Deuteronomistic History

Deuteronomistic History (Part I): Joshua, Judges

Joshua 1:9 is one of the most quoted verses in the Bible (or its parallels in Deut 31:6, 8).

Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go (Josh 1:9, ESV).

In context this verse encourages Joshua to begin a mission of massacring Canaanites. Most Christians don’t know or simply don’t care about its context. But now that we know, should we cease encouraging one another with this verse? We will return to this question at the end of the module after we observe how biblical torah/teaching actually operates.

Historical Reconstructions of the “Conquest”

(A note to students: this module is more detailed for two reasons. (a) It tackles one of the major historical problems in the OT and comes to a conclusion that many readers may find surprising. (b) It tackles one of the thorniest ethical problems in the OT: divinely sanctioned violence that includes massacre and genocide. While students are not expected to remember these details for exams, they should walk through the evidence in order to come to terms with these key issues of historicity and morality in the Bible. Remember to follow the numbered headings and the ► signposts.)

Trying to figure out “what actually happened” when Israel took possession of the land of Canaan is not as simple a task as might first appear. As we have seen with the Pentateuch and especially the book of Exodus, the OT reflects other priorities than simply presenting a straightforward chronological sequence of events with cause-and-effect links—what we might call “history”. Torah means “instruction”—for the people of God concerning their identity, God’s expectations of them and their expectations of God.

Biblical Accounts

► Unlike Judges 1 and Exodus 15, Joshua 1-12 alone portrays Israel’s occupation of Canaan as a military conquest. But all three agree the Israelites first settled in the unoccupied hill country.

The OT contain several accounts of Israel’s entry into Canaan, each with its own distinctive theological and thematic emphasis.

● The conquest account in Joshua 6–12 claims a unified, complete military (blitzkrieg) conquest. In all three campaigns—central, southern, and northern—each city they “struck with the sword and every person in it” (Josh 8:24; 10:28; 11:10–14, etc.). The book’s three summaries claim “all the land,” and that “all that breathed he devoted” (Josh 10:40–42), “and all their kings he captured, struck, and put to death” (Josh 11:16–17), and “all the land … they possessed and settled” (Josh 21:43–45).
● But the next book, Judges, opens with the question, “Who will go up first for us against the Canaanites to do battle with them?” (Jdg 1:1), as though the conquest was just launching. It describes a prolonged occupation that proceeds tribe by tribe, marked mostly by failures. Judah succeeds in battle in a few cities and “possessed” the hill country, but did “not possess” the valleys. The Joseph tribes defeated Bethel, but the remaining northern tribes did “not possess” the Canaanite cities in Gezer, the Jezreel Valley, and along the northern coast and Galilee region (esp. Jdg 1:1–2, 19–21, 27–34).

● According to Joshua’s summary account, “these are the kings of the land whom Joshua and the Israelites defeated,” including the kings of Gezer, Taanach, Megiddo, and Dor (Josh 12:7–24).
● But according to Judges (Jdg 1:27, 29) and the parallel allotment lists in Joshua (Josh 16:10; 17:11–13), “Manasseh did not dispossess” Taanach, Dor, and Megiddo” and “Ephraim did not dispossess the Canaanites dwelling in Gezer.”

● According to the Bible’s oldest account, the Song of the Sea, when the Canaanites “heard” that Yahweh’s “right hand shattered” the Egyptians (Exod 15:6, 12), his “arm” merely petrified them:
“Terror and trembling fell upon them; with the greatness of your arm they were still as a stone, until your people, Yahweh, passed by …. You brought them in and planted them in the hill country of your heritage” (Exod 15:14–17).
In this ancient hymn, the Israelites infiltrate the highlands without any sign of conflict.

All these accounts agree, however, that the Israelites settled the hill country of Canaan, not its valleys—because the Canaanites had “chariots of iron” (Josh 17:15–18; Jdg 1:19, 34). Joshua’s advice to “clear the forest” in the hill country to make it arable implies this region was unoccupied. The sole claim that Israelites “took possession” of any real estate in Judges 1 appears in Judah’s occupation of the hills (Jdg 1:19). Canaanite technology apparently limited the extent of Israel’s settlement. Another archaic poem in the Bible, the Song of Moses, also locates early Israel “on the high places of the land” (Deut 32:10–14).

Archaeology

► The archaeological record indicates a widespread collapse of ancient kingdoms around 1200 BCE, including the Canaanite city states under Egyptian control. Only three give evidence of military destruction. The culture largely remained Canaanite.

In Canaan, the land of the Israelite settlement, everything changed after around 1200 BCE. In fact, throughout the ancient world of the Mediterranean and the Near East, there was a crisis like none before. In the late Bronze Age, the kingdoms of the Minoans and Mycenaeans in the Aegean, the Hittites in Asia Minor (Turkey), Mitanni, Assyria, and Babylonia in Mesopotamia, and Egypt and its Canaanite city states, had all been interconnected by international trade routes. But then trade diminished, markets crashed, peoples migrated (such as the Sea Peoples/Philistines), and kingdoms crumbled. The causes are varied and have been much debated, but there was likely a “perfect storm” including drought, earthquakes, and famine. 1550–1200 BCE, roughly, marks the Empire/New Kingdom period in Egypt, which is contemporary to the Late Bronze Age in Canaan. After 1200 BCE the Egyptians withdrew their administrative control over Canaan, and the Canaanite city-state system collapsed. Most scholars therefore believe the earliest the Israelites could enter Canaan is the Iron I period (1200–1000 BCE).

Although the Canaanite city states were in decline, only Hazor north of Galilee, Bethel in the central hills, and Lachish in the southern lowlands (Shephelah, though later in 1150 BCE) bear archaeological evidence of military destruction. The sites on the coastal plain, the lowlands (Shephelah), and river valleys—the prime real estate—remained Canaanite after 1200 BCE.

► After 1200 BCE there was an explosion of hill country settlements, probably a mixture of Canaanite peasants and pastoralists migrating from Transjordan. Their descendants eventually became “Israel.”

Archaeological surveys in Canaan attest to an explosion of sites in the central hill country after 1200 BCE: from 88 in the Late Bronze Age to 678 in Iron I and with a rise in population estimated from 50,000 to 150,000. 633 or 93% of the Iron I settlements were new villages (a hectare in size or less) in these “frontier” regions in the highlands of Canaan (tribal territories of Ephraim and Manasseh) and in Transjordan (Reuben, Gad, and Moab). With the collapse of the city-state markets, herders of sheep and goats could no longer trade for agricultural produce and so settled in the empty spaces of the highlands to practice subsistence farming (Stager, pp. 97, 100, 105).

The archaeological record presents no clear evidence as to where these settlers came from. Their material culture, especially the pottery, shows some continuity with Late Bronze Canaanite culture, so they may have been peasants from the fallen Canaanite city states (now unemployed in the collapsed economy) or refugees from the invading Sea Peoples/Philistines. But the magnitude of this population explosion must also be explained as a migration of new arrivals, possibly from Transjordan.

Although not unique to these hill country settlements in Canaan, their archaeological “assemblage” includes some novel technologies for this geographic region.

● Lime plastered cisterns (for catching and storing rainwater) and storage pits (lined with stones for foodstuffs)
● Terraces (for farming plots, esp. in later Iron I)
● Collared-rim storage jars
● Pillared/Four-room houses

The four-room house was the dominant architectural blueprint in both the Iron I period and the Iron II period (1000–587 BCE), the era of the Israelite monarchy. In fact, some of Israel’s later large public buildings were patterned after this blueprint. So however ambiguous the material culture and identity of the highland settlers in Iron I, their descendants certainly coalesced into what became known as Israel in the time of the monarchy (Iron II).

Archaeology and the Bible: New Hill Country Villages

► The Bible and archaeology agree that Israel first settled the hill country frontier. Since the Canaanites persisted in the cities and plains, Israel’s occupation was primarily an infiltration. Joshua 1-11 alone portrays an invasion.

On this point archaeology and the Bible’s divergent accounts all agree: the early Israelites first settled in the hill country frontiers of Canaan. This real estate corresponds to the tribal allotments of the prominent tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh. (Settlements in Judah’s allotment emerged later.) The key sacred sites mentioned in Joshua and Judges are located there: Shiloh in Ephraim (Josh 18:1, 8–10; 19:51, Jdg 18:31; 21:19; 1 Sam 1:3) and Shechem in Manasseh (which sits between Mounts Gerizim and Ebal, Josh 24:1, 25, 32).

Invasion by Conquest? Neither the oldest account of the Israelite occupation in Canaan, the “Song of the Sea” (Exod 15), nor the opening chapter of Judges claim widespread military destruction of Canaanites cities. The archaeological record agrees: aside from the new highland villages, the population and its material culture essentially remained Canaanite (esp. pottery). In this respect, the Joshua 6–12 account stands alone. Of the 31 city-state kings listed as defeated in Josh 12:7–24, 20 have been identified with archaeological tells, but only three—Lachish, Bethel, and Hazor—show evidence of destruction (Stager, p. 97). The walls of Jericho, according to the consensus of archaeologists, came tumbling down at the end of the Middle Bronze Age (ca. 1550 BCE), more than two centuries before the Israelites emerged in the highland villages. Ai (which means “the ruin”) was destroyed even earlier: near the end of the Early Bronze Age (ca. 2400 BCE).

Gezer. The strategic city of Gezer, located at a key crossroads (see 1 Kgs 9:15), serves as a telling example. Joshua 6–12 claims, “Joshua struck” the king of Gezer “and his people until there was not a survivor remaining” (Josh 10:33; 12:12). But both the allotment list in Joshua and the opening chapter in Judges agree that the tribe of Ephraim “did not dispossess the Canaanites dwelling in Gezer” (Josh 16:10; Jdg 1:29). Even by the time of Solomon in the 10th century BCE, it was Egyptian forces, not Israelite, that succeeded in “capturing” Gezer, which Solomon then fortified (1 Kgs 9:15–16).

Military destruction at Hazor. The one site that gets special mention in both Joshua and Judges, as a major battle with destruction, is Hazor.

Yet, all the cities standing upon their tell/mound Israel did not burn, except Hazor alone did Joshua burn (Josh 11:13).

The archaeological remains of Hazor’s Canaanite palace testify to a massive fire that shattered its basalt walls.

One of the Bible’s oldest passages and most detailed Iron I battle account, the “Song of Deborah” (Jdg 5:1–31), mirrors the archaeological picture. Normal trade routes were abandoned (Jdg 5:6). A loose confederation of ten tribes (Judah is not mentioned; cf. Deut 33:7), calling themselves “the people of Yahweh,” engage in battle in the Jezreel Valley against Sisera, the commander of Hazor’s army (Jdg 4:2). The Israelite tribes residing in the central hill country participate in the battle (Jdg 4:14–15a, 18), but those in Transjordan and along the coast do not (Jdg 5:15b–17). The participating tribes are described as “going down” “into the valley” (Jdg 5:11–15), perhaps suggesting their villages lay in the hill country.

In conclusion, since the new Iron I population (1200-1000 BCE) took residence in the frontier highlands, not atop Canaanite cities or in the prime real estate of the valleys, the Israelite migration into Canaan appears to have been an infiltration primarily, not an invasion.

Deuteronomistic History: A Series of Tests of Israel’s Loyalty

► To make sense of Joshua 1-12 we must recall that biblical narratives were shaped as literature, torah, and edited traditions. Readers must attend to the cues embedded in their genres, torah lessons, and editorial “frames.”

What then are we to make of the invasion account in Joshua 6–12, which diverges from other accounts in the Bible? We need to remind ourselves of what we discovered in the opening module, “How is the OT meant to be read?” Three features of the Bible are particularly relevant.

First, we must respect that the Bible is literature. An essential feature that makes biblical narrative so compelling and enduring is its literary artistry. Readers must attend not only to its contents but also to its literary form/genre and thematic purpose. We shall discover that the books of Joshua and Judges are markedly different in their genre and theme.

Second, we must respect that the OT is Torah, that is, “instruction” for the people of God. It might be helpful for us to think of the Bible as a series of Torah or Sunday school lessons or sermons. Readers must keep their focus on the question, what lessons does this biblical passage teach? How does it remember Israel’s past to construct our identity as the people of God in the present? The aims of the genres of torah and history do not always align. History aims to record particular events of the past. Torah aims to teach enduring lessons for the people of God in their present. Torah may recast historical figures as literary types so they can become models for how to live in the present (e.g., how the Chronicler recast 1-2 Samuel’s opportunistic David as a pious Jew). We shall discover that the DtrH constructs a positive lesson in Joshua and a negative one in Judges.

Third, the books we read in the Bible were originally scrolls that scribes composed from the sacred traditions shared with the people of God. As such, they were not simply authors, they were editors. The ancient scribes (a) collected traditional materials, written and oral, (b) edited and shaped them, and then (c) set them within their “frame.”

One of the ways these ancient editors incorporated their received traditions was to interweave strands of texts that were originally separate and may have come from diverse social circles (e.g., JEDP). In so doing they provide readers with a fuller spectrum of theological perspectives. We shall discover that the DtrH has interwoven its sources on a larger scale in the books of Joshua and Judges.

How these editors framed their portraits of tradition is often where their imprint is most evident. The introduction provides the lens through which listeners and readers are to view the story. And the conclusion summarizes what they should take away from it. These cues may appear in the “bookends” at the beginning and end, and also at section-breaks within books.

In light of these considerations, any discrepancies that we may perceive should not be regarded as errors (as between Joshua and Judges 1). Because the scribal editors regarded these traditions as sacred, they respectfully incorporated them without trying to harmonize them. They are not loose ends but part of the fabric of the Scriptures.

► The frames of the DtrH indicate its narratives comprise a series of tests of Israel’s loyalty to Yahweh’s covenant in Deuteronomy: first of Joshua himself, then of corporate Israel in Judges, and then of each king in 1-2 Kings.

The commonly called “historical books”—Joshua, Judges, 1–2 Kings, and to a lesser extent 1–2 Samuel—bear the imprint of the book of Deuteronomy. They share distinctive terminology and theological perspective. Simply put, the book of Deuteronomy is about one God, one covenant, and one sanctuary. This oneness stems from the book’s frame as a covenantal document. Deuteronomy presents itself as a counter-covenant to the imperialistic treaties of the Assyrian Empire in particular. It mimics their literary form as a vassal treaty, only to subvert the overlord who routinely stipulates the treaty. Israel’s allegiance is to Yahweh alone, not to any human superpower, nor to any other so-called deity. The essential components of the covenant/treaty are the stipulations imposed on the vassal, followed by the blessings and curses.

For Israel’s part, this left them with the responsibility of choice (e.g., Deut 30:19; Josh 24:15): would they remain “loyal” to Yahweh or would they turn to “other gods” and practice idolatry (virtually to the same thing in Deuteronomy). For Yahweh’s part, this meant he would “test” Israel’s allegiance. To a large extent, the Deuteronomistic History is framed as a series of exams for each generation, whether or not they would obey and enjoy the blessings or disobey and suffer the curses.

● The introduction to the book of Joshua emphasizes that Joshua’s success hangs on his obedience to “this book of the law,” namely, the preceding book, Deuteronomy (Josh 1:7–8).
● The introduction to Judges is explicit that Yahweh permitted some of the Canaanite nations to remain “for testing Israel to know if they would obey Yahweh’s commandments, which he commanded their fathers by the agency of Moses” (Jdg 2:21–3:4).
● In 1–2 Kings each king of Israel and Judah receives a pass/fail report card: “he did what was right/evil in Yahweh’s eyes” (1 Kgs 11:6; 15:11, 26, 34, etc.), based largely on whether or not the king endorsed the one altar in Jerusalem.

The Genre of Joshua

► Joshua 1-12 uniquely reflects the genre of an ANE conquest account, which includes hyperbole to maximize the victor’s victories as an utter rout of the enemy.

The first half of Joshua is unlike any of the other material in the Deuteronomistic History. Joshua 1–5 presents Joshua as a second Moses. Joshua 6–12 is styled as an ANE “conquest/victory account.” This ancient genre memorializes a people’s leader and their patron deity by portraying their military victories as an utter rout of their enemies. The viewpoint is binary: us versus them. (See K. L. Younger, Ancient Conquest Accounts, pp. 227–228, 244–246.) Joshua 6–12 echoes Egyptian, Assyrian, Hittite, and Moabite conquest accounts, where maximal claims and hyperbole are recognized components (e.g., “completely destroyed, no survivors, all the land”).

Egyptian: Pharaoh Merneptah (1208 BCE)

The (foreign) chieftains lie prostrate, saying “Peace.” Not one lifts his head among the Nine Bows. Libya is captured, while Hatti is pacified. Canaan is plundered, Ashkelon is carried off, and Gezer is captured. Yenoam is made into non-existence; Israel is wasted, its seed is not; and Hurru is become a widow because of Egypt. All lands united themselves in peace (COS 2.6, p. 41).

(It is ironic that the first extra-biblical mention of Israel claims to have destroyed it, leaving no descendants—an obvious hyperbole!)

Moabite: King Mesha (ca. 835 BCE)

… Israel has gone to ruin, yes, it has gone to ruin for ever!
… the king of Israel built Ataroth for himself, and I fought against the city,
and I captured it, and I killed all the people [from] the city as a sacrifice (?) for Kemosh [Moab’s deity] and for Moab.
… Kemosh said to me: “Go, take Nebo from Israel!” And I went in the night, and I fought against it from the break of dawn until noon, and I took it, and I killed [its] whole population, seven thousand male citizens (?) and aliens (?), and female citizens (?) and aliens (?), and servant girls; for I had put it to the ban [ḥerem] for Ashtar Kemosh. And from there, I took th[e ves]sels of YHWH, and I hauled them before the face of Kemosh (COS 2.23, pp. 137–138).

(The Moabite account even uses the same Semitic word for “devoting” a population “under the ban” (ḥerem, explained below), as found in Deuteronomy and Joshua.)

Both the Egyptian and Moabite accounts refer to historical battles, but also make maximal claims, to the point of hyperbole. Within the book of Joshua, maximal claims are most prominent in its three summary statements of victory (below).

The Thematic Function of Joshua in the DtrH

► The DtrH’s first test of obedience focuses on Joshua as an individual. The book frames him as a second Moses who is tasked with causing Israel to inherit the land by conquering Canaanite cities.

As noted above, the Deuteronomistic History is framed as a series of tests. Yahweh’s quest has been to give “the land that he swore to your fathers,” reiterated in Deuteronomy (Deut 1:8; 6:10, etc.) and again in Joshua’s introduction (Josh 1:6). In the third summary statement Yahweh’s promise is restated again with Yahweh’s performance review: Yahweh fulfills—all—his promises (Josh 21:43–45).

The main subject of the Deuteronomic test, however, lies with the people of Yahweh. Will they be true to Yahweh’s covenant as articulated in Deuteronomy or not? But the Deuteronomistic History applies this test in two distinct stages: first of Joshua himself and then of corporate Israel in the book of Judges (lit. “the sons of Israel,” Jdg 1:1). The first report card is positive: Joshua passes with flying colors and exhibits obedience. The second in Judges is negative: the Israelites fail and spiral into chaos. Thus, Torah teaches with clarity: a positive example and a negative one.

The Deuteronomistic “frames” for the figure of Joshua portray him as Moses’ successor and indeed as a second Moses (Deut 1–3; 31; Josh 1-5). As Moses’ successor, Joshua’s chief task is (a) to “enter” the land and “cause Israel to inherit it” (Deut 1:38; 3:28; 31:7, 23; Josh 1:6; cf. 14:1; 19:51). In particular, he is (b) to do so by continuing Moses’ mode of ḥerem war (Deut 3:21). According to Numbers 21:21–35 (J), Israel’s battles against Sihon and Og were defensive, but in their retelling in Deuteronomy they were resignified as ḥerem wars upon their “cities” (Deut 2:34–35; 3:3–10). (The discussion of ḥerem continues below.)

The introduction to Joshua focuses on him as an individual (the verbs are singular in Josh 1:1–9). Promises for corporate Israel in the book of Deuteronomy become singular for Joshua (Josh 1:3 // Deut 11:24; Josh 1:5 // Deut 7:24; Josh 1:9 // Deut 7:21; 20:3). As a second Moses, Joshua’s experiences mirror those of his mentor. Both are exemplary models of Torah obedience.

Josh 1: Both give speeches, mediate between Yahweh and the Israelites, and to both they vow, “all you have commanded us we will do” (Josh 1:16–18; Exod 24:3, 7; Deut 5:27; 34:9; cf. Josh 4:14).
Josh 2: Both send spies into Canaan (Num 13).
Josh 3: Both consecrate the people (Exod 19) and pass through water on dry ground (Exod 14).
Josh 4: Both erect 12 stones for the 12 tribes (Exod 24:4).
Josh 5: Both know of circumcision with flint knives, keep Passover, and encounter a manifestation of Yahweh and remove their sandals (Exod 3:1–6).
Josh 8: As Moses commands the blessings and curses be recited between Ebal and Gerizim after crossing the Jordan, so Joshua does exactly that (Deut 27).

The Deuteronomistic test for the book of Joshua is laid out in the opening frame: Joshua’s success hangs on his obedience to “this book of the law,” “all the Torah that Moses my servant commanded you” in Deuteronomy (Josh 1:7–8). His report cards appear in the conclusion to each episode, including Jericho-Ai (Josh 8:28) and the altar on Ebal (Josh 8:30–35). Although the conquest narratives themselves refer to “Joshua and all Israel …,” the summary appraisals concluding each military campaign are phrased in the singular and credit Joshua alone for “all” the success: in the south (Josh 10:40–42) and in the north (Josh 11:12, 15) and after all three campaigns (Josh 11:16–23). His report card makes maximal claims and reiterates his obedience to what Yahweh had commanded Moses (Josh 11:12, 15–17, 23).

The Deuteronomistic framing makes the lesson of Torah clear: if you want success, like Joshua, follow the Lord’s instruction and commandments. To be clear, these performance reviews are phrased as Joshua’s alone. The performance review for “the Israelites” does not appear until the book of Judges (Jdg 1:1; 2:11; 3:1–6).

The Thematic Function of Judges in the DtrH

► The DtrH frames Judges as corporate Israel’s test to see if they would defect to Canaanite gods. Its stories about the judges cycle downward into civil war and chaos.

In the important passage, Deuteronomy 13, Yahweh had promised to “test” Israel’s loyalty to their covenant overlord by those who advocate, “let us go after other gods” (Deut 13:1–3). In the Deuteronomistic frame, Yahweh does so in the book of Judges (Jdg 2:6–3:4). Yahweh allows the six Canaanite nations to remain, “to know if Israel would obey Yahweh’s commandments, which he commanded their fathers by the agency of Moses” (Jdg 2:21–3:6). The successive stories about the judges (Jdg 3–16) demonstrate a repeated cycle (Jdg 2:11–19).

1.      Israel provokes Yahweh’s anger by turning to other gods.
2.      Yahweh gives them over to their surrounding enemies.
3.      Israel cries for help.
4.      Yahweh raises up a judge to save them.
5.      After the judge dies, Israel turns from Yahweh and becomes more corrupt than their predecessors.

The book’s epilogue (Jdg 17–21) concludes Israel’s downward spiral into civil war with the refrain, “In those days there was no king in Israel. Each did what was right in his own eyes (Jdg 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). In short, while the book of Joshua makes maximal claims of success, Judges illustrates the Israelites’ precipitous decline. (This thematic contrast is comparable to the parallel recitals of the pentateuchal history in Psalms 105 and 106. They cover the same events, but the first hymns Yahweh’s saving acts, the second confesses Israel’s repeated sins.)

The Genre and Theme of “the Song of the Sea”

► The third account of Israel’s occupation of Canaan, the Song of the Sea, is a hymn highlighting Yahweh’s mighty deeds.

The third account of the occupation of Canaan, the Song of the Sea (Exod 15), is a poetic hymn to Yahweh as divine warrior. It spotlights Yahweh’s mighty deeds—in contrast to the preceding narrative account that highlights Israel’s murmuring (esp. Exod 14:10–15, 30–31).

Herem and Violence

Herem War on the “-ites Confederation” is Deuteronomistic

► What actions was Israel to take against the “-ites confederation” in Canaan? According to J and E, they were to destroy their religious objects. D uniquely instructs them to put the Canaanites themselves to the sword under herem.

The Deuteronomistic History frames the book of Joshua as a test of Joshua himself. As Moses’ successor, his main task is to “cause Israel to inherit” the land by continuing Moses’ ḥerem war on the Canaanites. In Deuteronomistic literature, ḥerem (or hereafter simply herem) denotes “devoting/dedicating (something) irrevocably,” especially “to the sword” (further explained under §13.3.2). His success hinges on his obedience to “this Book of the Law,” that is, Deuteronomy.

What makes the book of Joshua problematic is how Joshua proves his obedience and Yahweh his blessing: success in wielding the sword against entire cities—combatants and noncombatants, man, woman, and child. As these are staged as praiseworthy actions, words like invasion and colonization, genocide and massacre seem unavoidable. The book itself offers no rationale. There is no characterization or indictment of the Canaanites, no mention of their religion or their supposed moral wickedness—unlike Deuteronomy. The wars of Joshua make little sense without this preamble to the Deuteronomistic History.

When naming the inhabitants of the promised land in Canaan, the OT refers to a cluster of “-ites” or people groups: “Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites.” As these groups “joined forces” against Israel in both the southern and northern campaigns (Josh 9:1–2; 10:3–5; 11:1–5), they will be referenced as the “-ites confederation.” Though the order may vary, the consistency of this list across various sources (J, E, D, DtrH, Ezra-Nehemiah) suggests they had become the stock or stereotypical enemies residing in Canaan in Israelite memory. What actions does the Pentateuch instruct the Israelites to take towards these peoples? The Torah scrolls do not have a clear, consistent answer. It depends on the tradition.

● Yahwist (J, Exod 34:11–16)
● Elohist (E, Exod 23:23–24)
● Elohist (E, 23:27–33)
● Deuteronomist (D, Deut 7:1–5)
● Deuteronomist (D, Deut 7:16, 20–26)
● Deuteronomist (D, Deut 20:16–18)

According to the Yahwist and Elohist strands, Yahweh will somehow “expel” (grš) the Canaanite groups, but the clearest action for the Israelites themselves is simply to destroy their religious objects (altars, standing stones, Asherah trees). The attending prohibitions of intermarriage, alliances, and worshiping their gods imply the Canaanite population will in fact persist. D alone instructs the Israelites to practice herem and war on the Canaanite population.

Passages in the Elohist and Deuteronomist strands state that Yahweh will use hornets to expel the Canaanites (a metaphor that portrays “chasing away,” not execution) in a gradual process (“little by little”). D is explicit: “you will not be able to finish them off quickly” (Deut 7:22). E notes that Yahweh will not expel them, “until you become fruitful and inherit the land” (Exod 23:30), implying a multigenerational timeframe—not a definitive blitzkrieg conquest as portrayed in Joshua 6–12.

In addition, D re-signifies Israel’s defensive wars against Sihon and Og in Transjordan (Num 21:21–35, J) as herem wars upon their “cities” (Deut 2:34–35; 3:3–10, probably because D portrays Sihon as rejecting the terms of peace,” cf. Deut 20:10-12). Thus, unique to the Deuteronomic source is the action of devoting/banning (herem) the “-ite” population and defeating them, not merely attacking their religious objects.

Herem outside the DtrH

► Outside the DtrH, herem appears in ritual contexts and means “to devote (something) irrevocably,” especially holy things.

The meaning of this Hebrew term is critical to our understanding, but its rendering in most English translations has confused the issue. ESV, NRSV, NIV, KJV, and the Living Bible all render it as “destroying something completely.” But in priestly texts, the noun herem denotes something “devoted/dedicated” to the Aaronic priests (Num 18:14), which is included in a list of “the holy of holy things” that belong to the priests! These include the Israelites’ sacrifices, agricultural produce, and the firstborn of clean animals that they are to “eat” (Num 18:8-19). Ezek 44:28–31 corroborates this passage, which includes “every devoted thing” among the sacrifices that the priest shall “eat.” Lev 27:21, 28 reflects the same usage. According to Lev 27:29 and Exod 22:18–20, however, persons under herem were “put to death.” In the postexilic period Ezra applies this priestly usage of herem to property, not to people (Ezra 10:8).

This survey of the usage of herem makes clear that the term by itself does not denote death. On the contrary, its collocation with “holy” implies it denotes something devoted to Yahweh— irrevocably.

Tracing the Development of Herem within the DtrH

So if the Deuteronomistic History uniquely applies herem to the -ites confederation and if its use of the term herem is unlike what we find elsewhere in the OT, then on what basis does the DtrH transform it?

► For the crime of Israelite cities going after other gods, Deuteronomy 13 “devotes” them, not to Yahweh, but to the sword.

Deut 13: Herem policy toward cities that go after other gods. Deuteronomy 13 appears to be the source for the peculiar application of herem within both Deuteronomy and Joshua, as they all share a constellation of terminology. The chapter concerns those who woo others, “let us go after other gods”—within Israel itself. This chapter and the two others in Deuteronomy dealing with the -ites confederation (Deut 7; 20) all concern groups (either cities or “-ites”) that serve “other gods,” a practice identified as an “abomination.” As a result, they are to be put under herem and “struck with the sword.”

If a prophet (Deut 13:1–5) or relative (Deut 13:6–11) says, “let us go after other gods,” the punishment is death (see also Deut 17:2–7). But if “a city” does the same (Deut 13:12–18), their action is singled out as “an abomination” and the punishment is herem.

You shall indeed strike the inhabitants of that city with the sword, devoting it and everything in it and its cattle to the sword” (Deut 13:14–15).

This passage deviates from the priestly passages where things were “devoted to” Yahweh and thereby to priests (Lev 27:21, 28; Num 18:14; Ezek 44:29; cf. Mic 4:13). Here the city is “devoted … to the sword” (echoed in Josh 6:21)! The Deuteronomist takes the term “devote,” denoting an irrevocable dedication normally in the sacred world, and reapplies it to execution in the legal world. The “city” will thereby become a “tell,” that is, an abandoned city “mound” (the same term used in modern archaeology and for modern Israeli cities such as Tel Aviv).

We must be clear here: the usage of herem in the OT indicates that the term itself denotes a declaration of “dedicating” something usually and sometimes someone. By itself it does not denote “complete destruction.” If death is intended, it must be clarified by qualifying phrases: the sword, “put to death” (Lev 27:29), “not leave alive anything that breathes” (Deut 20:16; Josh 10:40; 11:11, 14). The OT passages that collocate herem (noun or verb) with “sword” indicate a close connection between Deuteronomy’s policy for cities that “go after other gods” and Joshua’s herem war (Deut 13:15; Josh 6:21; 8:24–26; 10:28–39; 11:11–12).

► The legal policy for Israelite cities once they reside in the land (Deut 13) determines their military policy for Canaanite cities when they invade the land (Deut 7; 20).

Deut 7; 20: Herem policy towards the -ites confederation. As it turns out, this crime forms the essence of the Deuteronomist’s two treatments of the -ites confederation in Canaan: “they will turn your sons from following after me, and they will serve other gods” (Deut 7:1, 4; and 20:18). As in Deut 13:14, their idols and their practices are labelled an “abomination” (Deut 7:25–26; 20:18). As a result, the Israelites are to pronounce them under herem (Deut 7:2; 20:17). But as noted, this act of “dedicating” them does not denote death. That becomes clear in the attending instruction to “strike” (Deut 7:2) them with the “sword” (Deut 20:13), as prescribed in Deut 13:15. As in Deut 13:12–16, it is the “cities of these peoples” (the -ites confederation) in particular that are singled out for “devotion” (Deut 20:16–17). Perhaps as an echo of the priests’ responsibility to “eat” the herem (Num 18:10–13; Ezek 44:29), so the Israelites are instructed figuratively to “eat/consume” all the peoples of Canaan and their spoils (Deut 7:16; 20:14). In this light, the legal practice for Israelite cities once they reside in Canaan (Deut 13) determines their military policy for Canaanite cities (Deut 7; 20).

Deuteronomy 7 and 20 add a further motivation for herem: eliminate the temptation to worship other gods by eliminating people who worship other gods, who would tempt by intermarriage (Deut 7:3–4, 16) or influence (“that they not teach you to do,” Deut 20:18).

► Joshua 6-12 executes the herem policies of Deut 7 and 20 on Canaanite cities. Deuteronomy’s policy of eradicating Canaanite worship is translated in Joshua as an eradication of Canaanite cities.

Josh 6–11: Herem executed on the Canaanite cities.  In Joshua 6–12 we see the same constellation of terminology (though without explicit mention of “other gods” or “abominations”). All three of Joshua’s military campaigns focus on Canaanite “cities,” which stand on their “tell/mound” (Josh 11:13; cf. 8:28). These cities are all placed under herem (Josh 6:21; 8:26; and repeatedly in Joshua 10 and 11) and put to the “sword” (Josh 6:21; 8:24; and repeatedly in Joshua 10 and 11). The Deuteronomistic narrator is careful to note that Joshua’s battles in the southern and northern campaigns are against the -ites confederation (Josh 9:1; 11:1–5; 12:8), the same confederation identified in Deut 7:1–2; 20:17.

This constellation of terminology indicates that Joshua’s military strikes stem from Deuteronomy’s criminal case for Israelite cities defecting to other gods (Deut 13). The Canaanite cities are placed under the “ban” and “put to the sword” because they would tempt the Israelites to “go after other gods.” Deuteronomy’s policy of eradicating Canaanite worship is translated in the book of Joshua as an eradication of Canaanite cities.

What Did the Book of Joshua Mean for its Seventh Century BCE Audience?

► As part of the DtrH, the earliest publication date for Joshua lies in Josiah’s reform (622 BCE), which enacted a culture war on “Canaanite” religion.

Joshua and the seventh-century publication of the Deuteronomistic History.  If the book of Joshua is part of the Deuteronomistic history (DtrH) and thus composed in light of Deuteronomy’s policies, it cannot be composed until Deuteronomy (D) was published in Josiah’s reform. Its root problem was “they have forsaken me and burned offerings to other gods” (2 Kgs 22:17). The principal actions undertaken were to “pull down … altars,” “shatter the standing stones,” and burn/cut down “the asherim” (2 Kgs 23:6, 12–15)— the very actions prescribed in Deuteronomy (Deut 7:5; 12:3). But we should note that in Deuteronomy these three items belong to the -ites confederation (Deut 7:1), “the nations whom you will dispossess (Deut 12:2), whereas in Josiah’s reform they belong to Israelites. In this respect, Josiah’s reform, as narrated by the DtrH, was a culture war on “Canaanite” religion (i.e., the kind of religion they practiced), but without any reference to ethnic Canaanites there in the seventh century BCE.

The earliest date for the composition of Joshua is after 622 BCE, at least five centuries after Israelite occupation of Canaan after 1200 BC. Hence, the initial audience of Joshua’s publication resides in the seventh century, not the 12th century when early Israelites began to occupy the central hills. Indeed, the phrase, “to this day,” appears 15 times in the book of Joshua, more frequently than any other OT book. It implies some generational distance from the events it narrates (e.g., Josh 9:27).

► In 622 BCE the ethnic “-ites” no longer existed and Judah was not at war.

So what was the historical situation of the audience of the DtrH? Josiah’s reform takes place during a unique window in Israel’s history. For a brief generation the kingdom of Judah enjoyed political independence: between the fall of the Neo-Assyrian Empire and the rise of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. From Josiah’s reform in 622 BCE until his death in battle against Pharaoh Neco of Egypt in 609, there were no wars and there were no ethnic “-ites.” In the seventh century these people groups no longer existed as social groups posing an identifiable threat.

● Their last mention as a political reality lay in the pre-monarchic period (Jdg 3:5, called “nations,” Jdg 2:21–3:1), some 400 years earlier.
● The last mention of their “descendants” notes that Solomon had “conscripted them as forced labor to this day” (1 Kgs 9:20–21).
● Thereafter, they drop from the pages of the OT, until they surface as the stock/stereotypical list of Canaanite residents (Neh 9:8, 24), whose worship practices were emblematic “abominations” (Ezra 9:1).

► In this setting, the torah lesson renders the war on Canaanites as staging, while the spotlight falls on the named characters who speak: Yahweh, Joshua, Rahab, Achan, and the Gibeonites.

So what then were the “torah” lessons from Joshua for this 7th-century audience of Josiah’s day—when there were no “-ites” to tempt them and when they were not wielding “swords”? As these two features were irrelevant to their situation, the Canaanites and the wars became simply the “staging” for the drama. As much as “Joshua fit the battle of Jericho” and “the walls came tumblin' down” may lodge in people’s memory today, these are not the features foregrounded in the narrative.

The spotlight falls on the named characters who speak in Joshua 1–12: Yahweh, Joshua, Rahab, Achan, and the Gibeonites.

● Josh 1–5 presents Joshua as a second Moses.
● Josh 2. While this chapter highlights the parallels between Joshua and Moses who both sent out spies, it develops the character of Rahab.
● Josh 6–8. As dramatic as the fall of Jericho is, it sets the stage for Achan’s violation of herem and Israel’s failure to take Ai. His execution (Josh 7:25–26) and Joshua’s putting Ai under herem resolves the interwoven Jericho-Ai episode (Josh 8:26–29).
● Josh 9–10. The southern battle against the 5-king alliance makes sense only in light of the Gibeonites, whose trickery allied them with Israel. Their confessions of what Yahweh had done to Egypt, Sihon, and Og, and what he is about to do to the inhabitants of Canaan (Josh 9:9–10, 24) mirror those of Rahab (Josh 2:8–11).

► Joshua models obedience to Deuteronomy. Rahab, the outsider, demonstrates faithfulness and becomes an insider. Achan, the insider, violates Deuteronomy and is executed. Allegiance to covenant is the central torah lesson.

These literary characters dramatize the torah-lessons of Joshua 1–12. Joshua models obedience to “this Book of the Law” (Deuteronomy) and his story demonstrates his success (esp. Josh 1:6–8). Within the cultural mindset, Rahab begins with “3 strikes” against her: she is a Canaanite resident, a woman, and a prostitute. Yet she confesses Yahweh’s mighty acts—what Yahweh had done to Egypt, Sihon, and Og, and what he is about to do to the inhabitants of Canaan—along with her own praise: “Yahweh, your God, he is God in the heavens above and upon the earth beneath” (Josh 2:8–11). But most importantly, she is the only character who demonstrates mutual “loyalty/ faithfulness” with the Israelites (ḥesed, Josh 2:12–14), even when she must do so subversively! (See the NT references to the book of Joshua below.)

Achan’s character is the exact opposite. He is an Israelite, a man, and a warrior. Yet he confesses, “I have sinned … and I coveted” (Josh 7:20–21, also likely in 6:18). While Rahab acted in “faithfulness” (ḥsd), Achan “coveted” (ḥmd). The outsider who demonstrates faithfulness becomes an insider among the Israelites, while the insider violates one of Torah’s top Ten Commandments and is executed as a criminal. The key torah-lesson of Josh 2–8 is that outsiders can become insiders and that insiders should take warning that their insider status is not guaranteed by ethnicity or membership among the people of God. Allegiance to covenant ever remains a choice. Although the overall program of the herem wars on the Canaanites appears xenophobic to modern readers, the narrative artistry of Joshua opens the door to include strangers.

► In spite of Deuteronomy’s command to kill the Canaanites, later generations never interpreted it as actual policy.

Was herem and the sword ever considered an actual policy in the OT? Short answer: no. There are three OT passages that allude to Deut 7 and 20, two within the DtrH itself. In each case, these texts justify certain actions, but never does anyone consider wielding the sword against a population, as prescribed there (Deut 7:2; 20:13). First, during Solomon’s reign these passages were used to justify his conscription of forced labor for his building projects, based along ethnic lines (1 Kgs 9:20-22). Second, as we saw in Josiah’s reform, “the Book of the Law” justified the dismantling of illegitimate altars, standing stones, and asherah poles/trees. Third, in the postexilic period Ezra faced the problem of the Jewish returnnees intermarrying with “the peoples of the lands.” His takeaway from these passages was to prescribe divorce and separation (Ezra 9:1–2, 12; 10:10–11, drawing from Deut 7:3), not execution.

Canonical Views

► The DtrH is but one voice in the Scriptures. Other voices do not give assent to its violence. Jeremiah’s remedy for idolatry is repentance, not execution.

What do the other biblical scrolls have to say about violence, the root problem of “going after the gods,” and especially about the theological views and policies represented in the DtrH and Josiah’s reform? What is “the whole counsel of God” (cf. Acts 20:27) on these issues?

● Jeremiah was a contemporary of Josiah’s reform. If we use his scroll and that of the DtrH as news sources for the impact of Josiah’s reform, we get very different impressions. The reform is clearly the high point of 1–2 Kings. But of all Jeremiah’s oracles, only a single passage echoes support for it (Jer 11:1–8). The others consist largely of repeated indictments against every segment of Israelite society (see esp. Jer 5:1–9). His scroll leaves the impression that the reform had little effect on the people’s attitudes and actions, implying it was institutional only.
● On the crucial issue of what to do to those who advocate “going after other gods,” Deuteronomy’s prescription is execution (Deut 13:1–15). Jeremiah’s remedy is repentance (Jer 35:15; cf. 25:3–6). For this prophet it was Judah’s persistent dismissal of Yahweh's prophets that brought judgment, not a single act of disobedience (Jer 44:2–6).
● The DtrH endorses Jehu’s bloody coup against “the house of Ahab,” even noting that Yahweh commissioned it (1 Kgs 19:16; 2 Kgs 9:1–3, 7) and afterwards endorsed his actions (2 Kgs 10:30)—even though he also executed Ahab’s 70 sons, 42 relatives of Judah’s king, and the prophets of Baal (2 Kgs 9–10). But the prophet Hosea condemns Jehu’s bloodbath. There Yahweh promises, “I will call the house of Jehu to account for the blood of Jezreel, and I will bring an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel” (Hos 1:4).

The New Testament’s allusions to the book of Joshua are very selective. It nowhere approvingly quotes or echoes the book of Joshua where it refers to violence and Yahweh war. It does refer to dispossessing nations, but only as part of a historical recital (Acts 7:45; 13:19), and to the walls of Jericho falling (Heb 11:30). Even Revelation does not spiritualize Joshua’s warfare language. If we analyze which figure gets the most “hits” in the NT, it would be Rahab (Heb 11:31; James 2:25)!

What Are We to Make of Joshua’s Conquest and Herem war?

► The editorial cues embedded in the DtrH frame Joshua as an idealized second Moses and herem as a culture war on “Canaanite” religion. It teaches fidelity to Yahweh, not violence.

We are now in a better position to address the big questions. Does the biblical narrator present Joshua’s conquest as history? Did Yahweh actually command Israel to cleanse the land of Canaanites during their occupation? The discussion above has shown that these two questions are intertwined. To be clear, our initial aim is not to harmonize biblical books with each other, nor to harmonize the Bible with archaeology and history. Nor is it to make the biblical Yahweh compatible with humane policies. This is our question: what reading strategy is indicated by the biblical narrator, the Deuteronomistic historian? What cues are embedded in its genres and “frames”?

Joshua 1–12 bears some standout features within the DtrH. First, it alone presents Israel’s occupation of the land as a successful military conquest. According to Judges 1, they “possessed” the unoccupied hill country but failed to “dispossess” the Canaanites in the valleys and cities. According to the Song of the Sea, the Israelites simply “passed by” the petrified Canaanites into the hill country (Exod 15). Second, Joshua 1–12 bears the marks of an ANE conquest account that memorializes the leader’s complete domination of the Enemy.

Third, the “frames” of the DtrH (esp. Deut 1–3; 31; Josh 1–5) cast Joshua as a second Moses who serves as a model of obedience to the Mosaic torah in Deuteronomy. The “report cards” that frame Joshua 1–12 are phrased in the singular, indicating the successes belong to Joshua, not the Israelites (Josh 8:28; 10:40–42; 11:12–23). The DtrH frame of Judges indicates that Yahweh’s “test” of the Israelites (Jdg 2:20–3:6) appears in this later book, not in the book of Joshua.

The DtrH’s casting of Joshua appears similar to the Chronicler’s recasting of the David portrayed in 1–2 Samuel (see “Torah as Recasted Historical Narrative” in the Pentateuch module). David the opportunist in 1–2 Samuel becomes David the pious Jew in 1–2 Chronicles. A headline figure known from Israel’s sacred historical traditions is shaped as a model for teaching torah. History is embellished with lessons on how to obey Yahweh for the scripture’s listeners and readers. The figure of Joshua is presented as a literary character, not a historical one.

The DtrH’s framing of herem follows a similar line, as it appears to be a literary construct for the mode of Joshua’s obedience. While J and E prescribe destroying Canaanite objects of worship, D uniquely imposes herem on these populations. D uniquely attaches herem, “devoting something irrevocably,” to the sword. D applies this policy to “cities” that advocate “following other gods” and their “abominations.” As the Canaanites worship “other gods,” D proscribes their cities to herem and the sword. Joshua, as Moses’ successor, will cause the Israelites to “inherit” the land by continuing Moses’ herem wars in Canaan.

As the readership of the DtrH in the seventh century is neither engaged in war nor tempted by ethnic Canaanites, they would view these battles and the -ites confederation as the stereotypical enemy of Israel’s distant past. They have become the stage for the drama of its main characters: Yahweh, Joshua, Rahab, Achan, and the Gibeonites. Hence, herem and the sword never formed an actual policy against ethnic groups. For the Deuteronomistic historian in the seventh century, both the figure of Joshua and the policy of herem wars were literary staging for Joshua as a model of Torah obedience.

The Bible’s Ongoing Struggle with Violence, Identity, the Other, and Inclusion

► Although a close reading of the DtrH makes its teaching against “Canaanite” religion clear, its cinematic staging of a war on the Canaanites remains problematic for modern readers.

This is all well and good, but the nagging question remains: why would the DtrH choose these mechanisms to model Torah obedience? Why would he portray Yahweh as a commander of genocide?

The question we must keep at the forefront is, what does the Bible actually teach God’s people to believe and do? One of the principal modes of pedagogy employed in the Bible is to teach by embodied concepts, not by abstract concepts. The Psalms do not contrast righteousness and wickedness; they contrast the righteous and the wicked, as character profiles embodying those qualities. The book of Exodus does not teach the theological proposition that Yahweh is a God of liberation; it enacts and embodies Yahweh’s values in a narrative about Israel’s enslavement to Egypt. Similarly, while the DtrH teaches that God’s people should not go after other gods, the historian does not do so in the form of a kind of Sunday school lesson. He tells a cinematic story, filled with shock and awe, about stereotypical enemies of the remote past who embody the religion and culture that Yahweh rejects.

As torah/teaching, the DtrH is more interested in ongoing identity formation than in historicity. Israelite identity is established by waging a culture war on Canaanite religion, or to put it more precisely, any religious action or object that has associations with Canaanite worship. Though part of the Holiness Code, Leviticus 18:3 expresses this sentiment well.

According to the practices of the land of Egypt where you dwelt you shall not practice, and according to the practices of the land of Canaan where I am bringing you you shall not do. And in their statutes you shall not walk.

“Canaanite” became code for illegitimate practices. The Bible, however, nowhere justifies applying the -ites confederation stereotype to one’s contemporaries.

► The DtrH reflects a cultural perspective on war that sees value in “learning war,” but the Prophets envision a future when nations will no longer “learn war.”

We should also recognize that the Deuteronomistic historian shared a different cultural perspective on war. Embedded in the DtrH are assumptions that war is unavoidable and actually has the virtue of teaching each generation to be tough. The incidental comment in 2 Sam 11:1 speaks of war as an annual event in the ancient calendar (in a way similar to how we acknowledge spring as the time of the baseball season starts up). In a passage where we hear the voice of the Deuteronomistic narrator most clearly, he suggests that a generation that does not “know war” is somehow deficient and needs to “learn war” (Jdg 3:1–2)! In a later passage, after Gideon’s initial victory against the Midianites, Gideon summons help from the tribe of Ephraim. The Ephraimites responded by “contending vigorously” with him, “What is this you have done to us, not calling us when you went to do battle with Midian” (Jdg 8:1). Instead of thanking Gideon for sparing them from bloodshed, they rebuke him for not giving them the opportunity to participate in the earlier battle.

We must recall that the DtrH was composed for a generation now free and independent from the Assyrian empire. By staging Israel’s occupation of the land as a military conquest the book of Joshua galvanized Josiah’s kingdom with patriotic resolve.

But the views of the DtrH are not shared by all the voices in the OT. In particular, they are at odds with some the Prophets. Although the DtrH may fault a generation for not “learning war,” the vision shared by both Isaiah and Micah is that “nation will not raise a sword against nation, and they will not learn war anymore” (Isa 2:4; Mic 4:3). Hosea and Zechariah likewise envision a similar future. Yahweh promises, “the bow, the sword, and war I will break from the land, and I will make you lie down in safety” (Hos 2:18; cf. Zech 9:9–10).

► The torah lessons of the DtrH are affirmed throughout the Scriptures as enduring, but its violent stage must be critiqued within the Bible’s progressive revelation about the people of God and who is welcome.

Finally, we must reckon that violence, identity formation, and inclusion/exclusion are part of larger issues treated throughout the biblical canon, as part of its progressive revelation. These issues are addressed in other modules.

● You shall love your neighbor,” but who is my neighbor? (Leviticus module, 11.1.4, Rabbi Jesus and OT Law)
● Jesus on clean and unclean foods (Leviticus module, 11.1.4, Rabbi Jesus and OT Law)
● Gentile inclusion? (Postexilic Prophecy: Isaiah 56–66, 19.1.3 under Redefining the people of God)
● Jesus: reading the exceptions (Luke 4:25–27; Matt 12:1–8).

The book of Joshua and its stories of the conquest of Canaan take up a sizable portion of the OT and have a prominent place in the biblical canon and in the memory of Israel’s story. But we must acknowledge that the DtrH is but one voice among the many within the Old and New Testaments. The book of Joshua presents a cinematic interpretation of Israel’s culture war on Canaanite religion. Its teaching, especially with its spotlight on characters like Rahab and Achan, is clear and finds echoes elsewhere in the biblical canon. But its staging comes under canonical critique, so modern readers should heed these signposts. Every group defines its identity, in part, by what it is not. But should that identity formation entail violence or disrespect of outsiders, then the insiders must curtail those tendencies.

Do the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua give the impression that the God of Israel commands herem as a form of ethnic genocide and massacre? Might modern readers construe Yahweh as a moral monster? “Yes,” seems to be unavoidable. But closer analysis of how the biblical traditions developed and were applied for their original audience, likely in Josiah’s generation, indicates they were never intended or understood to prescribe violence. The -ites confederation became stock enemies, emblematic of worshiping other gods, a practice banned under taboo.

Finally, we return to our opening question. Is it biblically appropriate to encourage one another by quoting Joshua 1:9? After observe how biblical torah actually operates, our answer should be “yes.” Although its context and stage include violence, Torah’s enduring spotlight falls on fidelity to the God who goes with us.