

destruction of certain cities.– There is destruction evidences from cities not mentioned

in the Biblical conquest (Jaffa, Ashdod, etc.). – There is not a pervasive emphasis of violent destructions

of many cities. • Jericho, Ai, and Hazor

Israel Gained the Land by a Peaceful Migration

• The occupation of Canaan by the Israelite tribes was a gradual process of nomadic herdsmen who became semi-sedentary and occupied the Western Highlands (Sedentism). Tehre was no single military conquest or mass migration of people. Sites that are destroyed are evidence of local battles between tribes.– The Hill country they migrated to was virtually empty. Groups

came sporadically until large numbers required them to take political control of the land.

• Proponents– Alt, Noth, M. Weippert, Aharoni, Zertal, Finkelstein

Critique

– It did not employ archeology in its development. – One of its major premises (pastoral nomadism) is

now not historically viable.– It does not integrate biblical evidences within the

discussion. The theory is brought to the text instead of the text creating the theory.

Israel Gained the Land as a Result of a Revolt

• No outside group of people (either by military force or peaceful migration), but instead peasant’s of the Late Bronze Age cities revolted against the Canaanite overlords and were able to settle formerly state owned land. Israelites fled cities to establish small agricultural villages.– The people who took part in the covenant event at Sinai sparked a

revolt when they arrived in Canaan. This Moses group, because of the new ethnic awareness, was isolated from all external political help. While their ethical concerns kept them from making alliances with neighboring powers, it was significantly attractive to the disenfranchised of Canaan, who joined this newly formed religious group in droves. The peasants revolted.

• Proponents– Mendenhall and Gottwald

Critique

• The theory was not based upon archeology but modern political trends developed during the cold war era.

• It depends on a narrow and restricted use of the term apiru that does not stand the test of ethnic scrutiny. – Apiru

• Lawless, antiestablishment element who fought against the established order

• It is naïve concerning the Biblical text. There's no evidence of an internal Canaanite, peasant revolt. – There's also no written, extra-biblical source for this revolt.

Israel Gained the Land as the Result of the Transition between the Late Bronze & Iron Ages

• The Israelite Settlement and Conquest was a complex process not limited to a single historical event or social process.– The Israelites were not of one social and ethnic

background but from a variety of backgrounds. The changes occurring forced the multiethnic groups to bond into one people which became Israel.

• Proponents– Dever and Fritz

Critique

• It assumes that the Israelites and other ancient peoples tended to be isolationistic, developing regional traditions not shared with their neighbors.

• Sites mentioned in the book of Joshua were chosen selectively.

• Their presupposition that the Bible isn't helpful in these matters is self-defeating because they use the bible for geographical locations. Why trust any of it?

Israel Gained the Land as the Result of Imagination

• There is no historical or social link between actual history and what the Bible recounts. The biblical stories are merely a created tradition. – There were no Israelites until the destitute from

Persian exile gathered stories of Canaanite heroes and made them their own. This collection of unconnected stories has been misinterpreted to be an organized history, when they were not intended to be such.

• Proponents– Wellhausen and Thompson

Critique

• It relies on ancient weather patterns and almost none on archeology. Thompson admits his idea is speculative.

• Almost totally discredited by recent finds placing Davidic history in the 9th history which precludes the idea that Israelite history began with Omri.– If there's archeological evidence for the Davidic

reign, this theory is doomed.

Meditating Position?• None of the standard "models" does full justice to the biblical evidence, but

each may capture an aspect of the biblical portrayal. Military conquest certainly played a part in Israel's entry into Canaan, and archaeology provides at least some interesting correlations. Further, archaeological surface surveys indicate a rapid proliferation of small settlements in the central hill country, beginning in the late thirteenth century B.C., whose inhabitants appear to have avoided eating pork. It is tempting to associate these new villages with the settling down of Israelites, perhaps after a longer or shorter period of existence as nomadic herdsmen in Canaan. Peaceful infiltration may have played some part in the settlement; Gibeon came under Israelite control without a fight (ch. 9), as did perhaps Shechem and other sites. Revolt and realignment by disaffected Canaanites such as Rahab almost certainly contributed to Israel's "mixed multitude" (Exo. 12:38), so some degree of "endogenous" origin need not be ruled out.

Destruction of Jericho

• Carl Watzinger (Hoerth)– Excavated the site beginning in 1907 and

concluded it was unoccupied during the Late Bronze Age (1550-1200).

• John Garstang (Hoerth)– In the 1930s he claimed to have found a collapsed

double city wall and a residential area destroyed by fire dating around 1400.

Destruction of Jericho• Dame Kathleen Kenyon (Hoerth)

– From 1952-1958, she excavated the city and agreed that Garstand had found tombs, some pottery, and possibly a building all dating to the late Bronze Age.• She only found a few Late Bronze Age wall fragments and one piece of

pottery. • She also, though new sophisticated dating methods, showed that the double

city wall that Garstand dated to the Late Bronze Age was much earlier. • She concluded there was no wall city to be conquered.

• Bryant Wood (Hoerth)– He agreed with Garstand that the city had been destroyed at the end

of the Late Bronze Age by his analysis of pottery, scarabs, and radiocarbon dating.

– He said Kenyon ignored considerable local pottery within her studies.

Jericho Excavation

Historical• Contradiction between Joshua and Judges 1 (Walton/Hill)

– There does not have to be a contradiction between what the book of Joshua presents and Judges • The verses that suggest that the entire land was conquered (11:23; 21:43-45) need

to be balanced with others that indicate otherwise (13:1-6; 17:12-13).• Judges is concerned with the latter group of passages in Joshua. Joshua's universal

language is a description of Yahweh's control and sovereignty over the land and nations with it.

• Etiology (Walton/Hill)– There is considerable discussion to be had concerning etiology within the book of

Joshua. It is possible that something can be etiological and still be factual. Furthermore, an etiological purpose for the book of Joshua would not account for the theological cohesiveness that is evident in the selection and arrangement of the material.

• Archaeology (Walton/Hill)– Various theories seek to address the relationship between archeology and what the text

says concerning the destruction of various cities within the Israelite area. An absence of evidence does not necessitate an evidence of absence.

Historical • Critical scholarship outrightly rejects the historicity of anything within the biblical

account even going as far as suggesting "Israel" is merely a modern scholarly construct and the product of imaginations of late biblical writers. – Many critical scholars are wholly inconsistent in their attempts to reconstruct a history of

Israel that does not include the biblical witness while still occasionally employing the biblical data. Much information that is assumed is built upon the foundation of the biblical text. Also, appeals to scholarly consensus is arbitrary and unhelpful because much of that rests on the Bible.

– A serious flaw is the methodological assumption that written texts are of necessity corrupted by ideology or theology and therefore are worthless for any true historical investigation. • The point needs to be shown whether or not any history is unbiased or completely unblemished

from any ideological biases and whether or not the author's theological presuppositions led him to record history inaccurately.

• The unconscious assumptions of the historians' own age are inescapable. The historian himself is part of the historical process, powerfully influenced by his time and place.

– There is also an assumption that the Bible, as a theological document and one written many centuries after events depicted is less reliable than other records from the ANE.

Moral/Apologetic

Is God a Moral Monster?

Israel, as an instrument of God’s judgment, was used to destroy the idolatrous nations who refused to worship the true Creator (Gen. 15:16; Deut. 20:16-18). God has the right to take any and all life as the Sovereign Creator.

Is God A Moral Monster?• The language of the consecrated ban (herem) includes stereotypical language:

“all,” “young and old,” and “man and woman.” The ban could be carried out even if women and children weren’t present.

• So far as we can see, biblical herem was carried out in particular military or combatant settings (with “cities” and military “kings”). It turns out that the sweeping language of the ban is directed at combatants.

• The ban-language allows and hopes for exceptions (e.g., Rahab); it isn’t absolute.

• The destruction-language of ANE (ancient Near Eastern) warfare (and the OT) is clearly exaggerated. So groupings of Canaanite peoples that apparently were “totally destroyed” still happened to be hanging around when all was said and done (e.g., Judges 1). This is true with the Amalekites in 1 Sam. 15; though it seems like Saul wiped out all the Amalekites (except for King Agag, whom Samuel finished off), an Amalekite army is still around after this point (1 Sam. 30), and David’s men end up chasing them, with 400 escaping.

Is God a Moral Monster?• The greater concern was to destroy Canaanite religion, not Canaanites

per se—a point worthy of elaboration.• The preservation of Rahab and her family indicates that consecration to

the ban wasn’t absolute and irreversible. God had given ample indications of his power and greatness, and the Canaanites could have submitted to the one true God who trumped Egypt’s and Canaan’s gods, sparing their own lives.

• The biblical text suggests that peace treaties could be made with Canaanite cities if they chose to, but none (except Gibeon) did so (Joshua 11:19).

• We read many references to “driving out” the Canaanites. To clear away the land for habitation didn’t require killing; civilians fled when their military strongholds were destroyed and soldiers were no longer capable of protecting them.

Is God a Moral Monster?• From the start, certain (more cooperative) Canaanites were

subjected to forced labor—not annihilation (Judges 1:19, 21, 27-36; 1 Kings 9:20-21; Joshua 15:63; 16:10; 17:12-13; cp. Psalm 106:34-35). This was another indication that the ban wasn’t absolute.

• Joshua carried out what Moses commanded (Deuteronomy 7 and 20), which means that Moses' language is also an example of ANE exaggeration—not intended to be literal, all-encompassing extermination of the Canaanites.

• The archaeological evidence nicely supports the biblical text; both of these point to minimal observable material destruction in Canaan as well as Israel’s gradual infiltration, assimilation, and eventual dominance there.

Is God a Moral Monster?

Ultimately, our ways are not His ways (Isa. 55:8-9) and our perspective isn’t always the best vantage point. We trust him and give him the benefit of the doubt as we wait for answers in the eschaton.

Show Them No Mercy: Four Views on God and the Canaanite Genocide

• Radical Discontinuity- It was wrong in the OT and the NT radically argues against such an atrocity.

• Moderate Discontinuity-It was a necessary part of God’s covenant with his people for their rightful ownership of the promise land.

• Eschatological Continuity- The genocide of the Old Testament is a type of an eschatological event that will find ultimate fulfillment in the future when Christ returns and destroys those who oppose him.

• Spiritual Continuity – The OT harem passages are about Israel’s God fighting on their behalves. God is the warrior king who battles our enemies through the Gospel.