Editing Book of Joshua (section)

=== Historicity ===
{{Further|Cities in the Book of Joshua}}
{{See also|Israelite highland settlement|History of ancient Israel and Judah}}
[[File:Shemesh Givon Dom 1.jpg|thumb|"''Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon''" (sculpture by [[Shmuel Bar-Even]])]]
The prevailing scholarly view is that Joshua is not a factual account of historical events.{{sfn|Killebrew|2005|p=152|ps=: "Almost without exception, scholars agree that the account in Joshua holds little historical value vis-à-vis early Israel and most likely reflects much later historical times.<sup>15</sup>"}}<ref name="Coote">{{cite book|last1=Coote|first1=Robert B.|title=Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible|publisher=Eerdmans|year=2000|isbn=978-90-5356-503-2|editor1-last=Freedman|editor1-first=David Noel|pages=275–276|chapter=Conquest: Biblical narrative|editor2-last=Myers|editor2-first=Allen C.|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qRtUqxkB7wkC&pg=PA275|quote=In sum, the biblical conquest of Canaan, though employing more ancient forms, motifs, and traditions, originated as such as a reflex of the revanchist reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah. The episodes of Jericho, Ai, and Gibeon which form the bulk of the Conquest account [...] are complex narratives which address numerous issues, but their main purpose is to intimidate potential opponents of Davidic centralization.}}</ref><ref name= McConville2010>{{Cite book |last1= McConville|first1=Gordon|last2= Williams|first2=Stephen|title= Joshua |publisher= Eerdmans |year= 2010|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=U_8LhXUU6NQC |isbn= 978-0-8028-2702-9}}</ref>{{rp |4}} The apparent setting of Joshua in the 13th century BCE<ref name= McConville2010 /> corroborates with the [[Late Bronze Age collapse|Bronze Age Collapse]], which was indeed a time of widespread city-destruction. However, with a few exceptions ([[Tel Hazor|Hazor]], [[Tel Lachish|Lachish]]), the destroyed cities are not the ones the Bible associates with Joshua, and the ones it does associate with him show little or no sign of even being occupied at the time.<ref name=MillerHayes>{{Cite book|last1 =Miller|first1 =James Maxwell |last2=Hayes|first2=John Haralson|title=A History of Ancient Israel and Judah|publisher= Westminster John Knox Press|year=1986|isbn= 978-0-664-21262-9 |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=uDijjc_D5P0C}}</ref>{{rp |71–72}} The archaeological evidence shows that [[Jericho]] and [[Ai (Canaan)|Ai]] were not occupied in the Near Eastern [[Late Bronze Age]],<ref>{{cite book|last1=Bartlett|first1=John R.|url=https://archive.org/details/oxfordhandbookbi00roge_252|title=The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies|date=2006|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-925425-5|editor1-last=Rogerson|editor1-first=J.W.|location=Oxford|page=[https://archive.org/details/oxfordhandbookbi00roge_252/page/n81 63]|chapter=3: Archeology|editor2-last=Lieu|editor2-first=Judith M.|url-access=limited}}</ref> although recent excavations at Jericho have questioned this.{{sfn|Nigro|2020|p=202}}

According to ''Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible'', the story of the conquest represents the nationalist [[propaganda]] of the 8th century BCE kings of [[kingdom of Judah|Judah]] and their claims to the territory of the [[Kingdom of Israel (Samaria)|Kingdom of Israel]];<ref name="Coote" /> incorporated into an early form of Joshua written late in the reign of king [[Josiah]] (reigned 640–609&nbsp;BCE). The Book of Joshua was probably revised and completed after the [[Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC)|fall of Jerusalem]] to the [[Neo-Babylonian Empire]] in 586 BCE, and possibly after the return from the [[Babylonian exile]] in 538 BCE.<ref name="Creach" />{{rp|10–11}}

In the 1930s [[Martin Noth]] made a sweeping criticism of the usefulness of the Book of Joshua for history.<ref name= Albright1939>{{cite journal|last1=Albright|first1=W. F.|title= The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in the Light of Archaeology |journal=Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research |volume=74|date=1939 |issue= 74|pages=11–23|doi= 10.2307/3218878 |jstor= 3218878|s2cid=163336577}}</ref> Noth was a student of [[Albrecht Alt]], who emphasized [[form criticism]] (whose pioneer had been [[Hermann Gunkel]] in the 19th century) and the importance of [[Origin myth|etiology]].<ref name= Albright1939 /><ref>Noort, Ed. 1998.  "4QJOSHª and the History of Tradition in the Book of Joshua," ''Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages'', '''24''' (2): 127–144.</ref> Alt and Noth posited a peaceful movement of the Israelites into various areas of Canaan, in contradiction to the Biblical account.<ref name= Rendsburg>{{cite journal|last1= Rendsburg|first1=Gary A.|title= The Date of the Exodus and the Conquest/Settlement: The Case for the 1100S|journal=Vetus Testamentum |date=1992 |volume=  42 |issue=4|pages=510–527|doi= 10.2307/1518961 |jstor= 1518961}}</ref> American archaeologist [[William F. Albright]] questioned the "tenacity" of etiologies, which were key to Noth's analysis of the campaigns in Joshua.

The site of [[Et-Tell]] (identified as [[Ai (Canaan)|Ai]]) was first excavated by [[Judith Marquet-Krause]].<ref name=":3">{{Cite book |last=Wagemakers |first=Bart |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZNAVBAAAQBAJ&dq=judith+marquet-krause&pg=PA47 |title=Archaeology in the 'Land of Tells and Ruins': A History of Excavations in the Holy Land Inspired by the Photographs and Accounts of Leo Boer |date=2014-02-28 |publisher=Oxbow Books |isbn=978-1-78297-246-4 |pages=47 }}</ref> Her investigations in the 1930s showed that the city, an early target for conquest in the putative Joshua account, had existed and been destroyed, but in the 22nd century BCE.<ref name= Albright1939 /> Some alternate sites for Ai, such as Khirbet el-Maqatir or Khirbet Nisya, have been proposed which would partially resolve the discrepancy in dates, but these sites have not been widely accepted.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Hawkins |first1= Ralph |title= How Israel Became a People |date=2013 |publisher= Abingdon |isbn= 978-1-4267-5487-6 |page= 109|url= https://books.google.com/books?id=7QU7GFNe7nsC&pg=PT156 |access-date= 26 January 2017}}</ref> In 1951, [[Kathleen Kenyon]] showed that City IV at [[Tell es-Sultan]] (Jericho) was destroyed at the end of the [[Middle Bronze Age]] (c. 2100–1550 BCE), not during the [[Late Bronze Age]] (c. 1550–1200 BCE). Kenyon argued that the early Israelite campaign could not be historically corroborated, but rather explained as an etiology of the location and a representation of the Israelite settlement.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Kenyon|first1=Kathleen M.|title=Jericho|journal=Archaeology|date=1967|volume=20|issue=4|pages=268–275|jstor= 41667764}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1= Kenyon |first1=Kathleen M. |title= Some Notes on the History of Jericho in the Second Millennium B.C.|journal= Palestine Exploration Quarterly|date=2013|orig-date=1951|volume= 83 |issue=2|pages=101–138|doi=10.1179/peq.1951.83.2.101}}</ref>

More recently, [[Lorenzo Nigro]] of the Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan has argued that there was a later settlement (City V) at the site during the 14th and 13th centuries BCE.{{sfn|Nigro|2020|p=202}}<ref name=Nigro2023>{{cite book |title=Durch die Zeiten - Through the Ages: Festschrift für Dieter Vieweger / Essays in Honour of Dieter Vieweger |last=Nigro |first=Lorenzo |location=Gütersloh |publisher=Gütersloher Verlagshaus |year=2023 |isbn=978-3-579-06236-5 |pages=599–614 |editor-last=Soennecken |editor-first=Katja |chapter=Tell es-Sultan/Jericho in the Late Bronze Age: An Overall Reconstruction in the Light of most Recent Research |editor-last2=Leiverkus |editor-first2=Patrick |editor-last3=Zimni |editor-first3=Jennifer |editor-last4=Schmidt |editor-first4=Katharina}}</ref> He states that the expedition detected Late Bronze Age II layers in several parts of the tell, although its upper layers were heavily cut by leveling operations during the Iron Age, which explains the low amount of 13th-century materials.{{sfn|Nigro|2020|pp=202–204}} Nigro says that the idea that the Biblical account should have a literal archaeological correspondence is erroneous, and "any attempt to seriously identify something on the ground with biblical personages and their acts" is hazardous.{{sfn|Nigro|2020|p=204}}

In 1955, [[G. Ernest Wright]] discussed the correlation of archaeological data to the early Israelite campaigns, which he divided into three phases per the Book of Joshua. He pointed to two sets of archaeological findings that "seem to suggest that the biblical account is in general correct regarding the nature of the late thirteenth and twelfth-eleventh centuries in the country" (i.e., "a period of tremendous violence").<ref name=Wright>{{cite journal|last1=Wright|first1=G. Ernest|title= Archaeological News and Views: Hazor and the Conquest of Canaan|journal=The Biblical Archaeologist|date=1955|volume= 18 |issue=4|pages=106–108|doi= 10.2307/3209136|jstor= 3209136|s2cid=165857556}}</ref>  He gives particular weight to what were then recent digs at Hazor by [[Yigael Yadin]].<ref name=Wright />

Archaeologist [[Amnon Ben-Tor]] of the [[Hebrew University of Jerusalem]], who replaced Yadin as the supervisor of excavations at Hazor in 1990, believed that recently unearthed evidence of violent destruction by burning verifies the Biblical account of the city's conquest by the Israelites.<ref name="Ben-Tor" /> In 2012, a team led by Ben-Tor and Sharon Zuckerman discovered a scorched palace from the 13th century BC in whose storerooms they found 3,400-year-old ewers holding burned crops.<ref name="Ben-Tor">{{cite journal|last=Ben-tor|first=Amnon|date=2013-01-01|title=Who Destroyed Canaanite Hazor?|url=https://www.academia.edu/35948616|journal=[[Biblical Archaeology Review]]|volume=39|issue=4|pages=27–36}}</ref> Sharon Zuckerman did not agree with Ben-Tor's theory, and claimed that the burning was the result of the city's numerous factions opposing each other with excessive force.<ref name="g260">{{cite web | last=Ashkenazi | first=Eli | title=A 3,400-year-old Mystery: Who Burned the Palace of Canaanite Hatzor? | website=Haaretz.com | date=23 July 2012 | url=https://www.haaretz.com/2012-07-23/ty-article/a-3-400-year-old-mystery-at-tel-hatzor/0000017f-e83f-d62c-a1ff-fc7f113a0000 | access-date=27 December 2024}}</ref>

In her commentary for the ''Westminster Bible Companion series,'' Carolyn Pressler suggested that readers of Joshua should give priority to its theological message ("what passages teach about God") and be aware of what these would have meant to audiences in the 7th and 6th centuries BCE.<ref name="Pressler">{{Cite book|last=Pressler|first=Carolyn|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7W4-RjlzWy4C&pg=PA1|title=Joshua, Judges and Ruth|publisher=Westminster John Knox Press|year=2002|isbn=978-0-664-25526-8}}</ref>{{rp|5–6}} [[Richard D. Nelson|Richard Nelson]] explained that the needs of the [[Centralisation|centralised]] monarchy favoured a single story of origins, combining old traditions of an [[The Exodus|exodus from Egypt]], belief in a [[national god]] as "divine warrior," and explanations for ruined cities, [[social stratification]] and ethnic groups, and contemporary tribes.<ref name="Nelson">{{Cite book|last=Nelson|first=Richard D|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Iwfg_zQHRR4C&pg=PR5|title=Joshua|publisher=Westminster John Knox Press|year=1997|isbn=978-0-664-22666-4}}</ref>{{rp|5}}

[[Lester L. Grabbe]] states that when he was studying for his doctorate (more than three decades before 2007), the "substantial historicity" of the Bible's stories of the patriarchs and the conquest of [[Canaan]] was widely accepted, but today it is hard to find a historian who still believes in it.<ref name="GRABBE p. ">{{cite book | last=Grabbe | first=Lester L. | title=Understanding the History of Ancient Israel | chapter=Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel | publisher=British Academy | date=25 October 2007 | isbn=978-0-19-726401-0 | doi=10.5871/bacad/9780197264010.003.0005 | pages=57–58}}</ref>

[[Ann E. Killebrew]] writes that, while archaeological findings at [[Tel Hazor|Hazor]] and the [[Mount Ebal site|Mount Ebal altar]] and a few literary elements suggest that the Book of Joshua may preserve some real memories of Israel's early history in Canaan, "consensus exists that, whatever its sources (either oral and/or written), the conquest account as narrated is historically problematic and should be treated with caution."{{sfn|Killebrew|2020|p=83}}

In 2005, [[Pierre de Miroschedji]] published an article in the journal ''La Recherche''. He wrote: {{blockquote|In general, no serious archaeologist today believes that the events narrated in the Book of Joshua have any real historical basis. Archaeological surveys, especially in the early 1990s, have revealed that the Israelite culture arose in the hills of the central part of the country, as a continuation of the Canaanite culture of the previous era.<ref>„D'une façon générale, aucun archéologue sérieux ne croit plus aujourd'hui que les événements rapportés dans le livre de Josué ont un fondement historique précis. Des prospections archéologiques, au début des années 1990, en particulier, ont révélé que la culture israélite a émergé dans les collines du centre du pays, en continuité avec la culture cananéenne de l'époque précédente.” [[Pierre de Miroschedji]], revue ''La Recherche'' no. 391 of 1 November 2005, dossier ''Les archéologues réécrivent la [[Bible]]'', p. 32.</ref>}}

The consensus of historians is that the ancient Israelites did not enter Canaan from outside and did not conquer it in a military campaign.<ref name="Baker Arnold 2004 p. 200">{{cite book | first=K. | last=Lawson Younger Jr. | editor-last1=Baker | editor-first1=David W. | editor-last2=Arnold | editor-first2=Bill T. | chapter=Early Israel in Recent Biblical Scholarship | title=The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches | publisher=Baker Publishing Group | year=2004 | isbn=978-0-8010-2871-7 | chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vO8XRZyhvpMC&pg=PA200 | page=200 | quote=Besides the rejection of the Albrightian 'conquest' model, the general consensus among OT scholars is that the Book of Joshua has no value in the historical reconstruction. They see the book as an ideological retrojection from a later period—either as early as the reign of Josiah or as late as the Hasmonean period.}}</ref><ref name="Congress Borrás Sáenz-Badillos 1999 p. 117">{{cite book | first=Carl S. | last=Ehrlich | editor-last1=Congress | editor-first1=E.A.J.S. | editor-last2=Borrás | editor-first2=Judit Targarona | editor-last3=Sáenz-Badillos | editor-first3=Ángel | title=Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century, Volume 1: Biblical, Rabbinical, and Medieval Studies | chapter=Joshua, Judaism and Genocide | publisher=Brill | year=1999 | isbn=978-90-04-11554-5 | chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5ZlRPQJ8Qd4C&pg=PA117 | page=117 | quote=It behooves us to ask, in spite of the fact that the overwhelming consensus of modern scholarship is that Joshua is a pious fiction composed by the deuteronomistic school, how does and how has the Jewish community dealt with these foundational narratives, saturated as they are with acts of violence against others?}}</ref><ref name="BerlinBrettler2014">{{cite book|last1=Brettler|first1=Marc Zvi|editor1-last=Berlin|editor1-first=Adele|editor2-last=Brettler|editor2-first=Marc Zvi|title=The Jewish Study Bible|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-997846-5|year=2014|edition=2nd|page=951|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yErYBAAAQBAJ|language=en|chapter=נביאים NEVIʾIM|quote=Recent decades, for example, have seen a remarkable reevaluation of evidence concerning the conquest of the land of Canaan by Joshua. As more sites have been excavated, there has been a growing consensus that the main story of Joshua, that of a speedy and complete conquest (e.g. Josh. 11.23: 'Thus Joshua conquered the whole country, just as the {{Lord}} had promised Moses') is contradicted by the archaeological record, though there are indications of ''some'' destruction and conquest at the appropriate time.}}</ref>

{{blockquote| “there is little that we can salvage from Joshua’s stories of the rapid, wholesale destruction of Canaanite cities and the annihilation of the local population. It simply did not happen; the archeological evidence is indisputable.”

This is the judgment of one of the more conservative historians of ancient Israel. To be sure, there are far more conservative historians who try to defend the historicity of the entire biblical account beginning with Abraham, but their work rests on confessional presuppositions and is an exercise in apologetics rather than historiography. Most biblical scholars have come to terms with the fact that much (not all!) of the biblical narrative is only loosely related to history and cannot be verified.<ref name="Reflections 2000">{{cite journal | issn=0362-0611 | first=John J. | last=Collins | title=Old Testament in a New Climate | journal=Reflections | publisher=Yale Divinity School | year=2008 | url=https://reflections.yale.edu/article/between-babel-and-beatitude/old-testament-new-climate | access-date=23 May 2022 | pages=4–7}}</ref>|[[John J. Collins]]}}