1. Announcements
Thomas J. Heffernan (Tennessee): “The Tradition of the Theology of Martyrdom in the Passion of Perpetua and Felicity.”
7:30 Thursday, October 2nd
Physical Sciences building, room 1072.

2. Agenda for 2008-10-01 Announcements Review Joshua Discussion Session 3
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Grace and Law
Joshua
Discussion Session 3
For next time
Read
RTOT chapter 7 & 8
Judges chapters 1-3, 6-8, 13-16, 19-21
1 Samuel chapters 1-3; 8-10; 13; 15-18; 24.
2 Samuel chapters 2; 6-7; 11-12; 24
Write the online quizzes for chapters 7 & 8.

3. Review of last class
Leviticus: Puts the Message of Holiness at the Centre of the Pentateuch
Sacrifice “makes atonement” (Lev 1:4); i.e., to make right with God by satisfying the penalty for breaking relationship
Numbers: Out with the Old, In with the New!
The Problem of Numbers in Numbers
The Spy Story emphasizes God’s faithfulness to his promise and the consequences of disobedience.
Deuteronomy: structured like an ANE treaty
Law & Covenant: Law functions as means to maintain relationship, not to establish relationship
Case Law & Apodictic Law
Development between the Exodus and Deuteronomy
Grace in the Torah?

4. The OT Story

5. Joshua: Introduction & Title
Name of the Book: Joshua
Named after its main character: Joshua son of Nun (the same Joshua that was with Moses)
Contents:
The greatest act of salvation history was not the Exodus alone. The Exodus was just one half of a great redemptive complex. God had not promised his people only that he would deliver them from bondage in Egypt, but also that he would give them the land that he promised to his fathers (cf. Gen 12:2-3; 15:18-21). The book of Joshua takes us into that inheritance: it describes the conquest and distribution of the promised land
The Book of Joshua: Leadership Done Right!
Name and Contents
The book is named after it’s main character: Joshua son of Nun (The same Joshua that was with Moses). When coming to this book it is important to remember that the greatest act of salvation history was not the Exodus alone. The Exodus was just one half of a great redemptive complex. God had not promised his people only that he would deliver them from bondage in Egypt, but also that he would give them the land that he promised to his fathers (cf. Gen 12:2-3; 15:18-21). The book of Joshua takes us into that inheritance: it describes the conquest and distribution of the promised land.

6. B'. Dividing the Land A'. Retaining the Land
Structure of Joshua
Entering the Land
Taking the Land
B'. Dividing the Land A'. Retaining the Land
The first section (1:1-5:12) concerns Entering the land, and is dominated by the notion of "going over" (‘aµbar, "going over"). It talks about the various preparations taken before and just after entering the land, like the sending of the spies into Jericho and crossing the Jordan river.
The commands and promises in the comissioning of Joshua 1:2‑9 emphasize the covenant relationship between God and his people. On God’s side, he elected Israel to inherit the land (v. 6). On Israel’s side, they must now by faith claim the gift (w. 3‑4). It is not so much a matter of obedience, “to cross over the Jordan,” as important as that it is, as a matter of trust in God (w. 6, 7, 9). He gives them reason to trust: his faithful presence with them (vv. 5, 9b). Vv. 7‑8 show that possessing the land depends on faith’s obedience to the Book of the Law (vv. 7‑8).
1). 1:1-9 the commissioning of Joshua (note the centrality of 1:7-8 for the DtrH, especially Kings)
2). 1:10-5:12 concerns entry into the land
1: the remainder of ch 1 concerns preparations to cross the Jordan
2:1-5:12 outlines the crossing of the Jordan and the events that took place while at Gilgal
What are the events of 2:1-5:12 reminiscent of? (spies: compare 2:8-11 w/ Num 13:31-33; the crossing of ch 3 is reminiscent of the Exodus [discuss Adam of 2:16]; circumcision and passover; cf 3:7 and 4:14)

9. Summary of Joshua
“And now I am about to go the way of all the earth, and you know in your hearts and souls, all of you, that not one thing has failed of all the good things that Yahweh your God promised concerning you; all have come to pass for you, not one of them has failed. But just as all the good things that Yahweh your God promised concerning you have been fulfilled for you, so the Lord will bring upon you all the bad things, until he has destroyed you from this good land that Yahweh your God has given you. If you transgress the covenant of Yahweh your God, which he enjoined on you, and go and serve other gods and bow down to them, then the anger of Yahweh will be kindled against you, and you shall perish quickly from the good land that he has given to you” (23:14-16)

10. Significant Passages & Themes
Theme: God is faithful to his promises
“So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the Lord had spoken to Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal allotments. And the land had rest from war” (11:23).
Question: God is faithful, but will the next generation of Israelites be faithful?
Theme and Purpose
God is faithful to his promises
With all it’s captivating stories and interesting characters, the book as a whole is concerned with one thing: showing that God is faithful to his promises. Some five hundred years prior to Joshua, God called Abraham out from Babylon and promised to make him into a great nation through which he was going to bless the whole world.
All three elements of the promise are found here: (1) posterity: “I will make you into a great nation; (2) divine-human relationship: “I will bless you…”; and (3) land: “and go to the land which I will show you.” While the promise of the land comes to the forefront with Numbers and Deut, the one missing ingredient was land. This is where the book of Joshua comes into the picture. Now, to be accurate, the book of Joshua actually recounts the second attempt at taking possession of the promised land. The first, and very unsuccessful attempt, is recorded for us in the book of Numbers (chaps ). That was the time when Moses sent the spies into the land and they—except for Caleb and Joshua—came back with a report saying that there was no way that they could ever take possession of the land as the inhabitants were too powerful. The people believed the spies negative report and doubted God’s promises. And as a result they were not allowed to enter the land. The book of Joshua contains the story of the children of those disobedient Israelites who have died while wandering in the desert, and it tells of Israel’s attempt under Joshua to aquire the land because of her faithfulness to God.
Big question: God is faithful; but will this “next generation” of Israelites be faithful?

11. How complete was the conquest?
Lightening quick and complete conquest with spectacular battles (11:16-23; 12:1-24; 21:43-45)
Many battles over a long time (11:18) with huge tracts of territories still to be possessed little by little after the conquest (13:1‑7; 18:3; cf. Ex. 23:29-30; Judg 1).
“Now Joshua was old and advanced in years; and the Lord said to him, “You are old and advanced in years, and very much of the land still remains to be possessed. This is the land that still remains…” (13:1)

12. Archaeology & the “Conquest Models”
“The invasion of the land of Canaan by Israel under Joshua was an invention of DH. The conquest narrative is a good example of ancient historiography but it cannot pass for historical by any modern criteria of historical evaluation” (John Van Seters).
Archaeology and the “Conquest Models”
The invasion of the land of Canaan by Israel under Joshua was an invention of DtrH. The conquest narrative is a good example of ancient historiography but it cannot pass for historical by any modern criteria of historical evaluation (John Van Seters).
The three theories that attempt to explain the emergence of Israel in Canaan are too well known to need documentation here. They are: (1) the “conquest” model, espoused chiefly by Albright and his followers in America, as well as by Yadin and several Israeli scholars; (2) the “peaceful infiltration” model, first proposed by Alt and the German school in the 1920s, but still widely influential; and (3) the “peasants’ revolt” model, introduced originally by Mendenhall in the 1960s and recently elaborated by Gottwald. All of these models make some use of the archaeological data, but only the first is heavily dependent upon such evidence.
1. The Conquest Model
Biblical Support: Joshua 1-12
A) Early Date - 15th century (1446 bc)
Based Solely on the chronology in 1Kings 6:1
Early date in the second half of the 15th century and the early 14th (480 years in 1Kgs 6:1 = 1446; etc.)
B) Late Date – 13th century (1250 bc)
Proponents of this view take 1Kings 6 to by symbolic (480 years is 40 years x 12; 40 is the time for one generation, the number 12 signifies completeness).
Hold to an early mid-13th century date on archaeological data:
Archaeological Evidence for 13th Century
As is often observed, there is no direct archaeological evidence that any constituents of later Israel were ever in Egypt. Nor is there anything in the material culture of the early Israelite settlements in Palestine that points to an Egyptian origin for that culture.
1) The Exodus and the 19th Egyptian Dynasty
-Exodus 1:11 and the place names Ramses and Pithom; Pithon and Ramses most likely were built during the reigns of Seti I ( bc), and Ramses ( ).
-The Stele of Merneptah: an Israelite connection!
Joseph and the rule of the Hyksos: A Connection?
2) 13th Century Destruction Layers in Palestine
Evidence is mixed; of the 19 sites noted in Joshua, only 2 have evidence of destruction layers (Hazor and Bethel). But, does the Joshua account require that all of the sites need destruction layers?
Excursus: The Example of Jericho
Jericho is the biggest problem because of its significant place in the biblical narrative, and the fact that it appears that it was not significant during the time of Joshua.
John Garstang ( )
Kathleen Kenyon ( )
Bryant Wood (Revaluation)
3) The Victory Stele of Pharaoh Merneptah
The only Egyptian textual reference, the well known “Victory Stela” of Merneptah (now dated ca b.c.; see further Stager 1985b) mentions “Israel” as a “people.” This is a victory ode celebrating the Egyptian’s defeat of the Libyans in the fifth year of Merneptah’s reign (1209 BC). It also mentions the quelling of Syria-Palestine.
The princes who have opposed me now bow before me, saying: “Peace!” Not one raises his head in revolt. I have desolated Tehenu and quieted the land of the Hittites. I have plundered Canaan in a fierce manner and carried off spoil from the city of Ashkelon and captured the city of Gezer. The town of Yanoam in northern Canaan I have utterly destroyed, leaving it as if it had never existed. The people of the tribes of Israel have been laid waste, their offspring destroyed [lit. Israel is laid waste, his seed is not]. Hurru – Canaan – has become a widow by Egypt’s action! All of the lands there are now pacified; all those who were restless and rebellious have been bound into submission by the Pharaoh of Upper and Lower Egypt, -- Ba-en-Ra Meri-Amon; the Son of Ra: Merneptah Hotep-hir-Maat, who is given life like Ra, the God of the Sun, every day (OT Parallels, 81).
Many scholars argue that this probably refers to an ethnic element, not a nation per se. On the stele, however, the name is used with a determinative that indicates Israel was a foreign people (a throw-stick with a seated man and woman above three strokes is used with the name, which is the sign for a foreigner).
The reference to Israel in Canaan in the stele, then, would mean that something called Israel would have been in Canaan by 1207 bc.
Note that is mentions Israel not in Egypt, but in Canaan, with no apparent knowledge of any Egyptian derivation.
Problems with Conquest Model
1) Evidence for an “invasion” is lacking or at least ambiguous
Garstang’s assessment of Jericho that supported a 15th or 14th century destruction have been challenged by Kenyon.
2) Hyksos = Hebrews in Egypt?
3) Habiru = Israelites?
They are mentioned in the Amarna letters, and some argue that they could possibly be identified with the Israelites.
4) The Biblical Story itself
Nature: hard to take Josh at face value because of the tension between the claims of total victory from a unified assault (11:23; 18:1; 21:43-44); and evidence that territory was instead conquered over a period of time without their being able to eradicate the indigenous population (15:13-19, 63; 16:10; 17:11-13; 19:47; Judg 1). Different views:
2. Peaceful Infiltration/Immigration Model
Biblical Support: Various Passages the indicate a mixed multitude
Exod 12:38 a mixture of people coming from Egypt; foreign groups joining Israel; Shechem
Archaeological Support
Evidence of wandering semitic clans who peacefully entered the land. Evidence of unfortified settlements in the hill country of Judah.
immigration model that appeals to extra-biblical evidence like Hyksos, etc. (Alt, Noth);
Problems: No Conquest at all?
3. Peasant Revolt
(2) peasant revolt that appeals to social sciences (Mendenhall, Gottwald).
Conclusions

13. The Emergence of Israel in Canaan: Three Theories
1. Traditional Conquest Model
Biblical Support: Joshua 1-12
A. Early Date – 15th Century (1445 BCE)
Based solely on the chronology of 1 Kings 6:1 (Building of the temple is dated to 480 years after the exodus)
B. Late Date – 13th Century (1250 BCE)
Understand 1Kings 6 to by symbolic or a round number (480 years is 40 years x 12; 40 = one generation, 12 signifies completeness).
Hold to an early mid-13th century date based on archaeological data:
The Exodus and the 19th Egyptian Dynasty:
Exodus 1:11 Ramses and Pithom ( ).
Hyksos and the Hebrews in Egypt; the Habiru and the Israelites?
13th century destruction layers in Palestine
The Victory Stele of Pharaoh Merneptah (1207 BCE)
Archaeology and the “Conquest Models”
The invasion of the land of Canaan by Israel under Joshua was an invention of DtrH. The conquest narrative is a good example of ancient historiography but it cannot pass for historical by any modern criteria of historical evaluation (John Van Seters).
The three theories that attempt to explain the emergence of Israel in Canaan are too well known to need documentation here. They are: (1) the “conquest” model, espoused chiefly by Albright and his followers in America, as well as by Yadin and several Israeli scholars; (2) the “peaceful infiltration” model, first proposed by Alt and the German school in the 1920s, but still widely influential; and (3) the “peasants’ revolt” model, introduced originally by Mendenhall in the 1960s and recently elaborated by Gottwald. All of these models make some use of the archaeological data, but only the first is heavily dependent upon such evidence.
1. The Conquest Model
Biblical Support: Joshua 1-12
A) Early Date - 15th century (1446 bc)
Based Solely on the chronology in 1Kings 6:1
Early date in the second half of the 15th century and the early 14th (480 years in 1Kgs 6:1 = 1446; etc.)
B) Late Date – 13th century (1250 bc)
Proponents of this view take 1Kings 6 to by symbolic (480 years is 40 years x 12; 40 is the time for one generation, the number 12 signifies completeness).
Hold to an early mid-13th century date on archaeological data:
Archaeological Evidence for 13th Century
As is often observed, there is no direct archaeological evidence that any constituents of later Israel were ever in Egypt. Nor is there anything in the material culture of the early Israelite settlements in Palestine that points to an Egyptian origin for that culture.
1) The Exodus and the 19th Egyptian Dynasty
-Exodus 1:11 and the place names Ramses and Pithom; Pithon and Ramses most likely were built during the reigns of Seti I ( bc), and Ramses ( ).
-The Stele of Merneptah: an Israelite connection!
Joseph and the rule of the Hyksos: A Connection?
2) 13th Century Destruction Layers in Palestine
Evidence is mixed; of the 19 sites noted in Joshua, only 2 have evidence of destruction layers (Hazor and Bethel). But, does the Joshua account require that all of the sites need destruction layers?
Excursus: The Example of Jericho
Jericho is the biggest problem because of its significant place in the biblical narrative, and the fact that it appears that it was not significant during the time of Joshua.
John Garstang ( )
Kathleen Kenyon ( )
Bryant Wood (Revaluation)
3) The Victory Stele of Pharaoh Merneptah
The only Egyptian textual reference, the well known “Victory Stela” of Merneptah (now dated ca b.c.; see further Stager 1985b) mentions “Israel” as a “people.” This is a victory ode celebrating the Egyptian’s defeat of the Libyans in the fifth year of Merneptah’s reign (1209 BC). It also mentions the quelling of Syria-Palestine.
The princes who have opposed me now bow before me, saying: “Peace!” Not one raises his head in revolt. I have desolated Tehenu and quieted the land of the Hittites. I have plundered Canaan in a fierce manner and carried off spoil from the city of Ashkelon and captured the city of Gezer. The town of Yanoam in northern Canaan I have utterly destroyed, leaving it as if it had never existed. The people of the tribes of Israel have been laid waste, their offspring destroyed [lit. Israel is laid waste, his seed is not]. Hurru – Canaan – has become a widow by Egypt’s action! All of the lands there are now pacified; all those who were restless and rebellious have been bound into submission by the Pharaoh of Upper and Lower Egypt, -- Ba-en-Ra Meri-Amon; the Son of Ra: Merneptah Hotep-hir-Maat, who is given life like Ra, the God of the Sun, every day (OT Parallels, 81).
Many scholars argue that this probably refers to an ethnic element, not a nation per se. On the stele, however, the name is used with a determinative that indicates Israel was a foreign people (a throw-stick with a seated man and woman above three strokes is used with the name, which is the sign for a foreigner).
The reference to Israel in Canaan in the stele, then, would mean that something called Israel would have been in Canaan by 1207 bc.
Note that is mentions Israel not in Egypt, but in Canaan, with no apparent knowledge of any Egyptian derivation.
Problems with Conquest Model
1) Evidence for an “invasion” is lacking or at least ambiguous
Garstang’s assessment of Jericho that supported a 15th or 14th century destruction have been challenged by Kenyon.
2) Hyksos = Hebrews in Egypt?
3) Habiru = Israelites?
They are mentioned in the Amarna letters, and some argue that they could possibly be identified with the Israelites.
4) The Biblical Story itself
Nature: hard to take Josh at face value because of the tension between the claims of total victory from a unified assault (11:23; 18:1; 21:43-44); and evidence that territory was instead conquered over a period of time without their being able to eradicate the indigenous population (15:13-19, 63; 16:10; 17:11-13; 19:47; Judg 1). Different views:
2. Peaceful Infiltration/Immigration Model
Biblical Support: Various Passages the indicate a mixed multitude
Exod 12:38 a mixture of people coming from Egypt; foreign groups joining Israel; Shechem
Archaeological Support
Evidence of wandering semitic clans who peacefully entered the land. Evidence of unfortified settlements in the hill country of Judah.
immigration model that appeals to extra-biblical evidence like Hyksos, etc. (Alt, Noth);
Problems: No Conquest at all?
3. Peasant Revolt
(2) peasant revolt that appeals to social sciences (Mendenhall, Gottwald).
Conclusions

14. The princes who have opposed me now bow before me, saying: “Peace
The princes who have opposed me now bow before me, saying: “Peace!” Not one raises his head in revolt. I have desolated Tehenu and quieted the land of the Hittites. I have plundered Canaan in a fierce manner and carried off spoil from the city of Ashkelon and captured the city of Gezer. The town of Yanoam in northern Canaan I have utterly destroyed, leaving it as if it had never existed. The people of the tribes of Israel have been laid waste, their offspring destroyed [lit. Israel is laid waste, his seed is not]. Hurru – Canaan – has become a widow by Egypt’s action! All of the lands there are now pacified; all those who were restless and rebellious have been bound into submission by the Pharaoh of Upper and Lower Egypt, -- Ba-en-Ra Meri-Amon; the Son of Ra: Merneptah Hotep-hir-Maat, who is given life like Ra, the God of the Sun, every day

15. Problems with Conquest Model
1. Evidence for an “invasion” is lacking or at least ambiguous
2. Unsure connections: Hyksos = Hebrews in Egypt?; Habiru = Israelites?
They are mentioned in the Amarna letters, and some argue that they could possibly be identified with the Israelites.
3. The Biblical Story itself
Hard to take Josh at face value because of the tension between the claims of total victory from a unified assault (11:23; 18:1; 21:43-44); and evidence that territory was instead conquered over a period of time without their being able to eradicate the indigenous population (15:13-19, 63; 16:10; 17:11-13; 19:47; Judg 1).

16. Theory 2: Peaceful Infiltration
Biblical Support: Passages the indicate a mixed multitude:
“The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides children. A mixed crowd also went up with them, and livestock in great numbers, both flocks and herds” (Exod 12:38)
Also references to Israelites settling in places with indigenous population with no conquest (e.g., Shechem; Josh 8:30-35; 24:1)
Archaeological Support:
Evidence of wandering semitic clans who peacefully entered the land. Evidence of unfortified settlements in the hill country of Judah.
Connection with Hyksos, who seem to be arriving peacefully
Problem:
No Conquest at all?

17. Theory 3: Peasant Revolt
Biblical Support
Not much; Perhaps examples like the Gibeonites who align themselves with the Israelites
Based primarily on new interpretation of archaeological record (assumes that every ethnic group would have a distinct archaeologically observable culture)
As well as a theories from the social sciences with a Marxist slant
3. Peasant Revolt
(2) peasant revolt that appeals to social sciences (Mendenhall, Gottwald).
Conclusions

18. The Emergence of Israel in Canaan: Three Theories
Conclusions:
Must be something to the biblical account of a conquest; it is too strong of a shared memory to be fiction
Have to recognize the ideological slant of the biblical account, as well as the tensions
Have to recognize the limits of archaeology
3. Peasant Revolt
(2) peasant revolt that appeals to social sciences (Mendenhall, Gottwald).
Conclusions

19. Discussion: Gideon and the Will of God

20. For next time Read in RTOT, and write the online quizzes:
Chapter 7: Judges
Chapter 8: Samuel
Read in the Bible:
Judges chapters 1-3; 6-8; 13-16;
1 Samuel chapters 1-3; 8-10; 13; 15-18; 24.
2 Samuel chapters 2; 6-7; 11-12; 24.
See you Monday at 2:15!