A book of the Bible.
[After JOSHUA1.]
|
Results for Joshua
|
On this page:
|
Bibliography
See studies by M. Woudstra (1981), R. G. Boling (1982), and T. Butler (1983). See also bibliography under Old Testament.
| Books of the Old
Testament (For details see Biblical canon) |
| Hebrew Bible or Tanakh Common to Judaism and Christianity
|
Included by Orthodox and Roman Catholics, but excluded by Jews, Protestants, and other Christian denominations:
|
Included by Orthodox (Synod of Jerusalem):
|
| Included by Russian and Ethiopian Orthodox: |
| Included by Ethiopian Orthodox: |
| Included by Syriac Peshitta Bible:
|
| Tanakh Torah | Nevi'im | Ketuvim Books of Nevi'im |
| First Prophets |
|---|
| 1. Joshua |
| 2. Judges |
| 3. Samuel |
| 4. Kings |
| Later Prophets |
| 5. Isaiah |
| 6. Jeremiah |
| 7. Ezekiel |
| 8. 12 minor prophets |
The Book of Joshua (Hebrew: Sefer Y'hoshua ספר יהושע) is the sixth book in both the Hebrew Tanakh and the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. This book stands as the first in the Former (or First) Prophets covering the history of Israel from the possession of the Promised Land to the Babylonian Captivity.
Jewish tradition ascribes authorship of the book to Joshua, and consequently places its origin at the time of the supposed
Israelite invasion (which biblical chronology places in either the
15th or 13th centuries BC). Some opinions
presented in the Talmud state that the book was written by Joshua except for the last verses
(24:29-33) which were added by
Certainly, the author presents himself as an eyewitness to the accounts described, occasionally using first person pronouns (for instance, in Joshua 5:1), although Joshua himself is usually described in the third person. Some sections (eg. 5:9, 7:26, 24:29-33), even according to Jewish tradition, could however only have been added after Joshua's death; tradition normally ascribes these sections to Eleazar or Phinehas (Eleazar's son). Also problematic is the frequently used phrase to this day, suggesting a substantial amount of time between the events and the account being written.[1]
Despite there being a Jewish tradition of authorship, in Christian circles, both Catholic and Protestant, the authorship has been considered dubious since ancient times. Theodoret proposed that it was written by a later author who had access to documents from Joshua's time,[2] while Athanasius argued that the ascription to Joshua was merely indicative of the main hero of the text.[3] Alphonsus Tostat (1613) argued that Solomon was the real author,[4] and Maes (1574) claimed that it might have been Ezra, particularly since he had access to Hebrew archives.[5]
In modern times, religiously conservative Jewish scholars continue to generally adhere to the traditional view, arguing that the book was written by a contemporary of Joshua, and their view has also been adopted by some evangelical Protestants. However, with the advent of source criticism, some scholars now reject claims of authorship by Joshua or his contemporaries.
Instead of the traditional Jewish view, most modern scholars have suggested a number of alternative and related possibilities, arguing that the Book of Joshua must be regarded as a compilation. An analysis of its contents makes it certain, in the eyes of scholars, that its sources are of the same character as those of the Pentateuch. Despite the Jewish tradition of authorship, the view of modern scholars was also the impression of classical Rabbis, to a certain degree; according to Mak. 11a, the chapter concerning the cities of refuge (Joshua 20) was taken from the Pentateuch. Classical Rabbinical writings refer to Joshua as having been written in the light of the Deuteronomic legislation (Genesis Rashi 6:14).
Scholars now believe that Joshua is a continuation of the JE version of the torah, and thus two of the main spliced-together narrative sources within it - Jahwist (J), and Elohist (E) - or at least deriving from sources from the same schools of thought as these. The Deuteronomist is considered to have detached the Joshua section of this at some later point and embedded it within the Deuteronomic history, making a number of minor edits and framing additions (mainly Joshua 1, 21:43, 22:6, and 23). Thus the work would be mainly the work of writers from the 8th and 7th century, but with retouchings from the exilic period.
The form of this modern theory that argues for the sources being J and E, rather than from similar schools, is known as the hexateuch theory, since the first six books would have been the original narrative unit). Although, given their narrative, it is probable that J, E, and P (the Priestly source), continued their narrative as far as the conquest of the land, the books of Ezra and of Nehemiah give no intimation of the existence of a hexateuch. Nevertheless, a number of scholars have argued that Hosea, Amos, and Micah, were aware of a hexateuch-like JE source, due to passages such as Micah 6:5+, Hosea 9:10, 12:4+, and Amos 2:10, 5:25, 7:4.[6]
The presence of certain incidents mentioned by later biblical texts, particularly the Book of Judges, is often considered to drastically conflict with the situation presented by the Book of Joshua. For instance, Jericho, represented in Joshua as completely overthrown and upon the rebuilding of which a solemn curse is invoked, is mentioned as existing at a later date, when it appears as a holy, rather than cursed, city.[7] While Joshua concludes with a nearly all-out victory, the narrative of Judges begins by portraying Canaan as hardly conquered, with disparate rather than united Israelite tribes. Judges portrays several battles against the Canaanites that could hardly be considered as just minor skirmishes, with several of the tribes often acting against the Canaanites quite independently and without any sort of overarching military plan; in Judges the conquest appears to be a matter that took several decades rather than a brief time under one central leader.
In Joshua, the remnants of unconquered peoples is discussed, covering some of these discrepancies.
The book of Joshua contains a history of the Israelites from the death of Moses to that of Joshua. After Moses' death, Joshua, by virtue of his previous appointment as Moses' successor, receives from God the command to cross the Jordan. In execution of this order Joshua issues the requisite instructions to the stewards of the people for the crossing of the Jordan; and he reminds the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half of Manasseh of their pledge given to Moses to help their brethren.
The book essentially consists of three parts:
This section contains brief narrative portions and long lists of places, interweaving:
Although early archaeological excavations seemed to support the historicity of Joshua, for example by finding destruction layers in a number of tells (the archaeological remains) of prominent sites such as Jericho, the conclusion that such destruction must have been due to Joshua has since been criticised as Bible and Spade - using the Bible to interpret the remains, rather than using archaeological methods to interpret the remains and thus determine their relationship to the Biblical account.
More recent re-assessment of the remains from the era, especially in places such as Jericho, have reversed the earlier conclusions — the destruction layers of various cities date from wildly different times, and thus rather than a unified short military campaign, the remains are more suggestive of a series of isolated disasters and attacks over a period of centuries. In the particular case of Jericho, it was already abandoned during the time of the Israelite conquest - the conquest of Jericho by Israelites would have been the conquest and destruction of an empty ruin. The Tells of Lachish and Hazor were both Canaanite cities in the Late Bronze Age, and between the thirteenth and twelfth centuries BC both cities were destroyed; they were later resettled by Israelites. Ai, on the other hand, appears to have been abandoned during the Early Bronze Age and didn't become reoccupied until well after the 12th century BC. Even if one of these sets of cities was destroyed by an Israelite conquest, the other must have been destroyed at some point that was over a century later or earlier, contradicting the biblical account of a short period in which both sets were destroyed; in addition Ai is a particularly odd name for a town to have before its destruction, since it means ruin; meanwhile in the case of Hazor, a number of Egyptian inscriptions claim that it was destroyed by Seti I (circa 1300 BC) rather than the Israelites.
The time periods involved in the destruction layers of the cities overlap the campaigns of the Sea Peoples (who consistently burnt rich cities to the ground, even if they intended to later settle on the ruins), and the currently unexplained general late Bronze Age collapse of civilisation in the whole eastern Mediterranian; it is far more plausible, from the point of view of an increasing majority of archaeologists, for these causes to have been responsible for the destruction of the cities, rather than an invasion of Israelites lasting only about 20 or so years.[8] In addition, since archaeological remains show a smooth cultural continuity in this period, rather than the destruction of one culture (Canaanite) and replacement by another (Israelite), a growing majority of archaeologists believe that the Israelites were simply an emergent subculture within Canaanite society — i.e. that an Israelite conquest would be a logical nonsense — it would have involved the Canaanites invading themselves, from Canaan.[9] From the point of view of Biblical scholars, it is more plausible that the author(s) of Joshua combined a series of independent traditions about battles and destruction of various cities at differing times, in order to create a nationalistic narrative that could dovetail neatly with the tradition of an exodus from Egypt.[10]
A theory suggested by Emmanuel Anati states that the occupation of Palestine by the Israelites actually occurred prior to the Late Bronze Age as commonly held. Anati says he has found evidence to support Joshua’s conquest occurring in the Early Bronze Age circa 2200–2500 BC. Anati says that both a settlement bearing topographical similarity to the Biblical cities of Ai and Jericho were destroyed in this time frame, in a period when both sites had defensive walls. He also found that Ai was burned to the ground at this time, which fits the events in the Book of Joshua, and that the previous inhabitants of the areas around these cities gave way to a more nomadic people with different types of pottery than the original inhabitants and which developed into a pastoral society dominated by small villages. All of this would more accurately reflect what was recorded in the Biblical accounts of Joshua’s invasion, but it also conflicts with some of the Bible’s Old Testament chronology.
One difficulty in this book arises out of the command given by God to completely exterminate "anything that breathes" in the cities in the land to be inherited. (Deuteronomy 20:16-18). During the conquest God commands his people to kill inhabitants of numerous cities (often including women and children). No explicit justification is given in the book for these atrocities.
Orthodox Jewish thinkers see no ethical dilemma with the command[citation needed]. At many points in the Tanakh God orders men to kill other people for their faithlessness including at the scene of the golden calf when 4000 Jews were slain for idolatry.
Liberal theologians see this as an ethically unjustifiable order to commit genocide, which is inconsistent with the overall view in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures of God as a loving, compassionate Creator. They see it as a theological polemic, with the majority of events invented during or after the Babylonian captivity, to encourage faithfulness to the Jewish creed at a time when it was being threatened. For instance, Morton (pp. 324-325) says that Joshua "should be understood as a rite of ancient peoples (Israel among them) whereby within the context of their times, they attempted to please God (or the gods)".
Conservative theologians, who see the book as a historically accurate account written during or soon after the life of Joshua, give one of the following explanations to this problem:
Online translations of the Book of Joshua:
Related articles:
This entry incorporates text from the public domain Easton's Bible Dictionary, originally published in 1897. This article incorporates text from the 1901–1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, a publication now in the public domain.
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
| joshua meier | joshua piven |
Join the WikiAnswers Q&A community. Post a question or answer questions about "Joshua" at WikiAnswers.
Copyrights:
![]() | Dictionary. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2007, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2007. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. Read more | |
![]() | Columbia Encyclopedia. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/ Read more | |
![]() | Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Book of Joshua". Read more |
Mentioned In: