We are thinking about one of the Old Testament’s interesting
conundrums: the violent, strange Book of
Joshua, based on Dr Matthew Lynch’s series of blogs on it.
The book of Joshua has violence of a degree that may well seem
problematic to the modern mind, but isn’t entirely as it seems. It starts out as the story of Joshua being the one to conquer the
Canaanites but it splits into two tracks, like two alternative time-streams. (“Two
time-streams” is my analogy, if you’ll indulge me in using an analogy from
science fiction, where two people can walk through the same door at separate
moments and find themselves in alternative realities, as if alternative futures
can be entered at the same time.) These are the two ‘realities’ we’re looking
at:
- In one time-stream, God sends his holy army to war, with ruthless total wipe-out of the enemy spoken of: “Thus Joshua conquered the whole country … he let none escape, but proscribed [destroyed] everything that breathed—as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded (Josh 10:40).”
- In the other time-stream, there is merely a flawed and incomplete defeat of their enemy: “when the Israelites grew stronger, they subjected the Canaanites to forced labour but did not drive them out completely.” (Joshua 17:3)
It’s a riddle: why would Joshua be written like two versions,
in alternative time-streams, overlapping each other? Lynch: “I refer to these
as ‘narratives’ though they’re at times juxtaposed to one another within the
space of two verses. It’s probably most accurate to refer to these as two
perspectives on the conquest within Joshua”.
As I said previously, it would not make sense to presume
that Joshua is just contradicting itself. These two time-streams run
continually side-by-side. We need to work out what the function of the text is,
and what it is telling us. Lynch suggests that each of the two time-streams
“has its own function in the book, and each says things that couldn’t be said
otherwise with just one narrative.”
How it’s done
The second time-stream
- transforms a still dangerous story into a safer liturgy story
- tones down the violence of the story
- undermines the image of a holy army
- undermines us-and-them stories
Transformation into a safer liturgy story
There are two aspects to making a safer liturgy story here.
First, making the drama about the Israelites ridding themselves of Canaanite
religion rather than genocide. And then turning the story into something that
has use in a liturgical setting (like how church services are sometimes built
around stories, such as at Christmas).
On the Israelites ridding themselves of Canaanite religion
rather than genocide, Lynch puts it this way:
- “Here’s what Deuteronomy and Joshua suggest: Whatever earlier practices of extermination through warfare these texts transmit have been reframed in terms of differentiation in worship” [i.e. worshipping different gods, and how to worship the true god.] And:
- “the book [Joshua] is designed to critique the ethnocentric and nationalistic assumptions on which a genocidal ideology depends”
The second time-stream, the ‘deep narrative’ as Lynch calls
it conveys this more developed Israelite thought, something forged through a
history of Israel’s engagement with God. It interprets stories in a surprising
way that would have been helpful for new eras that Israelites were living in
when they were reading the book. Crucially, Old Testament authors knew that this
deep narrative is there, and presented it to their readers: “Deuteronomy,
Joshua, and Kings read the call to genocidal war as a metaphor for separation
from idols.” Lynch cites the Old Testament book of Kings:
“we read how the High Priest
Hilkiah found the long lost ‘Book of the Law’ in the Temple, which most think
is the book of Deuteronomy. When Josiah heard the book read, he was horrified
that he and the people were not in compliance. So, Josiah went on a rampage,
tearing down every known place of illicit worship. The narrator of Kings makes
a point of the fact that Josiah carried out all the commands of Deuteronomy 7:5
(the herem text), but not against Canaanite peoples. Instead, he carried out
herem against (Israelite!) places of worship.”
Not against another people but against sacred spaces set up
by Israelites themselves. The second-time stream in summary presents a social
ideal that “Joshua envisions the people keeping true to the ‘Book of the Law of
Moses’ by ‘not mixing’ and ‘not serving’” the gods of their enemies. It’s about
taking responsibility for their own religious purity. And this is rather than
total wipe-out of the enemy. Lynch lays out the evidence in a table to show
that this is how the book of Kings regards the call to total wipe-out as
fulfilled merely by demolishing sacred spaces. See the matches:
Deut 7:5 2
Kings 23
‘tear down’ (Heb. natats) altars DONE (Heb.
natats; 23:7, 12, 15)
‘shatter’ (Heb. shabar) the pillars DONE (Heb. shabar;
23:14)
‘hew down’ (Heb. gd’) the Asherim DONE (Heb. gd’;
23:14)
‘burn’ (Heb. saraph) the images DONE (Heb.
saraph; 23:4, 6, 11, 15)
So, this series of matches demonstrates that in this much
later story “Josiah carried out the herem command of Deuteronomy 7:5, yet
without exterminating entire people groups. He didn’t go hunt for Hivites and
Girgashites, but instead, understood the true sense of the law by seeking
radical differentiation from all forms of ‘Canaanite’ religion.” So that’s an
eyeopener. That how Josiah – long after the time of Joshua – interpreted the
holy requirements. Lynch asks whether this is how the herem texts in Joshua are
meant to be understood.
To recap the second time-stream, going through those books
in brief:
- Joshua: in this book, as well as the ancient rhetoric of total wipe-out of the enemy, we find more modest claims too, and with a sting in the tail. Lynch notes: “The promise of God was that Israel would displace the inhabitants of Canaan little by little.” Thus: “Israel settled on only a portion of the land. Canaanites were still running around everywhere, and eventually, Israel would be exiled from the land it failed to fully settle (Josh 23:13).”
- So next question: how do you live as a holy people in a land that isn’t wholly holy? Well, not simplistically through holy war, but particularly through holy worship, with the Israelites taking responsibility for their own failings: “Joshua twice asks the people of Israel (!) to rid themselves of idols (23:14, 23).” No point in pointing a finger at native idolaters when you are idolaters yourselves. So, part of the message is that the risk of Israelite idolatry is greater in a land where there are native idolators, but wipe-out of the enemy doesn’t make you yourself religiously pure – that comes from taking responsibility for yourself.
- Thus, Deuteronomy and Kings: in these books, “the herem texts were read not as a call for genocide, but instead as a summons to remain loyal to Yahweh and get rid of all ‘Canaanite’ religious influences.”
- With other people groups remaining in the land with their own gods, the book of Joshua could provide a subtle answer to their problem, as it could be read by Israelites as a call upon themselves to stay devoted to Yahweh alone, the God of Israel: “the stories of Jericho and Ai, and the herem texts in Joshua 10-11 are meant to be read metaphorically as calls for radical loyalty.”
- Next question: how in practice do the Israelites avoid contact with their enemies’ gods, without going in for mass slaughter? Well, this meant something that we might be tempted to see as cultural vandalism, smashing the enemies’ religious objects, especially if they themselves were tempted to use them: “the enduring challenge of Joshua is to forsake all competing loyalties, in fact, to destroy idols and altars, to show them no mercy”. Lynch adds, “if you prefer more pious language, this is a ‘reform movement,’ not a genocidal campaign.” Recognising modern sensitivities, Lynch says, “While that intolerance might be unpalatable, it is of a different order than genocide.” So pagan altars were smashed up.
In short, the ancient Israelite reader was led to interpret
Joshua according to the second time-stream, the somewhat less violent one. It’s
about keeping different groups of people differentiated, not about the other
side being wiped out. And the Old Testament really does tee it up that way.
Lynch: “Deuteronomy, Joshua and Kings ‘re-frame’ extermination commands in
terms of differentiation. Interpretive shifts were already under way that
dislodged the story of conquest from any essential association with genocide.”
Therefore, within Old Testament interpretation, “The story
of herem warfare was understood to mean: Don’t cavort with idolatrous nations,
and even more importantly, remain true to the Torah.”
That is all very well, but a possible problem - does it
undermine the Torah, that which comes before the book of Joshua? After all, the
terms of engagement with the Canaanites were written in the law (Deut 7:20).
Were they in one sense not obeyed? Or is it a valid interpretation of the law?
Lynch goes with the latter: “This suggests that the story may have been written
as a conscious interpretation of the law—a law that seems uncompromising when
read apart from the story. The book opens up the possibility of creative
adaptation of the law to accommodate the enemy within Israel’s own community.”
This is leading towards Lynch arguing that the book of
Joshua is leading towards another meaning: “liturgizing warfare”. This means “the
reception of such stories in worship settings for a totally different purpose,
namely, to celebrate the power of Yahweh effected in the praise of his people.”
This is the crucial thing to keep in mind.
How does Lynch get to that conclusion, then?
Making the story work
for liturgy
Lynch says that his Bible-reading journey here Is going with the text, rather than looking for a way out of it. He says that the purpose of warfare stories changes when, as calls it, “reading
along the grain of the Old Testament as it reframes violence against enemies.”
This is where it gets fun. He explains what he finds: “I’m calling it a
priestly re-framing, from warfare to liturgy.” That is to say, “Joshua is
‘liturgizing’ an earlier story of conquest, with Yahweh’s lone military action
in the foreground and Israel’s participation in worship as the accompaniment.”
This is taking military glory away from the Israelites.
What are the signs of this reframing? Well, Joshua is
“participating in a broader
biblical pattern of liturgizing warfare—i.e.,
(a.) heightening the drama of
divine victory,
(b.) downplaying or completely
eliminating any meaningful human contribution to the victory, and
(c.) heightening the significance
of the worship system within the battle scene.”
(I’ve split Lynch’s sentence up into paragraphs again
there.) Indeed, Lynch observes that “Joshua 3-6 reads like a liturgical
procession. It takes two whole chapters for Israel to process across the
Jordan, stopping at each significant site to mark it for later re-enactment.”
It looks like a religious pilgrimage, or a bit like a play
acted out in a religious service.
In a telling observation, Lynch notes that “The 7 day
pattern of walking around the city (Josh 6) recalls the 7-day Passover
celebration in Joshua 3-4.”
Being able to read the book of Joshua this way would have
meant a lot to Israelites in later eras:
“The effect of this liturgizing
was to render an older story of conquest meaningful for a people whose land had
been effectively taken away… a powerless and vulnerable people in the land.
They had no standing army, no king, few defenses, and little political clout.
But they did have a temple. They did have priests. So when they looked back on
their history to ask, where is the powerful God of the past in our day? they
answer, He’s present in our worship.”
In the ‘deeper’ narrative then, the second time-stream, “As
in the story from 2 Chronicles 20, the people were accompanying Yahweh into the
land, but were in essence standing back in worshipful reverence to watch him
win a victory.”
See how this influences the story of Joshua at the crucial
moment: “the army had no role, the Levitical Priests took center stage. Their
special duty was to accompany Yahweh into battle and announce his arrival.”
And here is another difference from older stories of war: “In
the past, the Levites would have carried Yahweh’s ark, or throne. Throne or
standard-bearing was a common motif in ancient Near Eastern warfare.” However,
as we read Joshua we find that, without the ark present – the throne-like box
containing holy objects - the Levites act as singers at the crucial moment,
and, “Their praises formed a veritable throne for Yahweh as he went forth to
fight for his people. This concept is likely behind the psalmist’s claim that
Yahweh is ‘enthroned on the praises of Israel’ (Ps 22:3). Rather than the ark,
the priests bore Yahweh into battle, lifted up so to speak on the praises of
Israel.” (The ark was kept safe in the sanctuary by now, not out in the
battlefield.)
That understanding of things will probably be popular with a
lot of Christian worship leaders!
The singing of the Levite priests has a dramatic impact on the
warfare zone, as God goes into action: “At the moment they began to sing and
praise, the LORD set an ambush against the Ammonites, Moab, and Mount Seir, who
had come against Judah, so that they were routed” (2 Chr 20:22). It’s not clear
how the Lord set an ambush from how the story is told, but the important thing
is that it was the Lord’s ambush, not the army’s ambush.
Thus, as part of liturgising, the story itself has an
unexpected emphasis, as interpreted in the later Old Testament book of
Chronicles. Lynch:
“Chronicles emphasizes the
co-ordination between singing and Yahweh’s visitation. In the previous verse,
Jehoshaphat appointed the Levites to literally ‘praise [God’s] holy theophany,’
or dramatic visitation. As they sang, Yahweh came in power (cf. 2 Chr 5:13). In
sum, this post-exilic story paints the image of a God who achieves victory over
the enemy, accompanied by the praise of the powerless.”
In my next, and final post, on this subject, I will look at
Matthew Lynch’s argument for how the
violence is toned down (in the second-time stream), and how us-and-them
violence is undermined.
Here are links to my three posts in this short series on the Book of Joshua:
You are here - Part two
No comments:
Post a Comment