“And the walls came a tumblin’ down!”
I remember belting that one out in the basement of Ebenezer Reformed Church. The song about the destruction of Jericho was a childhood favorite. Between this song and being in the “Lord’s army” I was ready to battle the enemies of the gospel.
As I grew, the children’s song about the battle of Jericho began to fade. First, I had entered the “love for rap music” phase of my middle school years. But more importantly, the song about Jericho left me uneasy. I couldn’t put my finger on it at the time. As I grew older, my troubles became clearer, we sang the song of divinely appointed genocide.
Behind the whimsical story of walls buckling under the noise of shouts and trumpets is utter mayhem and destruction. Joshua 6:21 reads, “Then they devoted to destruction by the edge of the sword all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys.” This seems like Putin, not Yahweh. While God did not command Israel to kill the women and children (or donkeys), he does not chastise them for it. In fact God demands the killing of the Israelites who dared to take spoils of war. What kind of a God is this?
The story of Jericho became even more repulsive to me as I regularly traveled to Jericho while I lived in Israel/Palestine. Some in the nation of Israel used the story of Jericho as a divine mandate that justified the mistreatment of Palestinians who lived in the current city. As I would watch young Palestinian children with their Britney Spears backpacks heading off to school and the elderly shuffling home with their groceries, I pondered “would God desire their demise?”
The history of Jericho is long and complicated. Settlers began to live together there sometime before 10,000 BCE. Throughout the next eight to nine thousand years, prior to the Israelite conquest of the land, Jericho experienced times of prosperity and destruction. Its first walled settlement was built ca. 8000 BCE, and Jericho reached its largest population around 2500 BCE, over 1000 years before Israel’s conquest.
Later, during the middle and late bronze ages, Jericho became increasingly fortified, built with a system of defensive walls. It was at this time that Jericho experienced a massive destruction. Archaeological evidence, including carbon-14 dating, places the destruction of Jericho sometime between 1600-1550 BCE, which is 150-300 years before the exodus. The remnant of Jericho did try to refortify its defenses using mud brick during the late bronze age, but the mighty Jericho was a shell of its former glory by the time Joshua had entered the promised land.
So what do we make of all of this with the biblical text? Well first, let’s just say it’s complicated. Of course scholars do not agree fully on all the details, but I do think it is fair to say that the majority of scholarship suggests that the Jericho story might have developed from local memories of the destructions suffered by the Canaanite city in the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE, which were later used by the biblical writers to create their narrative.
What if the story of Jericho didn’t happen?
While this is not to suggest that there was not some sort of battle at Jericho, what if the story is a myth meant to teach us something about God? I am shocked when I ask students or parishioners about this and some get really upset when I propose Jericho as a metaphor. Would we really rather hold to a historical account of Jericho that includes a God who condoned the killing of an entire city who, at least according to the evidence we have, had never been introduced to Yahweh more than viewing it as a call to obedience?
Hang with me a second. While the story might certainly contain remnants of history, recording history was not its primary purpose. The narrative story takes place just after Israel had been freed from Egypt, they had wandered the wilderness, and they had just entered the promised land. By the time Joshua was composed, probably just over 600 years later, Judah had again just been released from captivity, this time from Babylon, they had crossed the desert, traversed the Jordan, and were reentering the promised land.
What if Israel told this story to encourage itself to recommit themselves to God so that they would not be imprisoned again? Maybe this is why Joshua 5 records the Israelites circumcising themselves right before the battle. They would not win with military force but through obedience to and covenant relationship with God.
What if the story that Israel needed to hear as they began again was a recommitment to God? While Persia had freed Judah, they were still in control. Greece and Rome would not be far behind. Israel would live under the constant threat of occupation. Unlike a wooden reading of Joshua, the answer to Israel’s future was not to murder the foreigners, it was a call to faithfulness. And if Israel remained faithful to God, God would be faithful to them.
I wonder if reading this story as a metaphor might help us in a world where we, at least in the USA, are murdering our enemies? I wonder if the story of Jericho is not a story of taking up arms or conquering our enemy but about laying them down? I wonder if the story of Jericho really teaches us that the path to victory comes through obedience and faith? And then maybe, we can trust God to take care of the rest.
20 Responses
Thanks for your courage here, Chad. You may or may not be correct, but you will not be convicted for the sin of certainty. I have studied Scripture my entire life but always with that tension of reconciling beliefs that logically did not cooperate with reason. The confessions and Scripture itself can be tools of construction, destruction, or even cover-up (maintenance), depending on attitude. In recent years, I have learned/tried to practice two techniques:
1. Always look for the big story behind all the little stories. What is the overriding theme of the book(s)?
2. Before seeking the “answer,” look for the actual question being addressed by the (ancient) writer. Is The Bible an account of history or of divine virtue?
I like this so much, Chad. First you caught my attention talking about belting out Sunday School songs in church basements. My experience too. And then you launched into a reflection upon how a life’s journey, our experiences, and an open heart and mind lead to an ever-evolving faith that leads us closer to God. My experience too. Thank you!
Chad, your biblical study has real implications for interpreting the gospel stories. Hmmmmm.
Want to go there?
Remember: the Bible contains different books written in different genres (and in different times and to different audiences) that are meant to be read with different lenses. A non-literal reading of parts of Joshua in no way requires a non-literal reading of the Gospels. To suggest otherwise is a slippery-slope fallacy that forces the Biblical text into ill-fitting boxes.
Yes, please
Good analysis with which I agree.
Food for thought regarding the song. Since it was written by enslaved people, might not the song be a coded hope for the destruction of slavery and the establishment of justice? In which case it is a protest song and totally fitting for us during the time of ICE.
Interesting!
I would agree with you that it’s a misuse of the Jericho story when it’s used to justify the oppression of Palestinian people. But I prefer to interpret the biblical record along pacifist lines without denying its basic historicity. I don’t pretend to know how the archaeological data fits with the biblical record, or how Jesus’ teaching on nonviolence fits with what sounds like genocide, but without any kind of historical anchor here, then the Bible narrative only becomes motivational fiction instead of a divine testimony to the actions of God in our world.
Isn’t there a lot of room between a “historical anchor” and “motivational fiction”? As soon as we say “it didn’t happen exactly that way” doesn’t mean it is reduced to motivational fiction. We may not want to agree with everything historians and archaeologists say, but we should at least acknowledge the conversations and conclusions that are out there. We can’t treat our adult believers like 10 year olds who “can’t handle the truth.” We’re told “if you start pulling on loose threads the entire fabric comes unraveled.” What if instead you don’t dare acknowledge the loose threads the entire fabric becomes discredited and dismissed?
Good comments, David.
I have appreciated some of the responses here. In no way am I suggesting that there is no historicity to the Jericho story. There are other archaeological sites that would suggest that some sort of conquest was taking place during that time but not to the extent that Joshua portrays. But to be fair, the book of judges also describes a very different entrance into the land than Joshua does.
Therefore, I don’t think we need to reduce scripture reading to 100% historical fact or 100% fiction. But I think it is safe to say that historical fact was never the primary aim of the biblical writer.
As some have noted, I think what they need to wrestle with is not the historicity of the story, but rather a point that the author is trying to make regardless of its historical value. This is no attempt to do away with the historicity of scripture as an academic exercise, but rather a posture in approaching the text that would allow us to understand more fully what scripture is and how God continues to speak through it.
Good response, Chad. It’s interesting, in reading your original post here I never once thought you were trading in historical fact for fiction or vice versa. It’s just not an either or kind of thing.
I like theses words, “. . . it’s safe to say that historical fact was never the primary aim of the biblical writer. “
Thanks, Chad, for your further remarks. I completely agree that to only be interested in historicity with regards to the biblical record would be to miss the point. I love to read commentaries, and I’m always greatly disappointed when a commentary focuses on whether a biblical event really happened as reported (with conservatives arguing yes and others arguing no). That’s why I like Brueggemann’s stuff.
For me the main point about Jericho seems to be that when obstacles appear to be blocking the fulfillment of God’s promise (like the promise of land to Abraham), then the battle belongs to the Lord, not to human strength and scheming. That would fit with my overall pacifist tendencies, and the direction taken by the NT — even though, in the case of Jericho, God did involve the Israelites in the finishing of the battle.
But even if historicity is not the main point, I’m assuming that we both believe it cannot be set aside either. I recall an RJ article from the 80’s in which the writer set up a mock discussion between himself and someone who believed Jesus’ resurrection had great spiritual meaning, even though he did not think it really happened as recorded. So the writer said, “Oh, like the existential truths we all learned when NYC was obliterated by a nuclear bomb five years ago.” The resurrection-skeptic was confused, because, as he said, that didn’t really happen. Without a historical event of some kind (even if that event is told to us through the spiritually-biased perspective of someone excited about what God is doing), the meaning doesn’t have the same punch.
I find great meaning in the way Tolkien has Gollum inadvertently destroy the ring of power in the Lord of the Rings in spite of Frodo’s resistance. So fiction can obviously carry great meaning. But for me this meaning would just be a preference of mine were it not attached in my mind to biblical truths grounded in a reality that’s more real than fiction. Would my faith in Jesus collapse if it turned out the Jericho story was just a parable? No. But it might make someone wonder about the reliability of those who told us about Jesus’ resurrection, which is a more core belief for Christians.
By the way, since we don’t know each other personally, and tone of voice is absent in this discussion, you might be hearing my remarks as if I’m an angry conservative on the attack. I don’t feel any anger toward you at all. I enjoy the back-and-forth of these important discussions. I hope you do too.
One of my favorite profs from undergrad (Calvin) who taught biology was fond of saying that the Bible illuminates the who and the what (e.g. God created the universe.) but science can shed far more light on the when and the how (e.g. probably didn’t happen in 6 days, 4,000 years ago). I believe he’d appreciate Chad’s piece, as do I.
Thanks, Chad! My journey on this topic started in seminary when I questioned the historicity of the Jonah story in a paper I wrote. I don’t remember which class it was for, but I recall Jane and I conversing well into the night after she proofread it, a practice we continued over the years (proofreading what I write). That journey has taken me to different places in my thinking as it challenged me and grew my understanding of scripture and my faith. Your words have added depth to my journey! Thanks!
Thank you, Chad. I’ve also appreciated the back-and-forth positions that followed. In all seriousness though, how do you reconcile an OT story that many appear to believe is “motivational fiction” requiring “different lenses” with NT testimony that labels Rahab as an ancestor of Christ as well as a hero of faith? Not to mention the walls did come “a tumblin’ down” according to that same NT testimony. Does this give the story more validity?
This is a great question. Please accept my response in a spirit of inquiry rather than certainty. The genealogies in the New Testament also serve as a teaching tool rather than historical evidence. I think this is best exemplified by the fact that Matthew and Luke’s do not agree with each other in the names nor do either agree with the characters mentioned in the Old Testament. Furthermore, both of the genealogies go through Joseph rather than Mary, which is also somewhat problematic theologically in historically :-). Both of those genealogies are trying to teach us something about who Jesus is rather than where he comes from. The inclusion of Rahab in the genealogy could come from a number of possibilities. First, she was a real person and she reflects a historical reality. Second, The writer of the gospel thought she was a real person, even if she wasn’t and included her in the genealogy. Or third, the writer of the gospel didn’t care and was just living into the story regardless of its historical accuracy. She serves as an example of a type rather than as a real individual. I’m just throwing out possibilities here off the top of my head. I’m not sure that really answers your question at least not to my satisfaction 🙂 but my overall point I think is that we can’t force a certain historical demand of Jericho, based upon our forced understanding of what a genealogy might mean in the gospels.
Thanks for your reply, Chad. Not to belabor the point but I often feel that NT characters remarking about OT characters/events provided a greater level of historical veracity. Take for example Christ’s remarks about Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot’s wife, Cain, and Moses confronting the burning bush. Or Paul, Peter and John speaking about Eve deceived by a serpent, Noah and the Ark, Balaam and the talking donkey (!), and Cain murdering Abel. All these seem to indicate that the authors may’ve felt these were historical (“anchor”) events as written rather than just motivational fiction. Food for thought and I’m still chewing.
In trying to figure out how such a story has value for us, I think we have to be very careful with words like “myth” or “metaphor.” We can use these words loosely, as is done all the time, and then they only serve our prejudices. But careful thinking remembers that “myth” is a particular kind of story in what’s taken as religious literature, especially ancient literature, and the Jericho story is not that. Neither is it a “metaphor” in any responsible use of that term. I don’t mean hereby to defend naive historicity, only to be careful about the alternatives. Furthermore, I wonder if asking what it means to teach is the wrong beginning. It might be more useful to ask what it means to “prophesy.” The Hebrew Bible lists Joshua as the first book of the Prophets. Should we not try to make sense of this story for us by first considering what Hebrew prophetic literature is about (and that’s very different from mythological literature). How does prophecy understand “history” and use it?
As a modern day, naive layman, I would like to chime into this wonderful discussion with the fact that Marcion of the late second century did not believe that the Old Testament should be included in the canon because of its non Christian origin and what he perceived to be its rather severe, vindictive, punitive, and anthropomorphic view of God, who seemed hardly to resemble the loving, merciful, gracious and spiritual father of Jesus Christ. Although that position was declared to be heretical, it does give some perspective as to how old this discussion has gone on. Could this, yet again’ be an example of how the sacred text can act as an impediment to directly experiencing the Divine in our lives?