A Geographic Reading of Joshua 8 and 24

INTRODUCTION

The biblical account of the conquest of the Promised Land is recorded in Joshua through the significant victories of Jericho and eventually Ai. Following the eventual victory over Ai, a covenant renewal scene transpires in chapter eight. The importance of this scene cannot be missed in the flow of the book as positive outcomes are portrayed in battle scenes thereafter. Another scene transpires in chapter twenty-four which closely parallels the previous account. Attempting to understand the author’s intention in including these accounts in the general flow of the book, a specific reading will be offered. A reading that is sensitive to geographic features of the text will most help the reader arrive at the author’s intention.

The methodology presented for the geographically sensitive reading of Joshua 8 and 24 will begin with the biblical text. Considering the biblical text both within its context and by a close reading the interpreter will be aided. Secondly, the geographic setting will be considered so the reader will be able to span a gap in understanding of location. The geographic setting will also attempt to relate the biblical text to localities to assign meaning to the biblical text. Thirdly, the geographic places will be considered for historical significance following the biblical text. Next, comparative cultural space will be considered for meaning relevant to the locations of Joshua 8 and 24. Finally, the author will engage in personal application that has arisen from a geographically sensitive reading of these texts.

BIBLICAL TEXT

As the victory of Ai in the first half of chapter eight occurred over 20 miles to the south of the renewal ceremony at the end of chapter eight, it is apparent this was not just another stop along the Joshua campaign. There could have been additional battles that occurred between these two destinations that are not recorded in the biblical record.[1] Certainly the biblical record does not contain all the events of the Joshua campaign but specific events that fit the author’s purposes. Seeing Joshua as theological history means the arrangement of the renewal ceremony at the end of chapter eight may not have happened at this point chronologically but fits here theologically.[2]

The insertion of the renewal ceremony at this juncture has manifold theological significance. First, the covenant ceremony further solidifies Joshua as the new Moses. Joshua, the chosen successor of Moses, leads Israel from the Transjordan to the Promised Land on the other side. Deuteronomy 34:9 describes the succession as Moses laying his hands on Joshua, which imparted a spirit of wisdom. Joshua’s leadership is closely tied with the obedience of the people and congruence with the law of God that Moses had received. Obedience or covenant keeping would be a sign that Joshua is leading the people. It is also important that Joshua is not described just like Moses. “Joshua does not lead as Moses did according to his own personal interpretation or meditation of God’s words. Rather, Joshua leads according to the Mosaic interpretation of God’s commands and words now recorded in the book of the torah.”[3]Joshua’s leadership is confirmed by this formula in the covenant renewal account. Twice in the account Joshua leads the people in obedience as doing “just as Moses commanded.”[4] Joshua’s reference to the Mosaic record instead of his own interpretation is seen throughout the passage in the reading of the law.[5]

The second theological significance of the covenant renewal ceremony of Joshua 8 is the covenant faithfulness of God, which is an underlying theme of the whole book. This theme is emphasized in Joshua’s commission of chapter one and foiled with Achan’s sin of chapter seven. The farewells of chapter twenty-three and twenty-four cement the idea that God has fulfilled his promise of a land and the people have covenant obligations to Him. It seems highly probable from the similarities in the covenant renewal accounts of Joshua 8 and 24 that the same event may be in view. A source critical reading of Joshua 8 suggests it is a shorter version of chapter twenty four. The purpose of its insertion prior to chapter nine is to present the further conquests of chapters ten and eleven with the covenant fulfillment motif.[6] As Alter explains two accounts do not demand both occurred sequentially but that in “narrative logic” both can be included to support the purpose the author has with differing information.[7]

The differences in the accounts are somewhat obvious such as length and dialogue (or lack thereof in chapter eight). The more subtle differences are what are of concern for this paper, namely geography. In Joshua 8 the ceremony is said to have occurred with half the people on the front of Mt. Gerizim and half the people on the front of Mt. Ebal. Joshua is mentioned as building an altar atop Mt. Ebal specifically.[8] The Joshua 24 ceremony occurs in Shechem with a sanctuary constructed there. As will be highlighted below, there is not a large geographical variance in these accounts. A meaningful insertion of chapter eight without a direct intention for chronology could be seen from geographic similarities of both ceremonies. The geography may be essential to the conquest narratives though the vantage points of Joshua 8 and 24 will be needed to explain it. Thus, the biblical text may be drawing additional significance to this ceremony by a particular geographic designation than originally apparent in the short pericope of chapter eight.

GEOGRAPHICAL OVERVIEW

The Manasseh region is the focus of the events of Joshua 8 and 24. Joshua 8 speaks of it setting as Mount Ebal and Mount Gerizim of the Central Mountain Range.[9] Mt. Ebal is approximately 2,800 feet high whereas Mt. Gerizim is approximately 2,600 feet high. Gerizim is on the right when looking east and Ebal is on the left. [10] Speculation abounds on the location of the Israelites gathered on the foot of Mt. Ebal and Mt. Gerizim. One author records his own trial of speaking the distance of 800 yards between the mountains with success of the audible trial.[11] This testing is meant as a validation of the location of spots on the edges of these two mountains for the Israelite gatherings. Gerizim is noticeably more bountiful or blessed than Ebal though both have “monolithic limestone.”[12] The setting of Joshua 8 can be pictured with close to equal mountains to the naked eye. The one on the right is lusher but rocks cover both as can be seen from either position.

The meeting of Joshua 24 occurs at Shechem a city between Mts. Ebal and Gerizim. It lies to the North of Mt. Gerizim and just south of Mt. Ebal.[13] The distance from Shechem to Jerusalem was approximately 40 miles.[14] Springs of water meet at this location running east to the Jordan and west to the Mediterranean Sea.[15] This important city formed a natural amphitheatre of sorts, which allowed Israel to meet to affirm the covenant. It is also important that Shechem is essentially the same location as the event of Joshua 8. The setting described between the two mountains of Joshua 8 is almost assuredly a reference to Shechem. Howard indeed agrees saying, “Joshua’s second farewell to Israel took place at Shechem, site of the earlier covenant renewal ceremony.”[16]

Reading Joshua 8 and 24 as the same event arranged in different forms possibly from different sources leads to a consideration of geographic place in the conquest stories of Joshua.[17] Joshua’s Central Campaign led over the Jordan River to defeat Jericho then two battles to defeat Ai. After this battle the text opens without explanation of route unlike it did for the movement from Jericho to Ai in 7:2. The scene of 8:30 merely shifts to 20 miles away to Mount Ebal.[18] The story picks up after the ceremony in chapter nine approximately 12 miles away from Ai back in Gilgal, where the deception of the Gibeonites occurred (9:6). The Gibeonites were only 8 miles away from the destroyed site of Ai. It is likely Gilgal was a staging area for the campaigns as mentioned in 4:19, 9:6, and 10:6.[19]

As the campaign will turn southward next in chapter ten, it seems likely that Joshua did not lead the nation northward only to return to the south. The absence of battle records leading from Ai to Mt. Ebal is a reason to believe 8:30-35 is not chronologically linked to its context, but theologically as proposed above. While the author’s selectivity is readily acknowledged, it seems odd to assume Israel fought its way north only to return to a southern headquarters. Merrill argues on the basis of the Amarna letters that the Canaanites of Shechem were tolerant of outsiders. Thus, in his view as the ‘apiru were tolerated thirty years prior, so too the Israelites would be tolerated.[20] It seems unclear from the Amarna letters that Shechem tolerated the ‘apiru instead of the ‘apiru subjecting the Canaanites of Shechem.[21] This analogy of the ‘apiru coming to Shechem does not answer the question of the Joshua 8’s absence of route designations, military exploits, and diplomatic terms. It remains clear on a geographic reading that a conflation exits between Joshua 8 and 24 explaining the covenant renewal of 8:30-35 as theological not chronological.

[1] Barry J. Beitzel. The Moody Atlas of Bible Lands. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985, 95
[2] Ian Provan, V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman III. A Biblical History of Israel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003, 152-153.
[3] Dennis T. Olson. Deuteronomy and the Death of Moses: A Theological Reading. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1994, 168.
[4] hv,ämo hW"÷ci rv,’a]K; occurs both in 8:31, 33, 35. Also it occurs in Joshua 11:12 and 11:15. The exact construction occurs in Exodus 16:24, Leviticus 9:21 (and a slight change in the absence of preposition K in Lev. 9:5). This formulaic expression exists even to the time of the writing of II Kings 21:8 with a different arrangement of the wording.
[5] The Mosaic Law is explicitly mentioned in 8:31, 8:32, and 8:34 and implicitly in 8:35.
[6] Robert G. Boiling and G. Ernest Wright. Joshua: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982, 246.
[7] Robert Alter. The Art of Biblical Narrative. n.p: Basic Books, 1981, 138.
[8] Though not pertinent to the present discussion, it is highly interesting that the Samaritan Pentateuch has Gerizim as the altar’s location instead of Ebal. Assuredly, suspect motivation of the Samaritans would have influenced this reading over the MT. Gordon Mitchell. Together in the Land: A Reading of the Book of Joshua. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993, 84.
[9] Yohanan Aharoni. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1979, 29.
[10] Victor P. Hamilton. Handbook on the Historical Books. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004, 46.
[11] Henry Stafford Osborn. The New Descriptive Geography of Palestine. Oxford, OH: State University, 1877, 62-63.
[12] Hamilton. Handbook on the Historical Books, 46.
[13] Osborn. Descriptive Geography of Palestine, 76.
[14] Hamilton. Handbook on the Historical Books, 79.
[15] Osborn. Descriptive Geography of Palestine, 166.
[16] David M. Howard. Joshua. New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman, 1998, 425.
[17] There is an issue of textual criticism involving the placement of 8:30-35 in its present location. The LXX has this section following 9:1-2 and the Qumran document 4QJosha has it prior to 5:2. This is further evidence of differing sources conveying a single event. Anthony F. Campbell. Joshua to Chronicles: An Introduction. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2004, 46.
[18] The calculations are based on the author’s assumption of et-Tell as the site of biblical Ai. Carl G. Rasmussen. Zondervan NIV Atlas of the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1989, 93.
[19] Beitzel. The Moody Atlas, 95.
[20] Merill’s view of a peaceful occupation of Shechem is also intricately linked to an early exodus chronology. This makes his argument questionable since the early date of the exodus cannot be completely defended either. Eugene H. Merrill. Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1996, 113.
[21] EA 287 Abdi-Heba to Pharaoh and EA 254 Lab’aya to Pharoah both speak of the ‘apriu as forming alliances with Egyptian allies. It also speaks of the land of the king being given to the ‘apiru. EA 289 Abdi-Heba to Pharaoh is most interesting as it seems to indicate that Lab’aya and his heirs gave Shechem to the ‘apiru. This is used as a negative illustration against what should happen to Gaza. The call for reinforcements may intimate that Lab’aya did not give Shechem but was defeated. This would in turn beg the question of why Joshua would be welcomed with no explicit military force.

Psalm 73: God is Good, Even When Others Look Better

In Psalm 73, the writer is troubled by the prosperity of the wicked. The psalmist knows in v. 1-2 that God is good to Israel if they follow God with a pure heart. Then notice in verse two the shift to the 1st person pronouns, the psalmist is personally unsure. As he is at a low, feeling he has almost slipped losing his foothold. The wicked seem to be doing so well though! It looks like these others are in a better condition. These wicked people are well described in vv. 4-12. In the most vivid terms he describes them in such terms as having no struggles, free from burdens, pride is their necklace, clothed with violence, mouths that lay claim of heaven, always carefree, and they increase their wealth. It is easy to despise these wicked ones and be quick to judge them in abstraction. Certainly, we may know individuals, who fit this description. How sad; they ought to be pitied and plead with to change?

But what are those who are not wicked to be like? Like the psalmist. But come on, sometimes it doesn’t seem worth it to be a God-follower! He says in v. 13 looking at the wicked it seems like it was in vain that he kept his heart pure and that he washed his hands in innocence. These activities seemed useless to him in comparison with all that was going right for the wicked.

Then he comes to the place of the sanctuary of God in v. 17. This is not the church in this original context, although if one encounters God and meets with Him there it could fit. The sanctuary for this exilic to postexilic psalm might mean the rebuilt in God’s presence by Torah or the temple in Jerusalem. Throughout the psalms a transfer is being made for the people dispossessed of their land. The Old Testament faith that worshipped in a temple is changing to a worship of God through His words alone. The book of the Law, the Torah, and Prophets, and soon developing the Writings. Here the psalmist can find a paradigm shift in his mind from envying the prosperity of the wicked. I to must come to the words of Scripture, encounter God, and see my values change.

It is this encounter with God that causes the psalmist to understand the destiny of these wicked ones. This meeting with God shifts how the psalmist was previously feeling in v.1-2. It is the wicked who are on slippery ground, waiting the sudden destruction coming upon them. The change of his outlook has changed. The psalmist contrasts his own relationship with God and knows that it is better. V.23 says he is always with God. He is guided by God’s counsel. God alone is the psalmists hope in heaven and desire upon the earth. God is his strength and his inheritance (a direct contrast with the wealth of the wicked as land was closely related to both ideals of wealth).

Then the psalmist offers a spectrum on which to find oneself in v. 27-28. He says those that are far from God will perish as they are unfaithful. Then v. 28 he acknowledges it is good to be near God. The Sovereign Lord is his refuge. Then notice in contrast to the unfaithfulness of the wicked is the telling of God’s deeds –namely his faithfulness. This does not mean that the psalmist is always faithful in contrast to the wicked, but that he is near God, whom he takes his refuge in. Thus, God is faithful so again it is good to be near Him.