Notes · NIVAC

2. Cf. L. J. Greenspoon, “The Book of Joshua—Part I: Texts and Versions,” CBR 3.2 (2005): 229–61; idem, Textual Studies in the Book of Joshua (HSM 28; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1983).

3. A. H. W. Curtis, Joshua (OTG; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 12–14.

4. Numbers 11:28 says that Joshua “had been Moses’ aide since youth,” so Exodus 17 may assume him to be in that position already despite the absence of the term “aide.” For the Hebrew term, see below.

5. So NLT. If so, Hoshea probably was simply a shortened form of Joshua. Alternatively, Numbers 13:16 may claim that Moses actually changed Hoshea’s name to Joshua; cf. NIV; NRSV; TNK.

6. Cf. D. A. Howard Jr., Joshua (NAC; Nashville: Broadman, 1998), 73. According to Howard, Joshua is the first personal name in the Bible to incorporate God’s personal name, “Yahweh.” Interestingly, the LXX renders “Joshua” as Iesous, the New Testament name for Jesus. For the thesis that biblical narratives purposely delayed Joshua’s emergence until Joshua 1, see G. C. Chirichigno, “The Use of the Epithet in the Characterization of Joshua,” TrinJ 8 (1987): 72–79.

7. The others would include at least the high priest Eleazar and his son, Phinehas (Ex. 6:25; Num. 25:7; Josh. 14:1; 17:4; 22:13).

8. For an illuminating study of Joshua as a character, see P. J. Kissling, Reliable Characters in the Primary History: Profiles of Moses, Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha (JSOTSup 224; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 69–95.

9. For further details and bibliography on this discussion, cf. I. Provan, V. P. Long, and T. Longman III, A Biblical History of Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 131–32, 140; and T. Longman III and R. B. Dillard, An Introduction to the Old Testament (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 124–25.

10. The figure of 300 years prior to Jephthah that Israel had controlled Transjordan (Judg. 11:26) is also often cited as support.

11. Recently, Chavalas and Adamthwaite have argued the untenability of both the conventional “early” and “late” dates and the superiority of a fourteenth-century date for the Exodus-Conquest events. Whether their view will gather a consensus remains to be seen; cf. M. W. Chavalas and M. R. Adamthwaite, “Archaeological Light on the Old Testament,” in D. W. Baker and B. T. Arnold, eds., The Face of Old Testament Studies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 78–90.

12. For what follows, cf. A. Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East c. 3000–330 B.C. (New York; London: Routledge, 1995), 1:317–29; and A. E. Killebrew, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), 24–28, who also summarizes the archaeological evidence (51–92).

13. Despite the linguistic similarities, the habiru cannot be equated with “Hebrews,” but the latter may have formed part of them. The term is a catchall word for a diverse group living on the margins of ancient society (“runaway slaves, political exiles, brigands, and landless peasants”); cf. Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, 1:320.

14. Ibid., 1:324.

15. The term and concept come from Killebrew, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity, 21.

16. Cf. Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, 2:385–86; Killebrew, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity, 32–33.

17. For the reasons behind the widespread upheaval, see Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, 2:385–86, 392–93;Killebrew, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity, 33–42.

18. This otherwise complex story receives a good, nuanced treatment by Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, 2:386–93.

19. Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, 389–90, 425. Killebrew, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity, 197–245, provides a detailed description of Philistine material culture.

20. Heb. seren (“ruler”) is thought to originate from a Philistine word.

21. Killebrew, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity, 27–28, 42.

22. Other examples include the remaining obligation of the Transjordanian tribes (Josh. 1:13 [Deut. 3:20]) and the altar building on Mount Ebal (Josh. 8:30–31 [Deut. 27:4–6]).

23. The translation of his German original from 1943 is M. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1981).

24. Longman and Dillard, Introduction, 123–24. For the current state of the discussion, see T. Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History (London; New York: T & T Clark, 2007); cf. Curtis, Joshua, 17–21, 32–35.

25. R. S. Hess, Joshua (TOTC; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 33.

26. Cf. the judicious assessment of A. E. Hill and J. H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 169–71.

27. Josh. 4:9; 5:9; 6:25; 7:26; 8:28–29; 9:27; 13:13; 14:14; 15:63; 16:10; cf. 22:3, 17; 23:9.

28. For further comment, see the appropriate section of the commentary on Josh. 9–10.

29. Since Israel’s early conquests (Jericho, Ai, Bethel, and Gibeon) all fell within the later territory of Benjamin, many scholars also suggest that Benjaminite sources may underlie some of the Conquest narratives.

30. E.g., R. D. Nelson, Joshua (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 7–8.

31. K. L. Younger Jr., Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing (JSOTSup 98; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990). Indeed, the accounts compare so closely as to undermine scholarly claims of later assertions in Josh. 9–12.

32. Nelson, Joshua, 185, 207.

33. Ephraim and Manasseh are the two sons of Joseph, each of whom founded a tribe among the twelve; cf. Gen. 48.

34. The definitive study remains Z. Kallai, Historical Geography of the Bible: The Tribal Territories of Israel (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986), 99–444. Both Kallai (279) and Na’aman (75–117) date the lists to the early monarchy under David and Solomon.

35. G. Mitchell, Together in the Land: A Reading of the Book of Joshua (JSOTSup 134; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 127. References to the Jebusites (Josh. 15:63) and to Jerusalem as “the Jebusite city” (15:8; 18:16, 28) also point to an early, if not Solomonic, date for the materials within 13–19 (cf. 2 Sam. 5:6–9, the Jebusites’ defeat by David).

36. R. S. Hess, “Asking Historical Questions of Joshua 13–19: Recent Discussion Concerning the Date of the Boundary Lists,” in Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context, ed. A. R. Millard et al. (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 196–204; cf. idem, “Late Bronze Age and Biblical Boundary Descriptions of the West Semitic World,” in Ugarit and the Bible, ed. G. J. Brooke et al. (Münster: Ugarit-Vorlag, 1994), 123–38.

37. M. G. Seleznev, “The Origin of the Tribal Boundaries in Joshua: Administrative Documents or Sacral Geography?” in L. G. Kogan et al., eds., Memoriae Igor M. Diakonoff: Babel und Babel 2 (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 330–61.

38. Cf. Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History, 179–80; R. Albertz, “The Canonical Alignment of the Book of Joshua,” in O. Lipschits, G. N. Knoppers, and R. Albertz, eds., Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. (Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 288–90.

39. E.g., Josh. 15:13–19; 16:10; 17:11–13; 19:47; Judg. 1.

40. See conveniently, Longman and Dillard, Introduction, 126–27 (with bibliography). For more detailed treatments, cf. Provan, Long, and Longman, A Biblical History of Israel, 139–47; Killebrew, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity, 181–85, who proposes her own synthesis, “the mixed multitude theory” (184–85; see below); K. L. Younger Jr., “Early Israel in Recent Biblical Scholarship,” in D. W. Baker and B. T. Arnold, eds., The Face of Old Testament Studies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 178–200.

41. Younger, “Early Israel,” 178–79. Many students meet this view in J. Bright, A History of Israel (3rd ed.; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981).

42. A. Alt, “The Settlement of the Israelites in Canaan,” Essays on Old Testament History and Religion (trans. R. A. Wilson; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 135–69; M. Noth, The History of Israel (2nd ed.; London: A & C Black, 1960), 53–84; cf. Younger, “Early Israel,” 179–81.

43. G. E. Mendenhall, The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1973), 174–97; N. K. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250–1050 B.C.E. (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1979), 210–33; cf. Younger, “Early Israel,” 181–82.

44. The most recent statement of his long-evolving view is W. G. Dever, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003); cf. conveniently, the summary in Younger, “Early Israel,” 183–85.

45. At length (223–37) he attempts to “salvage” (his metaphor) the biblical traditions, in my view, unsuccessfully.

46. I. Finkelstein and A. Mazar, The Quest for the Historical Israel: Debating Archaeology and the History of Early Israel (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 9–20, 41–55, 73–83; cf. Younger, “Early Israel,” 185–87.

47. Younger, “Early Israel,” 187. In addition, Finkelstein tends to regard biblical historical claims more skeptically than does Dever.

48. Cf. P. R. Davies, In Search of Ancient Israel (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992); W. Lemke, The Israelites in History and Tradition (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998).

49. For the unique views of specific scholars, cf. conveniently Younger, “Early Israel,” 187–91.

50. J. B. Kofoed, Text and History: Historiography and the Study of the Biblical Text (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005).

51. Cf. ibid., 30 (“the texts of the Hebrew Bible contain reliable information for a reconstruction of the period it purports to describe”).

52. An additional scholarly criticism centers on the inherent limitations of the philosophy of history on which some minimalists depend, e.g., the French school of Les Annales and especially the views of L. Braudel. They prefer an approach to understanding history broader than the French school’s focus on enduring political structures (called longue durée), a focus that excludes the study of actual events and political changes; cf. Younger, “Early Israel,” 192 (“there are certainly more contributions in the arena of the philosophy of history than simply the Annales movement!”).

53. Recently, Killebrew (Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity, 184–85) proposed a mixed multitude model. (“Mixed multitude” is a term from the KJV of Ex. 12:38). In her view, Israel emerged when, after the crisis of ca. 1200 B.C., a “multitude” of loosely-organized, disparate groups from “mixed” backgrounds (rural Canaanites, nomads, displaced farmers, runaway Semitic slaves, the lawless hapiru and Shasu, etc.) coalesced around the shared saga of their relationship with Yahweh as his chosen people. Killebrew promises to develop her thesis in a future publication.

54. It draws on the model suggested by Younger, “Early Israel,” 203–6.

55. In other words, to read biblical texts properly requires familiarity with comparable ancient Near Eastern literature, especially ancient conquest accounts. This comparative approach clarifies how ancient peoples wrote and suggests how best to read similar biblical texts (so Younger, “Early Israel,” 204).

56. Younger, “Early Israel,” 203.

57. L. E. Stager, “Forging an Identity: The Emergence of Ancient Israel,” in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, ed. M. D. Coogan (New York; Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1998), 124–27; Dever, Who Were the Israelites? 201–8; M. G. Hasel, “Israel in the Merneptah Stela,” BASOR 296 (1994): 45–61.

58. Cited from Stager, “Forging an Identity,” 124. For a map of the campaign, see Dever, Who Were the Israelites? 205.

59. Stager, “Forging an Identity,” 125; cf. Hasel, “Israel in the Merneptah Stela,” 54, 56, n. 12.

60. Stager (“Forging an Identity,” 125–27) compares the Israel of these Egyptian sources with the picture of Israel’s tribes in Judges 5.

61. Dever, Who Were the Israelites? 206.

62. Cf. ibid., 97–99; Stager, “Forging an Identity,” 134–35 (with statistical table). During the same period, the population increase for Canaan as a whole was from 50,000 to 150,000.

63. Dever, Who Were the Israelites? 103–6 (quote 105 and drawings 104 and 106). For Stager’s proposed alignment of the family compound architecture with Hebrew socioeconomic terms, see 107.

64. Ibid., 108; but cf. Younger’s caution concerning this datum (“Early Israel,” 195–96).

65. Dever, Who Were the Israelites? 113–25. For the controversy surrounding whether collar-rim jars are Israelite or not, see 118–25.

66. Cf. Younger, “Early Israel,” 196.

67. J. Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975), 243. Cf. L. D. Hawk, “The Problem with Pagans,” in T. K. Beal and D. M. Gunn, eds., Reading Bibles, Writing Bodies: Identity and the Book (London and New York: Routledge, 1996), 153: “For many readers in an age haunted by violence … this is an ugly, repugnant story that scarcely deserves retelling.”

68. For a more in-depth discussion (with bibliography), see the Bridging Contexts sections of chs. 5–6 and 7–8.

69. Cf. the valuable overview by G. H. Jones, “The Concept of Holy War,” in R. E. Clements, ed., The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological, and Political Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989), 299–321.

70. Cf. also the discussion of the theme of Yahweh the warrior in the section below on theological themes.

71. L. G. Stone, “Ethical and Apologetic Tendencies in the Redaction of the Book of Joshua,” CBQ 53 (1991): 25–36.

72. Ibid., 34, 35. Stone specifically argues (34–36) that the Deuteronomist reshaped the book to introduce the law as the object of Israel’s acceptance or resistance (e.g., Josh. 1:1–9; 8:30–35; ch. 23).

73. Ibid., 36.

74. I argue this case in R. L. Hubbard Jr., “‘What Do These Stones Mean?’: Biblical Theology and a Motif in Joshua,” BBR 11 (2001): 25–49. The contrasting fates of Achan (an insider rejected) and Rahab (an outsider included) also support this theme.

75. See Josh. 1:7, 8, 17; 4:10, 12; 8:30–35; 9:24; 11:12, 15; 20:2; 21:2, 8; 22:2, 5; 23:6; 24:6, 26. The call to obedience to the law fits well with the larger biblical stress on the duty of believers to obey Scripture as God’s Word (e.g., Deut. 8:3; Ps. 1:2; Prov. 30:5; Matt. 4:4; John 2:22; 1 Tim. 4:13; 2 Tim. 3:15–16; James 2:8).

76. For the Bible’s treatment of Ruth the Moabite as an example, see R. L. Hubbard Jr., The Book of Ruth (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 64–65, 116–21.

77. Cf. R. L. Hubbard Jr., “Only a Distant Memory: Old Testament Allusions to Joshua’s Days,” Ex Auditu 16 (2000): 131–48.

78. Of these, Neh. 9:23–25 has striking linguistic ties to Joshua, using yaraš three times, as well as natan beyad (“to hand over to”) and lakad (“to capture”; v. 25). For further discussion of yaraš and its violent connotation, see the Bridging Contexts section of Josh. 13–19.

79. For detailed discussion, see R. P. Knierim, “Israel and the Nations in the Land of Palestine in the Old Testament,” in The Task of Old Testament Theology, ed. R. Knierim (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 309–21.

80. He did, however, exempt silver and gold and objects of bronze and iron from destruction at Jericho, ordering them saved and deposited in his treasury (Josh. 6:19, 26).

81. Cf. the in-depth discussion of this view (with bibliography) in the Bridging Contexts section of Josh. 13–19.

82. For more extensive discussion of this question, see the Bridging Contexts section of Josh. 13–19.

83. Cf. J. G. Millar, “Land,” NDBT, 623–27.

84. C. J. H. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 110. For a lengthy survey of the Old Testament’s view of the land with implications for the contemporary political situation, see G. M. Burge, Whose Land? Whose Promises? (Cleveland, Ohio: Pilgrim, 2003), 67–111. Burge also treats the New Testament’s view (167–89) from a perspective similar to the present one.

85. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land, 15–16, 21–22.

86. E.g., unmarried, childless Israelite women (Isa. 54:1), foreigners and eunuchs (Isa. 56:3–7), and resident aliens (Ezek. 47:22).

87. D. A. Hagner, Hebrews (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990), 190. Undoubtedly, the eschatological heavenly Jerusalem is in view (cf. v. 16; 12:22; 13:14; Rev. 21:2).

88. W. W. Klein, C. L. Blomberg, and R. L. Hubbard Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Nashville: Nelson, 2004), 182–84 (quote 184).

89. S. Motyer, “Israel (Nation),” NDBT, 584–85.

90. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land, xvii–xviii.

91. Cf. Millar, “Land,” 623.

92. Cf. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land, 111.

93. Cf. ibid., 111: “The inheritance language … evokes the triangular pattern of relationships between God, Israel, and the land.”

94. Cf. Millar, “Land,” 627.

95. Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 497, with full bibliography. The quotation from Isaiah 59:20–21 (LXX) in Rom. 11:26–27 clearly stipulates that faith in Jesus the Messiah is the condition for the prophecy to be fulfilled.

96. For further discussion, see Burge, Whose Land? 190–204.

97. KB, 934.

98. Also, the book of Joshua itself shows one Moses-Joshua parallel that supports Joshua’s peer status with Moses: it reports that both leaders give inheritances; for Moses, cf. 12:6; 13:8, 15, 24, 29; 14:3; 17:4; 18:7; for Joshua, cf. 12:7; 14:13 and 15:13–19 (Caleb); 22:7 (West Manasseh).

99. By contrast, Moses lies buried in Moab, his gravesite unknown since God himself buried him (Deut. 34:6).

100. For further details, see the commentary on 8:30–35 and chs. 9–10.

101. Cf. the appreciations of these chapters in D. M. Gunn, “Joshua and Judges,” in R. Alter and F. Kermode, eds., The Literary Guide to the Bible (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 1987), 102–3 (quote 103); and Curtis, Joshua, 26.

102. Gunn, “Joshua and Judges,” 103.

103. Cf. the “Now, About All That Killing …” section above.

104. For an alternative outline, see M. A. Sweeney, King Josiah of Judah: The Lord Messiah of Israel (Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 2001), 131.

1. I read Heb. torat mošeh (lit., “law of Moses”) as a technical term and prefer the rendering “instruction of Moses” or (in some cases) simply “the instruction” (instead of “the law”).

2. Several texts also recall “as the Lord commanded Moses” or “the command of the Lord through Moses” (11:15; 14:5; 17:4; 21:2, 8).

3. The phrase wayehiʾaḥare mot X (lit. “It was after the death of [proper name]”) introduces other significant transitions in Israel’s history (Judg. 1:1 [death of Joshua]; 2 Sam. 1:1 [death of Saul]) and may reflect the literary style of the DH; cf. also Gen. 25:11.

4. For a discussion of canonical issues, see B. S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 113–14.

5. For a more in-depth treatment of his life and career, see “Who Is Joshua?” in the Introduction.

6. Cf. D. M. Howard Jr. Joshua (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1998), 73, who notes that Joshua is the first personal name in the Bible to incorporate God’s personal name, “Yahweh.” For the thesis that biblical narratives purposely delayed Joshua’s emergence until Joshua 1, see G. C. Chirichigno, “The Use of the Epithet in the Characterization of Joshua,” TrinJ 8 (1987): 72–79.

7. According to Robert Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist (New York: Seabury, 1980), 75–76, the narrator is the successor to Moses because he quotes divine speech in what follows. T. Butler, Joshua (WBC 7; Waco: Word, 1983), 5–6, provides detailed discussion, critique, and bibliography of recent scholarly discussion of this scene.

8. Joshua receives this approbation after his death (Josh. 24:29). David is the primary recipient of this accolade (e.g., 2 Sam. 7:5, 8//1 Chron. 17:4, 7; 1 Kings 11:13; Ps. 89:3; Isa. 37:35). For Moses as “my servant,” see also Num. 12:7, 8; Josh. 1:7; 2 Kings 21:8; Mal. 4:4.

9. Cf. M. Woudstra, Joshua (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 58.

10. R. C. Culley, “Stories of the Conquest: Joshua 2, 6, 7 and 8,” HAR 8 (1984): 25–26.

11. The present quotation retains the plural pronouns “you” and “your” from Deuteronomy, even though the rest of the context implies that Yahweh only addresses Joshua (“you” sing.). For full discussion of the intertextuality between Josh. 1 and Deut. 11, cf. D. B. George, “Yahweh’s Speech at Jos 1:2–6 and Deut 11: Semantics, Intertextuality, and Meaning,” ZAW 112 (2000): 356–64. For other interpretations of the use of “you” plural (vv. 3–4) see Butler, Joshua, 7–8.

12. George, “Yahweh’s Speech,” 358–59, 364 (quote).

13. S. Talmon, “,” TDOT, 8:100; cf. M. Saebo, “Grenzbeschreibung und Landideal im AT mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der min-ʿad Formel,” ZDPV 90 (1974): 14–37; cf. R. D. Nelson, Joshua (OTL; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 33.

14. Cf. R. S. Hess, Joshua (TOTC; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 70. Present-day Turkey was the heartland of the ancient Hittite Empire. But cf. LXX, which lacks the phrase and much of the MT’s verbal elaborations.

15. The same negated verb pair occurs in Deut. 31:6, 8; 1 Chron. 28:20; cf. Ps. 37:8. Cf. R. Wakely, “” NIDOTTE, 3:1181–82.

16. For a colometric analysis of Josh. 1:6–9 and literary discussion of Deut. 10–12, see George, “Yahweh’s Speech,” 359–63.

17. Cf. Butler, Joshua, 8: “Indeed, Deuteronomy never explicitly uses the formula to express the divine presence with Moses, but it is typical of Deuteronomistic argument to refer back to the divine presence with the fathers or with predecessor(s).”

18. Alternatively, the original life setting of the formula of encouragement may be the rituals of Yahweh war (so F. Hesse, “,” TDOT, 4:306–7) or royal ideology (so J. Schreiner, “” TDOT, 1:325–26). Many scholars follow Nelson, who argues that, given the phrase’s use elsewhere by royal figures, the writer here pictures Joshua as a royal figure anticipating Josiah; cf. R. D. Nelson, “Josiah in the Book of Joshua,” JBL 100 (1981): 531–40.

19. A. M. Kitz, “Undivided Inheritance and Lot Casting in the Book of Joshua,” JBL 119 (2000): 601–18.

20. Kitz (ibid., 609–10) draws the further implication—a plausible one, in my view—that the estate division marks a decisive legal turning point for Israel—the legal dissolution of one legal entity (the house of Israel) with its collective management of legal rights. In its place emerge the independent tribal houses, each responsible for the management of matters within their limited tribal boundaries.

21. According to Kitz (ibid., 608), tanḥil “could refer to the inherited rights of ownership, which, under these circumstances, could not be fully enjoyed until the Israelites dwelt in the land as independent tribal units.”

22. In accepting two roles, my view differs from that of Kitz (ibid., 607–9), who subordinates the military role to what she deems to be Joshua’s “primary function” as estate administrator.

23. The negated parallel verbal pairs combine the roots yareʾ (“to fear”), ʿaraṣ (“be awestruck”), and ḥatat (“to be dismayed”); cf. Deut. 31:6; Josh. 1:9; 10:25; 1 Chron. 22:13; 28:20; 2 Chron. 32:7.

24. R. Wakely, “,” NIDOTTE, 1:436–37; idem, “,” NIDOTTE, 2:66–67.

25. Syntactically, the particle raq (“only”) signals that they summarize v. 6 and highlight its most important implications (see also vv. 17b, 18b); cf. WO §39.3.5a.

26. George, “Yahweh’s Speech,” 364.

27. This is not the place to rehearse views concerning the composition of the Pentateuch. The reader may find convenient discussions and alternative views in R. N. Whybray, Introduction to the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 12–28; D. A. Garrett, Rethinking Genesis: The Sources and Authorship of the First Book of the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991); L. R. Bailey, The Pentateuch (Nashville: Abingdon, 1981). For a new approach to the problem of Mosaic authorship, see J.-P. Sonnet, The Book within the Book (Leiden: Brill, 1997).

28. The mandate may be to establish a practice of regular public reading of the Instruction, notwithstanding the following verb (“murmur”); cf. K. van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 2007), who cites this phrase (11–12) to make his case that in the ancient world all reading was aloud (even “muttered” reading), not silent. I am grateful to Professor John Walton for referring me to this source. Elsewhere the phrase occurs only in Isa. 59:21; cf. Job 23:12.

29. A. Negoitá and H. Ringgren, “,” TDOT, 3:321–24; cf. Ps. 1:2; 63:6; 77:12; 115:7; 143:5; Isa. 27:8); and the LXX rendering meletao (“to study, think about”). For a comparison of Josh. 1:8 with two parallel texts, see A. Rofé, “The Piety of the Torah-Disciples at the Winding-Up of the Hebrew Bible: Josh 1:8; Ps 1:2; Isa 59:21,” in Bibel in jüdischer und christlicher Tradition (Frankfurt am Main: A. Hain, 1993), 80–85.

30. GKC, §150e; cf. Gen. 27:36; Judg. 4:6; Ruth 2:8, 9; 3:1, 2; 2 Sam. 13:28; 2 Kings 19:25; et al.

31. For a useful discussion of the connection between obedience and prosperity, including the words ṣalaḥ (“to prosper”) and and śakal (“to succeed”), see Howard, Joshua, 87–90.

32. Yahweh had commanded him (ṣawah pi., v. 9), so Joshua issues implementing orders (ṣawah pi., vv. 10, 11, 16, 18) to subordinates. David Howard argues that both the officers (v. 10) and the Transjordanian tribes (vv. 12–15) articulate the response of vv. 16–18 representing the entire nation and as part of a single event. In my view, however, that response seems an awkward, if not senseless, reply to v. 11, so it seems better to read vv. 10–11 and 12–18 as separate events; cf. D. M. Howard Jr., “All Israel’s Response to Joshua: A Note on the Narrative Framework of Joshua 1,” in A. B. Beck et al., eds., Fortunate the Eyes That See (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 81–91.

33. Cf. Deut. 1:15; 20:9; 1 Chron 27:1; 2 Chron. 19:11; 26:11; 34:13); Howard, “All Israel,” 90. The term also describes Israel’s Egyptian labor supervisors (Ex. 5:6, 10, 14, 15, 19).

34. Hess, Joshua, 75.

35. It also designates hunted game (Gen. 27:3) and manna (Ps. 78:25).

36. For a more chronological understanding, see Howard, Joshua, 91; idem, “Three Days in Joshua 1–3: Resolving a Chronological Conundrum,” JETS 41 (1998): 539–50; cf. Josh. 3:2.

37. So H. W. Hertzberg, Die Bücher Josua, Richter, Ruth (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969), 16.

38. Cf. Woudstra, Joshua, 65: the key words “cross” and “take possession” signal concern not with military aspects but with entrance and taking possession, an emphasis reminiscent of Deut. 3:18.

39. R. G. Boling, Joshua (AB; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1982), 136, who also discusses the population explosion in Transjordan in the Late Bronze Age (136–38). The disjunctive word order—i.e., indirect object(s) + verb rather than vice versa—which opens v. 12 signals that these tribes are a new topic; cf. Nelson, Joshua, 35.

40. Hess, Joshua, 77.

41. Butler, Joshua, 21.

42. Cf. J. N. Oswalt, “,” NIDOTTE, 3:58; idem, “Rest,” NIDOTTE, 4:1132–36; cf. G. Braulik, “Zur deuteronomistischen Konzeption von Freiheit und Frieden,” in J. Emerton, ed., Congress Volume: Salamanca, 1983 (Leiden: Brill, 1985), 35–38. The classic study by G. von Rad, “There Still Remains a Rest for the People of God,” in K. C. Hanson, ed., From Genesis to Chronicles: Explorations in Old Testament Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 82–88, still offers much insight on this topic.

43. Woudstra, Joshua, 66.

44. Here Joshua’s very words seem to echo the language of Num. 32:26 and Deut. 3:19.

45. “Fighting men” (gibborey haḥayil, lit., “mighty men of power”) is the common Hebrew phrase for “soldiers” (Josh. 6:2; 8:3; 10:7; 2 Kings 24:14), but in some contexts it implies an unusually fine warrior or “battle hero” (Judg. 6:12; 11:1; 2 Kings 5:1; 1 Chron. 5:24; 7:2; cf. Gen. 6:4; 1 Sam. 14:52; 2 Sam. 17:10; 23:8–39). For its sense “wealthy man,” see Ruth 2:1; 1 Sam. 9:1; 2 Kings 15:20.

46. Three key Hebrew roots rhetorically drive the point home to both groups. Yahweh will give both groups rest (nuaḥ hi., vv. 13, 15) in land that he (or Moses) has given or will give (natan, vv. 13, 14, 15 [2×]) and of which they will take possession (yaraš, v. 15).

47. Nelson (Joshua, 35) compares the conversation between Joshua and the eastern tribes to a chorus in a Greek drama, which voices the thinking of the whole people.

48. Cf. Hess, Joshua, 68, for whom the point of chapter 1 is the role of Joshua as Moses’ successor.

49. Thus, their loyalty far exceeds that of the tribes whom the Song of Deborah later faults for failing to aid Deborah and Barak in their victory over the Canaanites (Judg. 5:15–17); cf. Woudstra, Joshua, 66.

50. Grammatically, the restrictive particle raq (vv. 7, 18) here provides for clarification of v. 16; cf. WO §39.3.5c. Alternatively, its double use here may reflect slightly dampened enthusiasm and introduce some tension into the plot; cf. Nelson, Joshua, 36; Howard, Joshua, 95.

51. Cf. legal sentences comprising a participle describing an offense (i.e., “the one who does such-and-such …”) followed by the penalty formula (“… shall surely be put to death” [mot yumat]); Gen. 26:11; Ex. 19:12; 21:12, 15, 16, 17; 22:19; et al. The grammar here (“everyone who rebels … shall be put to death” [kol ʾiš ʾašer yamreh]) comes closest to laws in Lev. 20:2, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17; 24:17.

52. For the phrase marah hi. + peh (lit. “show rebelliousness against the mouth of”), see also Deut. 1:26, 43; 1 Sam. 12:14.

53. Cf. P. Enns, “Law of God,” NIDOTTE, 4:896–97; cf. W. VanGemeren, “The Law Is Righteous ness in Jesus Christ—A Reformed Perspective,” in W. VanGemeren, ed., The Law, The Gospel, and the Modern Christian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 24–35.

54. For further discussion see my article “Law is Grace: Theological Reflections on OT Laws of Redemption,” Covenant Quarterly (February 1999): 2–14.

55. For discussion of this larger topic, see H. Eising, “,” TDOT, 4:64–82; L.C. Allen, “,” NIDOTTE, 1:1100–1106.

56. Two priestly heroes, however, are Jehoiada (ninth cent. B.C.), whose brave efforts removed the usurper, Queen Athaliah, and placed the child-king Joash on Judah’s throne (2 Kings 11); and Hilkiah (seventh cent. B.C.), who apparently aided the reform movement of King Josiah (2 Kings 22–23; 2 Chron. 34–35).

57. The principle of divine appointment underlies Yahweh’s complaint that “they set up kings without my consent” (Hos. 8:4); cf. also Elisha’s anointing of Jehu to be king (2 Kings 9). By the same token, the authority of the prophets also derives from divine discretion (e.g., Jer. 1:5, 7; 23:21, 32; Amos 7:14).

58. For a thorough discussion, see R. Hutton, Charisma and Authority in Israelite Society (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994).

59. O. Eissfeldt, “The Ebed-Jahwe in Isaiah xl.-lv: In the Light of the Israelite Conception of the Community and the Individual, the Ideal and the Real,” ExpTim 44 (1933): 264; cf. also H.-J. Zobel, “,” TDOT, 6:412–19. For a fine discussion of the corporate nature of Israel’s election by Yahweh, see W. W. Klein, The New Chosen People (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2001), 25–44.

60. Cf. Gen. 49:7; Num. 24:5; Deut. 33:10; 1 Chron. 16:17; Ps. 14:7; Isa. 9:8; et al.

61. Observe also the parallelism between “Israel,” “daughter of Zion,” and “daughter Jerusalem” (Zeph. 3:14).

62. This sense of corporate unity seems all the more remarkable since, besides its ethnic core descended from Jacob’s twelve sons, Israel also apparently included other ethnic groups (Ex. 12:38; Lev. 24:10; Num. 11:4; Neh. 13:3; Ruth 2:12). The early history of Israel remains a controversial topic; for a convenient summary of some of the issues see Zobel, “,” 6:406–12.

63. For details and background on this historic schism, see conveniently Provan, Long, Longman, 259–63; and J. M. Miller and J. H. Hayes, A History of Israel and Judah (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 94–98, 103–6, 229–33.

64. For other helpful expositions of Joshua 1:1–9, see J. Nogalski, “Preaching from Joshua in Canonical Contexts,” RevExp 95 (1998): 263–65; and M. Nogalski, “Only Be Strong and Very Courageous,” RevExp 95 (1998): 427–33.

65. For intriguing ethnographic studies of various American churches, see R. Balmer, Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1989), and Grant Us Courage (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1996), which treat evangelicalism and mainline Protestant churches, respectively. His works have no connection, however, with the popular typology of churches offered here.

66. For one such exemplary church, see Balmer, Grant Us Courage, 57–66.

67. Originally, this verb meant “to be a disciple,” but Hellenistic influences transformed intransitive active verbs like this one into causatives (“to make a disciple of”); cf. F. Blass, A. Debrunner, and R. W. Funk, A Greek Grammar (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), §148 (3).

68. The two following present active participles, baptizontes (“baptizing”) and didaskontes (“teaching”), are modal (“by means of …”); cf. D. B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 630, 645.

69. For the role of Christ in nourishing the body, see also Eph. 5:29; Col. 2:19.

70. F. Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov (New York: Penguin, 1957 [1880]), 279.

71. I am grateful to my former student, the Rev. Joseph Stackwell, for sharing this example with me.

72. H. J. M. Nouwen, D. P. McNeill, and D. A. Morrison, Compassion (New York: Image, 1982), 18.

1. Y. Zakovitch, “Humor and Theology or the Successful Failure of Israelite Intelligence: A Literary-Folkloric Approach to Joshua 2,” in Text and Tradition: The Hebrew Bible and Folklore, ed. S. Niditch (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 71–72.

2. A. Sherwood, “A Leader’s Misleading and a Prostitute’s Profession: A Re-examination of Joshua 2,” JSOT 31/1 (2006): 43–61. Butler (Joshua, 27–32), by contrast, represents scholars who read the chapter as a later addition.

3. The Bible shows three other examples: the disastrous mission of the twelve spies (Num. 13–14), the clever conquest of Bethel by the tribes of Joseph (Judg. 1:22–26), and the conquest of Laish by the tribe of Dan (18:1–26). The latter two parallel Joshua 2 in that cities are the spies’ targets, but of these the episode in Judges 1 may offer the closest parallel. Bethel falls because of inside information provided the spies by a local resident whose life the conquerors spare for his cooperation.

4. The LXX and Syriac versions omit “secretly” in v. 1, perhaps because the translators no longer understood this word (it only occurs here in the MT); so Boling, Joshua, 141.

5. I owe this phrase to Sherwood, ibid., 46.

6. See Sherwood, ibid., 60, who may be right (43, 60–61) in arguing that ch. 2 criticizes Joshua’s actions.

7. F. A. Spina, The Faith of the Outsider: Exclusion and Inclusion in the Biblical Story (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 53. As Spina notes (54), “She is as Canaanite as they get!” I am grateful to my friend and colleague, Professor R. K. Johnston, for pointing me to this source.

8. J. H. Stek, “Rahab of Canaan and Israel: The Meaning of Joshua 2,” CTJ 37 (2002): 48.

9. The Rahab story probably originated in an oral tale, perhaps passed down by her descendants who continued to live in Israel (see 6:25), and reached written form during the early monarchy long before its later incorporation by the Deuteronomist into his history. For literary-critical discussion, see V. Fritz, Das Buch Josua (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1994), 33–35. Slightly different scenarios are proposed by M. Ottosson, “Rahab and the Spies,” in Dumu-e₂-dub-ba-a: Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg, ed. H. Behrens et al. (Philadelphia: Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, 1989), 427; and H. M. Barstad, “The Old Testament Feminine Personal Name raḥab. An Onomastic Note,” SEÅ 54 (1989): 44.

10. His initiative here also contrasts with Josh. 1 in which Joshua carries out Yahweh’s initiative.

11. Ottosson (“Rahab and the Spies,” 420) suggests that the use of two may depend on the treaty later made with Rahab, perhaps giving the transaction two required witnesses (cf. Deut. 17:6; 19:15; 1 Kings 21:10).

12. Spina, The Faith of the Outsider, 57.

13. Command/fulfillment forms a common pattern in the book of Joshua. The spies’ actions offer a startling break in the pattern—in Sherwood’s terms (“A Leader’s Misleading,” 49), “command/failed fulfillment” (italics, mine). He also interprets (50) the spies as “pawns in Joshua’s struggle against the king” and suggests that, by a tactical overextension, Joshua “has placed his men in danger.”

14. Nelson, Joshua, 46.

15. For “prostitute” (Heb. ʾiššah zonah, lit. “a whoring woman”), cf. Judg. 11:1; 16:1; Prov. 6:26; Jer. 3:3; Ezek. 16:30; 23:44; S. Erlandsson, “,” TDOT, 4:100–101. It also speaks against the view that she was a sacred prostitute (normally qedešah).

16. Cf. Sherwood, “A Leader’s Misleading,” 50–51. For šakab, cf. Gen. 19:32, 35; 39:12, 14; 2 Sam 13:11; for boʾ (“to enter” [Josh. 2:1b, 2b, 4b]) and boʾ ʾel (“go into” [vv. 3b, 4b]), cf. Gen. 16:4; Judg. 16:1; Ezek. 23:44). For a similar, sexually suggestive use of double entendre, see Ruth 3:4, 7, 8; cf. Hubbard, Ruth, 204, n. 33. Against this suggestion, see Hess, Joshua, 83–84.

17. Spina, The Faith of the Outsider, 54–55; Sherwood, “A Leader’s Misleading,” 47–48.

18. Nelson, Joshua, 43; P. Bird, “The Harlot as Heroine: Narrative Art and Social Presuppositions in Three Old Testament Texts,” Semeia 46 (1989): 127–28. On the other hand, Horn’s thesis that Rahab was an Israelite woman working in Jericho as an innkeeper presupposes a social situation for which Josh. 2 offers little evidence and contradicts the text’s clear portrait of her as a Canaanite; cf. P. H. Horn, “Josua 2, 1–24 im Milieu einer ‘dimorphic society’,” BZ 31 (1987): 264–70. She may have been, however, both prostitute and innkeeper (so Hess, Joshua, 83–84).

19. Cf. Spina, The Faith of the Outsider, 54: “Thus the phrase ‘the spies lodged there’ at the house of a prostitute likely is a double-entendre: one can’t be sure whether they simply ‘lodged’ there or whether they—ahem—‘lodged’ there.”

20. L. D. Hawk, Every Promise Fulfilled: Contesting Plots in Joshua (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991), 62.

21. Cf. Nelson, Joshua, 43; L. D. Hawk, “Strange Houseguests: Rahab, Lot, and the Dynamics of Deliverance,” in Reading between the Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible, ed. D. N. Fewell (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992), 89–97.

22. The rendering of Spina, The Faith of the Outsider, 55. According to Assis, the messengers offer Rahab two possibilities, i.e., that the Israelites “came” for sexual relations or simply to “lodge” there (but not with Rahab); cf. E. Assis, “The Choice to Serve God and Assist His People,” Bib 85 (2004): 83.

23. It is the violation of that custom that makes the mistreatment of guests in Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19) and Israelite Gibeah (Judg. 19:22–30) especially outrageous; cf. Fritz, Josua, 37; Nelson, Joshua, 43.

24. Against Spina (The Faith of the Outsider, 57–58), for whom this failure signals that the king’s men are as incompetent as Joshua’s spies.

25. Sherwood, “A Leader’s Misleading,” 50–52.

26. Bird, “The Harlot as Heroine,” 119.

27. The verbs of v. 4 suggest sequential action (so NRSV, “But the woman took … and hid.… Then she said.…”) rather than either a retrospective report followed by a sequential action (against NIV, “But the woman had taken and hidden.… She said.…”) or two separate contacts between the king and Rahab (against Hess, Joshua, 85). Alternatively, the taking and hiding might be contemporaneous to her speaking to the king’s messengers. For a linguistic defense of a pluperfect (so NIV), see Howard, Joshua, 100, n. 11.

28. According to Fritz (Josua, 37), the spies are still in the house. In my view, however, v. 6 will detail in retrospect their actual location and how they came to be there.

29. Assis, “The Choice to Serve God,” 83. But, in his view, the narrator had already signaled that they merely spent the night (cf. “lodged” [v. 1]). By contrast, had she claimed that they came only to get some sleep, her questioners would not have believed her statement that the visitors had already left.

30. Inexplicably, LXX lacks her denial of an Israelite connection (v. 4b).

31. The pronoun hiʾ (= Rahab) plus the root ʿalah (“to go up”) comprise the inclusio (vv. 6a, 8b).

32. Nelson, Joshua, 49; Howard, Joshua, 100, although he views v. 6 as “a parenthetical aside.” I render heʿelatam “she had (i.e., caused) them go up,” not “she had taken/brought them up” (so NRSV; NIV; et al.). My rendering leaves ambiguous her means of hiding them in conformity to the apparent ambiguity of the narrative.

33. Cf. I. Jacob and W. Jacob, “Flora,” ABD, 2:815; J. Hoffmeier, “,” NIDOTTE, 3:711–12.

34. According to Jacob and Jacob (ibid., 815), flax seeds were found in Early Bronze Stratum IV at Tel el-Areini in the Shephelah; cf. also M. Zohary, Plants of the Bible (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982), 72, 78. But Howard (Joshua, 100, n. 114) and Boling (Joshua, 146) prefer wild flax, following the case against flax cultivation by S. Talmon, “The Gezer Calendar and the Seasonal Cycle of Ancient Canaan,” JAOS 83 (1963): 177–87.

35. So Boling, Joshua, 146 (“the relative scarcity … would heighten the sense of escape ‘by the skin of your teeth’”).

36. Assis, “The Choice to Serve God,” 84.

37. H. O. Thompson, “Jordan River,” ABD, 3:957; cf. Boling, Joshua, 137 (an excellent map), 170. When silt from surrounding hills piles up in a river bottom, a sandbar or “ford” forms, providing a shallow crossing point for foot traffic.

38. Nelson (Joshua, 49, n. 21) provides a simple solution to the oft-discussed discrepancy between the report (v. 1) that the spies “lay down” or “went to sleep” (šakab) and the claim that they had not yet done so (šakab, v. 8). They did lie down (v. 1), were relocated by Rahab (vv. 4, 6 [a flashback of details]), but had not lain down again (v. 8).

39. Hess, Joshua, 87. For further comments on her house, see below.

40. Nelson, Joshua, 49 (“a place of dubious safety and undignified discomfort”); cf. 2 Sam. 11:2; 16:22.

41. Spina, The Faith of the Outsider, 58.

42. Sherwood, “A Leader’s Misleading,” 53, 54.

43. Spina, The Faith of the Outsider, 59; cf. Sherwood, “A Leader’s Misleading,” 54 (“the spies’ lives are ironically safer in the hands of a Jericho native than in Joshua’s”).

44. The LXX makes this statement the reason (Gk. gar) for the preceding one (i.e., “Yahweh has given the land because fear of you has fallen on us”) and omits the rest of the verse. Hess (Joshua, 89–90) suggests that a chiastic or concentric structure underlies all of vv. 9–11.

45. H.-J. Zobel, “,” TDOT, 1:220–21. For in-depth discussion, see the Bridging Contexts section. The fundamental study on Yahweh as warrior remains G. von Rad, Holy War in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), but see also conveniently T. Longman III and D. G. Reid, God Is a Warrior (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995).

46. Cf. A. Baumann, “,” TDOT, 8:149–52, invoking one of the root’s concrete meanings “to melt, dissolve”; cf. Amos 9:13; Ps. 75:3.

47. Similarly, Hess, Joshua, 88–89. Spina (The Faith of the Outsider, 59) contrasts the detailed accuracy of her geographical knowledge of these key events with the erroneous understanding of the Philistines in 1 Sam. 4:8.

48. Ḥaram hi. “to devote to the ‘ban’” is central to the Deuteronomistic theory of holy war, which guides Israel’s treatment of the Canaanites (see Deut. 7:2; 20:15–18); cf. Butler, Joshua, 33; Hess, Joshua, 89. See Josh. 6:17, 21; 8:26; 10:1; 11:11; for the noun ḥerem, cf. 6:18; 7:1, 11, 12, 13, 15; 22:20.

49. Spina, The Faith of the Outsider, 60, favors the latter, although the former is also possible. For definition and discussion of this term, see comments on Josh. 5–6. For discussion of the larger problem of violence in Joshua, see the Introduction (“Now, About All That Killing …”).

50. For the phrase “our hearts melted,” see also Deut. 20:8; Josh. 7:5; Isa. 13:7; 19:1; H. Ringgren, “,” TDOT, 8:438–39. To my knowledge, its parallel (“everyone’s courage failed”) only occurs here. Joshua 5:1b repeats verbatim both phrases from 2:11a.

51. In the ancient world, religion was the choice of the tribe or clan rather the individual. Thus, here Rahab speaks on behalf of her entire family—and anyone else in Jericho who may have joined them in making an accommodation with Israel.

52. For the phrase “heavens above and earth below” cf. Ex. 20:4 and Deut. 5:8.

53. Her statement refers to “God” rather than, say, “the only God” or “God alone” (cf. Deut. 6:13; Ps. 86:10). In my view, if read carefully, the theological affirmations of Nebuchadnezzar similarly seem to stop short of recognizing Yahweh’s exclusive sovereignty (Dan. 4:2–3, 34–37).

54. Cf. conveniently, J. Day, “Canaan, Religion of,” ABD, 1:831–32. For more on Canaanites gods, see the Bridging Contexts section in Josh. 24.

55. Cf. Spina, The Faith of the Outsider, 61 (“the narration seems clearly and boldly to present her as a confessing Israelite”). In his view, Rahab’s confession arguably ranks as the best one in the book of Joshua, surpassing anything spoken by Joshua himself.

56. On the latter, cf. Assis, “The Choice to Serve God,” 87–88; and Nelson (Joshua, 50), who also argues that her statement (vv. 9–11) and the subsequent survival in Israel of Rahab’s family (6:25) support Israel’s claim to the land. In my view, her words—certainly remarkable—stop short of being a full confession of faith in Israel’s God; against Howard, Joshua, 103–4.

57. Nelson, Joshua, 50. The Contemporary Significance section below discusses several of these examples in more depth.

58. E.g., 1 Kings 8:41–43; Ps. 22:27–28; 86:9; 102:15; Isa. 2:3//Mic. 4:2; Jer. 3:17; Amos 9:12; Zeph. 2:11; Zech. 2:11; 8:22–23; 14:16; Mal. 1:11, 14.

59. Cf. Bird, “The Harlot as Heroine,” 131; Sherwood (“A Leader’s Misleading,” 54, 55), who notes that Rahab is responsible for all occurrences of the name Yahweh in ch. 2.

60. Syntactically, “Now then” (weʿattah) signals the logical outcome from what precedes (e.g., “Given these facts, now swear …”); cf. WO §39.3.4f; Isa. 5:3, 5; Ruth 3:11–12.

61. The use of two parallel, synonymous statements (“cause to live” and “save from death”) make this plea for survival all the more emphatic. The phrase “all who belong to them” would include servants and possibly domestic animals.

62. Sherwood, “A Leader’s Misleading,” 54, n. 46. I depart from Sherwood in reading Rahab’s request as a request for a covenant.

63. For the formula “to do kindness to,” see Judg. 8:35; Ruth 1:8; 1 Sam. 15:6; 2 Sam. 2:6; 3:8; 10:2; 1 Chron. 19:2; 2 Chron. 24:22. According to Nelson (Joshua, 50), her kindness here derives specifically from the assumed host-guest relationship, but I trace it to her intervention with the king (vv. 4–5). On the subject of ḥesed, see K. Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Ḥesed in the Hebrew Bible (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978), esp. 64–70.

64. Sherwood, “A Leader’s Misleading,” 55–56.

65. Spina, The Faith of the Outsider, 57.

66. Interestingly, LXX lacks both the rope (v. 15a) and the explanation concerning the house’s location (v. 15b). Since haplography seems an unlikely explanation here, both are probably additions in MT to clarify details implicit in the narrative.

67. Boling, Joshua, 148, 213 (an excellent drawing of Jericho’s excavated walls); cf. Nelson, Joshua, 39. Woudstra (Joshua, 74) compares Rahab’s house to houses built on dikes in the Netherlands.

68. R. Gonen, “Urban Canaan in the Late Bronze Period,” BASOR 253 (1984): 61–73.

69. Jericho itself shows this same unwalled design. Interestingly, during the LBA both the average population of these unwalled towns and their total number declined sharply; cf. Z. Herzog, “Cities in the Levant,” ABD, 1:1036–37 (quote 1036); Gonen, “Urban Canaan,” 63–69; but cf. Hess, Joshua, 87, n. 2.

70. Were the wall with her house somewhat detached from the city itself, her window would not compromise the city’s defensive posture against would-be invaders.

71. Howard, Joshua, 113. For other escapes through windows, see 1 Sam. 19:12; Acts 9:25. In addition, Nelson (Joshua, 51) regards conversations involving women in windows or on walls as possibly “another stereotypical narrative situation”; cf. 2 Sam. 20:16–21; 2 Kings 9:30–31.

72. Attempts to identify this as another example of “dischronologized narrative” strike me as a form of special pleading; against Howard, Joshua, 114, 115; Hess, Joshua, 93.

73. For alternative explanations, see Howard, Joshua, 114.

74. Previously, the only condition was that Rahab keep their business a secret (v. 14). Syntactically, hinneh (v. 18a) introduces the condition (NIV “unless”; NRSV, Vulgate “if”) for vv. 18b–19; cf. WO §40.2.1d.

75. Cf. Sherwood, “A Leader’s Misleading,” 56–57 (“not a renegotiation but a ‘coverour-backside’ clause”).

76. E.g., Spina, The Faith of the Outsider, 62–63 (“Rahab’s business calling card”). Nelson (Joshua, 51) speculates that the cord may be a humorous touch (e.g., a “very feminine and sexy” thread).

77. So Bird, “The Harlot as Heroine,” 130, n. 34; cf. Nelson, Joshua, 51–52. For a discussion of the scarlet cord as typology, see Woudstra, Joshua, 75, and Howard, Joshua, 115–17. The latter associates the cord with the crimson cord tied on one of Tamar’s newborns (Gen. 38:28, 30) and the blood on the doorposts at Passover (Ex. 12).

78. Cf. K. Koch, “Der Spruch ‘Sein Blut bleibe auf seinem Haupt’ und die israelitische Auffassung vom vergossenen Blut,” VT 12 (1962): 396–416.

79. Nelson, Joshua, 52; Sherwood, “A Leader’s Misleading,” 57.

80. Nelson, Joshua, 52. Their discoveries confirm God’s assurance of victory (ch. 1) and may, thereby, imply the narrator’s criticism of Joshua for initiating the spy mission rather than invading Canaan immediately; cf. Sherwood, “A Leader’s Misleading,” 57–58.

81. Note, of course, that the spies’ agreement with Rahab may not have actually “violated” any prior command and put Israel at risk. If the main concern of ḥerem is to wipe out Canaanites in order to stave off syncretism in Israel, then sparing Rahab poses no threat since she shows an interest in Yahweh, allegiance to Israel, and a willingness to join them. Also, the agreement does not compromise the prohibition against taking plunder since Rahab and her family would likely bring their goods with them rather than leave them in their homes.

82. Nelson, Joshua, 52.

83. The dream that Gideon would secretly hear in the Midianite camp decades later will have that effect (Judg. 7:13–15; see below). Whether the Rahab episode implies the existence of other secret allies and Canaanite sympathizers is possible but speculative; cf. Hess, Joshua, 96.

84. Concerning Rahab’s deceit, cf. B. Barnes, “Was Rahab’s Lie a Sin?” RTR 54 (1995): 1–9. Barnes concludes (8–9) that since the king of Jericho aims to murder the spies, Rahab has the right, if not the obligation, to deceive him; hence, her lie is no sin.

85. Readers should not confuse her with Rahab the mythical sea monster (Job 9:23; 26:12; Ps. 87:4; 89:10; Isa. 30:7; 51:9), whose name has a different middle letter (he [] instead of heth []) in Hebrew.

86. I prefer this term to the more common but too modern and misleading “Holy War.” The latter denotes war waged by humans for religious reasons, while in the Old Testament religious wars are always waged by Yahweh, the divine warrior, albeit occasionally through human means (hence, “Yahweh’s war”); cf. R. Smend, Yahweh War and Tribal Confederation (Nashville: Abingdon, 1970).

87. For a convenient overview, see T. Longman III, “Divine Warrior,” NIDOTTE, 4:545–49; Longman and Reid, God Is a Warrior, 31–47.

88. E.g., Judg. 1:2; 20:18, 21, 28; 1 Sam. 23:4; 2 Sam. 5:19; 1 Kings 20:13–14, 28; 22:15.

89. Num. 21:34; Deut. 3:2; Josh. 6:2; 8:1, 18; 10:8; Judg. 1:2; 7:9, 15; et al.; cf. Judg. 4:14.

90. For a comparison of Rahab and Jael, see E. Assis, “The Choice to Serve God,” 82–90.

91. Bird, “The Harlot as Heroine,” 127.

92. As “works” he cites her offer of hospitality (“she gave lodging to the spies”) and her clever strategy (“[she] sent them off in a different direction”).

93. E. Montagu, The Man Who Never Was (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1954).

94. C. Warren, “I Spy,” American Way (November 15, 2007), 58–64.

95. For an excellent exposition of this book and its implications for women, see C. Custis James, The Gospel of Ruth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008). Cf. also Spina, The Faith of the Outsider, 117–36.

96. Naomi reflects a similar concern for her safety when she instructs Ruth to work beside Boaz’s female workers, not his male ones, to avoid harm (Ruth 2:22).

97. Cf. the illuminating discussion in Spina, The Faith of the Outsider, 72–93. He notes how, like Achan, the sin of the insider, Gehazi (Elisha’s servant), demotes him to the status of cursed insider (my term). This shows that ethnicity, geography, religious background, etc., are not the only determiners of membership in Israel.

98. Cf. Spina, The Faith of the Outsider, 88.

99. The “Israelite diaspora” designates the scattering of many Israelites from the Promised Land to permanent settlement in other nations. This phenomenon probably began with the falls of the Northern and Southern Kingdoms (722 and 587 B.C., respectively) and underlies the encounters of the apostles with Jews around the Mediterranean in the book of Acts.

100. As we will see, the sparing of the Gibeonites marks a second such harbinger in the book of the Joshua (ch. 9).

101. Ezekiel’s allegory goes beyond Hosea, however, in also describing as prostitution Jerusalem’s trust in international diplomacy for survival rather than in dependence on God (vv. 26–30).

102. J. H. Stek, “Rahab of Canaan and Israel: The Meaning of Joshua 2,” CTJ 37 (2002): 48.

1. A similar miracle opens up the Jordan for Elijah and Elisha to cross, albeit in the opposite direction (2 Kings 2:8), but the narrative merely reports it and moves on.

2. J. Wagenaar, “Crossing the Sea of Reeds (Exod 13–14) and the Jordan (Josh 3–4),” in Studies in the Book of Exodus, ed. M. Vervenne (Leuven: Leuven Univ. Press, 1996), 470 (“the transition from the desert to the inhabitable land”).

3. Nelson (Joshua, 57) favors a pattern of “narrative action (obedience and miracle) interwoven with associated speech (command, prediction, and explanation).” Howard, Joshua, 133, suggests a pattern of “anticipation/confirmation or command fulfillment.”

4. Nelson, Joshua, 55; cf. J. F. D. Creach, Joshua (Louisville: John Knox, 2003), 44. Nevertheless, Nelson adds that “by using moderate effort the reader actually has no trouble making sense out of the story line.”

5. For full discussion of the literary roughness, see L. D. Hawk, Joshua (Berit Olam; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical, 2000), 54–55.

6. For the former, cf. Butler, Joshua, 41–42; E. Vogt, “Die Erzählung vom Jordanübergang, Josue 3–4,” Bib 46 (1965): 125–48; for the latter, cf. Fritz, Josua, 43–56; J. Dus, “Die Analyse zweier Ladeerzählungen des Josuabuches (Jos 3–4 und 6),” ZAW 72 (1960): 107–34. Cf. Wagenaar (“Crossing the Sea of Reeds,” 466–68) and Nelson (Joshua, 55, n. 2) for further discussion and additional bibliography.

7. Nelson, Joshua, 57; followed by Howard, Joshua, 118, n. 173, who regards chapter 3 as a “fairly straightforward” narrative but concedes that authorial concern with theological reflection leaves it repetitive and chronologically difficult (118). Alternatively, according to P. Saydon, “The Crossing of the Jordan, Jos. Chaps. 3 and 4,” CBQ 12 (1950): 194–207, the text has no notable incongruities, while for Polzin (Moses and the Deuteronomist, 94–99) the alleged discrepancies merely reflect shifting time perspectives and viewpoints. Cf. also B. Peckham, “The Composition of Joshua 3–4,” CBQ 46 (1984): 413–31 (the story’s elaborate thematic structure simply overpowers its plot).

8. Fritz, Josua, 43–46; against e.g., H.-J. Kraus, “Gilgal: Ein Beitrag zur Kultgeschichte Israels,” VT 1 (1951): 181–99; J. R. Porter, “The Background of Joshua 3–5,” SEÅ 36 (1971): 5–23.

9. E.g., (lit.) “from this (place), from the middle of the Jordan” (Josh. 4:3), “this Jordan” (4:22), “these stones” (4:6, 7, 20, 21).

10. Creach, Joshua, 44. A similar child’s question forms part of the Passover remembrance (see Ex. 12:26), so the question-answer exchange here further links the Exodus and crossing stories. For additional question-answer examples, see below.

11. For additional background on the ark, see the Bridging Contexts section below.

12. The phrase “ark of the covenant of the Lord” is a common one (Num. 10:33; Deut. 10:8; 31:9, 25, 26; Josh. 3:3, 11, 17; 4:7, 18; 6:6; 8:33; 1 Sam. 4:4; 1 Kings 16:19; 1 Chron. 15:25; 16:37; 17:1; 22:19; 28:2, 18; Jer. 3:16).

13. For an overview of the ark’s history, parallels, and theology, see C. Seow, “Ark of the Covenant,” ABD, 1:386–93; for its role, see G. Coats, “The Ark of the Covenant in Joshua: A Probe into the History of a Tradition,” HAR 9 (1985): 137–57.

14. Syntactically, the restrictive adverb ʾak (“only”) introduces what follows as further clarification of the instruction that precedes; cf. WO §39.3.5d. According to Nelson (Joshua, 60), this stipulation renders the crossing impossible, but the stated rationale (“so you will know which way to go”) suggests that the stipulation probably only applies until the ark stops in the middle of the Jordan, not while the people cross. Certainly, to my knowledge, the Pentateuch requires no such distance when Israel followed the ark in the wilderness.

15. Cf. Ex. 34:10; Ps. 40:5; 72:18; 78:4; 98:1; 111:4; Jer. 21:2; Joel 2:26. For more on “amazing things,” see the Contemporary Significance section on ch. 23.

16. Cf. H.-P. Müller, “,” THAT, 2:605–6; J. Nanné, “,” NIDOTTE, 3:885.

17. For the use of gadal pi. “to exalt, promote, enhance the stature of,” see also Est. 5:11; 10:2; cf. Gen. 12:2; 1 Kings 1:47; 1 Chron. 29:12.

18. In conveying Yahweh’s words, Joshua also anticipates Samuel (1 Sam. 8:19; 15:1) and the prophets Semaiah (2 Chron. 11:4), Jeremiah (Jer. 36:4, 6, 8, 11; 37:2; 43:1; cf. 23:36), and Ezekiel (Ezek. 11:25); cf. Amos 8:11.

19. In my view, the initial “Joshua said” (v. 10) implies a separate (but closely related) occasion for what follows, although LXX lacks it. For “living God,” see only Ps. 42:2; Hos. 1:10. Several texts list the same seven inhabitant peoples in different orders (Deut. 7:1; Josh. 12:8; 24:11), while others vary in the total number and the names of peoples listed (Gen. 15:19–20; Ex. 3:8; 13:5). Interestingly, the Jebusites always appear last in the above lists, perhaps a reflection of their late conquest by David (2 Sam. 5:6–10). For a glimpse of the inhabitants’ geographical distribution, see Num. 13:29.

20. In Joshua’s statement (“This is how …”), “this” (zoʾt) probably refers to the ark; cf. DCH, 372. Here hinneh expresses a presentative exclamation, whose vividness and immediacy directs the reader to its object; cf. WO §40.2.1.

21. For the title elsewhere, cf. only Ps. 97:5; Mic. 4:13; Zech. 4:14; 6:5; O. Eissfeldt, “,” TDOT, 1:61–62; G. Johnston, “,” NIDOTTE, 1:257–58. Semantically, the title foregrounds the idea of lordship (with ownership in the background) while with its synonym baʿal (“husband, owner, master”), the idea of ownership predominates.

22. “Now then” (weʿattah) syntactically signals the transition from instruction to the call for action. As noted above, the omitted purpose suggests the likelihood that a complex literary history stands behind the present text.

23. “Come to rest” (nuaḥ, v. 13; NIV “set foot in”) and “stand [still]” (ʿamad, v. 8b) are synonyms since the former basically means “to cease activity, come to rest”; cf. G. Robinson, “The Idea of Rest in the OT and the Search for the Basic Character of the Sabbath,” ZAW 92 (1980): 32–42; H. Preuss, “,” TDOT, 9:279; cf. Num. 10:36.

24. A directional motif also seems evident. Initially, the action moves westward from the Jordan’s east bank as the people break camp and the ark-bearers reach the Jordan (v. 14; cf. v. 6). In v. 16 the details of the stoppage introduce a north-south orientation.

25. E.g., “the Jordan” (vv. 14a, 15a, 15b) and variations of “the priests who carried the ark” (vv. 14b, 15a; cf. v. 17). Grammatically, the sentence begins with two long temporal clauses (vv. 14–15) both subordinate to v. 16a (“the water … stopped flowing”). V. 16b (a disjunctive sentence) reintroduces the people from v. 14, forming a nice thematic inclusio. Sadly, NIV’s translation obscures this structure, apparently to produce a smooth translation. For further discussion, cf. Howard, Joshua, 129–30; Nelson, Joshua, 62.

26. The change of preposition from be “with” (v. 14) to ke “about” (v. 15) may intend to sharpen the sense of temporal coincidence (and implied causality) within vv. 15–16. In temporal clauses be indicates general temporal proximity, ke events immediately preceding those of the main clause; cf. WO §36.2.2b. A good paraphrase of vv. 15–16 might be, “No sooner had the priests’ feet waded in than the water stopped.”

27. Boling, Joshua, 112 (map), 169; M. Fretz, “Adam,” ABD, 1:64.

28. NIV (“completely cut off”) captures the emphatic pairing of the verbs tamam (“cease”) and karat ni. (“be cut off”).

29. Fritz, Josua, 52. For “the whole nation,” cf. 4:1; 5:6, 8. The “dry ground” motif also anticipates the later parting of Jordan’s water when Elijah and Elijah crossed (2 Kings 2:8).

30. Nelson, Joshua, 62; cf. Ex. 19:6; Deut. 26:5; Josh. 5:6, 8; 10:13.

31. The repetition of language from the end of 3:17 implies that the completion of the crossing spurs Yahweh to speak. Initial wayehi kaʾašer + perfect signals the contemporaneity of the completed crossing (temporal clause) and Yahweh’s new statement (main clause); cf. WO §38.7a; Judg. 3:18. Structurally, Boling (Joshua, 170) regards 3:17–4:8 as a literary unit “separate from the main story.”

32. So Nelson, Joshua, 65, who rightly observes how 4:10–11a “unfreezes” the central plot by resumptive repetition of language from 3:16b–17.

33. The phrase (lit.) “take for yourselves” + a number occurs in another cultic context, Yahweh’s command that Job’s friends make sacrifices (Job 42:8).

34. The wording of v. 2 closely resembles that of 3:12, including a plural imperative (so, too, v. 3) even though it apparently addresses only Joshua. LXX and Vulgate show singular imperatives in vv. 2 and 3 (Syriac concurs in v. 3 but not in v. 2), while LXX omits the number “12” (v. 2) and “priests” (v. 3).

35. The plural imperatives in vv. 2–3 pose an additional problem. The simplest (but not fully satisfactory) explanation is to assume that 4:2 simply borrows language from 3:12 (plural imperative included) and 4:3 invokes a plural imperative for consistency.

36. Howard, Joshua, 133, who sees Joshua’s command as fitting best between 4:2 and 4:4–7 (133, n. 220).

37. F. Helfmeyer, “,” TDOT, 1:168–70, and his discussion of the various functions of signs (170–86); P. Kruger, “,” NIDOTTE, 1:331–33.

38. As C. A. Keller says, the purpose of a zikkaron is “to prevent something from being forgotten which deserves to be handed down, and to make it real over and over again”; quoted in Helfmeyer, “,” 1:168.

39. For an overview of the alternatives, see Helfmeyer, “,” 1:180–81. Fritz (Josua, 43–46), however, breaks with the earlier consensus, denying that Joshua 3–4 either founds a later cultic celebration or legitimates a specific cultic site.

40. The format “when your child/ren ask … you shall say …” seems at home in several formal settings, such as the Passover (Ex. 12:26), the redemption of the firstborn (Ex. 13:14), and instruction on obeying the law (Deut. 6:20). In each case, the adult’s answer is either to report some events connected with the Exodus (the death of the firstborn [Ex. 13:14–15], the deliverance from slavery and gift of the land [Deut. 6:21–24]) or to make a simple declaration (Ex. 12:26–27).

41. In my view, the object-initial sentence structure (waw + a non-verb) sets v. 9 off as parenthetical (so NRSV) and suggests its contemporaneity, although other views are also possible (see NIV).

42. The phrase “armed for war” always designates fully armed soldiers (Num. 31:5, 27; 1 Chron. 12:24 [cf. v. 23]; 2 Chron. 17:18). For “plains of Jericho,” see Josh. 5:10; 2 Kings 25:5; Jer. 39:5; 52:8; cf. “plains of Moab opposite Jericho” (Num. 22:1; 26:3, 63; 31:12; et al.).

43. NIV breaks up the Hebrew phrase “before Yahweh for the war” by inserting “to the plains of Jericho” between “Yahweh” and “for.” This obscures the fact that MT here applies to all Israel language that Moses had earlier used for the Transjordanian groups alone (Num. 32:20, 27, 29).

44. After 4:15, only in vv. 22 and 23; but cf. 3:1, 2, 4, 6, 11, 14, 16, 17; 4:1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13. This is also the only occurrence of ʾaron ʿedut (lit., “ark of the testimony”; elsewhere only Ex. 25:22; 26:33, 34; 30:6, 26; 40:3, 5, 21; Num. 4:5; 7:89; et al.); cf. forms of ʾaron berit “ark of the covenant” (3:3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17; 4:7, 9, 18; 6:6, 8; 8:33).

45. Cf. also Num. 32:11; 33:38; Judg. 19:30; 1 Sam. 15:2, 6. For the use of ʿalah for Israel’s entrance into Canaan, see Ex. 33:3; Num. 13:20; Deut. 1:21; for Israel’s return from exile, see 2 Chron. 36:23; Ezra 1:3, 5; 2:1, 59; 7:7; Neh. 7:5, 6, 61; 12:1; cf. Isa. 11:16; Ezra 7:6, 28; 8:1.

46. Cf. R. L. Hubbard, Jr., “Gilgal,” DOTHB, 334–36. The name derives from galal, “to roll” (DCH, 348, 355), which accounts for the suggested meanings “The Circle” (Boling, Joshua, 185) or “circle (of stones)” (KB, 183; cf. “wheel,” Isa. 28:28). Y. Yadin suggests that the name was a generic term for a mobile campsite fortified by a circle of stones; cited by A. Malamat, “Israelite Conduct of War in the Conquest of Canaan according to the Biblical Tradition,” in F. M. Cross, ed., Symposia Celebrating the 75^th Anniversary of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1900–1975) (Cambridge, Mass.: ASOR, 1979), 44. But 5:9 relates it to galal pi. (“to remove [Israel’s shame]”).

47. M. Rooker, “Gilgal,” NIDOTTE, 4:684; cf. Malamat, “Israelite Conduct of War,” 43–44. Its exact location is still unknown, but it plays a prominent role in the book (5:10; 9:6; 10:6, 7, 9, 15, 43). For possible sites, see Boling, Joshua, 112, 147, 185; W. Kotter, “Gilgal,” ABD, 2:1023, who conveniently reviews the city’s history (1022–23) and concludes that “its exact location remains enigmatic.”

48. Cf. Helfmeyer, “,” 1:180–81, for whom the question-answer format confirms the text’s “parenetic intention.”

49. These texts originally comprised a prebiblical source called “The Ark Narrative,” a series of episodes that 1-2 Samuel incorporate (1 Sam. 4–6 + 2 Sam. 6). For contrasting views of its purpose, see A. Campbell, The Ark Narrative (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975); P. Miller, The Hand of the Lord (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1977); cf. R. P. Gordon, 1 & 2 Samuel (OT Guides; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984), 30–34; C. Seow, Myth, Drama, and David’s Dance (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 55–76, who argues that 1 Samuel 4–6 intend to legitimate an early Israelite shrine at Kiriath Jearim.

50. Cf. R. Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (New York: Summit, 1987), 156: “There is no report that the Ark was carried away or destroyed or hidden.… The most important object in the world, in the biblical view, simply ceases to be in the story.”

51. For one journalist’s fascinating search for the ark in Ethiopia, see G. Hancock, The Sign and the Seal (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992).

52. This is particularly true of the ark narratives; cf. 1 Sam. 5:7, 11; 6:3; 2 Sam. 6:6; Seow, 73–74. For similar phrases in the Ancient Near East, see J. J. M. Roberts, “The Hand of Yahweh,” VT 21 (1971): 244–51.

53. J. Steinbeck, Cannery Row (New York: Bantam, 1945), 20.

54. W. Barton, Safed and Keturah (Atlanta: John Knox, 1978), 52–53. The parables of Safed and his wife, Keturah, originally appeared as Barton’s column in early issues of the Christian Century.

55. C. Dickens, Great Expectations (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1978 [1861]), 67.

56. I am grateful to Pastor Slusher for sharing this story with me.

1. The Greek and Hebrew texts of Joshua 6:1–15 differ in some details but tell the same basic story. LXX is much shorter than MT, but MT also clarifies some important points. For further discussion, see E. Noort, “The Disgrace of Egypt: Joshua 5:9a and Its Context,” in The Wisdom of Egypt, ed. A. Hilhorst and G. H. van Kooten (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 12–13; Nelson, Joshua, 83–85 (with parallel English translations of LXX). In Nelson’s view (87), LXX offers “the earliest recoverable text” of the story, MT an “expanded version.”

2. Nelson, Joshua, 91–92; Hawk, Joshua, 88, who provides a convenient chart of the schema (88–89).

3. The narrator also reports two of Joshua’s commands in retrospect (vv. 10, 22), followed by reports of compliance (vv. 20, 23, 25).

4. Hawk, Joshua, 92.

5. For an insightful exploration of the tension between the text’s cultic and military aspects, see R. B. Robinson, “The Coherence of the Jericho Narrative: A Literary Reading of Joshua 6,” in Konsequente Traditionsgeschichte, ed. R. Bartelmus et al. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 322–30.

6. Seven priests are to carry seven trumpets on each of seven days and then on seven circuits of Jericho on the seventh day (v. 4 [4×]; vv. 6, 8, 13 [2×]; v. 15 [3×]; v. 16 [1x]); cf. P. P. Jenson, “” NIDOTTE, 4:34–37.

7. D. E. Fleming, “The Seven-Day Siege of Jericho in Holy War,” in Ki Baruch Hu, ed. R. Chazan, W. W. Hallo, and L. H. Schiffman (B. A. Levine Festschrift; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 211–28. Fleming stresses that such narratives have no specific cultic setting, including Gilgal (the oft-proposed candidate).

8. Ibid., 214.

9. Howard, Joshua, 169. For additional background on seven/seventh and on trumpets and shouts, see Bridging Contexts below.

10. For the suggestion that the present text combines three original versions of a ritual, cf. J. Wilcoxsen, “Narrative Structure and Cult Legend: A Study of Joshua 1–6,” in Transitions in Biblical Scholarship, ed. J.Rylaarsdam (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1968), 52–53. For other critical views, see Fritz, Josua, 68; Nelson, Joshua, 88.

11. For background on flint knives, see Howard, Joshua, 148, n. 257. The LXX of Josh. 24:31 says that these knives were buried with Joshua in his tomb. For an in-depth summary of the scholarly discussion concerning this passage, see M. N. van der Meer, Formation and Reformulation: The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses (VTSup 102; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 249–327.

12. Egyptians and West Semites commonly practiced it, but the Philistines did not (Judg. 14:3; 1 Sam. 14:6). For discussion of its possible background as a marriage or fertility rite (cf. Gen. 34; Ex. 4:24–26), see R. Hall, “Circumcision,” ABD, 1:1025–27; Boling, Joshua, 188, 189, 193–94.

13. So Howard, Joshua, 148; but cf. J. Sasson, “Circumcision in the Ancient Near East,” JBL 85 (1966): 473–76, who suggests an actual second circumcision of Israelites who had been circumcised the Egyptian way. Alternatively, the LXX omits “second time” and explains that some Israelites of the Exodus generation had not been circumcised at all.

14. The formal opening formula “Now this is why …” introduces explanations (Ex. 29:1; Judg. 21:11; 1 Kings 11:27; Isa. 38:7).

15. Since Num. 14:29 condemns only men twenty-one and older to die in the wilderness, there is a possibility that some men of the Exodus generation twenty or younger might also have survived; cf. Noort, “The Disgrace of Egypt,” 12–13.

16. For the phrase, see Ex. 3:8, 17; 13:5; 33:3; Lev. 20:24; Num. 13:27; 14:8; 16:13, 14; Deut. 6:3; 11:9; 26:9, 15; 27:3; 31:20.

17. Against Hertzberg, Josua, 33; Boling, Joshua, 190; Butler, Joshua, 59. Vv. 4–7 mention the exodus from Egypt but not the oppression in Egypt. For a list of alternative interpretive options and discussion, see Noort, “The Disgrace of Egypt,” 14–18.

18. So Hess, Joshua, 122.

19. Cf. Howard, Joshua, 151–52; Noort, 18–19.

20. “Roll away” and “Gilgal” both derive from the root galal; cf. DCH, 348, 355.

21. Scholars who attribute this text to Israelite priests appeal to this and other ties between 5:2–12 and Mosaic instructions as evidence; cf. J. A. Wagenaar, “The Cessation of Manna: Editorial Frames for the Wilderness Wandering in Exodus 16, 35 and Joshua 5, 10–12,”ZAW 112 (2000): 200–201.

22. Hess (Joshua, 123) and Howard (Joshua, 153) rightly argue that the present observance recalls the first Passover in Egypt rather than any later celebrations in the wilderness. For recent literary-critical discussion of vv. 10–12, see van der Meer, Formation and Reformulation, 315–29, 393–408; Wagenaar, “Cessation of Manna,” 198–209; and C. Brekelmans, “Joshua v 10–12: Another Approach,” OTS 25 (1989): 89–95.

23. Within the larger DH, it also anticipates the next reported observance six centuries later under King Josiah (2 Kings 23:21–23). The Chronicler reports that King Hezekiah also led an observance in the previous century, especially inviting northern tribes to join (2 Chron. 30). A comment in v. 5 (“it had not been celebrated in large numbers”) suggests either that Israel had observed it infrequently or that the turnout of worshipers was often poor.

24. The Hebrew of v. 11 is emphatic (“the next day … on that very same day”).

25. “Unleavened bread” (maṣṣot) is a common food item (Judg. 6:19; 1 Sam. 28:24) and also given as an offering (Lev. 2:4; Num. 6:15). It comprises part of the required diet during Passover (Ex. 12:15; Deut. 16:8; Ezek. 45:21), although eaten along with bitter herbs (Ex. 12:8; Num. 9:11). For “roasted grain,” see Lev. 2:14 and a related word in Ruth 2:14; 1 Sam. 25:18.

26. Nelson, Joshua, 79; Howard, Joshua, 154; cf. Gen. 19:3; Ex. 12:34; 1 Sam. 17:17; 25:18. According to Wagenaar (“The Cessation of Manna,” 204), this two-part list may derive from a similar list of food in Lev. 23:14.

27. NRSV dates the events of vv. 11 and 12 to the same day, but MT and LXX seem to support NIV’s rendering “the day after the Passover … they ate.…”

28. See Wagenaar, “The Cessation of Manna,” 208, who credits the so-called priestly writer with this self-conscious patterning; cf. Brekelmans, “Joshua v 10–12,” 91–92.

29. Cf. Wagenaar, “The Cessation of Manna,” 204–5.

30. Wagenaar (ibid., 205) and others compare it to the vision report in which the goddess Ishtar appears to the Assyrian king, Ashurbanipal, before a military campaign. She also bears a drawn sword as does the figure in Josh. 5:13. For a critical assessment of past scholarly approaches to Joshua 6, see Robinson, “The Coherence of the Joshua Narrative,” 312–20.

31. Perhaps, like any good commander, Joshua is there to gather intelligence concerning the city’s size, layout, and defenses. He is, after all, the one who sent the spies (Josh. 2).

32. Lit., “he [Joshua] raised his eyes and looked, and—look!—a man.…” The “look!” voices Joshua’s perspective, especially his astonishment (so Howard, Joshua, 156). For the use of hinneh to indicate surprise, see WO §40.2.1.

33. We need not emend MT lo, (“no, not”) to loʾ (“to him”) after LXX and Syriac. NIV and NRSV (“Neither”) are misleading since they wrongly imply that the messenger does not support Israel’s cause (so Howard, Joshua, 156, n. 285).

34. Gen. 21:22 (Phicol); Judg. 4:2 (Sisera); 1 Sam. 14:50 (Abner); 2 Sam. 10:16 (Shobach); 1 Kings 1:19 (Joab); 16:16 (Omri); 2 Kings 5:1 (Naaman); but cf. 2 Kings 4:3; 25:19; 2 Chron. 33:11; cf. Robinson, “The Coherence of the Joshua Narrative,” 321.

35. For discussion of “army” (Heb. ṣabaʾ ), see conveniently Howard, Joshua, 157–58; T. Longman III, “,” NIDOTTE, 3:734–35.

36. Contrast Butler, Joshua, 62, who stresses Joshua’s dependence on Moses (“Wherever he turns, Joshua cannot escape the Mosaic shadow”).

37. Robinson, “The Coherence of the Joshua Narrative,” 321.

38. This reading presumes that Exodus 3 and Joshua 5:13–15 closely parallel each other. Alternatively, the subject-initial syntax of 6:1 might signal the opening of a new episode rather than a parenthesis.

39. Boling, Joshua, 194.

40. For the formula, see Fritz, Josua, 69. Similar formulae occur in Assyrian and Babylonian texts. Later, Yahweh will voice the same reassurance in sending Israel against Ai (8:1); cf. Deut. 2:24 (concerning the Amorite King Sihon); Josh. 2:24.

41. Cf. Hawk, Joshua, 91–92.

42. Joshua 2 calls the soldiers simply “men” or “pursuers,” not the more specific military phrase “fighting men” (Heb. gibbor ḥayil), as here. For the latter, see also Josh. 1:14; 8:3; 10:7; 2 Kings 24:14); but cf. 2 Kings 15:20 (NRSV “the wealthy”); Ruth 2:1; 1 Kings 11:28. For other uses, see H. Kosmala, “,” TDOT, 2:374; R. Wakely, “,” NIDOTTE, 1:810–11.

43. By itself, sabab ʾet haʿir could mean either “to march around the city” (cf. Ps. 48:13) or “to surround” it (Gen. 37:7; Job 40:22; Ps. 22:12). But the parallel, causative verb naqap hi. (“to encircle, surround”; Job 19:6; 2 Kings 6:14; 11:8 // 2 Chron. 23:7; Ps. 17:9; 88:18; Lam. 3:5) favors the second sense (cf. LXX peristeson [“stand around in a circle”]).

44. Fleming, “The Seven-Day Siege,” 218.

45. Reading the Qere wayyomer (“he said”) rather than the Ketib plural (“they said”). By contrast, LXX has Joshua ordering the priests to tell the people to advance.

46. Howard, Joshua, 170. The verb occurs 19 times in the crossing narrative (e.g., 3:1, 2, 6, 14, 16, 17; 4:1, 3, 5, 7; et al.; cf. 1:2, 11, 14, 15; 5:1; 24:11).

47. Though grammatically ambiguous, the opening phrase (vv. 8–9) clearly reports actions against Jericho on the first day, actions that v. 11 summarizes in conclusion.

48. Fleming, “The Seven-Day Siege,” 218. Both NIV and NRSV obscure MT’s double reference to the priests blowing the trumpets. Given the context, the subject of the concluding pair of infinitive absolutes (lit., “going and blowing”) certainly is the priests, not the rear guard; so Howard, Joshua, 171; against Nelson, Joshua, 88, who wrongly alleges a narrative discrepancy by claiming that the rear guard also blew trumpets.

49. The threefold prohibition could not be any stronger: (lit.) “Don’t shout, don’t make a peep, don’t utter a word”—in other words, observe dead silence.

50. NRSV (“the ark of the Lord went around the city”) apparently follows LXX in reading wayyasseb as a qal rather a causative hiphil (so MT; NIV). NIV reads the MT as a hiphil (“he [Joshua] had the ark of the Lord carried around”), a rendering that slightly enhances the role of Joshua in the story; cf. Nelson, Joshua, 84.

51. Heb. raq applies its restrictive sense (“only”) to the temporal phrase “on that day”; cf. Williams, §390; vv. 17, 18, 24. Oddly, NIV renders v. 15b as an exception clause, which makes little sense (i.e., they “marched around the city seven times … except that [italics, mine] on that day they circled the city seven times”). LXX lacks this comment altogether.

52. The root first debuts in Rahab’s reference to Israel’s utter destruction (ḥaram hi.) of the two Amorite kings, Sihon and Og (Josh. 2:10), but is absent from the narrative detailing those events (Num. 21:21–35). Thus, in Rahab’s comment it probably means “to utterly destroy” without the special religious connotations it has in Josh. 6:17. Of course, fear of ritual destruction may still underlie the panic of Rahab and the Canaanites (2:10–11; 5:1). Joshua makes a veiled reference to ḥerem at the Jordan (3:10).

53. This reads the Hebrew of v. 17a as two parallel statements (“the city is ḥerem”//“it and everything in it belongs to Yahweh”), which NIV and NRSV combine. I am indebted for some of what follows to the insightful essay by R. D. Nelson, “Ḥerem and the Deuteronomic Social Conscience,” in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature, ed. M. Vervenne and J. Lust (Leuven: Leuven Univ. Press, 1997), 39–54. Cf. also N. Lohfink, “,” TDOT, 2:180–99; C. Brekelmans, “,” THAT, 1:635–39; J. A. Naudé, “,” NIDOTTE, 2:276–77.

54. One special custody provision permits a priest to own ḥerem—for example, a field that became Yahweh’s at the Year of Jubilee (Lev. 27:21). For more on ḥerem, see Bridging Contexts below.

55. The spies were “messengers” in that they brought back a report of their experience at Jericho to Joshua (2:23–24; cf. 2 Kings 7:15); cf. R. Ficker, “” THAT, 1:902–3; D. N. Freedman and B. E. Willoughby, “,” TDOT, 8:313.

56. NRSV reads taḥmedu (“you covet”) instead of MT taḥarimu (ḥaram hi. “to cause ḥerem”; NIV “bring about your own destruction”). This reading apparently follows LXX (“to ponder deeply”) and implies that MT reads an original d as r and juxtaposed the last two letters (i.e., LXX ḥadam MT ḥaram). If correct, 6:18a would nicely anticipate the repetition of the same verb sequence ḥadam + laqaḥ in Achan’s confession (7:21), implying that he succumbed to the very temptation against which Joshua had warned.

57. This is the same sacral category as other items elsewhere declared “set apart” for specific people by the formula “it is holy to …” (Heb. qodeš huʾ le). Examples include: the Sabbath for Israel (Ex. 31:14; cf. Gen. 2:1–3), ordination food, anointing oil, and a portion of the Nazirite’s offerings for the priests (Ex. 29:34; 30:32; Num. 6:20). Things set aside for Yahweh include the priests, Nazirites, and a day to read the Torah (Lev. 21:7; Num. 6:8; Neh. 8:9) and the holy district in eschatologically restored Israel (Ezek. 45:1); cf. Ex. 3:5; Josh. 5:15.

58. Cf. “treasury of the Lord’s house” (Josh. 6:24). It is difficult to determine whether other pretemple references to the “house of the Lord” refer to the tabernacle or to a temporary temple about which the Bible is silent (Ex. 23:19; 34:26; 1 Sam. 1:24; 3:15; 2 Sam. 12:20). References in the law probably anticipate the later temple or reflect later updating of terminology (Ex. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 23:19). One should probably read Judg. 19:18 after the LXX (so NRSV “to my own house”; cf. NIV “the house of the Lord”).

59. Later, conquering kings plunder its treasures (and those of its royal counterpart) to enrich their own royal treasuries (1 Kings 14:26; 2 Kings 14:14; 24:13; cf. Dan. 1:2; Hos. 13:15); cf. V. P. Hamilton, “,” NIDOTTE, 1:488.

60. Howard, Joshua, 173–74, capably argues against an anachronistic reference here, but in my view his evidence does not convince.

61. As observed earlier, MT v. 20 seems disordered (cf. its reordering by NIV). LXX suggests one possible solution, the omission of the initial terse “and the people shouted.” Alternatively, one may read the latter as the people’s expected response to the trumpet blast of v. 16a and v. 20b as a brief recapitulation of the entire blast-shout sequence.

62. Heb. ʿalah “to go up” (NIV “charged”) may imply awareness that to attack Jericho required ascent up the mound on which it sat.

63. Among archaeologists, the rule of thumb for population estimates is two hundred persons per acre, so Jericho probably had about two thousand residents at the time. Additional Canaanites from the city’s environs who probably sought refuge from Israel there might increase its population by five-hundred or so.

64. For further details on the settlement’s structure, see K. A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 187–88.

65. The list of victims compares to the divine mandate given Saul against Amalek (1 Sam. 15:3) and Saul’s killing of the priests of Nob (1 Sam. 22:19). In my view, the ḥerem policy of Joshua 6:21 (and Deut. 7 and 20) seems harsher than that articulated elsewhere (cf. Ex. 23:23–33; 34:11–16; Num. 33:50–55).

66. Lit., “caused them to live” [ḥayah hi.]). In fact, henceforth Rahab enters a narrative eclipse, reappearing only in Jesus’ genealogy (Matt. 1:5), in the so-called “Hall of Faith” (Heb. 11:31), and as an example of someone justified by works (James 2:25). For further discussion, see ch. 2 (Bridging Contexts).

67. Cf. J. Scharbert, “,” TDOT, 1:405–18; F. R. Magdalene, “Curse,” EDB, 301–2.

68. Human curses, however, did not work automatically but might be overturned (see Deut. 23:5; Judg. 17:2), and stiff legal penalties follow the misuse of curses (Ex. 22:28[27]; Lev. 19:14; 20:9; 24:10–23). For the liturgical use of curses, see Ps. 37:22 and 109:6–15.

69. Fritz, Josua, 74. He also cites examples of ancient curses that trace the destruction of cities to the curses of the gods.

70. Cf. Boling, Joshua, 210, 214–15, who cites approvingly the proposal that the spring may have been contaminated by a parasite carried by snails attested in excavations at Jericho; cf. E. V. Hulse, “Joshua’s Curse and the Abandonment of Ancient Jericho: Schistosomiasis as a Possible Medical Explanation,” Medical History 15 (1971): 376–86. Concerning later problems with water at Jericho, see 2 Kings 2:19.

71. Similarly, Howard, Joshua, 176.

72. For scholarly discussion of the redactional history behind both references, cf. A. F. Campbell and M. A. O’Brien, Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 123 n. 38 and 391 n. 109.

73. The city’s earliest archaeological remains go back to the Neolithic era (ca. 9000 B.C.); cf. P. F. Jacobs, “Jericho,” EDB, 689–90.

74. Cf. Nelson, Joshua, 91, who thinks of the treatment of Jericho “as a paradigm for the entire conquest.”

75. Cf. Nelson, Joshua, 95. Alternatively, cf. Hess, Joshua, 135, for whom the curse symbolizes “the totality of divine judgment against Jericho” for refusing to worship Yahweh (cf. Deut. 13:17[16]).

76. E.g., the Feasts of Unleavened Bread (Ex. 23:15; 34:18; Deut. 16:1–8) and Booths (Lev. 23:34–43; Deut. 16:13–15).

77. P. P. Jenson, “,” NIDOTTE, 4:34.

78. W. W. Hallo and K. L. Younger, eds., The Context of Scripture (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 1:458–60; ANET, 95–96; cf. S. E. Lowenstamm, “The Seven-Day Unit in Ugaritic Epic Literature,” IEJ 13 (1963): 121–33.

79. The root rw (“to raise a war cry”) occurs in vv. 5, 10, 16, 20.

80. According to Hawk, Joshua, 94–95, the term yobel (“ram’s horn”) and the repeated “sevens” here allude to the Jubilee Year with its concern for preserving family land ownership (“Jubilee” is a transliteration of that Hebrew word; cf. Lev. 25:8–55; Josh. 6:5, 6, 8, 13). In his view, the allusions both “confirm Israel’s rightful possession of the land” and rebut the mistaken notion that Israel, not Yahweh, owns it.

81. Some of what follows originated in a lecture given on February 5, 2000, at the “Conference on the Contextualization of Scripture” hosted by Denver Seminary. I gratefully acknowledge the seminary’s kind invitation to address these matters and the invaluable assistance of my teaching assistant, Dr. Liang-her Wu, in its preparation. A briefer discussion of the issue is available in the Introduction (“Now, About All That Killing …”).

82. Cf. the valuable overview by G. H. Jones, “The Concept of Holy War,” in The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological, and Political Perspectives, ed. R. E. Clements (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1989), 299–321.

83. This assumption also explains why Israel’s crossing of the Jordan River (chs. 3–4) and conquest of Jericho (ch. 6) both involve ritual processions. For other features, see J. Holloway, “The Ethical Dilemma of Holy War,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 41 (1998): 49–50.

84. The book of Joshua highlights how Yahweh hands/handed over his enemies to Israel (8:7, 18; 10:19, 30, 32; 11:6, 8) and how “Yahweh fought for Israel” (10:14, 42; 23:2).

85. For details, see S. Niditch, War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1993), 28–77; P. D. Stern, The Biblical Ḥerem: A Window on Israel’s Religious Experience (BJS 211; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991).

86. Cf. the translation by K. P. Jackson, “The Language of the Mesha Inscription,” in Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab, ed. J. A. Dearman (Archaeology and Biblical Studies 2; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 97–98; ANET, 320–21. For an evaluation of other parallels, see J. S. Kaminsky, “Joshua 7: A Reassessment of Israelite Conceptions of Corporate Punishment,” in The Pitcher Is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gösta Ahlström, ed. S. W. Holloway and L. K. Handy (JSOTSup 190; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 332–36. Cf. also G. F. Del Monte, “The Hittite Herem,” in Memoriae Igor M. Diakonoff, ed. L. Kogan et al. (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 21–45.

87. L. Rowlett, Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence (JSOTSup 226; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), especially 181–83. Her work follows up the suggestion of other scholars that Joshua in the book is a “thinly disguised King Josiah” (13); cf. R. D. Nelson, “Josiah in the Book of Joshua,” JBL 100 (1981): 531–40; R. Sutherland, “Israelite Political Theory in Joshua 9,” JSOT 53 (1992): 67.

88. Cf. N. Habel, The Land Is Mine: Six Biblical Land Ideologies (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 67: “By the end of the book, Joshua has established no centralized court, temple, militia, or administration. Rather he encourages each ancestral house, family, and tribe to claim and conquer its own lands.”

89. Knierim, “Israel and the Nations,” 309–21.

90. In his view, they represent an Israelite faction—the “holy war and get tough with people of the land” party; cf. Knierim, ibid., 320.

91. For example, Brueggemann’s interpretation is the exact opposite of Knierim’s. In his view, Joshua offers a critique of the terrible socioeconomic oppression of Israel by corrupt Canaanite city-states. If so, the conquest of Canaan represents a victory for oppressed people, Israel among them. Joshua’s view of God, then, would seem compatible with that of the texts Knierim cites and actually commend its acceptance by the reader; cf. W. Brueggemann, “Revelation and Violence: A Study in Contextualization,” in A Social Reading of the Old Testament: Prophetic Approaches to Israel’s Communal Life, ed. P. D. Miller (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), 285–318. Brueggemann builds on the sociological analysis of N. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1979), 389–419.

92. L. G. Stone, “Ethical and Apologetic Tendencies in the Redaction of the Book of Joshua,” CBQ 53 (1991): 25–35.

93. Ibid., 34, 35.

94. Ibid., 34–36. In his view, additions to the text concerning the law (Josh. 1:1–9; 8:30–35; ch. 23) by Deuteronomic editors achieved this reshaping. If so, the book reached its present form in three stages: to the original holy war narratives (Josh. 2–11) later editors added six passages about foreigners; the Deuteronomic editors then finished the book.

95. Ibid., 36.

96. R. L. Hubbard Jr., “‘What Do These Stones Mean?’: Biblical Theology and a Motif in Joshua,” BBR 11 (2001): 25–49.

97. See Josh. 1:7, 8, 17; 4:10, 12; 8:30–35; 9:24; 11:12, 15; 20:2; 21:2, 8; 22:2, 5; 23:6; 24:6, 26. The call to obedience to the law fits well with the larger biblical stress on the duty of believers to obey Scripture as God’s Word (e.g., Deut. 8:3; Ps. 1:2; Prov. 30:5; Matt. 4:4; John 2:22; 1 Tim. 4:13; 2 Tim. 3:15–16; James 2:8).

98. For the Bible’s treatment of Ruth the Moabite as an example, see Hubbard, Ruth, 64–65, 116–21.

99. See conveniently, Kitchen, The Reliability of the Old Testament, 187–88; T. A. Holland and E. Netzer, “Jericho,” ABD, 3:723–40; Jacobs, “Jericho,” EBD, 690–91.

100. Garstang did not publish a formal excavation report, but he and his son published a popular account of his excavations in J. Garstang and J. B. E. Garstang, The Story of Jericho (2nd ed.; London: Marshall, Morgan, & Scott, 1948).

101. B. G. Wood, “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence,” BAR 16/2 (March–April 1990): 49. For a convenient summary of the evidence, see Hess, Joshua, 137–38; K. M. Kenyon, “Jericho,” NEAEHL, 2:674–81.

102. Cf. the careful assessment of P. Bienkowski, Jericho in the Middle Bronze Age (Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1986), 120–25.

103. E.g., Jacobs, “Jericho,” 691: “Attempts to identify archaeological remains at Tell es-Sultan with Jericho depicted in Joshua 6 flounder on the absence of archaeological data.”

104. Herzog (“Cities in the Levant,” 1:1037) lists Jericho among the five LBA cities “protected by a belt of houses instead of a city wall.” Gonen, “Urban Canaan,” 65 (Table 1) lists Jericho’s size as “tiny” (ca. 1–3 acres). For further discussion, see the Original Meaning section of Josh. 2.

105. Wood, “Israelites Conquer Jericho?” 50–53. These walls are not the same ones that Kenyon dated to ca. 2400 B.C. (see above).

106. Wood (ibid., 56) speculates that an earthquake toppled the walls, and he provides evidence that seismic disturbances were typical in the region. He also draws some intriguing inferences (56–57) from the unexpectedly large quantities of grain that Garstang and Kenyon found.

107. See the spirited rebuttal of P. Bienkowski, “Jericho Was Destroyed in the Middle Bronze Age, Not the Late Bronze Age,” BAR 16/5 (September–October 1990): 45–46, and Wood’s equally spirited response, “Dating Jericho’s Destruction: Bienkowski is Wrong on All Counts,” BAR 16/5 (September–October 1990): 45, 47–49, 68–69.

108. H. J. Bruins and J. van der Plicht, “Tell Es-Sultan (Jericho): Radiocarbon Results of Short-Lived Cereal and Multiyear Charcoal Samples from the End of the Middle Bronze Age,” Radiocarbon 37/2 (1995): 213–20.

109. Kitchen, Reliability of the Old Testament, 187. Kenyon herself also notes the heavy erosion at Jericho; cf. K. M. Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land, 5^th ed. (Nashville: Nelson, 1985), 181–82. The only Middle Bronze age buildings still on the mound are the “palace” (Garstang’s term), the so-called Middle Building, and the ruins of a house floor in Square Hill (Kenyon’s term); for structures cf. Holland and Netzer, “Jericho,” 3:736.

110. Kitchen, Reliability of the Old Testament, 187.

111. Chavalas and Adamthwaite (“Archaeological Light on the Old Testament,” 78–90) argue for the superiority of a fourteenth-century date for the Exodus-Conquest events. Whether their view will gather a consensus remains to be seen.

112. For a convenient survey of biblical teaching on giving, see my “The Art of Giving Well: How Can We Give When the Culture Says ‘Get’?,” Moody Magazine 101/4 (March/April 2001): 18–21.

113. For further, brief comment on this phenomenon, see the Contemporary Significance section of 24:1–28.

114. M. Gladwell, Blink: The Power of Thinking without Thinking (New York: Back Bay, 2005), 20–34, esp. 30–34.

115. See ibid., 33.

116. Witness the retrospective claims that “the Lord was fighting for Israel” (Josh. 10:14, 42) and “the Lord your God … fought for you” (Josh. 23:3; cf. v. 10; Deut. 3:22; Zech. 14:3).

117. Cf. V. Eller, King Jesus’ Manual of Arms for the Armless (Nashville: Abingdon, 1973) 116, who argues that the Old Testament tradition of Yahweh war gave early Christians “the framework within which they found their understanding of what God did do, is doing, and will do through Christ and for the world.”

118. For a brief critique of the relationship of Christians to the modern secular state, especially its “neat division between sacred and secular spheres in life,” see Holloway, “The Ethical Dimension of Holy War,” 64–65. He rightly observes (64), “While the western world sees holy war as a primitive and threatening religious concept, others see the secular state—void of transcendent purpose and divine guidance—as inherently more dangerous.”

119. For personal accounts by battle survivors from both navys, see “Ghosts and Survivors Return to the Battle of Midway,” National Geographic (April 1999), 80–103.

120. For further details, especially concerning exorcisms by Jesus as victories, see Longman and Reid, God Is a Warrior, 97–103.

121. Cf. H. Priesker, “λεγιών,” TDNT, 4:68–69. Elsewhere the term describes angels (Matt. 26:53).

122. Eller, King Jesus’ Manual of Arms, 115–45; cf. Longman and Reid, God Is a Warrior, 119–35. In my view, the New Testament treats them as two phases of a single event, so what follows treats them likewise.

123. For detailed discussion of interpretive nuances, see J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 166–70; D. Garland, Colossians and Philemon (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 152–54. For Jesus’ own statements concerning the disarming of Satan, see Luke 10:18; 11:21–22.

124. Cf. Dunn, Colossians and Philemon, 168: “For the Colossians … the point would be clear: the spiritual powers, including the elemental forces (2:8), should be counted as of no greater value and significance than a bunch of old rags.”

125. Dunn (ibid., 168) compares the picture to the requirement of Cyprian law that the hair of an adulteress be cut off publicly and that the community henceforth treat her as a prostitute. Israel also practiced similar public punishment (e.g., Ezek. 16:38–40; Hos. 2:2–3).

1. Concerning the literary history and archaeological background of chs. 7–8, see Z. Zevit, “Archaeological and Literary Stratigraphy in Joshua 7–8,” BASOR 251 (1983): 23–35. For the literary interplay of Outsider and Insider between Rahab (Josh. 2, 6) and Achan, cf. Spina, The Faith of the Outsider, 52–71; L. Rowlett, “Inclusion Exclusion and Marginality in the Book of Joshua,” JSOT 55 (1992): 19–23.

2. Cf. Judg. 20:15–48; Nelson, Joshua, 111–12; Hess, Joshua, 160–61, who cites several ancient Near Eastern examples. For Greco-Roman examples and in-depth treatment of military tactics in Joshua, see A. Malamat, A History of Biblical Israel (CHANE 7; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 80–96.

3. This is not to say, as Nelson does (Joshua, 110), that “this narrative is rough and confused.”

4. The conflicting sizes given for the ambush group—30,000 (vv. 1, 3) versus 5,000 (v. 12)—pose a problem that defies solution. Woudstra (Joshua, 137) and Howard (Joshua, 203) attribute it to a scribal error and accept the smaller figure as correct. That is possible, but no manuscript evidence supports it (as Howard concedes). Butler (Joshua, 84), however, traces the difference to the text’s prehistory, each figure marking a thematic symbol. The latter figure would underscore Israel’s faith in relying on only 5,000 to defeat a city of 12,000, the former ten times the number sent for Ai I (7:4).

5. The ancient versions apparently found the end of v. 13 (“That night Joshua went into the valley”) problematic. For full discussion, cf. Nelson, Joshua, 112, who omits the sentence and times Israel’s arrival (v. 11) and their discovery by the king of Ai to the same day, rather than the next morning (so MT; NIV; NRSV; NLT). For alternative chronological readings, see Woudstra, Joshua, 136–40; Howard, Joshua, 200–201.

6. Nelson, Joshua, 112–13 (quote 113); Hawk, Joshua, 127–28. Nelson also sees an inclusio frame around Joshua’s speech (vv. 3–10).

7. For more details on the practice of ḥerem, see Bridging Contexts in chs. 5–6. For in-depth discussion of Josh. 7–8, see Hubbard, “What Do These Stones Mean?” 25–49.

8. The phrase comes from G. Mitchell, Together in the Land (JSOTSup 134; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993), 67.

9. The root describes unfaithfulness both toward other humans—e.g., the sexual infidelity of a spouse (Num. 5:11–31), the deceptive withholding of a deposit (Lev. 5:21 [6:2]; cf. also Job 21:34; Prov. 16:10)—or toward God (1 Chron. 5:25; 2 Chron. 26:16; Ezek. 14:13–20; 18:24; 20:27; et al.); cf. R. Knierim, “,” THAT, 1:920–22; H. Ringgren, “,” TDOT, 8:460–63.

10. Cf. Yahweh’s characterization of the act in v. 11 as “to sin” (ḥaṭaʾ ), “to steal” (ganab), and “to act deceitfully” (kaḥaš, pi.); and Milgrom’s definition of maʿal as “trespassing upon the divine realm, either by poaching on his sancta [holy things] or breaking his covenant oath; it is a lethal sin which can destroy both the offender and the community”; cf. J. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience: The Asham and the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 16–21 (quote 21).

11. Spina, The Faith of the Outsider, 65.

12. Butler, Joshua, 84.

13. This literary device of informing readers while characters remain oblivious occurs elsewhere in Hebrew narrative; cf. Gen. 3:1; 22:1; Ruth 2:1.

14. For Yahweh’s initiative, cf. 1:1; 3:7; 4:1, 15; 5:2, 9; 6:2. Joshua apparently acts on his own in 2:1; 5:13; 6:26.

15. The location of the other reference point, Beth Aven (lit., “house of iniquity [or wealth?]”), is uncertain; cf. P. M. Arnold, “Beth-Aven,” ABD, 1:682.

16. The shock of this defeat is not lessened if one assumes (with many scholars) that Heb. ʾelep “thousand” actually means more vaguely “sizeable group” or “company” (ca. 200–250 soldiers). See further comments below.

17. It is uncertain whether Heb. haššebarim is a plural noun of place (NIV “quarries”) or a proper noun (NRSV “Shebarim”). It occurs nowhere else, but the root šabar (“to smash, shatter”) favors a place of “shatterings” or “quarries” (so NIV, NLT).

18. Cf. Spina, The Faith of the Outsider, 65–66.

19. The people several times ask Moses why he brought them out of Egypt into the barren desert; cf. Ex. 17:3; Num. 20:4–5.

20. Grammatically, Heb. lu + verb means “Oh, I wish that …”; cf. WO §38.2e.

21. Cf. Ex. 4:10, 13; Judg. 6:15; 13:8.

22. Boling, Joshua, 224. In my view, this is the opposite of Butler’s claim (Joshua, 85): “Israel depends for its name on Yahweh. Yahweh does not depend for his name upon Israel.”

23. Strikingly, five short sentences strung together by the emphatic particle gam (“also, indeed”) fire a rapid rhetorical barrage (i.e., “They did this, and they did this, and they did this …”). The verbal volley explains how “Israel has sinned.”

24. “To steal” (ganab) plainly violates the well-known prohibition from the Decalogue (Ex. 20:15; Deut. 5:19) and “to act deceitfully” (kaḥaš, pi.) is “an infringement of sacral law” and, by implication, “a transgression of Yahweh’s covenant”; cf. K.-D. Schunck, “,” TDOT, 7:134; V. Hamp, “,” TDOT, 3:42–45.

25. Spina, The Faith of the Outsider, 67–68.

26. Hess, Joshua, 150.

27. Cf. 1 Sam. 10:20–21; 14:14–15, 41–42. Later, Joshua will cast lots to distribute the land (14:2; 15:1; chs. 18, 19, and 21).

28. Cf. W. Horowitz and V. Hurowitz, “Urim and Thummim in Light of a Psephomancy Ritual from Assur (LKA 137),” JANES 21 (1992): 95–115; cf. also V. Hurowitz, “True Light on the Urim and Thummim,” JQR 88/3–4 (1998): 263–74. Admittedly, Joshua 7 does not specify the use of Urim and Thummim.

29. Horowitz and Hurowitz, “Urim and Thummim,” 108. For discussion of the process of casting lots in the division of land, see the Original Meaning section concerning 18:11–19:48.

30. Cf. H. Gross, “,” TDOT, 8:2–3. The verb plays a prominent role in Yahweh’s war in Joshua (6:20; 8:19, 21; 10:1, 28, 32, 35, 37, 39, 42; 11:10, 12, 17; 15:16, 17; 19:47).

31. For the phrase ʿásah nebalah beyísrael (“to do folly in Israel”), see Gen. 34:7; Deut. 22:21; Judg. 20:6, 10; 2 Sam. 13:12; Jer. 29:23.

32. The virtual identity of the commands in 3:5 and 7:13 suggest this. Elsewhere, the purification procedure prepares Israel for a theophany (cf. Ex. 19:10, 14), but here it anticipates a cult-legal procedure, including the removal of the contaminating ḥerem (Josh. 7:13–14); cf. Mitchell, Together in the Land, 71; H.-P. Müller, “,” THAT, 2:605.

33. C. Westermann, “,” THAT, 1:803. The giving of “glory” and “praise” to Yahweh after a crime makes this expression “tantamount to a confession”; cf. M. Weinfeld, “,” TDOT, 7:26. For “son” see H. Haag, “,” TDOT, 2:152; J. Kühlwein, “,” THAT, 1:319.

34. To list the “beautiful robe” (ʾadderet šinʿar “a cloak of Shinar” [cf. NRSV; TNK]) with the silver and gold implies that it was an especially valuable article of clothing; cf. D. M. Stec, “The Mantle Hidden by Achan,” VT 41 (1991): 359. For the link between Shinar and Babylon, see Gen. 10:10; 11:2.

35. NIV’s “and there it was” captures the force of the Heb. particle hinneh (“Look there!” or “Yes, indeed!”).

36. The Valley of Achor is one of the wadis that empty into the Arabah north of (but reasonably close to) Jericho, most probably modern El Buqeʿah (Josh. 15:7); cf. C. J. Pressler, “Achor,” ABD, 1:56; Kallai, Historical Geography of the Bible, 118–21.

37. Unless v. 25 is somehow corrupt, MT seems to assume that the instructions to burn the guilty party with fire entail stoning as well, though v. 15 leaves the latter unstated.

38. For a theological study of this motif, see Hubbard, “What Do These Stones Mean?” 25–49.

39. E. Bloch-Smith, “Burials: Israelite,” ABD, 1:787, who assumes the stones to be in a circle rather than a heap. The Assyrians accorded their defeated foes similar treatment; cf. Younger, Ancient Conquest Accounts, 224; Hess, Joshua, 155–56. Cf. Gen. 31:46.

40. “It is a paradigmatic illustration of the priestly admonition: ‘Be sure your sins will find you out’ (Num. 32:23)”; cf. R. E. Clements, “Achan’s Sin: Warfare and Holiness,” in Shall Not the Judge of All the Earth Do What Is Right? ed. D. Penchansky and P. L. Redditt (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 117.

41. The phrase is that of Rowlett, “Inclusion, Exclusion, and Marginality,” 23.

42. LXX and Syriac consistently read Achar instead of Achan (7:1, 18–20, 24; 22:20; 1 Chron. 2:7) while MT reads Achar only in 1 Chron. 2:7. Hess suggests that “Achan” was the story’s original name, “Achar” a nickname for Achan derived from the “trouble” he caused Israel in the Valley of Achor; cf. R. S. Hess, “Achan and Achor: Names and Wordplay in Joshua 7,” HAR 14 (1994): 89–98. The explanation seems likely for 1 Chron. 2:7, but MT’s persistent reading of Achan and its resistance to emendation that would enhance the wordplay on ʿakar commend its originality in Josh. 7.

43. H. F. Fuhs, “,” TDOT, 6:304–5; F. Maass, “,” TDOT, 5:280–81. Cf. 1 Chron. 22:13; 28:20; Isa. 51:7; Jer. 30:10; 46:27; Ezek. 2:6.

44. Assassins and marauders also avail themselves of it (Judg. 9:25; Ps. 10:8; Hos. 6:9). Later, Israel’s King Jeroboam I (tenth cent. B.C.) uses the same rear ambush stratagem against Judah, although in open country (2 Chron. 13:13).

45. The size of Hebrew numbers continues to pose interpretive problems. Since “thirty thousand” (so NIV) seems too large and unwieldy for an ambush team, Heb. ʾelep here probably designates an elite military “unit,” perhaps roughly the size of an extended family (perhaps 150–200), not the statistical number “thousand.” By contrast, “about five thousand men” (8:12) probably furnishes the numerical strength of the “thirty units.” P. P. Jenson, “,” NIDOTTE, 1:416–18, conveniently summarizes the various scholarly solutions.

46. Pronouns used emphatically—“I and the whole army” versus “you” (pl.)—distinguish the tactical roles of the Israelite “attackers” and ambushers (vv. 5 and 7, respectively).

47. The threefold repetition of the root nus (“to flee”) and the twofold repetition of yaṣaʾ, (“to exit”) underscore the crucial importance of the “retreat” in luring the army of Ai away from the city (vv. 5–6).

48. Alternatively, the “command” may refer to Yahweh’s command to conquer Ai (v. 1; so Howard, Joshua, 204) or to commands given by Joshua on Yahweh’s behalf (so Butler, Joshua, 87).

49. The subject-first sentence structure opening 8:11 suggests contemporaneous action.

50. The Arabah (cf. “overlooking the Arabah”) is the wide Jordan River Valley.

51. In the Old Testament, kidon seems to be the weapon of non-Israelites, e.g., Goliath (1 Sam. 17:6, 45), Jeremiah’s “enemy from the north” (Jer. 6:23; 50:42); cf. Job 39:23; 41:21, Sir. 46:2 remembers this dramatic moment.

52. For full discussion, see Boling, Joshua, 240–241 and Plate III.

53. The subject-first sentence structure portrays the symbolic sword gesture and the appearance of the ambush group as contemporaneous events. The LXX reads Joshua’s dramatic gesture as a signal to launch the ambush, but that seems unlikely since the city (to say nothing of the swarming crowd of soldiers downhill) would surely block the ambushers’ view.

54. Nelson, Joshua, 113–14, who compares it to the upraised arms of Moses in Israel’s victory over the Amalekites (Ex. 17:8–15) and the arrows given King Jehoash by Elisha as promissory symbol of Yahweh’s defeat of the Arameans.

55. Joshua will shortly follow a similar procedure of punishment and rock-pile memorial when punishing the five kings of other captured, rebellious cities (10:26–27).

56. For alternative sites and discussion, see R. L. Hubbard Jr., “Ai,” DOTHB, 21–22; Kitchen, Reliability of the Old Testament, 188–89. Three decades of vigorous defense of alternative locations for Ai (e.g., Khirbet Nisya or Khirbet el-Maqatir) and Bethel (e.g., el-Bireh) have apparently not weakened the consensus accepting the traditional identifications of both cities.

57. In fact, Joshua 12:16 celebrates the conquest of Bethel, but the book of Joshua nowhere reports how it happened.

58. Kitchen, Reliability of the Old Testament, 189, who also notes that Ai may have provided “a strong point for those whose lands adjoined it.”

59. For further discussion on this topic, see Bridging Contexts section of ch. 22.

60. Cf. Yahweh’s claim that “every living soul belongs to me” (Ezek. 18:4).

61. Cf. G. Wallis, “,” TDOT, 4:452–61 (quote 457).

62. Rowlett, “Inclusion, Exclusion, and Marginality,” 20, 22; cf. Howard, Joshua, 211: “Achan was expelled from Israel and treated as a Canaanite.”

63. Similarly, Stone, “Ethical and Apologetic Tendencies,” 34–36.

64. B. Terry, ed., The Writings of Henry David Thoreau: Journal Vol. 4 (Boston/New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1906), 315 (August 24, 1852).

65. The two extant biblical examples feature a question-and-answer liturgical format (Ps. 15; 24:3–6; cf. Mic. 6:6–8).

66. For possible models of church discipline, see A. Poirier, The Peacemaking Pastor: A Biblical Guide to Resolving Church Conflicts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006); E. and S. Wilson, et al., Restoring the Fallen: A Team Approach to Confronting and Reconciling (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1997); T. C. Oden, Corrective Love: The Power of Communion Discipline (St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1995).

67. Rahab’s place in Jesus’ genealogy (Matt. 1:5), however, seems to imply full membership, but 2 Sam. 21:2 expressly states that the Gibeonites “were not a part of Israel.” Israelite laws and narratives suggest that resident aliens participated fully in Israel’s social and cultic life but for the most part remained non-Israelites ethnically; cf. C. van Houten, The Alien in Israelite Law (JSOTSup 107; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 160–62.

68. Walter Mosley, Gone Fishin’ (Baltimore: Black Classic, 1997), 202, 206.

1. Judg. 9:7 connects Mount Gerizim with Shechem, whereas Deut. 11:30 seems to locate it and Mount Ebal in the mountains immediately west of Gilgal. The present exposition assumes the former location. For full discussion on the geographical issue, see E. Noort, “The Traditions of Ebal and Mount Gerizim: Theological Positions in the Book of Joshua,” in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic Literature, ed. M. Vervenne and J. Lust (Leuven: Uitgeveru Peeters, 1997), 161–80.

2. I prefer to render Heb. torah as “the Instruction” because it conveys the content (“teaching”) and social standing (i.e., an accepted, familiar literary work) of Moses’ written legacy better than the ambiguous term “the law.”

3. Scholarly discussion questions whether the text best “fits” here. In the Vulgate, it comes after 9:1–2, while the longer text at Qumran (4QJosh^a) has it before 5:2 (i.e., between the Jordan crossing and the circumcision at Gilgal); cf. Nelson, Joshua, 116–17, who prefers the MT and Vulgate locations.

4. The two lists echo language from Deut. 29:10–11[9–10].

5. They primarily cross-reference Deut. 11:29 and 27:2–13 (but cf. 31:11–12), an indication that Deuteronomy comprises the “Book of the [Instruction] of Moses” (Josh. 8:31). I owe the footnote metaphor to Nelson, Joshua, 118.

6. See Noort, “The Traditions of Ebal and Mount Gerizim,” 178–79 (quotes 179, 178), who views the scene as the formal transfer of the Instruction and its message from outside the land (Mount Sinai, the Plains of Moab) to the Promised Land proper.

7. Cf. the divergences noted by Hawk, Joshua, 133–34; and the comment of Nelson (Joshua, 118) that the text is “the product of creative writing based on a string of revered texts.”

8. Deut. 31:11 commands that the priests publicly read the law to Israel every seven years, and the report of Joshua’s doing so (Josh. 8:34) might draw on that command. The stark (and I believe symbolic) simplicity of having Joshua the sole reader is all the more striking when compared to the long, complex process that Deut. 27 teaches.

9. If so, the picture compares to the narration of Elisha’s succession of Elijah as a replay of the transition between Moses and Joshua (1 Kings 2); cf. R. L. Hubbard Jr., First and Second Kings (Chicago: Moody, 1991), 139–41; T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1985), 19, 27. Alternatively, Nelson (“Josiah in the Book of Joshua,” 531–40) argues that the narrative portrays Joshua as a royal figure in anticipation of King Josiah (2 Kings 22–23).

10. Noort, “The Traditions of Ebal and Mount Gerizim,” 175.

11. This important theme first sounded in 3:7 and 4:14 awaits two even louder echoes in 10:14 and 24:29 (on which see the commentary).

12. Many scholars concur with Butler (Joshua, 91, 94–95) that the present ceremony enables Israel to repair its covenant relationship after Achan’s serious breach (Josh. 7). But, in my view, God’s reassurance and instructions (8:1–2) imply that Israel already enjoys full divine favor and needs no “repair.”

13. The opening syntax approximates the date of the event (“about that time …”; NIV “then”), leaving a loose connection with the context. For the syntax, cf. WO §31.6.3; JM §113i; 1 Kings 11:7; 2 Kings 12:18; 16:5. The use of ʾaz and a finite verb introduces an episode or pause over a remark elsewhere in Joshua (Josh. 10:12, 33; 22:1).

14. Shechem is the mountain’s traditional location, but some dispute that assumption. See note 1 above.

15. This assumes, of course, that Israelites who remained at Gilgal during the attack on Ai somehow rendezvoused with the army for the ceremony at Mount Ebal.

16. Cf. Howard, Joshua, 212, who sees a greater risk in the trip from Ai to Shechem. It bears mentioning, however, that the author focuses on the mountain but ignores the city (but see Josh. 24:1, 25, 32). The Amarna letters (fourteenth cent. B.C.) reflect Shechem’s regional hegemony; cf. Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, 1:319, 324–28.

17. The altar law (Ex. 20:24–26) similarly prohibits cut-stone altars in favor of earthen ones. It also forbids the use of steps to ascend them.

18. So S. Olyan, “Why an Altar of Unfinished Stones? Some Thoughts on Ex 20:25 and Dtn 27:5–6,” ZAW 108/2 (1996): 161–71. Other scholarly suggestions include: to keep out Canaanite influences from Israelite worship; to avoid luxury; and to maintain a semi-nomadic lifestyle.

19. This explains why it is called the “fellowship offering.” But some translations (e.g., KJV, NLT) render the term as “peace offerings” since Heb. šelamim derives from the same root as šalom (“peace”).

20. The meaning of the burnt offering and its relationship to the fellowship offering is the subject of much discussion. For a recent summary and critique, see J. W. Watts, “ʿolah: The Rhetoric of Burnt Offerings,” VT 56/1 (2006): 126–32. Cf. Howard (Joshua, 215), who avers that here the burnt offering atones for Israel’s sins while the fellowship offering reestablishes a positive relationship with Yahweh.

21. For an entrancing first-person account of the view, see G. A. Smith, The Historical Geography of the Holy Land (New York: Armstrong & Son, 1901), 94–95.

22. Boling, Joshua, 247.

23. Noort, “The Traditions of Ebal and Mount Gerizim,” 171; cf. his full discussion (170–72); Gen. 13:4; 26:25; 35:1–7.

24. Cf. Hawk, Joshua, 133.

25. The claim by Zertal in the mid-1980s to have found Joshua’s altar on Mount Ebal has not won scholarly acceptance; cf. A. Zertal, “Has Joshua’s Altar Been Found on Mt Ebal?” BAR 11/1 (January–February 1985): 26–43. For example, what Zertal interpreted to be an altar Kempinski argues was instead a watchtower; cf. A. Kempinski, “Joshua’s Altar: An Iron Age I Watchtower,” BAR 12/1 (January–February 1986): 42, 44–49; response by A. Zertal, “How Can Kempinski Be So Wrong,” BAR 12/1 (January–February 1986): 43, 49–53. For further discussion and bibliography, see Noort, “The Traditions of Ebal and Mount Gerizim,” 168–69.

26. Noort, “The Traditions of Ebal and Mount Gerizim,” 169–70; cf. A. Mazar, Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000–586 B.C.E. (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 348–50.

27. Howard (Joshua, 215) believes that Joshua had written the copy, but grammatically Moses is the closest antecedent of the relative pronoun “which” (ʾašer) and the most likely subject of “wrote.”

28. Howard (Joshua, 215–16) favors the latter because of Deut. 27, as does Nelson (Joshua, 119), who believes the author presumes that audience familiarity with Deut. 27 will guide it to distinguish the stones in v. 32 from those in v. 31. The grammar favors the former option, but the latter is also grammatically possible (but, in my view, less likely). The question is whether the author is closely following Deut. 27 and assumes knowledge of its contents, or whether his silence signals his intentional omission of the provision for plastered stones.

29. One example is the writings about Balaam that once covered plastered walls at Tell Deir ʿAlla in the central Jordan Valley; cf. Hess, Joshua, 173; Nelson, Joshua, 120.

30. Cf. Noort, “The Traditions of Ebal and Mount Gerizim,” 179.

31. This assumes that Heb. ʾel-mul means “in front of” (so Ex. 34:3; 1 Sam. 17:30; LXX plesion [“near, nearby”]) rather than simply “opposite.” In my view, it makes more linguistic and contextual sense to visualize each half-group of Israelites as positioned directly “in front of” one of the mountains. That would imply locations in the valley, not together on Mount Ebal.

32. Howard, Joshua, 217.

33. Nelson, Joshua, 118.

34. The time marker “afterward” (ʾaḥare-ken) highlights the chronological distinction between the writing and reading phases; cf. Gen. 23:19; 25:26; Ex. 34:32; 2 Chron. 33:14; Jer. 49:6.

35. Cf. Nelson, Joshua, 120.

36. F.-L. Hossfeld and E.-M. Kindl, “,” TDOT, 12:553–54.

37. Hawk, Joshua, 134.

38. Nelson, Joshua, 120.

39. The similarities suggest to some scholars that Joshua 8:30–35 and 24:1–28 (5:2–9, too) derive from the same editorial activity; cf. Campbell and O’Brien, Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History, 117–18, 127, 160–63. Fritz (Josua, 57–59, 95–99, 239–49) basically concurs but advances a more complex history, especially with ch. 24.

40. M. Weinfeld, “,” TDOT, 2:255–56.

41. This is true even if human mediators sponsor the covenant, as do Moses (Ex. 24) and Joshua (Josh. 24). The Old Testament also attests covenants between individuals (Gen. 21:22–23; 1 Sam 18:3; 23:18), nation-states (1 Kings 5:12[26]; 15:19), kings and subjects (2 Sam. 5:3; 2 Kings 11:17), and husbands and wives (Ezek. 16:8; Mal. 2:14); cf. Weinfeld, ibid., 264.

42. Ibid., 265–70. According to Weinfeld (267–68), the Neo-Assyrian treaties (first millennium B.C.) seem particularly analogous to Deuteronomy. In particular, the content and order of the curses in Deut. 28 compare closely to the curses in a treaty of the Assyrian king Esarhaddon with his eastern vassals (627 B.C.). For a translation of the latter, cf. ANET, 534–41.

43. For translations of examples, cf. COS, 2:93–106.

44. Weinfeld, “,” 268–69.

45. Cf. the discussion in J. Scharbert, “,” TDOT, 2:303–4.

46. Ibid., 304.

47. As I write, the “50-Day Spiritual Adventure” website (http://www.sundaysolutions.com/index.html) offers “Sermon Series on Christmas and Advent,” but none of its “50-Day Spiritual Adventure Campaigns” is specifically designed for Easter.

48. Jan Struther, Mrs. Miniver (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1942), 120.

49. A. D. Duba, “Take Me to the Water: Ideas for Keeping Baptism Front and Center,” Reformed Worship 62 (Dec. 2001): 22–52, reviews the meanings associated with baptism and suggests ways to practice baptismal renewal. Implicitly, his article confirms that such celebrations either are uncommon or need increased emphasis.

50. Recall that “Jesus” (Iesous) is the Greek form of the Hebrew name “Joshua” (yehošuaʿ ).

51. Cf. Ex. 19:9, 16; 24:15–18; 34:5, 29–30. They may indirectly also allude to Elijah’s experience of a theophany there (1 Kings 19:8–21).

52. C. A. Evans, Luke (NIBCNT; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1990), 153.

53. For more on being a Christian soldier, see the Contemporary Significance section of chs. 9–10. The Contemporary Significance section of ch. 11 also discusses the larger spiritual struggle behind human history.

54. John Steinbeck, Travels with Charlie in Search of America (New York: Penguin, 1962), 48–49. This Latin phrase means “In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

1. Nelson (Joshua, 128–31) proposes a helpful reading of Josh. 9 as two movements, each of which passes from initial action (9:1–5, 16–17) through dialogue (vv. 6–13, 22–25) to decision (vv. 14–15, 26–27). In his view, vv. 18–21 offer an ancillary movement.

2. Cf. Nelson, Joshua, 131–32. The book later echoes the theme of the continuing presence of unconquered peoples (15:63; 16:10; 17:12–13; 23:4, 7, 12–13).

3. Joshua 10:15 creates a major chronological problem that requires a brief comment. The LXX lacks it completely (also in v. 43), and if vv. 16–27 report the rest of the day’s events (likely), the narrative takes a strange turn if Joshua now descends to Gilgal as the battle rages only to reappear out of the blue leading the Israelite blitzkrieg through the lowlands (vv. 20–27). In my view, the narrative makes far better sense when read without it, so I reckon v. 15 as a later addition (e.g., a copyist’s error) and omit it from discussion below. Cf. Howard, Joshua, 251, who accepts this solution as among two good possibilities.

4. Concerning the geography, see Howard, Joshua, 220–21. The geography here anticipates the conquest summary to follow in 10:40. Unlike 5:1, however, of nineteen biblical lists of nations, the present one corresponds only to that of Deut. 20:17 (Butler, Joshua, 101). This is significant in that it represents one of several key links between Deut. 20 and Josh. 9.

5. Hess, Joshua, 175–76; cf. Howard, Joshua, 218. If so, another casualty of Ai I, besides Achan, was the popular perception of Israelite invincibility. But, against Hess (176) and Howard (218), it seems to me unlikely that a victory at Ai I would have led other Canaanite nations to respond as Rahab and the Gibeonites did.

6. In v. 4, Heb. gam hemmah (lit., “they, too”; NRSV “for their part”) also underscores this contrast, as if to say, “The Gibeonites responded, but along different lines.” Their account describes their leaders as “our elders and all those living in our country” (v. 11). According to Hess (Joshua, 179–80), the rule by elders may point to the group’s origin in Anatolia where, unlike among Canaanites, nonroyal government was typical of the Hittites. The Philistines, who probably came to Canaan from Mycenean Greece, had a five-city federation ruled by “lords” (seranim [a non-Hebrew word]); cf. Josh. 13:3; Judg. 3:3; 1 Sam. 6:16–18.

7. Gibeon is not among the cities in Canaan that the Amarna tablets (fourteenth cent. B.C.) mention. It first appears on the lists of Egyptian conquests in Canaan under Sheshonq I (tenth cent. B.C.); cf. ANET, 242–43. In Josh. 12:8 the writer rhetorically invokes the traditional hit-list of Canaan’s nations, including the Hivites.

8. Butler, Joshua, 99. For the archaeology of Gibeon, see Hess, Joshua, 177.

9. Hivites apparently also lived around Shechem (Gen. 34:2) and in the land of Mizpah at the foot of Mount Hermon (Josh. 11:3). For details on these cities, see Boling, Joshua, 266–67; Butler, Joshua 103.

10. Butler, Joshua, 101. In 1 Sam. 23:22 Saul applies it to David in a negative light, while the narrator admires it; cf. (positive regard) Prov. 15:5; 19:25; (negative regard) Job 5:13; Ps. 83:4.

11. According to Hess (Joshua, 178), the Gilgal here must be a different location from the one in Josh. 4–5, otherwise the story is out of sequence. He deems it unlikely that, after gaining a strategic foothold in central Canaan at Ai II, Israel would go back down to the Jordan valley. Howard (Joshua, 224) concurs and surveys all the Gilgals in the Old Testament. While possible, the book seems everywhere to presuppose the same well-known Gilgal.

12. Younger, Ancient Conquest Accounts, 200–204, defends the historicity of the ruse motif here, appealing to Ancient Near Eastern parallels.

13. Their claim may mark a half-truth, since the Hivites may in fact have arrived from the north (perhaps Armenia in Asia Minor) shortly before Joshua and Israel entered Canaan from the east (Boling, Joshua, 264–65).

14. Cf. Howard (Joshua, 223), who thinks the Gibeonites’ actions show that they “knew something about Israelite law.”

15. In 9:8, 11, 24, “servant” reflects ancient, polite deference, unlike the servitude the term carries in v. 23; cf. 2 Kings 10:5; 16:7.

16. Howard, Joshua, 226; Nelson, Joshua, 133.

17. The instructions authorize Israel, when besieging a city, first to offer the city peace and, if it surrenders, to compel its inhabitants to work for the Israelites (vv. 10–11). But the present case only seeks to head off a future siege, not to resolve a present one. Also, unlike Deut. 20, here the “besieged” party (the Gibeonites) requests peace from Israel rather than receiving an offer of peace from them.

18. Boling, Joshua, 263.

19. Butler, Joshua, 103.

20. According to Nelson (Joshua, 133), the object-first order of v. 14b (“but did not inquire”) highlights “Israel’s rash carelessness.” Since Joshua participates in the interrogation, he is probably still present and, hence, tacitly concurs with the nonconsultation.

21. These “leaders of the assembly” comprise a leadership group usually associated with Moses and priests who participate in decisions of national importance (Josh. 22:30; cf. Ex. 16:22; Num. 31:13; 32:2). The “assembly” (ʿedah) comprises all free Israelite males eligible for military service (Num. 1:2–3), an assembly that is consulted on important community matters (Ex. 12:3; 35:1–4; Num. 10:1–7) and legally adjudicates murder cases (Num. 15:32–36; Josh. 20:6–9); cf. Boling, Joshua, 268.

22. Butler, Joshua, 99.

23. Probably, the treaty compares to the suzerain-vassal type well known in the ancient Near East (see Bridging Contexts section of 8:30–35; cf. Howard, Joshua, 219). Alternatively, it may constitute a “pact with a protegé” by which peoples end a potentially disastrous siege by agreeing to military service with the attacking army; cf. J. M. Grintz, “The Treaty of Joshua with the Gibeonites,” JAOS 86 (1966): 113–26 (quote 122).

24. Butler, Joshua, 100.

25. For the locations of the towns (all within the later territory of Benjamin), cf. Hess, Joshua, 182.

26. Cf. Ex. 15:24; 16:2, 7, 8; 17:3; Num. 14:2, 27; 16:11, 41 [17:6]; 17:5[20]).

27. Butler, Joshua, 104.

28. Howard (Joshua, 229) sees a parallel to the oath’s inviolability in the irrevocability of the blessing that Jacob won from Isaac via trickery (Gen. 27).

29. Similarly, Butler, Joshua, 104. Alternatively, it may simply implement the servitude mandated for foreign cities under Israelite siege who surrender (Deut. 20:10–11). But cf. Nelson, Joshua, 132 (“a sort of toleration, albeit one that sounds suspiciously colonialist and oppressive to modern ears”); Boling, Joshua, 269 (“precisely what the covenant liturgy [Deut. 29:11 (10)] was originally designed to counteract”).

30. The formula is lamah (“why?”) + ramah pi. (“to deceive”); cf. Gen. 29:25 (Jacob to Laban); 1 Sam. 19:17 (Saul to Michal); 1 Sam. 28:12 (the Endorite witch to Saul); 2 Sam. 19:26–27 (Mephibosheth to David).

31. The combination of accusatory question and oath may borrow a legal pattern whereby an aggrieved party gains revenge for a crime through a curse; cf. Butler, Joshua, 100; Gen. 4:9–16. For other ethnic curses, see Gen. 4:11–12 (Kenites) and Canaanites (9:25). Howard (Joshua, 230) compares this curse to those supporting the Mosaic covenant (Deut. 27–28).

32. Butler, Joshua, 104.

33. Howard (Joshua, 230) prefers the tabernacle or Shiloh, while Boling (Joshua, 269) accepts Gibeon as a possibility. Butler (Joshua, 104) reckons the reference as an anachronism but concedes (Joshua, 105), “At least one stage of the tradition probably referred this to Gibeon.”

34. Butler (Joshua, 104) offers a different view: “The Gibeonite defense shows their Yahwistic piety, as they paraphrase the Deuteronomic credo.”

35. For other occurrences of the phrase “whatever seems good and right,” see Gen. 16:6; Jer. 26:14; 1 Sam. 24:4; Job 1:12; 2:6.

36. That is, “only at sanctioned Israelite cultic centers … and not Canaanite ones” (Howard, Joshua, 231). Certainly, Shiloh had a “temple” (1 Sam. 1:3, 9), and Boling (Joshua, 269) claims that Gilgal did, too.

37. Cf. Butler, Joshua, 99 (“a position of treaty partner protected by the might of Israel’s army”).

38. The spread of news among Canaan’s inhabitants about Israel’s advances marks a common theme in Joshua and drives the plot of chapters 2–11 (cf. 2:10–11; 5:1; 9:1–2; 11:1).

39. That Pharaoh Sheshonk I (late tenth cent. B.C.) lists Gibeon among the cities in Canaan that he either conquered or dominated further attests the city’s importance; cf. ANET, 242; 1 Kings 14:25; 2 Chron. 12:2–4.

40. Hess further discusses the rulers’ names (Joshua, 29–30) and the geography (Joshua, 188–90). Compared to the Amarna letters from Egypt between Pharaoh and local rulers (fourteenth cent. B.C.), the letters dispatched here (v. 4) are brief; cf. Hess, Joshua, 190–91.

41. “Amorite” here probably refers to Canaan’s inhabitants in general since, of the five cities, two cities lie in the central mountains (Jerusalem, Hebron), the others in the western lowlands (Jarmuth, Lachish, Eglon); contrast Howard, Joshua, 235 (only peoples in the central mountains). Literarily, “kings of the Amorites” may link them with Sihon and Og (Josh. 9:10) and imply that the same fate awaits them (so Hess, Joshua, 191).

42. “Do not abandon” (lit., “do not relax your hands from [us]”) suggests that the failure to act will deprive the Gibeonites of Israel’s steadying, protective military power and leave them to stand or fall on their own.

43. At least, that seems to be the assumed connection between the all-night march and the enemies’ reported surprise.

44. For more on Yahweh war, see Longman and Reid, God Is a Warrior; T. B. Dozeman, God at War: Power in the Exodus Tradition (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1996).

45. Cf. H.-P. Müller, “,” TDOT, 3:419–21. The means used to panic the enemies is not clear here, but elsewhere it includes the frightening presence of the pillar of fire and cloud (Ex. 14:24), a deathly dread (Ex. 15:16; 23:27; cf. Josh. 2:9), loud thunder (1 Sam. 7:10), or fierce lightning (2 Sam. 22:15 = Ps. 18:14[15]; 144:6); cf. Sir. 48:21.

46. Hess (Joshua, 194–95) details the geography. For the phrase “inflict a great slaughter” (NIV “defeated them in a great victory”) see v. 20; Judg. 15:8; 1 Sam. 6:19; 2 Chron. 28:5.

47. The Hittite and Assyrian examples in Younger (Ancient Conquest Accounts, 207–11) confirm how ancient battle reports commonly include the motif of divine intervention, with one account (210) actually mentioning divinely sent hailstones.

48. According to WO §33.3.3b, Heb. ʾaz (“at that time”) plus an imperfect refers to “a (con)sequent or explanatory situation in the past time …”; cf. v. 33; 8:30; 22:1. For the view that Yahweh (not Joshua), is the speaker, see Howard, Joshua, 240–41.

49. See the summaries and bibliography in M. K. Hom, “A Day Like No Other: A Discussion of Joshua 10:12–14,” ExTim 115/7 (2004): 217–23; H. Kruger, “Sun and Moon Marking Time: A Cursory Survey of Exegetical Possibilities in Joshua 10:9–14,” JNSL 26/1 (2000): 137–52.

50. Alternatively, according to Hom (“A Day Like No Other,” 223), v. 12b reports Yahweh’s response to Joshua’s prayer, reading “Yahweh” as the subject of “and he said.”

51. Hom, ibid., 221, 223, who favors the latter. Cf. D. L. Christensen, “Jashar, Book of,” ABD, 3:646–47. Elsewhere it appears only once (2 Sam. 1:18), although a couplet in Solomon’s prayer dedicating the temple may be a third excerpt (1 Kings 8:12–13 LXX). But cf. Howard (Joshua, 239–40), who questions the consensus view that the lines are poetry.

52. The verb has two main senses, “to be quiet” or “to be still” (i.e., motionless), or “to cease”; cf. DCH, 450–51. The LXX reflects the same understanding.

53. The book of Joshua often associates ʿamad (“to stand”) with obedience to Yahweh; cf. Hom, “A Day Like No Other,” 221, esp. n. 41.

54. The original poem says “a nation,” but the reference is clearly to Israel (“the nation” [NIV, NRSV]; “the nation of Israel” [NLT]; “the people” [KJV]).

55. For examples, see Younger, Ancient Conquest Accounts, 215–16; cf. Hom, “A Day Like No Other,” 221, who also discusses alternative understandings of the phrase.

56. The idiom can connote either “a willing and attentive listening that manifests itself in obedience or … actual obedience”; cf. K. T. Aitken, “,” NIDOTTE, 4:178.

57. Alternatively, the astonishment might derive from the fact that Joshua took initiative in the strategy of Yahweh war. The author might have regarded that as an audacious move for a human.

58. Cf. Hom, “A Day Like No Other,” 222.

59. For bibliography, cf. Howard, Joshua, 241–42, who narrates some of the urban legends that this view has spawned, including the oft-told (but untrue) claim that NASA has discovered a missing “day” in some of its space-flight calculations. What follows draws on his fine discussion (242–48 with bibliography).

60. Howard also notes (Joshua, 246) that the sun and moon share the sky in the early morning, an odd time for Joshua to request a long day. For full discussion of the numerous interpretive options, see Hom, “A Day Like No Other,” 217–20.

61. On this latter view, see J. H. Walton, “Joshua 10:12–15 and Mesopotamian Celestial Omen Texts,” in Faith, Tradition, and History, ed. A. R. Millard, J. K. Hoffmeier, and D. W. Baker (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 181–90.

62. In addition, the solar eclipse and cloud cover views assume that damam means “to cease shining” or “to darken,” senses unattested elsewhere. They also fit poorly with the parallel verb ʿamad, “to stand still” (v. 13). Further, none of the known eclipses correspond chronologically to the date of this incident; cf. Howard, Joshua, 247.

63. The fact that the language of 10:12b–13 differs significantly from the phraseology of the suggested ancient Near Eastern parallels undermines this view (cf. Hom, “A Day Like No Other,” 219). An additional problem concerns its assumption that the same phenomenon would have been interpreted as favorable by Israel and as unfavorable by the Amorites. While possible, this seems unlikely. At least the text clearly states the positive Israelite perception of it.

64. After an in-depth discussion of options, Howard reaches the same conclusion (Joshua, 247–48).

65. Sisera was the Canaanite general defeated by Barak and Deborah (Judg. 4–5). Strikingly, Josh. 10 combines prose and poetic descriptions as does Judg. 4 (prose) and 5 (poetry); cf. also Ex. 14 (prose) and Ex. 15 (poetry).

66. For an alternative figurative view, cf. Nelson, Joshua, 144–45.

67. Cf. Hom, “A Day Like No Other,” 222–23; Nelson, Joshua, 144, who compares the luminaries to the symbolic or victory-inducing actions of Moses’ upheld arms (Ex. 17:11–12) or Joshua’s upraised sword (Josh. 8:18). The boundary motif derives from the posting of the sun over Gibeon (east) and the moon over the Aijalon Valley (west).

68. Cf. Kruger, “Sun and Moon Marking Time,” 148–49, who suggests that the concept of a solar chariot underlies Joshua’s address of the sun and moon. If so, “the passage … could represent a prayer by Joshua asking Yahweh … traveling on his sun-chariot through the skies, to pause for some time until his enemies are defeated.” He concedes, however, that this view fails to include the moon in it.

69. The phrase “Valley of Gibeon” in Isa. 28:21 may allude to this remarkable event (or to David’s rout of the Philistines [2 Sam. 5:20=1 Chron. 14:11]).

70. For examples, see Younger, Ancient Conquest Accounts, 220–22.

71. So REB. NIV (“no one uttered a word against the Israelites”) seems improbable given the huge slaughter and huddling of survivors in their towns.

72. For a study of namelessness as a literary device, see R. L. Hubbard, Jr., “‘Old What’s His Name’: Why the King in 1 Kings 22 Has No Name,” in God’s Word for Our World, ed. J. H. Ellens et al. (JSOTSup 388; London/New York: Continuum, 2004), 1:294–314.

73. F. J. Stendebach, “,” TDOT, 13:319–20.

74. The same gesture appears in the annals of an Assyrian king (thirteenth cent. B.C.): “I captured Kaštiliaš, king of the Kassites (alive). I trod with my feet upon his Lordly neck as though it were a footstool” (quoted from Younger, Ancient Conquest Accounts, 317, n. 86).

75. David invokes both word pairs (“don’t fear” + “don’t be discouraged”; “be strong and courageous”) in handing over royal leadership to Solomon (1 Chron. 22:13; 28:20; cf. 2 Chron. 32:7).

76. For a comparable extrabiblical example, see Younger, Ancient Conquest Accounts, 224–25.

77. Cf. ibid., 222–23, who quotes Sennacherib’s report of his treatment of Ekron’s leaders: “the governors (and) nobles who had sinned I put to death; and I hung their corpses on poles around the city.”

78. Cf. R. S. Hess, “,” NIDOTTE, 4:295.

79. The use of stereotyped, hyperbolic phrases like these is typical of ancient Near Eastern victory reports; cf. Younger, Ancient Conquest Accounts, 227–28. They overstate in order to persuade or to be emphatic and so are to be understood figuratively, not literally.

80. The “ban” (Heb. ḥerem “utter destruction”) is God’s mandate to annihilate the inhabitants of Canaan (Deut. 7:2; 20:17).

81. Cf. Hess, Joshua, 204.

82. When Sennacherib (late eighth century B.C.) wanted to besiege Jerusalem, he first had to destroy both Lachish and Libnah; cf. Boling, Joshua, 294. Apparently, he especially relished his conquest of Lachish since he had a wall relief celebrating it made for his palace at Nineveh.

83. K. L. Younger Jr., “The ‘Conquest’ of the South (Jos. 10:28–39),” BZ 39 (1995): 255–64 (esp. 259–64). Howard (Joshua, 256–57) proposes a six-member chiastic structure also centered around Gezer; cf. Boling, Joshua, 294.

84. Horam is probably a West Semitic name; cf. R. S. Hess, “Non-Israelite Personal Names in the Book of Joshua,” CBQ 58 (1996): 207.

85. For example, the Amarna Letters (fourteenth cent. B.C.) mention Gezer, and Pharaoh Merneptah apparently considered it a strategic site, listing it among his campaign’s conquests on his victory stele (ca. 1207 B.C.); cf. Hess, Joshua, 204.

86. These directions and estimated distances are based on Y. Aharoni and M. Avi-Yonah, The Macmillan Bible Atlas, rev. ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1977), map #58.

87. The book of Joshua is well aware of Jerusalem as an island within Israel, terming it “the Jebusite city” (Josh. 15:8; 18:16, 28; cf. Judg. 19:11) and acknowledging that the Jebusites still held it (Josh. 15:63; cf. Judg. 1:21).

88. Ancient Near Eastern conquest accounts typically conclude with summary statements, often exaggerated, akin to this one; cf. Younger, “‘Conquest’ of the South,” 264; idem, Ancient Conquest Accounts, 230–32.

89. Such thinking probably underlies the view of H. Niehr, “,” TDOT, 11:361–66 (esp. 362–64). Inexplicably, A. Luc, “,” NIDOTTE, 3:539–41, omits mention of Joshua 9:4.

90. I owe this concept to E. F. Campbell Jr., Ruth (AB 7; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1975), 132–35 (citing George Mendenhall); cf. Hubbard, Ruth, 50–51.

91. Obviously, the phrase “to harden [their] hearts” alludes to Yahweh’s sovereign intervention in Egypt (cf. Ex. 4:21; 9:12; 10:20, 27; 11:10; 14:8, 17). See comments on ch. 11.

92. For scholars who see Deut. 20 as the key background to this episode, see Nelson, Joshua, 124 (with bibliography). Nelson himself (124, n. 2), however, argues that the story still makes good sense even without that assumption.

93. Subsequently, the Gibeonites make a cameo appearance in an episode that further verifies the above interpretation (2 Sam. 21). In trying to annihilate them, Saul had incurred bloodguilt that led Yahweh to punish the land with a three-year drought. Clearly, Yahweh’s enforcement of Israel’s oath regarding Gibeon confirms his acceptance of their special status within Israel, as does David’s dealings with them to resolve the guilt and remove the famine. Unselfconsciously, the text identifies them as leftover Amorites and accepts them as a “given” in Israel.

94. I. Kottsieper, “,” TDOT, 14:314–16.

95. J. Scharbert, “,” TDOT, 1:411–12. People probably assumed that the curse became effective in the very act of pronouncing it, implemented through Yahweh’s intervention.

96. For other examples of the pattern, see Gen. 3:13–14; 4:10–11; cf. 3:17.

97. I am grateful to Professor John H. Walton for this suggestion.

98. For examples, see Younger, Ancient Conquest Accounts, 220–25.

99. Cf. L. Alonso-Schökel, “,” TDOT, 6:464–71; for “good,” cf. K.-D. Schunck, “,” TDOT, 5:308–9.

100. See also Num. 14:18; Ps. 86:15; Jonah 4:2; James 5:11.

101. In the Original Meaning section, I interpreted the author’s “never-before, never-since” comment (10:14) either as simple rhetorical hyperbole or as a reference to the cosmic content of the prayer. It does not mean that God had never nor would never again listen to a human prayer.

102. The equally astonishing observation, he adds, is that God even puts humans in charge of the earth (Ps. 8:5–8). Citing ordinary birds and lilies of the field as evidence, Jesus adds that God even knows our human needs for food, drink, and clothing before we ask him (Matt. 6:25–32).

103. G. G. Hunter III, The Celtic Way of Evangelism: How Christianity Can Win the West—Again (Nashville: Abingdon, 2000), 9.

104. Unfortunately, the lack of biblical data denies us knowledge of the Gibeonites after their cameo appearance in 2 Samuel 21. For example, we do not know whether they were at Gibeon when David visited there (1 Chron. 16:39; 21:29)—during the tabernacle’s time there—or when Yahweh appeared there to Solomon in a dream (1 Kings 3). First Chronicles 12:4 lists “Ishmaiah the Gibeonite” among the “Thirty” warriors who joined David’s guerrilla band at Ziklag. His name ends in “-yah,” the sign of a Yahwistic name, but “Gibeonite” refers to the town, not the ethnic group. The Judean prophet Hananiah also hailed from Gibeon (Jer. 28:1).

105. Hunter, The Celtic Way of Evangelism, 28.

106. They followed the Benedictine Rule #53: “All guests who present themselves are to be welcomed as Christ, for he himself will say: ‘I was a stranger and you welcomed me’”; quoted from ibid., 52.

107. Quoted from Hunter, ibid., 55.

108. Quoted from Hunter, ibid., 120.

109. I am grateful to my friend and former pastor, the Rev. Debra Gustafson, for sharing this story.

1. Cf. Younger, Ancient Conquest Accounts, 229 (“a type of flashback so that the materials … can be linked together”).

2. Nelson, Joshua, 151. The burning and plundering of Hazor (11:14), however, more closely compares to the treatment given Ai (8:27–28).

3. Cf. Campbell and O’Brien, Unfolding the Deuteronomistic History, 134, 136.

4. References to the “hill country of Judah” and the “hill country of Israel” (11:21) also imply a date of composition no earlier than the divided kingdom, since elsewhere the term is “hill country of Ephraim” (i.e., a tribal [not political] term); cf. 17:15; 19:50; 20:7; 21:21; 24:30, 33; et al.

5. Jabin is the Hebrew form of Ibni, a known West Semitic name, and the Mari archives attest the name Jabin (or Jabni). Since Jabin was Hazor’s king during Deborah’s lifetime (Judg. 4; cf. Ps. 83:9[10]), “Jabin” may have been the dynastic name of Hazor’s kings; cf. P. Benjamin, “Jabin,” ABD, 3:595–96; Hess, “Non-Israelite Names,” 206–7.

6. C. Schäfer-Lichtenberger, “Hazor—A City State Between the Major Powers,” SJOT 15 (2001): 111; cf. A. Ben-Tor and T. Rubiato, “Excavating Hazor II: Did the Israelites Destroy the Canaanite City?” BAR 25 (May–June 1999): 24–25. Given the significant decline of the number and size of urban centers in the Late Bronze Age, Hazor’s large size and population seems enigmatic. It represents “an abnormally large settlement,” four times as large as Lachish, the land’s second largest city; cf. Gonen, “Urban Canaan,” 68.

7. Naʾaman, Borders and Districts, 124; Amarna Letter (EA 364). Hazor lies seventeen miles south of Dan, the city that later marked Israel’s northern border (Judg. 20:1; 2 Sam. 3:10). Both the Mari texts (eighteenth cent. B.C.) and the Amarna Letters (fourteenth cent. B.C.) picture Hazor as a prominent city-state.

8. The city was destroyed in the thirteenth cent. B.C., perhaps by the Israelites (Y. Yadin), the Sea Peoples (V. Fritz), Pharaoh Rameses II (C. Schäfer-Lichtenberger), or Deborah and Barak (Y. Aharoni); cf. J. M. Hamilton, “Hazor,” ABD, 3:87.

9. Naʾaman, Borders and Districts, 119, 120 (cf. his full discussion [119–43]); Boling, Joshua, 305; Hess, Joshua, 209. For “Madon” LXX and Syriac have marron, which compares to “Meron” (vv. 5, 7).

10. Hess, Joshua, 208.

11. ANET, 243, 256.

12. Naʾaman, Borders and Districts, 123, 141.

13. At Karnak Thutmose III (fifteenth cent. B.C.) lists Acshaph among the kingdoms under his domain (ANET, 242), and the city also receives mention in the Execration Texts (ANET, 329, n. 8, along with Hazor) and in two Amarna letters (ANET, 484, 487).

14. Naʾaman, Borders and Districts, 141; cf. P. Benjamin, “Shimron (Place),” ABD, 5:1218.

15. Cf. Amarna Letters EA 225 and 367 (Hess, Joshua, 209, n. 3). Another letter relates that the prince of Shimron conspired with the king of Acco to attack and plunder a Babylonian caravan at Hannathon in Galilee; cf. Benjamin, “Shimron (Place),” 5:1218.

16. Usually, “western foothills” (Heb. šepelah) designates a specific region of Judah, the transitional slopes and intersecting valleys between the central mountains and the coastal plain. Here, however, the reference is probably either to the low hills between the hill country of Samaria and the Carmel Range (today, Ramot Manasseh) or (more likely) the north-south foothills between the mountains of western Galilee and the coastal plain of Tyre in southern Lebanon; cf. D. Brodsky, “Shephelah (Place),” ABD, 5:1204.

17. P. Benjamin, “Naphoth-Dor (Place),” ABD, 4:1020. Napthoth-Dor means either “dune/ district of Dor” or (if in the language of the Sea Peoples) “wooded country of Dor”—the equivalent of Hebrew “Dor of Sharon.”

18. Other texts also locate the Canaanites in the west, including the coast, and in the Jordan Valley (Num. 13:29; Deut. 11:30; Josh. 5:1), the Amorites and Perizzites in the central mountains (Deut. 1:7; Josh. 10:5; 13:2–4; 16:10; 17:15), and the Hivites in the Lebanon mountains (Judg. 3:3). The Hittites appear in narratives at Hebron (Gen. 23) and Beersheba (Gen. 26:34; 27:46), both in the central mountains (Beersheba at their southern edge). The Jebusites reside in their fortress-city of Jebus (i.e., Jerusalem), also part of the central mountains (Num. 13:29; Josh. 15:8, 63; Judg. 1:21).

19. Of course, it is also possible that, for reasons unknown to us, clans of the Hittites and Jebusites resided in the north, thus explaining their inclusion by the writer.

20. For other references to Canaanites and chariots, see Josh. 17:16, 18; Judg. 4:3. Amarna Letter RA 19 mentions the prince of Acshaph as one of two leaders who provided fifty chariots for a rebellion against the local Egyptian ruler (ANET, 487).

21. CBA, 54–55. The campaign reports of Thutmose III (ANET, 243), Rameses II (ANET, 256), and Tiglath-Pileser (ANET, 283) mention Merom, and Rameses’ report suggests this vicinity. If so, as Liid notes, “Merom held a strategic place in the control of Canaanite upper Galilee”; cf. D. C. Liid, “Merom, Waters of (Place),” ABD, 4:705. Other scholars favor the spring just north of Tel Qarnei Hittin in Wadi el-Hamam; cf. Naʾaman, Borders and Districts, 126; Hess, Joshua, 211.

22. They also echo Moses’ words to all Israel (Deut. 20:1). Younger (Ancient Conquest Accounts, 229) compares 11:6 to the Zakkur text with its oracle of Baʿalshamayn to the king: “Do not be afraid because I have made you king, and I will stand with you, and I will deliver you from all these kings who have raised a siege against you.” Unlike the latter, however, in Joshua 11:6 Yahweh promises to “deliver the enemy into Israel’s hands.”

23. Yahweh also had instructed Joshua concerning the crossing of the Jordan (3:7–8; 4:2–3, 17), on that occasion more directly than in the later battles.

24. To “hamstring” is piel of Heb. ʿaqar (“to tear out by the roots”); cf. Gen. 49:6; 2 Sam. 8:4=1 Chron. 18:4. Today one hamstrings horses by severing the large tendon above the hoof at the back of the lower leg; a similar practice is in mind here.

25. D. C. Liid, “Merom,” ABD, 4:705. This forest may be the “forest of the Gentiles” (cf. Judg. 4:16) in upper Galilee’s southern highlands.

26. P. Benjamin, “Misrepoth-Maim,” ABD, 4:873. Alternatively, Misrephoth Maim may designate the Litani River itself; cf. CBA, 54. Benjamin also acknowledges the latter possibility.

27. CBA, 54. This location is uncertain, however. “Mizpah” (“watchtower”?) could also designate a city either east or way north of Merom; cf. P. M. Arnold, “Mizpah (Place),” ABD, 4:881.

28. The same formula reports Joshua’s obedience of Moses (Ex. 17:10) and Balak’s of Balaam (Num. 23:30). The command-and-obedience pattern—God commanding and Joshua executing—is typical of chapters 1, 3–4, 6, and 8.

29. Heb. baʿet hahiʾ, (“at that time”) approximates the chronology (“about that time”) between the battle proper, the mop-up scene, and the event to follow; cf. 5:2; 6:26; 11:21.

30. Other linguistic echoes of ch. 10: “its [X-city’s] king” (10:28, 30, 37, 39) and “put to the sword” (10:28, 30, 32, 35, 37, 39)

31. Heb. lepanim (“before, time past”). Unfortunately, the NIV is vague (“Hazor had been the head …”) and fails to convey this nuance. The defeat of Hazor’s army undoubtedly would have left the city defenseless and vulnerable to attack. Interestingly, EA 228 uses the phrase “Hazor together with its other cities,” presuming it to be a kind of capital over a region of cities.

32. The vocabulary of annihilation here clearly concerns the ḥerem tradition (Deut. 7:2; 20:16–17).

33. Literarily, the object-first syntax in v. 12 (cf. vv. 10–11) reintroduces the other defeated powers after the focus on Hazor, links their fate to its fate, and signals that they fell about the same time as their “head.”

34. In fact, Moses, Joshua, and David are the only Old Testament characters to bear it. For more on the title, see comments at 24:29–32.

35. For the restrictive use of raq (“except”) in Joshua, see vv. 14, 22; 6:17, 24; 8:2, 27; WO §39.3.5c. For wider usage, cf. Gen. 47:22; Ex. 8:7; 9:26; Deut. 2:35, 37.

36. The language also echoes a similar provision in Deut. 20:14 concerning the treatment of cities outside Canaan proper that refuse Israel’s offer of peace. The lone difference is that the latter permits the keeping of women and children.

37. “Took (laqaḥ) the land” contrasts with “struck (nakah NIV “subdued”) the land” in 10:40.

38. CBA, 69; R. H. Smith, “Lebanon,” ABD, 4:269.

39. They fall on the enemy (v. 7b), receive the victory from Yahweh (v. 8a; cf. v. 6), strike blows and chase the retreating enemy (v. 8), kill Hazor’s inhabitants (v. 11), burn no other cities (v. 13a), seize plunder and livestock (v. 14a), and annihilate everyone that breathes (v. 14b).

40. Cf. vv. 10, 12; 8:29 (Ai); 10:26 (5 kings), 28 (Makkedah), 30 (Libnah), 32 (Lachish). According to ch. 11, he also led Israel to Merom (v. 7), did the chariot-burning and hamstringing that Yahweh ordered (vv. 6b, 9), and captured and burned Hazor (vv. 10, 13b). Interestingly, ch. 10 credits the Israelites with the royal executions at Eglon (10:35), Hebron (10:37), and Debir (10:39).

41. Heb. šalem hi., lit., “to make complete”; cf. G. Gerleman, “,” THAT, 2:925–26; P. J. Nel, “,” NIDOTTE, 4:131; Deut. 20:12; Josh. 10:1, 4; 2 Sam. 10:19; 1 Kings 22:45[44].

42. Deut. 20:15 stipulates: “This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.”

43. For similar statements, see Judg. 14:4; 2 Kings 6:33; Ps. 118:23; Mic. 1:12; Hab. 2:13.

44. F. Hesse, “,” TDOT, 4:308; R. Wakely, “,” NIDOTTE, 2:70.

45. T. E. Fretheim, “,” NIDOTTE, 2:204: “The nom. teḥinnah and taḥanun almost always refer to supplications for favor made to God (usually) and human beings.”

46. Cf. E. C. B. MacLaurin, “Anak/Anaks,” VT 15 (1965): 468–74, who suggests that Heb. ʿanaq is not a proper name but a Philistine word designating an official position (cf. Gk. anax).

47. The Egyptian Execration Texts (ANET, 328–29) identify several princes with Semitic names as rulers of Iy-ʿanaq. The latter might be a tribal name somehow related to the Anakites, or (more likely) the name of a town or settlement of clans; so E. Lipiński, “ʿAnaq-Kiryat ʾArbaʿ-Hébron et ses sanctuaires tribaux,” VT 24 (1974): 47; cf. also G. L. Mattingly, “Anak (Person),” ABD, 1:222. For Caleb’s later expulsion of them from their capital city of Hebron, see 14:12–15; 15:13–14; Judg. 1:10.

48. Hebron and Debir are also among the Anakite cities taken later by Caleb (Josh. 15:14–15). Hebron’s ancient name, Kiriath Arba (lit., “city of Arba”), implies that Arba founded it; cf. Josh. 14:15; 15:13.

49. The term “hill country of Israel” (har yísraʾel) is itself unusual, occurring only here and in v. 16. It implies that the author writes sometime after the onset of the divided kingdom (late tenth cent. B.C.).

50. Joshua apparently did not attack them there, but the cities do play a minor role in the book. In 10:41, Gaza marked the western boundary of Joshua’s conquest (cf. 15:47), and 11:22 marks the biblical debut of Gath (cf. Judg. 6:11; 1 Sam 5:8; et al.) and Ashdod (cf. Josh. 15:46, 47; 1 Sam. 5:1, 5).

51. Mattingly, “Anak (Person),” 1:222.

52. Repetition of ḥaram hi. (“to destroy totally”) weaves a thematic thread through the chapter (vv. 11, 12, 20, 21).

53. For more on this phrase, see Bridging Contexts below.

54. D. Ben-Ami, a colleague of the present excavator (A. Ben-Tor), argued from recent archaeological evidence that Hazor had already been destroyed when Israel arrived; cf. D. Ben-Ami, “The Iron Age I at Hazor in Light of the Renewed Excavations,” IEJ 51/2 (2001): 168–69. In two earlier articles, Ben-Tor affirmed the Israelites (or perhaps protoIsraelites) as the most likely destroyers of Hazor as Joshua 11 claims, a view also held by his predecessor, Yigael Yadin; cf. A. Ben-Tor and T. Rubiato, “Excavating Hazor II: Did the Israelites Destroy the Canaanite City?” BAR 25 (May–June 1999): 36; idem, “Excavating Hazor I: Solomon’s City Rises from the Ashes,” BAR 25 (March–April 1999): 26–37, 60; and Y. Yadin, Hazor (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1972), 108. For other views, see SchäferLichtenberger, “Hazor,” 116.

55. Ben-Ami, “The Iron Age I at Hazor,” 165–66. Cf. also D. Ben-Ami, “Early Iron Cult Places—New Evidences from Tel Hazor,” Tel Aviv 33/2 (2006): 121–33.

56. Ben-Ami, “The Iron Age I at Hazor,” 169–70.

57. Ibid., 167–68.

58. Ibid., 168, 169.

59. For more on the archaeology of Hazor, see the Bridging Contexts section of ch. 12. The archaeological picture presented above seems to leave no obvious historical period for the other, presumably later, battle involving Hazor (Judg. 4). Since excavations continue there, however, it seems wise, first, to face that a problem exists and, second, to withhold judgment on the apparent conflict between Josh. 11 and Judg. 4 until the digging ends and a scholarly consensus emerges concerning the history of Hazor.

60. Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, 1:318, 326; cf. EA 354.

61. Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, 1:328.

62. J. Goldingay, Israel’s Gospel (Old Testament Theology 1; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 353.

63. Ibid., 350.

64. Ibid., 351.

65. Ibid., 355.

66. Ibid., 357.

67. If Rahab is any indicator, the Exodus and Israel’s defeat of Sihon and Og sparked Jericho’s terrified resistance (2:9–11). The miraculous crossing of the Jordan struck fear in the hearts of other kings (5:1), as did the fall of Ai (9:1–2). The Gibeonites cite the falls of Jericho and Ai (9:3–4), the Exodus, and the defeats of Sihon and Og (vv. 10–11), as well as Yahweh’s gift of the land and ḥerem mandate (v. 24) as their motives for seeking peace. The southern kings respond to the destruction of Jericho and Ai and (more importantly) the treaty between Gibeon and Israel (10:1, 4), and the defeat of the southern kings stirs the northern kings to resist.

68. Hess, Joshua, 214.

69. See the commentary at ch. 3; cf. other patterns suggested by Nelson (Joshua, 57) and Howard (Joshua, 133).

70. Even Yahweh’s formal appointment of Joshua (Josh. 1:2–9) echoes Moses’ own charge to his aide-designate (Deut. 31:7).

71. By contrast, Moses was merely the mediator of Yahweh’s commands to establish cities of refuge (20:2) and to allocate cities to the landless Levites (21:2, 8). Joshua’s circumcision of Israelites born in the desert after the Exodus (5:1–9) meets the law’s requirement (Lev. 12:2–3), but the writer makes no explicit connection of that action with Moses.

72. E. Bons, “,” TDOT, 15:453–54; P. J. Nel, “,” NIDOTTE, 4:234–35. Though their meanings overlap (see 1 Chron. 22:9; 2 Chron. 14:6[5]; 20:30), šaqaṭ (“to be quiet”) is not the root behind the larger idea of “rest” from enemies that God promised Israel in the land (nuaḥ; Deut. 3:20; 12:10; 25:19; cf. Ps. 95:11). For the latter, see comments on 1:15; 21:43–45.

73. For discussion of Satan as an already disarmed enemy with limited power since Christ’s decisive victories against him, see the Contemporary Significance section of Josh. 5–6.

74. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (New York: Macmillan, 1959), x.

75. Ibid., x–xi.

76. C. Sagan, Contact: A Novel (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985), 175.

77. R. Working, “Bridging Sudanese Divide—in Wheaton,” Chicago Tribune (Sunday April 8, 2007), 1, 20.

78. Ibid., 20.

79. H. F. Fuhs, “,” TDOT, 6:304–5; cf. also assurances by human leaders to their commanders (Josh. 10:25; 2 Chr. 32:7).

80. This practice underlies the nineteenth-century romance, N. Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter (New York: Bantam, 1981).

81. R. Lanham, The Sinner’s Guide to the Evangelical Right (New York: Penguin, 2006), xix, 205, 220. The book is a satirical look at such highly visible evangelicals as James Dobson and Pat Robertson.

82. Cited from www.quotationspage.com/quote/1920.html.

83. Cf. E. H. Peterson, A Long Obedience in the Same Direction, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2000).

84. David G. Benner, Desiring God’s Will (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 83. I am grateful to my wife, Pam, for introducing me to this helpful book.

85. Ibid., 24, 32.

86. Ibid., 30–31.

87. Ibid., 50–51.

88. T. Merton, Thoughts in Solitude (Boston: Shambhala, 1993), 55.

89. Benner, Desiring God’s Will, 79–81, quote 81.

90. Ibid., 84–85.

91. Ibid., 85–88.

92. Merton, Thoughts in Solitude, 89.

93. For Paul insights on how Jesus’ crucifixion brought peace to the age-long conflicts between Jews and Gentiles and created a single, new humanity, see Ephesians 2:14–17.

1. For details of the lists, locations, and background, see Tables 2–4 in Hess, Joshua, 222–28. The conquest of Arad is especially interesting. It apparently resulted from a preconquest-era Israelite incursion into the Negev, the only city in Cisjordan so conquered (Num. 21:1–3).

2. Nelson, Joshua, 159. For Howard (Joshua, 277), chapter 12 presents the “raw data”—the “supporting evidence”—that backs up the author’s claims in the conquest narrative.

3. Cf. the translation of the preface by Thutmose III and the table of conquests claimed by him and his successors in ANET, 242–43. For other examples, see Younger, Ancient Conquest Accounts, 230–32.

4. Nelson, Joshua, 159.

5. Cf. Howard, Joshua, 277: the chapter “reviews all [Israel’s] gains … , whether east or west of the Jordan” and thereby “reinforces the theme of national unity mentioned in chap. 1.”

6. Heb. mizreḥah haššameš, lit., “toward the sun” (cf. 21:19).

7. For details on the identification of this site, cf. Hess, Joshua, 225–26.

8. G. I. Mattingly, “Aroer (Place),”ABD, 1:399. The biblical author identifies the “middle of the gorge” as the specific boundary and remarks that the land includes “half of Gilead.”

9. Gen. 14:5; Deut. 2:10–11 (cf. Num. 13:33); 3:11, 13; Josh. 13:12; cf. M. S. Smith, “Rephaim,” ABD, 5:675; R. F. Youngblood, “Giants, Heroes, Mighty Men,” NIDOTTE, 4:677, who cites an illuminating background text from Ugarit. Goliath may have been a Rephaim (2 Sam. 21:19; 1 Chron. 20:5).

10. CBA, 34, 53, 68.

11. For later memories of Sihon and Og, see Judg. 11:19–21 (Sihon only); 1 Kings 4:19; Neh. 9:22; Ps. 135:11; 136:19–20; Jer. 48:45 (Sihon only).

12. Howard, Joshua, 278.

13. The Hebrew term refers not to the land of Canaan as a whole but specifically to the “territory possessed by subgroups in Israel” (e.g., a family’s inheritance land); cf. N. Lohfink, “,” TDOT, 6:376, 384.

14. The inclusion of “mountain slopes” (ʾašedot) is an unusual term, since elsewhere it describes mountains in western Transjordan (Num. 21:15; Deut. 3:17; 4:49; Josh. 12:3; 13:20). It does occur, however, in the list of Cisjordanian regions in Joshua 10:40.

15. Cf. the same list of six in Deut. 20:17 and Josh. 9:1; cf. 3:10.

16. Howard, Joshua, 280–81.

17. Cf. also a similar layout of the list of Haman’s ten sons (Esth. 9:7–10) and number in each tribe within the 144,000 (Rev. 7:4–8).

18. In classroom instruction, I have students read it as a liturgy, individual students reading each king’s name and the entire class responding “one.” Interestingly, the LXX lacks “one” in verses 9–24a, lists thirty kings (omitting the kings of Bethel and Madon [vv. 16, 19] and adding a king of Marron [v. 20]), but gives a total of only twenty-nine. No biblical manuscripts of Joshua 12 exist among the Dead Sea Scrolls, so one cannot know whether or not the layout noted above precedes MT; cf. F. García Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated, trans. W. G. E. Watson, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 476–77.

19. Nelson, Joshua, 161.

20. The ostraca from Arad exemplify this; cf. Y. Aharoni, Arad Inscriptions (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1981), nos. 38, 49, 72.

21. Biblical tradition credits David with the conquest of Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5:6–7), and Gezer first debuts as an Israelite city during Solomon’s reign (1 Kings 9:15–17). How Gezer fell to Israel after dogged resistance by its Canaanite inhabitants (Josh. 16:10; Judg. 1:29; cf. 2 Sam. 5:25) is unknown.

22. The unmentioned cities include four southern cities (Geder, Hormah, Arad, and Adullam) and five northern ones (Bethel, Tappuah, Hepher, Aphek, and Lasharon); cf. the discussion in Howard, Joshua, 281. The four cities whose order varies are Gezer (v. 12; cf. 10:33), Debir (v. 13; cf. 10:38), Libnah (v. 15; cf. 10:29), and Makkedah (v. 16; cf. 10:28).

23. Nelson, Joshua, 161–62 (quote, 162).

24. Nelson (ibid., 162) thinks that the list may have supplied the names of the coalitions led by Jerusalem (10:3, 5; 12:10–12a) and Hazor (11:1; 12:19b–20), but that the author added Jericho and Ai; cf. Fritz (Josua, 137), who concurs on the addition but also avers that the author compiled the present list from lists available but unrelated to the conquest tradition.

25. Cf. Nelson, Joshua, 161 (“paradigmatic conquests”). The addition “near Bethel” with Ai continues the book’s consistent association of Ai and Bethel (7:2; 8:9, 12; cf. Gen. 13:3). For later reports that refer back to both foundational episodes, see 8:2; 9:3; 10:1, 28, 30.

26. Nelson, Joshua, 161; Howard, Joshua, 281–82.

27. So, Fritz, Josua, 133; Hess, Joshua, 227. This identification presumes that the site’s modern Arabic site name preserves the Hebrew original.

28. C. H. Ehrlich, “Geder (Place),” ABD, 2:924, surveys possible locations.

29. Hess, Joshua, 227; Boling, Joshua, 327; cf. J. M. Hamilton, “Hormah (Place),” ABD, 3:289.

30. Fritz, Josua, 133; Hess, Joshua, 227.

31. A. Zertal, “Hepher (Place),” ABD, 3:139.

32. Alternatively, Fritz (Josua, 135) and Nelson (Joshua, 158) follow LXX, reading Heb. lašaron as clarifying which among several ancient Apheks is meant (i.e., “Aphek of the Sharon Plain”) rather than a separate place. But, as Howard notes (Joshua, 282), MT identifies each with it own king.

33. Boling, Joshua, 328–29.

34. D. W. Manor, “Tirzah (Place),” ABD, 6:574; Hess, Joshua, 227.

35. R. Arav, “Kedesh (Place),” ABD, 4:11; Boling, Joshua, 329. Alternatively, Howard (Joshua, 282–83) identifies it with the later city of refuge and Levitical city northwest of Lake Huleh in northern Naphtali (19:37; 20:7; 21:32).

36. Hess (Joshua, 228, n. 1) says that Gilgal and Galilee may be variations of the same name, specifically a region, whose ruler would have reigned from a capital city. He suggests that the name Jiljuliyey, a site three miles north of Aphek, might preserve the ancient city’s name.

37. Hawk, Joshua, 176.

38. Ibid., 176, n. 24.

39. Hess, Joshua, 229.

40. This contrasts the litany of fallen monarchs in Joshua 12, which credits them to Moses, Joshua, and the Israelites (vv. 1, 6, 7). For other memories, see Ps. 68:12[13]; 105:43–44; Amos 2:10. For a larger study of later biblical memories of events in Joshua, see Hubbard, “Only a Distant Memory,” 131–48. Biblical tradition often remembers the defeats of Sihon and Og as paradigms of Yahweh’s victories and/or gift of land (Deut. 1:4; 29:7; 31:4; Josh. 2:10; 9:10; Neh. 9:22; cf. 1 Kings 4:19).

41. As with 11:23, this victory also yields peace throughout the land, in this case, for forty years (Judg. 5:31).

42. The term “Messiah” transliterates Heb. mašiaḥ (“anointed one”), a key word to which we will return in the Contemporary Significance section.

43. The decree also affirms the special father-son relationship Yahweh shares with the Davidic kings.

44. J. F. Sawyer, “,” TDOT, 6:445; R. L. Hubbard Jr., “,” NIDOTTE, 2:556–57, 559–61.

45. Sawyer, “,” 6:462; cf. 445, 463; Hubbard, “,” 2:556.

46. S. Zuckerman, “Where Is the Hazor Archive Buried?” BAR 32/2 (March–April 2006): 34. For discussion and interpretation of the palace precinct at Hazor, see pp. 34–37. Ben-Ami proposes that the standing stones at Hazor may “commemorate some high-ranking individuals who were part of the government bureaucracy” (i.e., among Zuckerman’s “ruling elites”); cf. D. Ben-Ami, “Mysterious Standing Stones: What Do These Ubiquitous Things Mean?” BAR 33/2 (March–April 2006): 45 (entire article: 38–45).

47. Cf. the discussion of this in the Introduction.

48. The prospect of attack by well-known military powers also terrified cities (2 Kings 7:6; 10:4), and enemy propaganda played on such fears to win their surrender (2 Kings 19:11). For further discussion of the social situation in Canaan, see the Introduction (the Historical Setting of Joshua).

49. Zuckerman, “Where Is the Hazor Archive Buried?” 32–34. Zuckerman believes (pp. 35–37) that an area previously identified as the city’s gate area actually marks the entry to a large royal palace.

50. Ibid., 37.

51. C. J. H. Wright, Deuteronomy (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 209.

52. Quoted from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozymandias.

53. Cf. “anointed of the Lord” (1 Sam. 24:7, 11; 2 Sam. 19:22; Lam. 4:22), “his/your/ my anointed one” (1 Sam. 2:10, 35; 2 Sam. 22:51; Ps. 2:2; 18:50 [51]; 132:10, 17), and “an anointed one” (Dan. 9:25–26).

54. The word “Messiah” transliterates into English the Gk. word messias, a term that occurs only twice (John 1:41; 4:25) and is itself a transliteration of Heb. mašiaḥ.

55. KB, 379–80.

56. Evans, Luke, 281. In his view, Luke 19:10 recapitulates the central themes of Luke 15.

57. R. H. Mounce, Matthew (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 194–95.

58. J. A. Motyer, “ὡσαννά,” NIDNTT, 1:100; cf. Matt. 21:9; Mark 11:9.

59. Sawyer, “,” 6:462; cf. 445, 463; Hubbard, “,” 2:556.

60. J. Pollock, Amazing Grace: John Newton’s Story (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981), 182.

61. R. W. Wall, Revelation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 202.

62. Four other visions follow these three (20:1–3, 4–10, 11–15; 21:1–21:6a), a total of seven visions, all on a single topic, the second coming of Christ; cf. Wall, Revelation, 227.

63. Ibid., 226.

64. Ibid., 227–28.

65. Tertullian, Adv. Jud. 7 (Ante-Nicene Fathers); quoted from G. Gilbert, “The List of Nations in Acts 2: Roman Propaganda and the Lukan Response,” JBL 121/3 (2002): 509.

1. Syntactically, the opening, subject-first sentence structure (lit., “Now Joshua was old …”) both signals the opening of a new scene and the introduction of a new character, Joshua as an old man.

2. Technically, the settlement process per se comprises Josh. 13–22.

3. Joshua 19:51 indicates that Eleazar the high priest also presides over the Shiloh assembly along with Joshua and the tribal leaders.

4. Nelson (Joshua, 206–7) suggests that the large, important tribes (Judah, Ephraim, and Manasseh) probably cast lots among themselves to determine their shares. The narrative in 18:1–10 clearly says that the other seven tribes divided the territory outside those already assigned the dominant three, thereby receiving smaller portions.

5. The presence of two reports has earned considerable scholarly discussion, but Assis has plausibly argued for their logical connection; see E. Assis, “‘How Long Are You Slack to Go to Possess the Land’ (Jos. 18:3): Ideal and Reality in the Distribution Descriptions in Joshua 13–19,” VT 53 (2003): 1–25.

6. E. Ben Zvi, “The List of Levitical Cities,” JSOT 54 (1992): 100, with reference to chs. 14–19.

7. Joshua 13–19 also teems with intriguing tribal tidbits of geography, topography, and ethnography; cf. 13:19, 30; 14:15. For a convenient table of the land distribution sections, see Howard, Joshua, 316, and the discussion of composition in the Introduction.

8. For discussion concerning the sources behind this narrative, see the section on composition in the Introduction.

9. The introduction of the word “inheritance” (naḥalah) three times in 13:6–8 verbally sounds this theme. Cf. also Kitz, “Lot Casting in Joshua,” 610 (“the retelling of the allocation of the land to all the tribes as a single unit was done to emphasize that they legally received their portions as inheritable property”).

10. Caleb’s destruction of the Anakim (15:14) marks the lone success story in this pattern. Most recent translations render yaraš hi. in Joshua as “drive out,” following the tradition in the Jewish Targums. In my view, however, the root is best rendered “destroy”; cf. N. Lohfink, “,” TDOT, 6:374–75, 382–83.

11. Instead, as their inheritance they receive the portions of offerings made to Yahweh by fire (13:14; cf. Deut. 18:1), both grain (Lev. 2:3, 10; 6:14–18; 10:12) and meat (7:31–34; cf. Num. 18:9); the privilege of priestly service (Josh. 18:7); and, more important, Yahweh himself (13:33; cf. Num. 18:20; Deut. 10:9; 18:2). The tithes that Yahweh receives from Israel also form part of the Levites’ inheritances (Num. 18:24; Deut. 14:29).

12. Double phrases in both the report formula (i.e., the writer) and in Yahweh’s speech doubly underscore Joshua’s seniority: he is not only “old” (zaqen) but “very old” (lit. “entered the days”)—like Abraham and David near life’s end (Gen. 24:1; 1 Kings 1:1). Indeed, the same formula recurs in 23:1, thus casting Joshua 13–23 as Joshua’s “Final Years.”

13. Concerning the Geshurites (v. 2), cf. 1 Sam. 27:8; Nelson, Joshua, 162; Howard, Joshua, 298. The Shihor River (v. 3) is either the easternmost branch of the Nile (so A. Betz, “Shihor [Place],” ABD, 5:1212), or perhaps the Brook of Egypt (Wadi el-Arish), the traditional border between Egypt and Israel. The text of vv. 4–5 is difficult. The first word in v. 4 (Heb. mitteman) “from/in the south”) and “all the land of the Canaanites” probably ends v. 3.

14. For convenient maps of the areas within and without Israel’s control, see CBA, 59.

15. Heb. raq underscores this point (paraphrased): “The most important thing [raq] is to allocate this land, too …”; cf. WO 39.3.5c (example #4; Deut. 28:33).

16. The transition between vv. 7 and 8 seems literarily abrupt (lit., “with it”). “With it” apparently refers to the other half of the tribe of Manasseh.

17. The Arnon River flows westward, emptying into the Dead Sea. About fifty miles separate the Arnon and the Jabbok Rivers.

18. The opening “Moses gave …” (vv. 15, 24, 29; NIV “Moses had given …”) and the concluding formula “this is the inheritance of tribe-X” (vv. 23, 28, 32) bracket each section. Technically, however, v. 32 summarizes the entire Mosaic distribution in Transjordan; cf. Nelson, Joshua, 171.

19. Verse 21 also lists five Midianite chiefs allied with Sihon and living in his realm, whom Moses also destroyed (cf. Num. 31:8). For more on the Midianites, see Howard, Joshua, 312. Compare the boundary description in Joshua 12:2–3.

20. “The slopes of Pisgah” sounds like a description of terrain but, in my view, contextually makes better sense as a town, “Pisgah’s Slopes”; cf. Boling, Joshua, 324, 443. For possible sites matching the present list, see Hess, Joshua, 222–25, 234–35. In my view, the suggestion of Nelson (Joshua, 171) and Fritz (Josua, 148) that a redactor (or redactors) drew on Deut. 3:8–14 in shaping Joshua 13:8–12 may account for the boundary descriptions but does not explain the origin of the city list.

21. The list of cities rebuilt by Reuben (Num. 32:37–38) mentions only three of the present twelve and might be one source for the list. Contrast Nelson (Joshua, 170), who tries to relate them to Solomon’s seventh and twelve districts—wrongly, in my view—and credits their inclusion to a post-DH redactor.

22. Jazer actually comprises both a town and a region (Num. 32:1, 3), presumably because of the city’s influence on its surrounding countryside.

23. D. V. Edelman, “Mahanaim (Place),” ABD, 4:472.

24. For suggested locations of Gad’s towns, see Hess, Joshua, 235–36.

25. It is not clear how “half of Gilead” relates to “all the towns of Gilead” assigned to Gad (v. 25).

26. In 1 Chron. 2:22–23, the number of Jair’s towns was twenty-three, although v. 23 says that Havvoth Jair plus several other places total sixty towns; cf. Hess, Joshua, 236.

27. R. G. Boling, “Jair (Person),” ABD, 3:614. Nelson (Joshua, 174) compares the description to Solomon’s sixth administrative district (1 Kings 4:13); cf. also Naʾaman, Borders and Districts, 168, 190.

28. Rather than the high priest, the conquest narrative features nameless “priests” or “priests who are Levites” bearing the ark (e.g., 3:3; 4:10–11; 6:6). Interestingly, Eleazar and Joshua also share some history. The high priest presided over Joshua’s commissioning by Moses as his successor (Num. 27:22), and Moses ordered the pair to hold the Transjordanian tribes accountable for their promise to aid their Cisjordanian kin before receiving their own inheritance (Num. 32:28).

29. The division of inheritances in the presence of gods was also typical of Old Babylonian practices; cf. Kitz, “Lot Casting in Joshua,” 616–17.

30. Cf. A. M. Kitz, “The Hebrew Terminology of Lot Casting and Its Ancient Near Eastern Context,” CBQ 62 (2000): 207–14, who cites both classical and biblical sources. According to Kitz (208, n. 4), the root garal “has to do with stones or stoniness.” For further discussion of lot-casting, see comments in the Original Meaning section concerning 7:14–15; Kitz, “Lot Casting in Joshua,” 617–18; and 18:8–19:48.

31. W. Dommershausen, “,” TDOT, 2:450–52 (quote 452), with reference to Joshua 18–20. But, in my view, the same principle applies to the entire land distribution section.

32. As Howard notes (Joshua, 316, n. 56), the tribal arithmetic is actually more complex, since the division of Manasseh into eastern and western branches, in effect, adds an additional tribe. Also, Simeon receives only cities within Judah, not its own tribal land, because Judah did not need all its territory (19:1, 9), while Dan’s inability to occupy its assigned territory drove it to settle elsewhere (19:47; Judg. 18:1).

33. So Howard, Joshua, 323; Seleznev, “The Origin of the Tribal Boundaries,” 340–41; Assis, “Ideal and Reality in the Distribution Descriptions,” 6. The supporting evidence for inferring Gilgal as the site are: (1) the mention of Gilgal in 14:6; (2) Gilgal’s prominence in the prior narratives (Josh. 4–10); (3) Gilgal as the most likely site for this meeting. I admit, however, that the text does not underscore the fact, as it does Shiloh in chs. 18–19.

34. R. L. Hubbard Jr., “Caleb, Calebites,” DOTHB, 120–22. The term “Kenizzite” reflects his descent either from a pre-Israelite people in southern Canaan (Gen. 15:19) or an important western Edomite clan (Gen. 36:11, 15, 42).

35. Num. 14:24; 32:11, 12; Deut. 1:36; Josh. 14:8, 9, 14; 1 Kings 11:6); cf. L. A. Snijders, “,” TDOT, 8:300–301, who accepts “heart” as the direct object of “fill” but omits “walk” from (in my view) the implied idiom “to go after, to follow” (Heb. leket ʾaḥarey; e.g., Deut. 13:5; Jer. 2:2). It usage with Yahweh may intentionally contrast the use of the latter idiom with the names of other gods (Deut. 4:3; 1 Kings 11:5; 18:18; Jer. 2:23).

36. Ibid., 8:301.

37. The rendering of yaraš (hi.) as “destroy” rather than a “drive out” here and elsewhere in Joshua (so NIV) follows the persuasive case of Lohfink, “,” 6:374–75.

38. Hubbard, “Caleb, Calebites,” 120.

39. Nelson, Joshua, 179.

40. For a comparison of the treatment of Caleb in Josh. 14–15 and that in Judg. 1, see Hubbard, “Caleb, Calebites,” 120–21.

41. Evocative names pop up occasionally (e.g., “Scorpion Pass” [v. 3], “the Stone of Bohan son of Reuben” [v. 6], “the gorge” [v. 7]), places no doubt familiar to ancient readers. For a convenient chart of the boundaries, see Hess, Joshua, 242–44.

42. Seleznev, “The Origin of the Tribal Boundaries,” 353–56.

43. The conquest of Hebron here seems to conflict with the earlier claim that Joshua had annihilated them (11:21–22). But the fact that some Anakites fled and found refuge to the west (v. 22) leaves open the possibility that they or their descendants had somehow retaken Hebron in the interval.

44. Hubbard, “Caleb, Calebites,” 120–21.

45. Nelson, Joshua, 185–86 (with bibliography), who tentatively dates the lists to the reign of Josiah (as do other scholars). For details, see the chart in Hess (Joshua, 249–55) and the discussion in J. Svensson, Towns and Toponyms in the Old Testament (ConBOT 38; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1994), 29–59.

46. Scholars account for the discrepancy in several ways. Some attribute it to a copyist’s error, others trace it to the fluidity of the list over time (i.e., names were added later but the prior total not adjusted), while others suggest that some listed towns may have been thought too insignificant to be counted; cf. Howard, Joshua, 341.

47. Howard, Joshua, 340.

48. Those on Simeon’s list include: Moladah (15:26; 19:2), Hazar Shual (15:28; 19:3), Ezem (15:29; 19:3), Eltolad (15:30; 19:4), Hormah (15:30; 19:4), Ziklag (15:31; 19:5), Lebaoth (15:32; 19:6), Ain (15:32; 19:7), and Rimmon (15:32; 19:7). The Danite cities also counted by Judah are: Eshtaol and Zorah (15:33; 19:41) and Ekron (a Philistine city) and Timnah (15:45, 47; 19:43).

49. Zorah apparently belonged to Judah in the late tenth century B.C. (2 Chron. 11:10) and Timnah in the mid-eighth century B.C. (2 Chron. 28:18), but the Philistines apparently controlled Zorah and Esthaol in the eleventh century B.C. The Bible consistently portrays Ekron as a Philistine city (1 Sam. 5:10; 6:16, 17; 17:52; 2 Kings 1:2, 3, 6, 16; Amos 1:8; Jer. 25:20), but there are indicators that Judah also possessed it at various times (Judg. 1:18; 1 Sam. 7:1; cf. Zech. 9:7).

50. Howard, Joshua, 341.

51. In v. 59 LXX has an additional fifth group of eleven towns: Tekoa, Ephrathah (i.e., Bethlehem), Peor, Etam, Culon, Tatam, Sores, Carem, Gallim, Baither, and Manach. They lie north of the fourth group centered around Bethlehem. Both this group and MT’s fourth group end with “and their villages,” so at some point a scribe may have accidentally skipped this section.

52. The long list may also attest the author’s Judean perspective and sources.

53. Cf. Judg. 1:21 which repeats Josh. 15:63 almost verbatim to report Benjamin’s inability to handle the Jebusites.

54. Cf. Seleznev, “The Origin of the Tribal Boundaries,” 348–49.

55. Lohfink, “,” 6:383.

56. For the obscure reference to Naphoth, see the commentaries.

57. The double wording (“one allotment and one portion”) seems rhetorically emphatic (“one lousy portion”) rather than a list of two items.

58. “Hill country of Ephraim” probably designates the more restricted area, Mount Ephraim (1 Kings 4:8); cf. Nelson, Joshua, 204. Perizzites are one of the seven indigenous peoples of Canaan named for annihilation (Deut. 20:17). Gen. 15:20 lists the Rephaites also as indigenous to Canaan (cf. 1 Chron. 20:4), although they were not on the list of seven. Apparently, this group differs from the Transjordan group(s) of the same name; cf. Deut. 2:11, 20; Josh. 12:4; 13:12. Cf. M. S. Smith, “Rephaim,” ABD, 5:675–76.

59. Howard, Joshua, 357, hears in this despair before perceived Canaanite superiority an echo of the ten spies in the wilderness (Num. 13:26–33).

60. Cf. Howard, Joshua, 355–56.

61. For alternate interpretations of the terrain in view here, see Howard, Joshua, 356.

62. Kitz (“Lot Casting in Joshua,” 611–18) plausibly argues, however, that the process compares to the structure and terminology of an Old Babylonian text, the Imgua inheritance text. In the latter, however, birth order determines the order of distribution, whereas Kitz believes (615–16) that “a geographical agenda” is in play in Joshua 18–19. For more on the order of distribution, see below.

63. Josh. 21:2; 22:9, 12; Judg. 21:19; 1 Sam. 1:3, 9; 2:22; 3:21; Jer. 7:12, 14; cf. B. Halpern, “Shiloh (Place),” ABD, 5:1213.

64. With Howard (Joshua, 360), this assumes a distinction between the Tent of Meeting and the tabernacle. K. Koch, “,” TDOT, 1:123–30, reviews the higher critical discussion concerning the number and use of Israel’s sacred tents.

65. Inheritance distributions in several Old Babylonian texts were similarly carried out in the presence of the gods; cf. Kitz, “Lot Casting in Joshua,” 616–17.

66. Heb. kabaš (“to subdue”) is the same word in God’s mandate to humans to “subdue” the earth (Gen. 1:28); cf. Num. 32:22, 29; 1 Chron. 22:18.

67. Cf. Nelson, Joshua, 209; Kitz, “Lot Casting in Joshua,” 609–10, who suggests that the process dissolves the house of Israel in favor of independent tribal entities.

68. This is the view of Assis, “Ideal and Reality in the Distribution Descriptions,” 7–8, who believes that 14:1–5 reports a convocation that distributed the land among the nineand-a-half Cisjordanian tribes per the mandate of 13:2–7. Thus, in his view, in 18:3 Joshua criticizes seven tribes for failing to implement that distribution. In my view, however, 14:1–5 reports no such convocation but instead comprises a summary report that introduces two allotment reports (14:6–19:51).

69. Howard, Joshua, 360; Nelson, Joshua, 210 (“more motivational than accusatory”); cf. Ex. 16:28; Num. 14:11; Ps. 13:1–2 [2–3].

70. V. 7 implies the exclusion of the Levites (their priestly service is their inheritance), but it is unclear whether the surveyors include the remaining eleven tribes (i.e., thirty-three surveyors) or only the seven that would benefit from it (i.e., twenty-one surveyors). In my view, the latter seems most likely.

71. Nelson, Joshua, 210.

72. To what extent the seven tribal allotments detailed below reflect or draw on this record, and whether it was stored over time at Shiloh, are matters of speculation. Interestingly, agreement among heirs as to the contents of an inheritance to be distributed and the portion due each one is attested in the Imgua inheritance text; cf. Kitz, “Lot Casting in Joshua,” 616.

73. Kitz (“The Hebrew Terminology of Lot Casting,” 111–12) persuasively argues that the idiom ʿalah goral le (“to come up for”) pictures a process of lot-casting in which the officiant shakes and casts the lot from a receptable to the ground. This process would contrast the lot-drawing procedure of 7:14–15.

74. In my view, the idiom ʿalah goral le describes this first step, the selection of the tribe to receive the next allotment (cf. Lev. 16:9, 10), the following phrase (“clan by clan”) a second one to subdivide the tribal allotment. The resulting order of selections, however, is striking and commends an alternative view: Benjamin (Rachel), Simeon, Zebulun (both Leah), Asher (Zilpah, Leah’s maid), Naphtali, and Dan (both Bilhah, Rachel’s maid). In this view, the idiom would describe only a single step, the allotment among clans. The order in which each tribe received its distribution was by assumed tribal rank based on birth mothers. I am grateful to Professor John Walton for calling this possibility to my attention.

75. The lone exception to this proposed process would be Simeon, who received by lot only towns within Judah because Judah had more territory that it needed (19:1, 9). For a variant, more nuanced scenario of lot-casting, see W. Dommershausen, “,” TDOT, 2:452.

76. Kitz, “The Hebrew Terminology of Lot Casting,” 212, 214.

77. Concerning the identification and background on Beth Aven, see Nelson, Joshua, 213.

78. V. 28 lists Kiriath as a Benjaminite town, which distinguishes it from Kiriath Jearim (vv. 14–15); so Howard, Joshua, 365. But several LXX texts read the latter also in v. 28, suggesting the possibility that haplography led to the loss of Jearim in MT; cf. Nelson, Joshua, 212–13.

79. Cf. Howard, Joshua, 363; and Nelson, Joshua, 213, who interprets this phenomenon differently.

80. For a more complex solution dating the list to Josiah’s reign, see Nelson, Joshua, 214.

81. Hess, Joshua, 266–67. According to Howard (Joshua, 365), ten of Benjamin’s twenty-six towns find no other mention in the Bible.

82. Cf. Howard, Joshua, 366.

83. A similar list forms part of the genealogy of Simeon (1 Chron. 4:28–33). For their locations, see the convenient map in CBA, no. 140 (p. 105).

84. Hess, Joshua, 268–69. For the Egyptian texts, see ANET, 233, 235; for the Arad ostraca, see Aharoni, Arad Inscriptions, 46–49. Cleverly, Nelson (Joshua, 219) dubs the towns in ch. 19 as “frontier towns.”

85. R. Greenberg, “Sarid (Place),” ABD, 5:985. CBA, no. 72, provides a helpful detailed map.

86. Naʾaman, Borders and Districts, 134; R. Frankel, “Chisloth-Tabor (Place),” ABD, 1:910. Kisloth Tabor is probably a variant form of Kesulloth, a town belonging to Issachar (19:18). Probably, the present phrase (“the territory of …”) means simply “near.…”

87. Boling, Joshua, 445, proposes the first option, Naʾaman, Borders and Districts, 134, the second; cf. D. M. Howard, Jr., “Japhia (Place),” ABD, 3:642. For a translation of the Amarna Letter (EA 365), cf. ANET, 485.

88. For the locations of the above towns or valleys, cf. P. M Arnold, “Rimmon (Place),” ABD, 5:773; Hess, Joshua, 269–70. For a more complete discussion on other biblical references to Zebulun’s holdings, see Howard, Joshua, 369–70.

89. This counts Tabor as a village rather than as a mountain. Alternatively, one may divide Shahazumah into two names or add Beeroth, which the LXX lists. Cf. the convenient list and discussion in Hess, Joshua, 270–71; Howard, Joshua, 370–71.

90. Howard (Joshua, 371) groups the cities slightly differently: the first three (v. 18) follow a north-south line in Issachar’s western side, while the next three (v. 19) follow a parallel line east of the first group. The next three towns are concentrated in the north near Mount Tabor (v. 20), the last four in eastern Issachar (v. 21).

91. Cf. Nelson, Joshua, 222–23; CBA, no. 72.

92. Cf. Howard, Joshua, 372.

93. Cf. CBA, no. 72; Howard, Joshua, 372–74;Nelson, Joshua, 222–23. For the locations of the towns listed, see conveniently Hess, Joshua, 272–73.

94. Nelson, Joshua, 223–24.

95. Naʾaman, Borders and Districts, 46–47. CBA, no. 72, offers a convenient map of Naphtali.

96. For the location of the towns, see conveniently Hess, Joshua, 274–75. Mysteriously, only this list calls them “fortified cities,” although Naphtali was probably not the only tribe who had such. Textual corruption may explain the anomaly (so BHS editor).

97. For the possibility that the list predates David, see Hess, Joshua, 273.

98. Cf. the helpful map in CBA, no. 73. For the locations, see Hess, Joshua, 275–76.

99. Nelson, Joshua, 225.

100. Cf. Howard, Joshua, 377, n. 232 (“it slipped through their fingers, i.e., their enemies took it from them”). Other biblical texts attribute it to stubborn Amorite resistance (Judg. 1:34) or to apostasy (Judg. 18), but historians also factor in the presence of the Philistines along the coast.

101. Kitz, “Lot Casting in Joshua,” 618.

102. The Bible nowhere reports this command, but the point is implicit in God’s declaration that only Caleb and Joshua among the Exodus generation would enter the Promised Land (Num. 14:30).

103. Timnath Serah and Timnath Heres (Judg. 2:9) are probably the same place, s-r-h and h-r-s being simply the reverse of the other. For discussion of the name’s significance, see H. R. Weeks, “Timnath-Heres (Place),” ABD, 6:557. The first name may be a wordplay (“portion of surplus”) that aims to neutralize the pagan meaning of the second (“portion of the sun”); cf. Nelson, Joshua, 226.

104. Nelson, Joshua, 226. Analogous situations concern Caleb, who receives Hebron from Joshua (14:14), and Othniel and Acsah, whom Caleb grants land and springs in the Negev (15:17–18). However, the Caleb analogy has its limits, since the Bible still reckons Hebron as a Judahite town (15:13, 54); cf. Howard, Joshua, 378.

105. Ibid., 378.

106. Cf. Nelson, Joshua, 226. For echoes in 19:51 of 18:1–10, see Howard, Joshua, 379.

107. Cf. Howard, Joshua, 322: “Despite their seeming impenetrability, the lists of Joshua will richly repay any time invested in understanding them. They are indeed the core of the Book of Joshua.”

108. Conveniently, Howard, Joshua, 302–4; cf. E. Lipiński, “,” TDOT, 9:319–35; C. J. H. Wright, “,” NIDOTTE, 3:77–81. The root (nḥl) is also common among Northwest Semitic languages.

109. B. K. Waltke, Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 222–23. If so, a further assumption might be that ownership claims originating with Abraham were passed down to his chosen heirs, Isaac and Jacob.

110. Lohfink, “,” 6:378; cf. his larger discussion (383–85).

111. That the Bible nowhere indicates a destination for those ejected from their land or city further confirms this point.

112. Lohfink, “,” 6:383. His comments technically concern “a late pre-Deuteronomistic or early Deuternomistic stage” in the literary prehistory of Joshua and Judges and cite Judg. 11:21–24 as a representative example. For background from the ancient Near East and its application to biblical texts, see M. Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1993), 222–64 (esp. 261–62).

113. So Lohfink, “,” 6:385, who cites Ugaritic analogies. Hess argues that the ancient royal land grant underlies the structure and content of the entire book of Joshua; cf. R. S. Hess, “The Book of Joshua as a Land Grant,” Bib 83 (2002): 493–506. Nelson (Joshua, 177–78) argues that the genre “land grant narrative” underlies the petitions for land by Acsah (15:18–19), the daughters of Zelophehad (17:3–6), Joseph (17:14–18), and Levi (21:1–3).

114. Cf. Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land, 261–62.

115. Goldingay, Old Testament Theology: Israel’s Gospel, 515.

116. Nelson, Joshua, 172–73; cf. Josh. 13:23; 15:1; 16:5; 17:2; 18:11; 19:10.

117. Ibid., 171; Howard, Joshua, 323.

118. Cf. Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land, 66–67.

119. Seleznev, “The Origin of the Tribal Boundaries,” 345.

120. Some of what follows draws on CBA, no. 12.

121. Hawk, Joshua, 201–2. Nelson (Joshua, 177, 188–89) interprets her request as the genre land grant petition.

122. Hawk, Joshua, 208–9 (“patriarchy … does not constitute an essential element of Israelite national identity”).

123. Ibid., 199; cf. Nelson, Joshua, 202.

124. For a detailed comparison of Joshua 13–19 and Ezekiel 47–48, see Hubbard, “Only a Distant Memory,” 138–41.

125. The term is from G. C. Macholz, “Noch Einmal: Planungen für den Wiederaufbau nach der Katastrophe von 587,” VT 19 (1969): 331; cf. K. R. Stevenson, Vision of Transformation: The Territorial Rhetoric of Ezekiel 40–48 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 143, 149–51, who prefers the term “territorial rhetoric” (i.e., the use of geography to convey Ezekiel’s theological message).

126. W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 542 (“the rule of the just portion is to prevail”). Also, the east-west orientation of allotments more equitably distributes the desirable and undesirable lands among the tribes and avoids granting a monopoly to any tribe over the best areas; cf. M. Greenberg, “Idealism and Practicality in Numbers 35:4–5 and Ezekiel 48,” JAOS 88 (1966): 63–66.

127. J. D. Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40–48 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976), 123. To be sure, it also assumes that the aliens will remain loyal to Yahweh alone and obey his covenant.

128. Zimmerli, Ezekiel 2, 532.

129. Obviously, they need receive no territorial inheritance since they already live outside the Promised Land.

130. Hubbard, “Only a Distant Memory,” 140–41. Cf. Levenson, 124: “The central motivation of these reforms lies not in a doctrine of equality, but in a concern for the realization in social, even visible form of the relationships defined by Heilsgeschichte.”

131. Cf. J. G. Millar, “Land,” NDBT, 623–27.

132. C. J. H. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land, 110.

133. Ibid., 15–16, 21–22.

134. D. A. Hagner, Hebrews (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1990), 190. Undoubtedly, the writer has the eschatological heavenly Jerusalem in mind (cf. 11:16; 12:22; 13:14; Rev. 21:2).

135. W. W. Klein, C. L. Blomberg, and R. L. Hubbard Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Nashville: Nelson, 2004), 182–84 (quote 184).

136. S. Motyer, “Israel (Nation),” NDBT, 584–85.

137. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land, xvii–xviii.

138. Cf. Millar, “Land,” 623: “The context for obedience is no longer limited to one ethnic group in one place; it is now the new covenant community scattered throughout the earth.”

139. Cf. Walton’s comment that “the covenant continues on” in the sense that “Israel’s election can be transferred from their revelatory role into the redefined people of God”; cf. J. H. Walton, Covenant: God’s Purpose, God’s Plan (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 132. He distinguishes (123–25) between the purpose of God’s covenant with Israel (their “revelatory role”) and the purpose of the new covenant in Christ (its “soteric role”); cf. Gal. 6:15; Col. 2:11–12. Believing Jews remain the people of God, but under its new, soteriological definition.

140. For further discussion of Israel’s place in God’s plan according to the New Testament, see ibid., 123–33.

141. Ibid., 133. Unlike the present writer, however, Walton believes that the territorial and political promises made to Israel in their revelatory role did not transfer spiritually to the whole church under the new covenant.

142. Cf. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land, 111. For the suggestion that Jesus’ command to “abide in me” and the vine-branches imagery of John 15 imply that Jesus himself fulfills the Old Testament motif of land, see G. M. Burge, “Territorial Religion, Johannine Christology, and the Vineyard of John 15,” in J. B. Green and M. Turner, eds., Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 384–96.

143. Cf. Wright, God’s People in God’s Land, 111: “The inheritance language … evokes the triangular pattern of relationships between God, Israel, and the land.”

144. Millar, “Land,” 627.

145. For a select sample of alternative views, see Motyer, “Israel (Nation),” 586.

146. Contextually, the root tree probably symbolizes Israel’s ancient faith, especially the covenant (v. 27) and the promise to the patriarchs (v. 26).

147. Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 497, with full bibliography.

148. Against this view, Walton argues (Covenant, 136–44) that the New Testament’s silence concerning the land of Israel does not invalidate the “eschatology of Israel,” the so-called “aftermath oracles” in which the prophets treat Israel’s future, including the land, after “the coming or present covenant crisis” (136). In his view, those oracles support the idea that “the believing remnant of Israel also continue to have a destiny of their own that is linked to their previous [i.e., revelatory] role” (142).

149. Steinbeck, Cannery Row, 15.

150. J. E. Powers, “A ‘Thorn in the Flesh’: The Appropriation of Textual Meaning,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 18 (2001): 93–97. Scholarly speculation has interpreted the “thorn” as either a physical ailment of some sort or an allusion to his opponents in Corinth. In the background lurks their questioning of Paul’s apostolic authority, the issue that elicits Paul’s lengthy defense (2 Cor. 10–13).

151. Ibid., 93.

152. Cf. Hess, Joshua, 246, citing Matt. 9:20–22; 15:21–28; 26:7–13; Mark 7:24–30; 14:3–9; Luke 2:36–38; 7:11–15, 36–50; 8:43–48; 13:10–17; 18:1–5.

153. P. A. Bird, “Women: Old Testament,” ABD, 6:956.

154. Philip Yancey, The Jesus I Never Knew (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 253.

155. J. Eichler, “Inheritance, Lot, Portion,” NIDNTT, 2:295–303; P. L. Hammer, “Inheritance (NT),” ABD, 3:415–17.

156. BDAG, 134.

157. The letters represent an acronymn: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints.

158. Cf. Eichler, “Inheritance, Lot, Portion,” 2:295.

159. Yancey, The Jesus I Never Knew, 229.

1. For the possibility that Num. 35 might derive instead from Joshua 20, cf. Fritz, Josua, 203, 210; Nelson, Joshua, 229, 238.

2. For a convenient summary of possible options, see Butler, Joshua, 214–15.

3. Nelson, Joshua, 230.

4. Ibid., 230.

5. For general background on asylum, cf. P. Barmash, Homicide in the Biblical World (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005), 71–93; for the relationship between Ex. 21 and Deut. 19, cf. J. Stackert, “Why Does Deuteronomy Legislate Cities of Refuge? Asylum in the Covenant Collection (Exodus 21:12–14) and Deuteronomy (19:1–13),” JBL 125 (2006): 23–49.

6. I prefer “restorer of blood” to NIV’s “avenger of blood”; cf. S. D. Sperling, “Blood, Avenger of,” ABD, 1:763. For background, cf. R. L. Hubbard Jr., “The Goʾel in Ancient Israel: Theological Reflections on an Israelite Institution,” BBR 1 (1999): 3–19; idem, “,” NIDOTTE, 1:791; H. Ringgren, “,” TDOT, 2:352. For the phrase, see Num. 35:19, 21, 24, 25, 27; Deut. 19:6, 12; 2 Sam. 14:11.

7. KB, 220, 1313; T. Seidl, “,” TDOT, 14:402 (“negligent homicide”). This lack of intention contrasts acts done “defiantly” (beyad ramah, lit., “with a high hand”), i.e., “with malice aforethought”; cf. Num. 15:30.

8. For details, see Nelson, Joshua, 230.

9. To read a preliminary hearing here eliminates the tension between the initial decision (vv. 4–5) and the trial (v. 6) that Nelson alleges (Joshua, 231). On the other hand, his suggestion that the text of Josh. 20 has been aligned with Num. 35 and Deut. 19—the latter deemed “canonical and scriptural”—merits consideration.

10. The “legal assembly” (Heb. ʿedah) apparently designates a legally authoritative local body drawn from the populace; cf. D. Levy and J. Milgrom, “,” TDOT, 10:470–73.

11. W. T. Koopmans, “Vengeance and the Fair Trial Venue: A Sermon on Joshua 20,” CTJ 37/1 (2002): 97.

12. Boling, Joshua, 474; Nelson, Joshua, 231; cf. Fritz, Josua, 206.

13. See Butler, Joshua, 214–16; Howard, Joshua, 385–86, for details and bibliography.

14. Term comes from Howard, Joshua, 387.

15. Cf. Gen. 49:11; Ex. 6:16; Num. 3:17; 1 Chron. 6:1, 16; 23:6.

16. Nelson, Joshua, 236. The list also occurs in 1 Chron. 6:39–66, which is probably dependent on Joshua 21 rather than vice versa (so Nelson, Joshua, 237–38).

17. E. Ben Zvi, “The List of the Levitical Cities,” JSOT 54 (1992): 86. Cf. also the wider historical-critical discussion of Josh. 20 and 21 in L. Schmidt, “Leviten-und Asylstädte in Num. xxxv und Jos. xx; xxi 1–42,” VT 52/1 (2002): 103–21.

18. That the other two Danite cities (vv. 23–24) are located in that tribe’s assigned territory west of Judah rather than its eventual northern settlement site also confirms the list’s ideal nature. For further background, see the commentary at 19:40–49; Judg. 18.

19. Nelson, Joshua, 238–41, offers a convenient discussion of the issue with bibliography; cf. also Ben Zvi, “The List of the Levitical Cities,” 77–106.

20. Genealogically, Aaron is the grandson of Kohath through his father, Amram (Ex. 6:18, 20; 1 Chron. 6:2–3; but cf. Num. 26:58–59).

21. Galil even plausibly argues that the marriage of Aaron and Elisheba, the sister of Judah’s tribal leader, Nahshon (Ex. 6:23), actually linked Aaron’s descendants with the tribe of Judah; cf. G. Galil, “The Sons of Judah and the Sons of Aaron in Biblical Historiography,” VT 35/4 (1985): 488–95.

22. For full discussion, see Howard, Joshua, 389–91.

23. J. Barr, “Migrash in the Old Testament,” JSS 29 (1984): 15–31; L. Jonker, “,” NIDOTTE, 3:1141.

24. For a suggested scenario by which lot-casting took place, see comments on chs. 13–19.

25. For all the cities of refuge and Levitical cities, see the convenient map in CBA, 108.

26. Hawk, Joshua, 222, who offers (223) an intriguing chiastic reading of vv. 11–12.

27. Ibid., 222.

28. Unable to dislodge the Canaanites in its assigned territory, Dan moved way north, conquered Leshem, and renamed the city Dan; cf. comments on 19:40–49; see also Judg. 18.

29. For an evaluation of the LXX’s fascinating addition at v. 42, including the comment that Joshua took the flint circumcision knives (cf. 5:2–3) to his home in Timnath Serah, see Howard, Joshua, 395–97.

30. Cf. H. D. Preuss, “,” TDOT, 9:280; cf. Deut. 12:10; 25:19; Josh. 23:1.

31. Cf. Mitchell’s view (Together in the Land, 104) that a chiastic structure underlies vv. 43–45. As Nelson observes (Joshua, 243), the passage echoes earlier passages expectant of triumph (10:40–42; 11:16–20, 23; 12:7–24; 23:1) rather than those acknowledging unfinished business, especially the continuing presence of non-Israelite peoples (e.g., 13:2–6; 15:63; 16:10; 17:12–18; 23:4, 7, 12–13).

32. Hawk, Joshua, 225.

33. Cf. Nelson, Joshua, 243.

34. Hawk, Joshua, 225; cf. Howard, Joshua, 400.

35. Cf. Nelson, Joshua, 242 (“this inconsistency is a function of the book’s history of composition”). Nevertheless, he accepts the opposing views as compatible (see below).

36. Cited from Hess, Joshua, 284–85; cf. his excellent larger discussion (284–86).

37. Nelson, Joshua, 242–43.

38. Cf. Hawk, Joshua, 225–26, who compares the seeming contradictions to the book’s contrasting themes of “divine initiative and faithfulness” as the key to Israel’s success and the ever-present danger of “Israel’s inconstancy,” both prominent themes in chs. 22–24.

39. Mitchell, Together in the Land, 133–41.

40. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 126–34 (quotes, 127, 128).

41. Barmash (Homicide in the Biblical World, 23) prefers the term “blood feud” because, in her view, it conveys two essential, interrelated ideas inherent in the whole process: “It is local in nature, and it is rule-bound”; cf. her excellent discussion with ancient Near Eastern parallels (20–53).

42. Cf. Hubbard, “,” 1:790–91; idem, “Redemption,” NDBT, 716–20. For biblical examples, see Lev. 25:25–34, 47–55. Sperling (“Blood, Avenger Of,” 1:763) offers several illuminating ancient Near Eastern examples. The same idea underlies the punishment of Achan (see Bridging Contexts of ch. 7).

43. Cf. Sperling, “Blood, Avenger Of,” 1:763.

44. For this and other examples, see Hubbard, “Law Is Grace,” 2–14.

45. The biblical picture suggests a prolonged, complicated process of reorganization and role changes involving the Levites but offers no explicit explanation or historical summary of the developments. For a thorough, judicious review of the scholarly discussion and biblical data, see M. D. Rehm, “Levites and Priests,” ABD, 4:297–310.

46. Hubbard, “Redemption,” 715–16.

47. Cf. L. S. Fried, “Levites,” EDB, 803–4, including in-depth treatment of the Levites in exilic and postexilic books (Ezekiel, Ezra and Nehemiah, and 1 and 2 Chron icles). For a nuanced discussion of the matter in light of redactional activity within Ezekiel, see L. C. Allen, Ezekiel 20–48 (WBC 29; Dallas: Word, 1990), 253–56.

48. The temple singers may have also had the task of interpreting, instructing, and copying the law itself. The reason is that worship songs may have incorporated the recitation of the law, thus necessitating the singers’ intimate familiarity with it.

49. Howard, Joshua, 387.

50. Cf. Hess, Joshua, 237 (“By scattering throughout the land, they would also represent the unity of the people who worshipped the God of Israel”).

51. Cf. J. C. Laansma, “Rest,” NDBT, 729–30.

52. A true confession: One night during this informal training period I’d “started the car” in the church parking lot after a Sunday evening service. To my surprise, Dad got in the passenger’s seat and told me to drive home, which I did—very carefully. I was only fourteen.

53. Webster’s New World Dictionary, 3rd college edition (New York: Simon & Shuster, 1991), 849.

54. M. Robinson, Gilead (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2004), 31. I am grateful to my friend and colleague the Rev. Helen Cepero for sharing this book with me.

55. R. McNeal, The Present Future: Six Tough Questions for the Church (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003).

56. Ibid., 26.

57. Ibid., 35.

58. Ibid., 38.

59. J. Michener, Centennial (New York: Fawcett Crest, 1974), 823–24.

1. Parts of this chapter derive from my Kairos Lecture, “Suspicious Stones That Divide,” given at First Evangelical Covenant Church, Oakland, California. It is a pleasure to express my gratitude to the church and its pastoral staff for the warm welcome and wonderful hospitality accorded me on that occasion.

2. For literary-critical discussion of Josh. 22, see J. S. Kloppenberg, “Joshua 22: The Priestly Editing of An Ancient Tradition,” Bib 62/3 (1981): 347–71.

3. Scholars who read the narrative chiastically include Hess, Joshua, 288; Nelson, Joshua, 251; and E. Assis, “‘For It Shall Be A Witness Between Us’: A Literary Reading of Josh 22,” SJOT 18/2 (2004): 227.

4. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 134 (“First the outsiders inside the land [Rahab, Gibeonites, Caleb], then the insiders outside the land”); cf his full discussion (134–41).

5. By contrast, the two covenant ceremonies are held at Shechem (8:30–35 [Mount Ebal]; 24:1).

6. WO §31.6.3; 39.3.4f.

7. Assis, “A Witness Between Us,” 210.

8. The phrase “the commandment” (hammiṣwah) and “the law [instruction]” (hattorah) stresses the comprehensiveness of the material to be lived out. For the pairing in the same order, cf. only Ex. 16:28; Prov. 6:20, 23; 7:2. The reverse order is more common; cf. Ex. 24:12; 2 Kings 17:34, 37; 2 Chron. 14:4; 31:21; Prov. 3:1.

9. Assis, “A Witness Between Us,” 211; cf. his discussion of the linguistic echoes of Moses (210–12).

10. Ibid., 214. Assis proposes (213–14) that a chiastic structure underlies Josh. 22:1–6, whose premeditated design serves further to legitimize their settlement with the force of law.

11. Cf. Howard, Joshua, 404–5, who interprets v. 8 as addressed to all the Transjordanian tribes. By the use of parentheses in v. 7a, the NIV seems to take the same approach.

12. Cf. Nelson, Joshua, 247; Assis, “A Witness between Us,” 214; Woudstra, Joshua, 318.

13. Presumably, the metals are in the form of tangible objects.

14. Nelson, Joshua, 251.

15. According to Num. 32, Gilead was the region that Moses assigned primarily to the Reubenites and Gadites (vv. 1, 26, 29), although part (a few cities, perhaps) belonged to East Manasseh (vv. 39–40).

16. Heb. gelilot may designate a place (NIV “Geliloth”) or an area (13:2; 18:17), in this case near the Jordan. Its west bank location is disputed but may be at Gilgal; cf. the persuasive case of N. H. Snaith, “The Altar at Gilgal: Joshua 22:23–29,” VT 28/3 (1978): 330–35; contrast, B. E. Organ, “Pursuing Phinehas: A Synchronic Reading,” CBQ 63 (2001): 213; Assis, “A Witness between Us,” 217, who provides thorough discussion. For additional background on altars, cf. R. E. Averbeck, “,” NIDOTTE, 2:888–908; C. Dohmen, “,” TDOT, 8:209–25.

17. KB, 596 (“visible from afar”); DCH, 475 (“large, conspicuous”). The only other place where “big” and “appearance” occur together is in Moses’ reaction to seeing the burning bush (“this great sight” [Ex. 3:3]).

18. The LXX may read it negatively, since elsewhere the Greek word bomos usually designates pagan altars; cf. Ex. 34:14; Deut. 7:5; 12:3; 2 Chron. 31:1.

19. Cf. Nelson, Joshua, 251; Assis, “A Witness between Us,” 215, 216, 218; Organ, “Pursuing Phinehas,” 213. For a similar “in-out” attitude, see Judg. 20:1.

20. The “whole congregation of Israel” probably comprised an Israelite democratic institution accessible to all male adults whose portfolio included the waging of war, the hearing of legal cases, the meting out of punishment in some cases, and the attesting of important national events; cf. D. Levy and J. Milgrom, “,” TDOT, 10:479 (cf. the entire discussion, 468–80). For the exact phrase, cf. Ex. 16:1; 17:1; Lev. 19:2; Num. 8:9; 35:1.

21. Assis, “A Witness between Us,” 218, rightly points out that an isolationist stance would not have driven the nine-and-a-half tribes to action; only a collective sense of responsibility would.

22. Organ, “Pursuing Phinehas,” 214. To seek Yahweh’s will was to “inquire” of him, and the standard formula was to ask, “Shall we go up to battle against X?” (Judg. 20:23, 28; 1 Sam. 22:10, 15; 2 Sam. 5:19, 23; 1 Kings 22:15).

23. Organ, “Pursuing Phinehas,” 209–10; cf. her larger discussion of the biblical portrait of Phinehas (203–18).

24. K. T. Aitken, “,” NIDOTTE, 3:171; H. Niehr, “,” TDOT, 10:44–53 (in-depth discussion).

25. Contrast Organ, “Pursuing Phinehas,” 214, who wrongly assumes Phinehas to be the spokesman and then (in my view) mischaracterizes him as “a bureaucrat rather than a fiery warrior.”

26. For the meaning and use of maʿal, see the commentary at 7:1. Repetition of both nouns and verbs from the root in ch. 22 is a striking literary feature (vv. 16, 20, 22, 31).

27. L. Schwienhorst, “,” TDOT, 9:1–5; R. Knierim, “,” THAT, 1:925–28. The combination of maʿal and marad clarifies that the treachery alleged concerns the breaking of a covenant oath, not the poaching of Yahweh’s property as was the case with Achan (cf. Milgrom, Cult and Conscience, 21).

28. E.g., rebellions by Hezekiah against Sennacherib (2 Kings 18:7, 20), Jehoiakim against Nebuchadnezzar (24:1, 20), Jeroboam against Solomon (2 Chron. 13:6), and the Jews against the Persian king (Neh. 2:19; 6:6).

29. The phrase is that of K. Koch, “,” TDOT, 10:552. In this context, one might render ʿawon as “the guilt that causes disaster.” For the worldview behind the word, cf. R. Knierim, “,” THAT, 2:243–50. The Bridging Contexts section provides further discussion.

30. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 138.

31. Interestingly, this marks the only other biblical reference to Achan outside of Joshua 7; cf. Boling, Joshua, 515.

32. Organ, “Pursuing Phinehas,” 213. Thus, their main aim is actually not to level an accusation but to establish the principle of the mutual responsibility of the tribes. Ironically, they will soon realize that this principle also applies to them in this case; cf. Assis, “A Witness between Us,” 220–21.

33. For details, see Assis, “A Witness between Us,” 225–27.

34. Cf. ibid., 223 (“to give an impression of credibility”).

35. “Spare” is a second person (masc.) singular, and if addressed to Phinehas, might subtly allude to his decisive action at Peor (Num. 25:7–8) as a model to repeat against them.

36. Inexplicably, v. 25 omits East Manasseh, as do vv. 32 and 34. Nelson (Joshua, 251) sees this as evidence that Manasseh was added to the story later.

37. Assis, “A Witness between Us,” 225; cf. his detailed analysis of their speech, including the use of chiasm (224–26).

38. Cf. H. Simian-Yofre, “,” TDOT, 10:506–7. For a parallel example, cf. the stone pile and pillar that “witness” the covenant between Jacob and Laban (Gen. 31:44–53).

39. “Replica” is Heb. tabnit (“copy, reproduction”); Gk. homoioma “(something) similar.”

40. On the grammatical form (“Far be it …”), cf. WO §40.2.2c; cf. Josh. 24:16; Gen. 44:7, 17; 1 Sam. 12:23.

41. Cf. Butler, Joshua, 249 (“The Jordan is a symbol of separation. The altar is a symbol of unity”).

42. Assis, “A Witness between Us,” 228.

43. Ibid., 227.

44. Ibid., 228; Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 137.

45. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 137.

46. In my view, NIV’s “They were glad to hear the report” wrongly reads the formula as referring to the fact of having received a report rather to its contents (“The report pleased them”).

47. Organ, “Pursuing Phinehas,” 214.

48. J. Conrad, “,” TDOT, 14:584–85.

49. Assis, “A Witness between Us,” 229–30. In his view, the contrast between Phinehas’s inclusive statement (v. 31) and more exclusive language of vv. 32–33 suggests that only Phinehas (but not his companions) has moved beyond the isolationism and separatism with which the story began. As noted earlier, MT inexplicably lacks “the half tribe of Manasseh” in vv. 32 and 34 (so also v. 25), although LXX has it.

50. Nelson, Joshua, 253. Assis (“A Witness between Us,” 230, n. 51) summarizes alternative scholarly opinions and concludes (230–31): “The Cisjordanian tribes act as a group loyal to God maintaining a concept of a united Israel. It appears, however, that the perfect concept of the unity of Israel is possessed only by the Transjordanian tribes.”

51. Cf. Organ, “Pursuing Phinehas,” 214 (“One God, one cult, one people”).

52. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 140–41, citing their repeated appearances throughout the book (1:12–18; 4:12–13; 6:7; 14:3; 18:7) and Phinehas’s dramatic declaration in 22:31.

53. Similarly, Assis, “A Witness between Us,” 227.

54. See the commentary concerning the Caleb episode in ch. 14. Yahweh’s command through Moses also marks the authority granting the special allotment to the daughters of Zelophehad (17:4) and the Levites (21:2, 8).

55. As far as I can find, only one text evidences awareness of divine involvement, the answer by the Transjordanian tribes, “Your servants will do what the Lord has said” (Num. 32:31).

56. Their promise (“Your servants will do what the Lord has said” [v. 31]) even seems to accept Moses’ ruling as a word from Yahweh—but, of course, only at the end.

57. P. J. Budd, Numbers (WBC 5; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1984), 346.

58. H. O. Thompson, “Jordan River,” ABD, 3:953–58.

59. ANET, 477.

60. CBA, 10, has four crossing points between the Dead Sea and the Sea of Kinnereth, whereas Dorsey has four between the Dead Sea and biblical Adam (Josh. 3:16) and three more between Adam and Beth Shean; cf. D. A. Dorsey, The Roads and Highways of Ancient Israel (Baltimore; London: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1991), Maps 7 and 12. For more on fords, cf. Thompson, “Jordan River,” 3:957.

61. As noted above, a telling case in point is the near annihilation of the tribe of Benjamin by the other tribes because of the outrage at Gibeah (Judg. 17–20).

62. Thompson, “Jordan River,” 3:957–58.

63. Cf. R. L. Hubbard, Jr., “Ganzheitsdenken in the Book of Ruth,” in Problems in Biblical Theology, ed. T. C. Sun and K. Eades (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 192–209.

64. Assis, “A Witness between Us,” 231.

65. The Chicago Tribune, “Sunday Comics,” December 23, 2006.

66. F. Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov (New York: Penguin, 1957 [1880]), 425.

67. Martin Luther King Jr., “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” quoted in Stephen B. Oates, Let the Trumpet Sound (New York: Mentor, 1982), 221.

68. Benner, Desiring God’s Will, 99.

69. “Who Moved My Cheese? And My Soup?” USA Today, Friday July 13, 2007, p. 8D.

1. For further discussion on this genre farewell speech, see Bridging Contexts section.

2. Cf. the useful study of P. R. House, “Examining the Narratives of the Old Testament Narrative: An Exploration in Biblical Theology,” WTJ 67 (2005): 229–45.

3. Nelson, Joshua, 255; cf. P. R. House, “The God Who Gives Rest in the Land: Joshua,” SBJT 2 (1998): 29, who also traces echoes in ch. 23 of Josh. 1:1–18.

4. For the details, see Howard, Joshua, 418.

5. Nelson, Joshua, 256.

6. According to 24:29, he lived to be 110 years old. From that figure, Howard (Joshua, 419) suggests that twenty-five years have elapsed between the land distribution (chs. 13–21) and ch. 23. If Joshua and Caleb were of comparable age, Joshua would have been eighty-five when the land distribution began (cf. 14:10).

7. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 141; cf. Hawk, Joshua, 248, who observes that the opening references to Joshua’s age and the land at rest show the completion of Joshua’s God-given mission.

8. Nelson, Joshua, 260.

9. The exclusion of the priests from the list is noteworthy. The text may view Israel’s non-priestly leadership as responsible for guarding Israel’s obedience to the covenant, including during the imminent post-Joshua era; cf. Butler, 254; Hess, Joshua, 295; Deut. 29:10.

10. Interestingly, Joshua’s words (“You yourselves [emphatic] have seen”) closely resemble ones addressed to him by Moses (Deut. 3:21). The phrase commonly introduces a look backward at Yahweh’s past victories, whether spoken by Yahweh (Ex. 19:4; 20:22; Jer. 44:2) or Moses (Ex. 18:8; Deut. 29:2[1]).

11. “Nations” (haggoyim) normally designates foreign, pagan groups, but here preconquest Canaanite peoples are in mind (cf. Deut. 7:1, 17; 9:4–5; 11:22–23). “I allotted” is Heb. napal hi. (“to cast [the lot]”), an allusion to the process of land distribution (14:2; 15:1; chs. 18, 19, and 21).

12. The BHS editor reads “the nations I conquered” as a possible later textual addition. For discussion of the textual problems and solutions, see Boling, Joshua, 521; Butler, Joshua, 252. Joshua 11:21 provides a possible precedent for this unique use of karat with Joshua as its subject; cf. Howard, Joshua, 421.

13. Cf. 1 Kings 9:20–21, which reports that Solomon conscripted the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites for slave labor on royal construction projects.

14. This verse confirms the assumption that “to take possession” (yaraš hi.) usually assumes a prior, violent conquest (yaraš hi. “to destroy). For further discussion, see Bridging Contexts in chs. 13–19.

15. Nelson, Joshua, 261.

16. In reality, in all cases “Be strong!” is paired with “Be courageous!” See comments on ch. 1.

17. To “associate with” (lit., “to go into”) may outlaw sexual contact since elsewhere the same phrase describes sexual intercourse; cf. Nelson, Joshua, 261. For “take an oath on the name of,” cf. W. F. Smelik, “The Use of hazkir bešem in Classical Hebrew,” JBL 118 (1999): 323–26.

18. Fritz, Josua, 230.

19. For the formulaic pairing of “worship” and “bow down,” cf. Deut. 8:19; 11:16; 17:3; 29:25.

20. Cf. also the noun debeq that designates the “welding” of metals (Isa. 41:7); cf. Howard, Joshua, 422.

21. For further discussion of the problems of Israelite-Canaanite associations and inter-marriage, see Bridging Contexts section.

22. “Destroyed” again follows Lohfink, “,” 6:375. Here Heb. mippenekem means “for your sake,” as in v. 3.

23. Elsewhere, the hyperbolic, almost proverbial expression “one routs a thousand” describes Israel’s powerlessness before enemies once their rebellion against Yahweh leads him to abandon them (Deut. 32:30; Isa. 30:17).

24. Deut. 6:5; 10:12; 11:1, 13–14, 22–23; 19:9; 30:16, 20; cf. 13:4; cf. G. Wallis, “,” TDOT, 1:114–16.

25. This understanding of reciprocal “love” may have its roots in Yahweh’s covenant with Israel. In ancient treaties, the suzerain king is said to “love” his vassal and the vassal his suzerain; cf. A. O. Haldar, “,” TDOT, 1:101.

26. Fritz, Josua, 230–31.

27. Nelson, Joshua, 261; Fritz, Josua, 231. For more on the Dinah episode, see Bridging Contexts section.

28. The verb “to intermarry” (Heb. ḥatan hithp., “to become related by marriage”) derives from the noun ḥatan (“son-in-law”). Hence, intermarriage occurs when an Israel “son” marries the daughter of a Canaanite (i.e., becomes her father’s “son-in-law”) or a Canaanite “son” marries an Israelite daughter (i.e., becomes the son-in-law of an Israelite father); cf. E. Kutsch, “,” TDOT, 5:274.

29. “Good land” is a favorite Deuteronomic phrase for Canaan; cf. Deut. 1:25, 35; 3:25; 4:21, 22; 1 Kings 14:15.

30. Cf. Polzin, Moses and the Deuteronomist, 141 (“a harsh prophecy of the future that awaits Israel”).

31. In both grammar and content, v. 15 compares to Deut. 8:20 and 28:63 (the latter with šamad hi. “to destroy”).

32. For “violate the covenant,” cf. Deut. 17:2; Josh. 7:11, 15; Judg. 2:20; 2 Kings 18:12; Jer. 34:18; Hos. 6:7; 8:1. In Deut. 29:11, ʿabar beberit means “to enter into a covenant.”

33. Cf. Deut. 8:19; 17:3; 29:25; Judg. 2:19; 1 Kings 9:6 = 2 Chron. 7:19; cf. Jer. 13:10; 16:11; 25:6. Josh. 23:7 combines “worship” and “bow down,” as does 2 Kings 17:35.

34. Fritz, Josua, 232.

35. Ibid., 232.

36. K. van der Toorn, “Theology, Priests, and Worship in Canaan and Ancient Israel,” CANE, 2046–47.

37. M. S. Smith, “Myth and Mythmaking in Canaan and Ancient Israel,” CANE, 2031–33; cf. S. B. Parker, “The Literatures of Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Phoenician: An Overview,” CANE, 2404–6.

38. Cf. K. van der Toorn, “Prostitution,” ABD, 5:512, who believes that Canaanite sanctuaries received the income of prostitutes associated with them but denies that Canaanite worship included sexual fertility rites.

39. The Hivites are among the seven peoples of Canaan that fall under the ban (ḥerem). I term them “Canaanites” because they inhabited the land of Canaan and were among the “nations that remain” (Josh. 23:4, 12).

40. Waltke, Genesis, 466.

41. I distinguish a farewell speech from the well-known patriarchal blessings (e.g., Gen. 27:25–29; 48; 49).

42. For examples in the Apocrypha, see the farewell speeches to their sons by Mattahias (1 Macc. 2:49–70) and Tobit (Tob. 14:3–11).

43. William S. Kurz, “Luke 22:14–38 and Greco-Roman and Biblical Farewell Addresses,” JBL 104/2 (1985): 251–68.

44. Cf. F. F. Segovia, The Farewell of the Word: The Johannine Call to Abide (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), who, however, limits the speech to John 13:31–16:31.

45. Kurz (“Luke 22:14–38 and Greco-Roman and Biblical Farewell Addresses,” 257) suggests that “Luke’s plan to have a farewell address by Paul in Acts 20 may have inspired him to insert a parallel one by Jesus” in Luke 22.

46. Ibid., 264.

47. Cf. ibid., 255–56.

48. For full treatment of 1 Kings 2:1–10, cf. ibid., 260–61.

49. For the Lucan texts, cf. ibid., 256–58.

50. Ibid., 264–65.

51. Cf. Nelson, Joshua, 258.

52. For full discussion of the elements of farewell speeches, cf. the convenient chart and commentary in Kurz, “Luke 22:14–38 and Greco-Roman and Biblical Farewell Addresses,” 262–68.

53. J. Conrad, “,” TDOT, 11:540–43.

54. For a contemporary expression of praise I commend Richard K. Carlson’s “Come, Celebrate the Presence of the Lord,” available in The Covenant Hymnal: A Worshipbook (Chicago: Covenant Publications, 1996), 512.

55. M. Lucado, No Wonder They Call Him the Savior (Nashville: W Publishing Group, 2004), 13–14. I am grateful to my colleague Dr. Max Lee, who called my attention to this example.

56. Ibid., 14.

57. Clayton Hardiman, “Bible Literacy Slipping, Expert Says,” from Religion News Service. Cited from http://home.snu.edu/~hculbert.fs/literacy.htm.

58. G. Barna, The Barna Update, December 20, 2006. Cited from www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateBarnaUpdateID=252.

59. Ibid.

1. As Brekelmans observes, Joshua 24 also looks backward into the Pentateuch and forward through Judges to Samuel’s speech in 1 Samuel 12. Joshua 24 also forms an inclusio with 1 Samuel 12, the latter’s historical summary updating that of the former; cf. C. Brekelmans, “Joshua 24: Its Place and Function,” in Congress Volume: Leuven, 1989, ed. J. A. Emerton (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 1–9.

2. Cf. Nelson, Joshua, 265. For a digest of the scholarly discussion, see W. T. Koopmans, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative (JSOTSup 93; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990), 1–95, 469–88 (bibliography).

3. Brekelmans, “Joshua 24,” 1–2, 7 (“will Israel, remembering all the great deeds of God, worship him, and him alone?” [2]).

4. Deut. 29:16–17 hints that Israel lived differently in Egypt and personally observed (but did not practice) the idolatry of the nations through which they passed en route to Canaan. The Jericho reference apparently refers either to a preemptive attack on Israel or resistance from the city’s citizenry when Israel entered it.

5. This observation goes back to G. von Rad, “The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch,” in From Genesis to Chronicles: Explorations in Old Testament Theology, ed. K. C. Hanson (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 1–58. Canonically, it skips over Ex. 16 to Num. 21.

6. Howard, Joshua, 426–28; Hess, Joshua, 300; Boling, Joshua, 543–44 (only the final editor); cf. Woudstra, Joshua, 340–41 (“a narrative adaptation of a treaty”).

7. Butler, Joshua, 268. For what follows, cf. Nelson, Joshua, 266–67.

8. In my view, Nelson’s claim (Joshua, 267) that vv. 15 and 19a undercut a reading of the text as a liturgy is not persuasive. Concerning possible parallels of Josh. 24 with ancient Near Eastern treaty forms, see Hess, Joshua, 298–308; Howard, Joshua, 426–28.

9. Moses first sounds this theme (Deut. 10:12; cf. 28:47), and it echoes in Samuel’s farewell speech (1 Sam. 12:20) and in the later calls for religious reform by Kings Hezekiah, Manasseh, and Josiah (2 Chron. 30:8; 33:16; 34:33; cf. 35:3).

10. So also Nelson, Joshua, 277; Butler, Joshua, 268; Hawk, Joshua, 277.

11. Nelson, Joshua, 277.

12. Chapter 18 also reports a national assembly at Shiloh to allot lands to seven at-the-time landless tribes. Although Joshua addresses the crowd (vv. 3–8), the text omits mention of who initiated the gathering.

13. According to Hess (Joshua, 300), the usage of this phrase elsewhere creates two expectations, that a covenant ceremony is to follow and that Joshua is about to step down as leader.

14. Cf. Nelson, Joshua, 269; Deut. 27:4–26; Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 8:33; 9:4, 46.

15. The report concerning the ritual on Mount Ebal never mentions Shechem, so one could argue that technically the present gathering marks the only time that Shechem hosts such an assembly. The only other all-Israelite meeting at Shechem concerns the acceptance of Rehoboam as king after Solomon’s death (1 Kings 12:1 = 2 Chron. 10:1; cf. Judg. 9:6).

16. Cf. Hawk, Joshua, 266, who wonders whether Israel had achieved “some sort of rapprochement” with Shechem’s inhabitants. Archaeological evidence shows that Canaanite Shechem started to decline about 1300 B.C. and ended in massive destruction about 1100 B.C. Its “Israelite” occupation began about 975–929 B.C.; cf. AEHL, 460.

17. Cf. Gen. 12:6; 35:4; Judg. 9:6, 37. Other sanctuaries in Joshua include the “Tent of Meeting” (Josh. 18:1; 19:51) and “the tabernacle” (22:19, 29).

18. According to Seger, the present meeting of Israel best fits the archaeological picture of Shechem ca. 1200–1150 B.C.; cf. J. D. Seger, “Shechem,” OEANE, 5:22.

19. Brekelmans (“Joshua 24,” 5) observes that neither the Pentateuch nor Joshua has such a detailed review of salvation history, especially by Yahweh. For briefer testimonies by Yahweh in the prophets, see Jer. 2:1–13; Hos. 11:1–11; Amos 4; Mic. 6:3–5.

20. In the plague narratives, the phrase “strike Egypt” occurs only in Ex. 12:23, 27.

21. Vv. 6–7 offer “a compact paraphrase of Exodus 14” (Boling, Joshua, 535).

22. Heb. maʾapel (“darkness”) only occurs here. If, as some suggest, the initial “m” results from dittography (the preceding word ends in “m”), the original word might have been ʾopel (“darkness”; cf. BDB, 66; Ps. 91:6).

23. Cf. Butler, Joshua, 271, who suggests that the substitution of a term akin to one in the plague narrative (Ex. 10:22) for the regular term for darkness (cf. Ex. 14:20) serves “to intensify the aura of divine action and power.”

24. For “curse,” the Balaam narrative features not qalal pi. as here but its synonyms ʾarar (Num. 22:6, 12; 23:7; 24:9) and qabab (23:11, 25). Since elsewhere qalal means “to put down,” “to belittle,” or “to revile,” to “curse” here denotes “to initiate destructive events” against Israel with implied connotations of denigration or insult; cf. J. Scharbert, “,” TDOT, 13:39. The verb ʾarar designates the removal of something from God’s favor or protection (God is almost always its grammatical subject). By contrast, qalal (with people as its grammatical subject) invokes words that seek to adversely affect someone; cf. J. H. Walton, Genesis (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 229, 280–81.

25. Cf. the parenthetical comment in Deut. 23:5 (“Yet the Lord your God refused to heed Balaam; the Lord your God turned the curse into a blessing for you …”).

26. F. L. Hossfeld and B. Kalthoff, “,” TDOT 9:535–37.

27. E. Carpenter and M. A. Grisanti, “,” NIDOTTE, 3:847. The term occurs only two other times in the Old Testament (Ex. 23:28; Deut. 7:20).

28. Howard, Joshua, 432–33; Hess, Joshua, 304; Butler, Joshua, 264.

29. The reference to the “two kings of the Amorites” seems out of place here since the phrase elsewhere only refers to the Transjordanian kings whose defeat v. 8 narrates (Deut. 3:8; 4:47; 31:4). LXX (“twelve kings”) offers no good solution since Joshua features no such numerical royal grouping. More likely, “two kings” here designates Adoni-Zedek and Jabin, heads of the southern and northern coalitions, respectively, that opposed Israel (10:1, 3; 11:1). Cf. Howard, Joshua, 433 (“a flashback to victories east of the Jordan to go along with those west of the Jordan”).

30. It also anticipates the Deuteronomist’s indictment of Israel’s religious schizophrenia—i.e., it “revered” him but “served” other gods (2 Kings 17:33, 41).

31. For Samuel, to not do so would amount to sinning against Yahweh. The phrase common to these three texts comprises ḥalilah le (“far be it …”) + pronominal suffix + min + infinitive absolute. The preposition of separation (min) underscores the mental distance of the action envisioned (i.e., “Nothing could be farther from the truth!”).

32. Both the DH (Judg. 10:9–10; 1 Kings 9:9; 2 Kings 17:16) and Jeremiah (Jer. 5:19; 16:11; 22:9) underscore the direct connection between covenant breach through apostasy and Israel’s historical misfortunes.

33. Compared to Yahweh’s speech, the people omit the patriarchs (vv. 2–4), the Red Sea and Jordan crossings (vv. 6–7a, 11), Balaam (vv. 9–10), and the conquest of Transjordan (v. 8).

34. H. Ringgren, “,” TDOT, 10:386–87.

35. In v. 17, “signs” (ʾotot) designates Yahweh’s miracles and wonders associated with the Exodus (e.g., the plagues); cf. F. J. Helfmeyer, “,” TDOT, 1:178. Since most of the present generation was born in the wilderness, not in Egypt, the references to “us and our ancestors” (TNIV) and to the signs done “before our eyes” in connection with the Exodus presumes a corporate solidarity between the Exodus generation and the present wilderness-born one. For more on this fundamental concept, see the Bridging Contexts sections in chs. 7 and 22.

36. The Pentateuch records the following examples: the Amalekite attack at Rephidim (Ex. 17:8–16); Edom’s refusal of safe passage (Num. 20:14–21); attacks by the Amorite king Sihon (21:21–24) and by Og king of Bashan (21:33–35); the attempt by Balak king of Moab to have Israel cursed (Num. 22–24); and the Midianite sex industry and resulting apostasy (25; 31).

37. The NIV’s “all the nations, including the Amorites” reads (lit.) “the Amorite” (haʾemori), at first glance a reference to only one of the seven peoples in Canaan (e.g., 12:8; 24:11). But elsewhere the book designates Canaan’s residents collectively (and especially those in the central hill country) as “the Amorites” (e.g., 5:1; 7:7; 10:5, 6; 24:12). So a better rendering would be “the peoples, the Amorites”; cf. Hess, Joshua, 231.

38. Butler (Joshua, 274) calls it “perhaps the most shocking statement in the OT.” What follows draws on his insightful discussion (274). Joshua’s remark is often interpreted as evidence of a later author or editor at work, but cf. Nelson’s affirmation (Joshua, 276) of the paradoxical verse’s clarity, “power and theological sophistication.” Hess (Joshua, 306) reads a simple four-line chiasm in vv. 19–20.

39. Hess (Joshua, 309) thinks it indicative of Israel’s eventual apostasy (Judg. 2:11–13) that the people’s response omits any mention of other gods.

40. Cf. H. Ringgren, “,” TDOT, 12:531–32; Howard, Joshua, 437–38.

41. Usage of the parallel term ʾel qannaʾ, clarifies that the worship of other gods is clearly the spark that ignites divine fury (Ex. 20:5//Deut. 5:9; Ex. 34:14; Deut. 6:15).

42. E. Reuter, “,” TDOT, 13:54; cf. G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 1:208.

43. For the phrase “foreign gods” (ʾelohey nekar) elsewhere, see Gen. 35:2, 3; Deut. 31:16; Jer. 5:19.

44. For the first phrase (sur ʾelohey nekar), see Judg. 10:16; 1 Sam. 7:3; 2 Chron. 33:15. For “tilt your hearts” elsewhere, see 2 Sam. 19:14; 1 Kings 8:58; 11:2, 9.

45. The object-first word order adds special rhetorical emphasis to the statement: “The Lord our God we will serve, and him we will obey” (my translation).

46. Nelson, Joshua, 268. As Howard rightly observes (Joshua, 440), the self-obligation also entailed obedience to the Instruction, the only explanation of how to serve Yahweh.

47. They share a common formula (lit., “X made a covenant for Y”), in which X imposes an obligation on Y, not on himself/herself or on Yahweh.

48. Alternatively, NIV’s “decrees and laws” reads the Hebrew singulars as collective words; cf. H. Ringgren, “,” TDOT, 5:143.

49. Cf. Howard, Joshua, 440. Presumably, “these things” comprise the words of the people’s covenant-promise plus perhaps a detailed report of the entire ceremony.

50. The former would seem more likely, if the text distinguishes between the “Book of the Law of Moses” that Ezra read (Neh. 8:1–6) and the “Book of the Law of God” that the Levites used to instruct the people further (vv. 7–8; cf. v. 18). Alternatively, the book may have contained parts of ch. 24 or “something similar” (Hess, Joshua, 308).

51. Hess, Joshua, 308; Nelson, Joshua, 277.

52. The LXX lacks the MT’s reference to the tabernacle. Hess (Joshua, 308) speculates that Israel kept the document at “the holy place” that v. 26 mentions as “part of a larger, older work.”

53. Hess, Joshua, 309. For other landmark trees, see Judg. 4:5; 6:11, 19; 1 Sam. 10:3.

54. Cf. Hubbard, “Stones,” 25–49.

55. Cf. also Moses’ raising of twelve pillars at the foot of Mount Sinai to honor the covenant enacted there (Ex. 24:4), and Absalom’s erection of a stone monument to perpetuate his memory (2 Sam. 18:18). For further discussion, cf. C. F. Graesser, “Standing Stones in Ancient Palestine,” Biblical Archaeologist Reader 4 (Garden City: Doubleday, 1983), 293–321.

56. M.A. Klopfenstein, “ pi.,” THAT, 1:827; cf. Nelson, Joshua, 277 (“the stone as a reminder of Yahweh’s saving deeds would accuse them”).

57. Interestingly, the same oak and pillar apparently mark the site for Abimelech’s ill-fated coronation as king (Judg. 9:6).

58. Cf. Hess, Joshua, 300, who regards the “representatives of the people” as Joshua’s successor. In my view, Israel is to follow Yahweh’s leadership by obeying the Instruction of Moses, so in a sense the latter also serves as Joshua’s successor.

59. Walton, Genesis, 631. These gods were probably brought by his household from Mesopotamia, but it is also possible that they were simply plunder taken by Jacob’s sons during their sacking of Shechem (Gen. 34:27–29). The reason for also burying the earrings of his entourage is uncertain. The action may somehow relate to idolatry or, if the rings were plunder from Shechem, to impurity incurred through that violent episode.

60. For full discussion, see J. H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 87–112; cf. also K. van der Toorn, “God (I),” DDD, 355.

61. For what follows, cf. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought, 92–111. The discussion concerns the state-sponsored religion as opposed to the worship of family and ancestral gods, e.g., the “God of your fathers” (Ex. 3:6).

62. Ibid., 103; cf. his full discussion (103–5).

63. Their specific divine attributes include justice, wisdom, goodness, faithfulness, and holiness; cf. ibid., 105–11.

64. Ibid., 136 (cf. the full discussion, 136–45).

65. Ibid., 136–42; Van der Toorn, “God (I),” 354.

66. For the phrase and discussion of the “whims of the gods” that drove ancient prayer and piety, see Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought, 138–49 (quote 144).

67. Van der Toorn, “God (I),” 357. For discussion of the role of ethics and morality in polytheism, see Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought, 149–61.

68. Cf. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought, 154–61.

69. Ibid., 154–55, 160 (quote 160).

70. In my view, Joshua 24 probably intentionally avoids naming names in order to include all possible divine candidates.

71. Exodus 6:3 says that the patriarchs knew God as El Shaddai (NIV “God Almighty”; cf. Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 43:14; 48:3; 49:25), not Yahweh. Other early names include El-Olam (“Eternal God”; Gen. 21:33) and El-Elyon (“God Most High”; Gen. 14:18–22; Ps. 78:35).

72. For what follows, cf. W. Hermann, “El,” DDD, 274–80. For more details, see F. M. Cross, “,” TDOT, 1:242–61.

73. For what follows, cf. W. Hermann, “Baal,” DDD, 132–39; M. J. Mulder, “,” TDOT, 2:181–200. Cf. also the in-depth study of M. S. Smith, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, 2nd ed. (BRS; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 65–91.

74. E.g., Baal Zephon (Ex. 14:2, 9); Baal of Peor (Num. 25:3); Baal Gad (Josh. 11:17); Kiriath Baal (Josh. 15:60); Baal Perazim (2 Sam. 5:20); et al.

75. Smith, The Early History of God, 43–47.

76. Smith (ibid., 65–79) theorizes about how the Ahab-Jezebel policy change played out. For the “Yahweh Alone Movement,” cf. B. Lang, “Die Jahwe-allein-Bewegung,” in Der Einzige Gott: Die Geburt des biblischen Monotheismus, ed. B. Lang (München: Kösel Verlag, 1981), 47–83; E. K. Holt, Prophesying the Past: The Use of Israel’s History in the Book of Hosea (JSOTSup 194; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 113–15.

77. For further comments on the importance of God’s presence, see the Contemporary Significance section of 8:30–35.

78. For discussion of Yahweh’s mighty acts, see Contemporary Significance of Joshua 23.

79. C. Hedges, Losing Moses on the Freeway: The 10 Commandments in America (New York: Free Press, 2005), 41. I am grateful to my son and daughter-in-law, Matthew Hubbard and Danielle Sandusky, for the gift of this interesting book.

80. W. W. Wells, The Agony of Affluence (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 72.

81. E. Hamilton, Mythology (Boston: Little, Brown, & Company, 1998), 113–15.

82. C. Lasch, Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminished Expectations (New York: Norton, 1979).

83. This list is my own, a distillation of the “new narcissist” described in Lasch, ibid., xvi.

84. Hedges, Losing Moses on the Freeway, 41.

85. Berkeley Breathed, “Opus,” Chicago Tribune Comics, Sunday August 5, 2007, Section 9, p. 2.

86. These and related issues find extensive and perhaps provocative treatment in G. A. Boyd, The Myth of a Christian Nation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005); S. Hauerwas, After Christendom? (Nashville: Abingdon, 1991); S. Hauerwas and W. H. Willimon, Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony (Nashville: Abingdon, 1989).

87. A. F. Glasser, “What Is ‘Mission’ Today? Two Views,” in Mission Trends No. 1, ed. G. H. Anderson and T. F. Stransky (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 8.

88. Yancey, The Jesus I Never Knew, 245.

89. D. Zeller, “Jesus,” DDD, 470, who observes that the name suggests “the concreteness of a historical person with a singular destiny.”

90. D. Zeller, “Kyrios,” DDD, 495. A related confession is to affirm that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” (1 John 4:2).

91. E. Metaxas, Everything You Always Wanted to Know about God (but Were Afraid to Ask) (Colorado Springs, Col.: WaterBrook, 2005), 139.

92. This theme also dominates the first two letters of John (1 John 3:23; 4:7, 11–12; 2 John 5).

93. Slightly amended from R. A. Stedman, Body Life (Glendale, Calif: G/L Publications, 1977), 23.

94. The “year of the Lord’s favor” probably refers to the year of Jubilee (Lev. 25:10–24). For complete discussion of this Lukan text, see Evans, Luke, 70–71, 74–75.

95. For additional study of the theme of doing good, cf. Gal. 6:9–10; 1 Tim. 6:17–19; Heb. 10:24; 13:6; 1 Peter 2:11–17.

96. Oates, Let the Trumpet Sound, 221.

97. The Covenant Hymnal: A Worshipbook (Chicago: Covenant Publications, 1996), 943.

98. For a hymn summarizing this vision I commend Bryan Jeffrey Leech’s “Let Your Heart Be Broken,” in The Covenant Hymnal: A Worshipbook (Chicago: Covenant Publications, 1996), 642.

99. L. F. Winner, Girl Meets God (Chapel Hill, N.C.: Algonquin, 2002), 295–96.

1. “After these things” (Heb. ʾaḥarey haddebarim haʾelleh) typically signals an indefinite interval of time between events; cf. Gen 22:20; 48:1; 2 Chron. 31:21. Cf. our comments about the chronological relationship of Josh. 24:1–28 to its present context.

2. Nelson, Joshua, 279; Butler, Joshua, 282; cf. Gen. 35:8, 19–20; 1 Sam. 10:2; 2 Kings 13:20–21; 23:17–18.

3. Cf. Howard, Joshua, 442; Hawk, Joshua, 278–79.

4. Judg. 2:8–9 and 10b reprise this simple report of Joshua’s death and burial verbatim, while Judg. 2:10b slightly rephrases Josh. 24:31a. Literarily, the repetition both links Joshua and Judges as part of a single narrative and delimits them as two subsections within it (cf. Howard, Joshua, 443; Hess, Joshua, 309–10).

5. Verse 31 opens with a verb of past narration, while verses 32 and 33 have, respectively, object-initial and subject-initial sentence structure.

6. Cf. Hess, Joshua, 311, who argues that Joshua’s role was limited to his lifetime and that he never intended to appoint a successor. For discussion of the textual differences between MT and LXX, see Nelson, Joshua, 280–83; Howard, Joshua, 443.

7. Nelson, Joshua, 279–80, suggests that Timnath Serah (“portion of surplus”) represents an alteration of the site’s original name, Timnath Heres (“portion of the sun”). If so, the change probably sought to remove the latter’s pagan implication.

8. Cf. Gen 25:9–10 [Abraham]; 50:13 [Jacob]; Judg. 16:31 [Samson]; 2 Sam. 21:14 = 1 Chr. 10:12 [Saul].

9. Nelson, Joshua, 279.

10. Cf. Howard, Joshua, 443–44; Judg. 2:8; but cf. Ps. 18:1; 36:1 (David).

11. Hawk, Joshua, 279.

12. The phrase “everything the Lord had done for Israel” echoes Moses’ review of God’s marvelous deeds during the Exodus and in the wilderness (Deut. 11:7).

13. Nelson, Joshua, 279.

14. Nelson, Joshua, 279; Hess, Joshua, 310. In Nelson’s view, Joshua’s successful leadership also paves the way for the later influence—some good, some bad according to the DH—of Israel’s kings.

15. Butler, Joshua, 284.

16. The reference to Hamor and sons repeats verbatim the same reference in Genesis 33:19.

17. Nelson, Joshua, 280. The traditional site of Joseph’s tomb probably goes back at least to the early Byzantine period.

18. Hawk, Joshua, 279.

19. The notable exceptions, of course, are: Jacob, whom Joseph buried in the patriarchal gravesite near Hebron (Gen. 50:13); Caleb, presumably buried at Hebron (Josh. 15:13–14); Joshua; and Eleazar (v. 33).

20. There is also a Gibeah in the Judean hill country known only from a list of Judean cities and towns (Josh. 15:57).

21. Cf. Hess, Joshua, 311.

22. I owe the expression to Hawk, Joshua, 279.

23. Cf. Howard, Joshua, 446 (“the calm before a great storm”). For more on ancient Israelite burials, see E. Bloch-Smith, Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead (JSOTSup 123; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992).

24. Butler, Joshua, 284.

25. Cf. K. Koch, “,” TDOT, 12:492–98; T. D. Alexander, “,” NIDOTTE, 3:865–68. For a recent study of the larger topic, beliefs about the afterlife, see K. Spronk, Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986); and B. Cripps, “Speaking on the Brink of Sheol: Form and Theology of Old Testament Death Narratives” (Ph.D. diss., the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2007).

26. H. Ringgren, “,” TDOT, 5:333–34, 337. Israel also regarded graves as unclean places, especially those of the common people (2 Kings 23:6; Jer. 26:23).

27. G. Gilmour, “Foreign Burials in Late Bronze Age Palestine,” Near Eastern Archaeology 65/2 (2002): 112–19. Cf. also R. Gonen, Burial Patterns and Cultural Diversity in Late Bronze Age Canaan (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992).

28. For details, see conveniently C. J. H. Wright, “,” NIDOTTE, 3:77–79.

29. Alexander, “,” 3:866.

30. G. von Rad, Genesis, 2nd ed. (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), 250 (quoted from Koch, “,” 12:493).

31. Cf. Hubbard, Ruth, 244, 256–57; Num. 27:4.

32. Koch, “,” 12:494, who also observes a concern for royal ancestral graves in the Chronicler. For more on Israelite views of burial and ancestors, see K. van der Toorn, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria, and Israel (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 48–52; H. C. Brichto, “Kin, Cult, Land and Afterlife—A Biblical Complex,” HUCA 44 (1974): 1–52.

33. The questions of Israel’s view of the afterlife and whether Israel practiced or tolerated ancestral cults need not detain us. For this larger discussion, see P. S. Johnston, Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2002); B. B. Schmidt, Israel’s Beneficent Dead: Ancestor Cult and Necromancy in Ancient Israelite Religion and Tradition (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996).

34. Thorton Wilder, Our Town. A Play in Three Acts (New York: HarperCollins, 2003), 92–96.

35. In Jewish tradition, a “midrash” is a commentary on a book of the Bible; cf. 2 Chron. 24:27.

36. Elsewhere, “witnesses” (martyron) designates those who give testimony in court. But as Ellingworth notes, “this sense is almost certainly excluded here, since the context requires the meaning of spectators in a stadium, watching an athletic contest”; cf. P. Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 638; for an alternative view, see Hagner, Hebrews, 194–95.

37. Paul often addresses the recipients of his letters as “saints” (Rom. 1:7; 2 Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Phil. 1:1) and occasionally mediates exchanges of greetings between communities of “the saints” in different locales (2 Cor. 13:13; Phil. 4:21). In Revelation, John also addresses them in his appeals for perseverance in persecution (Rev. 13:10; 14:12).

38. Sadly, we know little of Eleazar’s biography, but presumably his mention here has roots in the reality of his own long life of faith. Cf. conveniently, W. H. Propp, “Eleazar (Person),” ABD, 2:432–33.

39. B. Ruffin, Fanny Crosby (Westwood, N.J.: Barbour, 1976), 240. Cf. E. L. Blumhofer, Her Heart Can See: The Life and Hymns of Fanny J. Crosby (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004).

40. A. Trollope, The Last Chronicle of Barset (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1967 [1867]), 423–25.

41. Wilder, Our Town, 107–9 (quote, 109).