Basic Scripture

Joshua

It is common today to say that the book of Joshua had a complex history. This means not only the use of the sources Yahwist, Elohist and Priestly, but also of other old traditions. A major reason for this claim is the fact that there are so many parallels between Moses and Joshua: both sent out spies to investigate; both crossed waters miraculously; both held a special Passover celebration; both had a vision tell him to remove shoes, because he was standing on holy ground; both supported the victory of the army by holding up hands or a rod; both gave farewell discourses to the people.

But really, here we see another case of the weakness of mere internal evidence for a favored position. Of course, those parallels exist. But is it so unlikely that the events were real in both cases? There is nothing very remarkable about any or all of the cases, given the fact that both men are special delegates of God. In the opening part of the book, at 1:5 God tells Joshua: "As I was with Moses, so will I be with you." The very last lines of Deuteronomy record that Moses laid his hands on Joshua and so Joshua was filled with the spirit of wisdom.

Then there are the archaeological problems of cities said to have been conquered by Joshua. We saw above, in chapter 10, that new research now seems to solve the chief problem, that about Jericho.

Another problem city is that of Ai, which Joshua is said to have destroyed (8:1-29). It has been usual to identify Ai with Et-Tell, where no ruins have been located at a time suitable for the Exodus (let us recall from chapter 10 that the date of the Exodus is far from settled). John J. Bimson (Redating the Exodus and Conquest, Sheffield, 1978, pp. 215-25 gives impressive, even if not conclusive evidence, to show that the real location is at Beitin, still to be excavated. (cf. also the article by J. Bimson and D. Livingston, in Biblical Archeology Review,Sept-Oct, 1987, pp. 40ff, and attacks in Biblical Archeology Review Nov- Dec. 1987, and Biblical Archeology Review Mar-April, 1988, and reply by D. Livingston in Biblical Archeology Review Jan- Feb. 1989. The language of the two attacking articles is so intemperate as to damage the reader's confidence in the attackers. Thus the article of Mar-April, 1988 says that even the slashing attack in Nov-Dec. 1987 "does too much honor to the 'lunatic fringe' growing around the archaeology of Palestine").

Actually a 15th century date - Bimson has proposed 1460 - fits better with the archaeological evidence than a 13th century date, which is the more favored one. The archaeological evidence fits well with the following cities with a 15th century date: Jericho, Bethel, Hazor, Debir, Lachish, Hebron, Hormah, Dan. We have already commented on Ai, and we noted above that the base for the 13th century theory is not as solid as some think.

We do not mean to say we have refuted the claims of several sources in Joshua. We merely wish to point out that the evidence for them is weak. The actual genre as we said before, is probably something similar to epic, in contrast to Judges, which seems more sober. Really, the book of Joshua itself admits that not all the land was conquered - 13:1 says the Lord told Joshua that Joshua was by then very old, and much of the land still remained to be conquered.

A fascinating problem comes at 10:12: Joshua, to be able to complete the victory over the enemy, prayed that the sun might stand still, and it did. But this is hard to interpret, for the text itself adds: "Is not this recorded in the Book of Jashar"? So inspiration would guarantee only that such a thing was recorded in a nonbiblical account. It would not guarantee that the nonbiblical account was true, especially since the words are in poetic form. Without comment in either direction, we might add that a heavily controversial Russian scientist, I. Velikovsky, in a 1950 book, Worlds in Collision,proposed the theory that what is now the planet Venus was some other celestial body that strayed into the solar system, made a close pass at the earth, causing the rotation to reverse, and then settled down as a planet. A good physicist would admit that such a reversal was possible - most scientists today (though not all) deny it really happened. If it happened, there would be a double length day on one side of the globe, a double night on the other. Strangely, the 5th century B.C. Greek historian, Herodotus, asserts (in 2:142) that the Egyptian priests had told him that within a period of 11,340 years, the place of the rising and setting of the sun had shifted four times.

Near the end of the book, at 24:16-28, Joshua made a renewal of the covenant at Shechem. An interesting question arises here. There is no mention in the book of a conquest of Shechem by Joshua. If the city was at the time inhabited - which is debated - would there have been some special arrangement needed to let Joshua conduct this large ceremony there? Some think Shechem was already Israelite centuries before. They appeal to Genesis 48:22 where the dying Jacob gives Shechem to Joseph.

Judges

In a way the genre of Judges seems quite different from that of Joshua. And it surely is different. Yet, as we saw, Joshua 13:1 admits Joshua did not conquer all the land.

The book seems to be a collection of stories with a deuteronomic purpose - that is, to show that sin brings punishment, repentance brings forgiveness. In such a pattern, exactness of detail might not be considered important. Many times over through one of the judges, God brought deliverance when repentance came. The theme is set in general form in the second chapter. In the first 3 verses, "an angel of the Lord" tells them in the name of God that they have not kept the covenant: therefore, God would not defeat all the enemies of the land as He had said He would. Verses 10-23 say the same: A new generation came that did not know the Lord and what He had done for them. They worshipped the Baals and God was angry: He would not clear out their enemies as He would had done otherwise.

A major judge was the woman Deborah. As punishment for false worship, God had let the Israelites fall into the hands of King Jabin of Hazor. At that time Deborah was functioning as a sort of judicial judge, sitting under a palm tree and hearing cases. She sent for Barak and told him God commanded that he fight against Jabin. Barak was unwilling to do so unless she would come with him. The king's general Sisera came out with 900 iron chariots. The Lord put Sisera to rout. He fled to the tent of Jael, wife of the Kenite Heber, and rested there. But when Sisera went to sleep: Jael drove a tent peg through his head and killed him - in violation of the sacred rule of hospitality. In the next chapter we read the Canticle of Deborah,which recounts basically the same event.

The next judge was Gideon. God had handed over the Israelites to Midian for seven years. The Midianites made it almost impossible for Israel to have food, for they came and took whatever they had. While Gideon was beating out wheat in the wine press to save it from the Midianites, an angel of the Lord appeared to him, told him he would save his people. God gave Gideon two miraculous signs to assure him He was with Him. At first Gideon had over 30, 000 troops. God insisted he must reduce them to only 300 men - to show that it was by God's power, not theirs, that victory would come. Gideon employed a clever stratagem, and did win the victory.

In this account we see for the second time a remarkable pattern of speech. At times the text says an angel of God spoke to Gideon; at other times, it is God Himself who speaks. We saw the same thing in chapter 2. This pattern has led many to say that the words "angel of the Lord" are only a literary device: that there are no separate beings called angels. We agree the pattern could suggest that. However, it become abundantly clear from later parts of the Old Testament, and throughout the New Testament, that angels are separate beings. Since it is a general rule that we must understand Scripture with the eyes of the original readers, we must admit there are angels. The fact that the angels often appeared in human form, e.g., to Tobit, led to hesitation among the Fathers of the Church. But finally it became clear that angels have no bodies.

A special case is that of Samson. His birth was announced to his mother by an angel of the Lord, who commanded that he be a Nazarite from birth, and that no razor should touch his head. Samson possessed astounding physical strength: he even tore a lion apart with his bare hands. But he lost it by infidelity to the Lord. He married a Philistine woman, Delilah, who beguiled him into telling how he could lose his strength: by having his hair cut. She arranged to have that done while Samson was asleep; the Philistines made him prisoner, put out his eyes, forced him to work grinding grain. After a while, his hair began to grow again. The Philistines put on a banquet, and wanted to have Samson amuse them. He asked a boy who was leading him to bring him to the pillars that were the support of the hall. He asked God to give back his strength, received it, shook the pillars, and died in the ruins with a great number of Philistines.

The story of Samson at first sight does not seem to fit the usual pattern of the judges. Samson did not lead forces against the enemies of Israel. Yet God made use of even Samson's sin to bring the deaths of many of the Philistines.

So the 'Judges" were not in general judicial officers, they were mostly charismatic leaders that is, leaders with a special divine mission to do the work God intended.

Ruth

Sometime during the period of the Judges, Elimelech went from Bethlehem to Moab during the time of a famine, along with his wife Naomi and two sons. He died in Moab. His sons married Moabite women, Orpah and Ruth. When the two husbands died, Naomi wanted to go back to Bethlehem, and her devoted daughter in law Ruth went with her. Back in Bethlehem, a wealthy landowner, Boaz, found Ruth attractive, and married her. Their son was Obed, the grandfather of King David.

The story is charming. Was it historical?. That is debated. We notice the Hebrews put the book in the third group called Writings. It has many Aramaic forms for so short a book. Even if it may not be historical, it does preserve a real tradition about the ancestry of David, and hence of Jesus. In Jewish liturgy it is read on the feast of Pentecost.

The two books of Samuel were probably originally one book, and similarly for the two books of Kings. Some versions, following the Septuagint, call these same books the four books of Kings.

The pattern in these books is the familiar deuteronomic picture: sin brings punishment, repentance and good bring salvation. They are basically historical, with perhaps a bit of freedom since they are written chiefly to give the deuteronomic message, with illustrations from history.

Samuel was born of a mother who had long been sterile, but obtained him by prayer. He proved to be the last of the judges, the first of the prophets. When he was still quite young, she gave him to the service of the temple at Shiloh, where Eli was the priest. While there, God spoke to him, and told him of the doom awaiting the house of Eli because of the wickedness of Eli's sons, who died in the battle of Aphek, c. 1050.

In 4:3 we meet a strange line (if we translate the Hebrew literally - most versions soften it). When the battle was over the Hebrews said: "Why did the Lord strike us today before the face of the Philistines?" They knew well the Philistines had hit them, but it was common to attribute to the direct action of God things He only permitted - we saw this in the case of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart before the Exodus.

After the defeat, the Hebrews brought the ark of the covenant, hoping it would protect them. But the Philistines defeated them and captured the ark itself. But God sent plagues upon the Philistines, so that they returned the ark, along with gold ornaments, in reparation. Strangely, when the ark did return, it was neglected until David later brought it to Jerusalem.

The defeats were making clear that the loose organization of Israel, held together chiefly by having a central shrine, could hardly match the skilled Philistines, who also had a monopoly of iron working (1 Sam. 13:19-22).

Further, when the people saw that the sons of Samuel, by then old, were corrupt, they asked him for a king. He was reluctant, and God was displeased, yet he did give them a king. (there is no conflict between the attitudes shown in chapters 8 and 9 as is often charged: God and Samuel regret, but grant the request).

In 1 Sam 9:14-27, God reveals to Samuel His choice, Saul. In chapter 10, Samuel goes through the ritual of choosing a king by lot - of course, God managed the lots. (Normally it is wrong to call on lots to learn God's will, unless there is a special divine inspiration). Saul was made king at Gilgal, c. 1020.

For a time, Saul had considerable victories over the Philistines. But soon he disobeyed twice. First when Samuel did not come in time to offer sacrifice before a battle, Saul did it himself (13:8-15). Samuel reproached him saying: "Obedience is better than sacrifice." The outward sign, the offering of an animal, is valuable only if it expresses the interior disposition, which is basically obedience to God. This was true even of the sacrifice of Jesus: Rom 5:19. So Samuel meant that without obedience, the offering was worthless, and worse. Later, in chapter 15, Saul violated the ban, in saving King Agag of Amalek and the best sheep. Saul pleaded he only wanted the sheep for sacrifice. Samuel again rejected his plea, told him again, God would not continue his dynasty. There is no reason why Saul, in stubbornness, could not have done both things, so claims of a clash here are not warranted.

We ask why God rejected Saul's dynasty for these two sins, but did not reject David for greater sins, adultery, covered by what amounted to murder. The answer lies in a distinction of two orders, the external, and the internal order. The external order deals with what position a person will have, e.g., king, legal specialist, scholar etc. The interior order is concerned with the attainment of eternal salvation. Since God wills all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4), he offers grace in this interior order very abundantly. We receive all those graces which we do not reject. But in the exterior order, the rule is that the Spirit gives what He wills, where He wills (cf. 1 Cor 12:11). We do not know the reason for the choice of David, but he was, after the sins we mentioned, unusually meek and holy. Perhaps God wanted such a one to be an ancestor of His Son.

Then, in chapter 17, David, a young man, slew the Philistine giant, Goliath. Saul seemed happy at first, but when the women went out singing: "Saul slew his thousands, David his ten thousands", Saul became jealous, probably insanely jealous. He pursued David to kill him. He even killed the priests of Nob for having aided David.

At the cave of Adullam, David could have easily killed Saul, but did not do so, saying meekly he would not touch the anointed one of the Lord. A second incident of the same sort is told in chapter 24.

After this, Samuel died. Soon Saul had to face a large Philistine force. He went to a medium at Endor, asked her to call up the spirit of Samuel. She did, and Samuel told him he and his sons would be killed in battle the next day. Among them died Jonathan, who had been a fast friend of David.

Soon after the death of Saul, c. 1000 BC, Judah accepted David as king in Hebron. Later the northern tribes also accepted him.

David then conquered Jerusalem, made it his capital, brought the ark there.

One day David chanced to see a woman washing herself on a nearby roof. It was Bathsheba, wife of Uriah. David sent for her, and she conceived. To cover up, he invited Uriah to dine with him, hoping he would go to his wife, and thus the sin would be covered up. Uriah did not. So David had him put in the front line in battle, deserted, so he would die. Nathan the prophet came and rebuked David, who promptly repented.

In his last years, David's son Absalom, after winning people over by flattery, proclaimed himself king. David ordered his forces to spare Absalom, but they did not. David wept bitterly.

Near the very end, another son, Adonijah, proclaimed himself king. But Bathsheba, with the help of Nathan, induced David to appoint their son Solomon as king, and to crown him at once.

David had wanted to build a temple to the Lord, but Nathan in an oracle told him instead that the Lord would build a house, an everlasting dynasty, for him (2 Sam. 7). His son Solomon, under whom Israel reached a height of prosperity greater than before or since, did build that temple. After he dedicated it, God told Solomon of His pleasure, but also warned that if he or his successors proved unfaithful, He would take his presence from there, destroy the temple, and scatter them over the earth (1 Kings 9).

God offered Solomon any gift, Solomon asked for wisdom. Yet in spite of that, he because fatuous later on, married many foreign wives, and built shrines for their gods. Of course the people gladly joined in the false worship, to which they were so prone.

Therefore (1 Kings 11) God told Solomon there would be a punishment, but not in his lifetime, because of the goodness of David.

The punishment came in a special way. When Solomon died, Judah readily accepted his son Rehoboam as king. But the northern tribes assembled at Shechem and asked Rehoboam to modify the harsh taxes and forced labor Solomon had imposed on them (1 Kings 12). His father's advisors urged him to comply, but his younger friends said otherwise. He told them: My father beat you with whips, I will beat you with scorpions. The punishment was withdrawal of light to Rehoboam (cf. Isaiah 29:14).

The northern kingdom withdrew, creating a split that never healed. They chose Jeroboam as their king. He built shrines at Dan and Bethel, each with a golden bull, to keep people from going to Jerusalem. The northern kingdom lasted until 721. King Hoshea, foolishly hoping for help from Egypt, refused tribute to Assyria. Then Assyria took Samaria, and brought the northern kingdom to an end.

The remainder of the books of Kings tell a sad, and mostly dull tale: all the kings of the north followed in the footsteps of the sins of Jeroboam. Of the southern kings, only Hezekiah and Josiah escape criticism. To reward Hezekiah, God protected Jerusalem from being taken by Sennacherib of Assyria in 701; Josiah too was good ruler, but thinking Assyria was weakened (and it was) tried for independence, and failed. He himself died in the battle of Megiddo in 609, trying to keep Egypt from aiding Assyria. His son Jehoiakim (609-598) undid his father's reform. Judah became a vassal of Assyria. Assyria fell to a coalition of Babylonians and Medes. When Jehoiakim thought Babylon was weak, he revolted. He was dead by the time Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon came down in 597 and sacked the temple and city, deported thousands of upper-class citizens and the next king, Jehoiakin, son of Jehoiakim. Nebuchadnezzar put on the throne the weak Zedekiah. He refused the advice of Jeremiah. Nebuchadnezzar came again in 587, deported more leading citizens, left only some of the country's poor.

There is a bright spot in the otherwise dull story of the kings: the cycles of stories about Elijah (1 Kings, 17:1 - 19-21) and Elisha (2 Kings 2:1 - 8:29). Elijah was the great prophet whose coming at the end is foretold by Sirach 48:10, Malachi 3:23-24, and by Our Lord Himself in Matthew 17. He also appeared with Jesus at the transfiguration. Elisha is praised briefly in Sirach 48:12- 15. So they were real figures. Some, unfortunately, speak of their stories as mere legends.

The two books of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah form a unit, and were probably originally one. The separation of Ezra and Nehemiah came centuries later.

The Chronicler - for we may think of the author of all four parts by that name - had a purpose different from that of the deuteronomists: he wanted to show that worship like that conducted by David, with full observance of purity laws, was the way to insure the future of Israel. The dynasty of David was gone, so this was the real means of unity. Hence the Chronicler devotes much space to the reign of David, and does not mention his sins.

The opening chapters of First Chronicles is largely just genealogies, from Adam to the start of the monarchy. Detailed coverage starts only with the beginning of the rule of David. Then the narrative runs closely parallel to Samuel and Kings, which are drawn on extensively, except that information on the northern kings is practically absent.

Cyrus of Persia in 539, as part of a more enlightened policy, allowed the Hebrews to return from exile, and encouraged them to rebuild their temple. The ten northern tribes did not return, they had been absorbed. But Judah and Benjamin did go back. However, they did not at once rebuild the temple, so God urged them through the prophet Haggai in 520, and then the temple was completed in 515. There had been opposition from the Persian governor of Samaria, which was finally resolved when the decree of Cyrus was found in the royal archives, searched by command of King Darius.

The second major event was the reordering of Jewish life in Jerusalem, through the work of Ezra and Nehemiah. Here chronology is a problem. Ezra 7:1ff says Ezra's ministry started in the seventh year of Artaxerxes; Nehemiah 2:1 says Nehemiah's work began in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. The trouble is that there were three Persian kings with that name.

Nehemiah 8 describes a week-long occasion when Ezra read the Law to the assembled people, while the Levites explained it. Some scholars think this work of the Levites was really the beginning of Targums - for many of the Jews during the exile had changed from the Hebrew to the Aramaic language.

Both Ezra (9-10) and Nehemiah (13:23-27) denounced marriages of Jews to nonJews. Ezra actually called on them to dismiss their foreign wives and children!

There has been much discussion of the original structure of this four part work. The reconstruction by F. M. Cross "A Reconstruction of Jewish Restoration," in Journal of Biblical Literature (94 [1975] 4-18) has won much favor. He proposed three stages: 1)First and Second Chronicles, after chapter 9, was composed between 520, when the temple foundation was laid, and its completion in 515; 2)The work of Ezra, half a century later; 3) Near 400 B.C., a final editor inserted the memoirs of Nehemiah and added the genealogies of First Chronicles 1-9.

Copied from EWTN with permission.
HTMLized by Luke Wadel, Acuity of Divine Love in the Intellect: How Eternity Matters.