|
I. Reader Response I read and re-read Joshua, chapter 22, in the New International Version of the Bible. The chapter seemed to be a postscript narrative to the events in the previous twenty-one chapters. All enemies are defeated. Joshua and his Israelite army have successfully possessed the land that was promised to them by Yahweh. In the opening paragraph Joshua calls together the tribes of Rubin, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh. In so many words, he thanks them for their faithful service and sends them on their way to the east bank of the Jordan River. The two and one half tribes gather together their booty of gold, cattle, and the like and head across the river into the area called Gilead. Upon their arrival, they occupy the land and build a large altar on the banks of the Jordan River. When the Canaan tribes to the west of Jordan hear of the altar, they gather together at Shiloh planning to war against the altar-building tribes. However, war is put off for the moment. Phinehas the priest along with a representative delegation from all the west tribes visit the east tribes. This Canaan delegation accuses the Gilead tribes of disobedience for building an altar against the teachings of Yahweh. They tell them that their sinful action will bring calamity on the entire nation. They compare the altar building to the sin of Peor and to the sin of Achan. The Gilead tribes reply that their western brethren are profoundly mistaken. The east tribes insist that the structure was not built as an altar of sacrifice, but a memorial of witness to future generations and between the east-bank and west-bank inhabitants. They agree that there is only one altar that is acceptable to Yahweh. Phinehas and his delegates are satisfied. They tell the east tribes that they did not disobey Yahweh. The delegates re-cross the Jordan back to Canaan and report the situation to the entire nation. All of Israel rejoiced and blessed God. The Gilead tribes named the altar because it was a witness that Yahweh is God.
II. Reading in different versions I read the passage in three additional versions to gain a better understanding of the text. According to the Word Biblical Commentary (WBC) there are thirty-seven variations in the text. The Anchor Bible (AB) notes thirty-four variations. I looked to see how three of these more significant textual variations played out in the passage. The variant passages are found in verse 20, regarding the fate of Achan; verse 33, regarding the Israelite blessing of God; and verse 34 regarding the name of the altar by the Jordan. I also looked for translational variations that might contribute to my understanding of the text. The King James Version (KJV) served as a literal translation of the chapter. Of course the English language is archaic in places: "in that ye have builded you an altar, that ye might rebel this day against the Lord (verse 16). The KJV also calls the chiefs "princes" in verse 14. This word is probably misleading to readers in the 21st century. However, once the reader is past the style of the KJV, the translation is substantially word-for-word. The commentaries note variation in verse 20 adding that the syntax of this verse is difficult. Does this verse conclude with an interrogative or an expletive? The KJV says "perished not alone" without an expletive. The commentaries note theological controversy in verse 33. Apparently the LXX re-wrote "the Israelites blessed God" to read "the Israelites praised God", not accepting that creatures can bless the creator. The KJV keeps the preferred "blessed". Finally the KJV names the altar "ed", saying that it is a witness. Out of the three translations, this is the only one that uses the Hebrew designation. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) served as a dynamic equivalent translation. This version also included three footnotes for the text: explaining the transjordanian tribes, describing the central role of Phinehas, and illuminating the references to Peor and Achan. The footnotes helped explain the most challenging portions of the text. The language of the NRSV was modern and easy to read. In regard to the three textual variations, the NRSV makes the "did not perish alone" statement in verse 20 an expletive. In verse 33, the Israelites "blessed" the Lord. In verse 34, the NRSV provides the name "Witness" as the name of the altar, although in a margin note adds "Syr: Heb lacks Witness". The Good News Bible (GNB) served as a paraphrastic translation. This translation is subtitled ""Today's English Version". The GNB flowed freely and was easy to read. It also took the most liberties with the text. In verse 7, the land of Bashan is not mentioned and in verse 6, the phrase "a lot of cattle" seems overly colloquial. The GNB made the "perish alone" statement in verse 20 as a simple statement, no expletive or question. The Israelites in verse 33 do not "bless" God, they "praise" Him. In the last verse, the GNB ends unequivocally with "and so they named it Witness". In addition to these versions from the Christian Bible, I also read the passage from the Hebrew Bible. The Tanakh that I read was not much different from the NRSV.
III. Genre (Form Criticism) and Source Study Chapter 22 of Joshua is a postscript to the previous events in Joshua. The chapter tells of a civil war that was narrowly averted. Verses 1-8 are a theological summary. They tie back to the message in chapter one and continue the theme from the end of chapter 21. These eight verses also prepare the reader for the narrative that immediately follows. Verses 9-34 are the narrative. It appears that the narrative itself is from one ancient source, but that it was finally edited within the priestly circles of Israel. This conclusion is supported by the strange fact that Phinehas, the priest, and not Joshua, the prophet is the central figure. The most likely timeframe for events in the narrative is the period just prior to Samuel when Shiloh was central to cultic life in Israel. During this period of confederacy, tribes at times fought against each other. The banding together to war against Benjamin is an example of this. As a matter of fact, verses 9-34 - that is the narrative portion of the chapter - would fit neatly with the other stories at the end of Judges. If priests were the final redactors of this text; then readers should be aware of their purposes. The priests may be saying three things. First, always try to arbitrate a dispute before going to war. Second, allow a priest to be the principal arbitrator performing this duties with a delegation of people. Third, worship should be maintained at one central location. However, "memorials" are acceptable and do not violate the rule of worship in one place. Perhaps the editing attempts to influence the reader in this direction.
IV. Literary Study The passage is in two parts and each part must be discussed separately. The introductory theological summary (verses 1-8) is reminiscent of chapter one. In the opening chapter, Joshua tells the people of his plan to occupy the land. At the beginning of chapter 22, Joshua thanks two and one-half tribes for carrying out the plan. It is noteworthy that Joshua praises the transjordanian tribes for their faithfulness even as he sends them outside the bounds of the original promised land. Perhaps priestly authors are hinting that Israelites can still be faithful when living outside the promised land, whether in the transjordan or whether in Babylon. There is also flow from the previous chapter which ends with the division of the land. After Joshua speaks, verses 6-8 form a bridge to the narrative section following. This transition to narrative is abrupt because Joshua steps to the sideline and unexpectedly Phinehas becomes the central figure. In the narrative section (verses 9-34) a story is told. The New American Commentary (NAC) calls this section "a crisis of loyalties" while the WBC calls the section "authority and aim of an altar". The AB calls this section "how to prevent a civil war". Each of these views emphasizes an aspect of the narrative and perhaps the section can best be understood by combining all three of these concepts. The section describes a crisis in loyalties centered upon the authority and aim of an altar which threatens to grow into a civil war which is finally prevented. As well as being a narrative, this section can also be seen as an "official consultation". After the narrative stage is set in verses 9-15, there is a stylized messenger speech (verses 16-20) followed by a stylized defense speech (verses 21-29), and concluded with a resolution (verses 30-34) The NAC notes a chiasm. The building and the naming of the altar are the (a) points while the center point of the chiasm (e) is the transjordanian reply. There are three words in this narrative that are worthy of study. The two-word phrase Bene Israel is used nine times, emphasizing the importance of the brotherhood and union. It appears odd that this phrase is used even though two and one-half tribes are not included in reference. The transjordan tribes call God as their witness using three terms for God (el, elohim, and yhwh), each term being used twice in a short space. The NAC notes that this piling up of the terms for God is unique in the Old Testament. Their oath is of the strongest possible sort. Finally the word ed is used to explain the legal status of the altar. The altar is a "witness of the truth of a matter". There is textual and interpretive disagreement about whether the altar was actually named ed, or the altar was just noted as a witness to the people. Commentaries hint that Joshua himself may have named the monument. If the final redactors of this narrative are priests, then this section provides their template on how disagreements should be solved. First, always arbitrate a dispute before going to war. Second, choose a priest to be the principal arbitrator. Third, life with Yahweh can go on wherever there is a congregation of Yahweh. The authors of this narrative portrayed all the characters text as righteous, rational and without malice. A crisis arose through misunderstanding and this crisis was settled through understanding. The three commentaries differed on their emphasis concerning authorial context and motive. The NAC hardly mentions the text from the point of view of priest in exile. The WBC mentions the final editors of the text in a paragraph or two. The AB comments extensively on the "priestly circles" and their motives for editing this narrative into its current form. The AB suggests that the passage was placed in its current context as a bridge between the Joshua conquests and the ups and downs of the judges.
V. Background Study / Historical Context The background of this period in Israel's history gives clues to the action in the narrative. Joshua had been the leader and unifier of all twelve tribes. Phinehas was priest to all twelve tribes. With this cohesion, the cisjordan tribes were able to resolve their dispute with the transjordan tribes. After the deaths of Joshua and Phinehas, the glue that held Israel together vanished. The time of confederacy was a time of chaos that ended in the kind of intertribal warfare (Judges 23-25) that was avoided in Joshua 22. To combat this chaos, the people demanded a strong kind, in the mold of Joshua, to unify and lead them. Israel did get its strong kings, but after a century of united monarchy, a situation developed similar to the one in this passage, but the separation of the kingdom was along a north/south axis instead of east/west axis. A more natural split would seem apparent between the east and west Jordan tribes. It is also important to note that the transjordan tribes "volunteered" to fight with Joshua. They arrived in their promised territory before the cisjordan tribes and appeared to occupy it without much resistance. Gilead was securely in the hands of Israel. This made their fighting with Joshua even more praiseworthy.
VI. Consultation with Commentaries and a Journal Article The Anchor Bible with Notes and Commentary included seventeen pages covering Joshua 22. This chapter was subtitled "How to avoid a civil war". After a word-to-word translation of the chapter, there were textual notes on nearly each of the thirty-four verses. Most of the notes compared variations among the LXX, the MT and the Syriac. At times this commentary preferred the LXX over the MT, but mostly the MT was preferred. The notes mention several possible haplographies. A note on verse 30 infers that the LXX bungled these words in a major way. A note on the final verse states that some texts attribute Joshua as the namer of the witness altar. After the textual notes, the AB included nine pages of additional notes, followed by one page of comment. I found the AB to be the most comprehensive of the commentaries. The World Biblical Commentary included sixteen pages covering Joshua 22. This chapter was subtitled "Authority and Aim of an Altar". After a bibliography and literal translation, there were three pages of textual notes. Verses 19 and 20 appeared to be the most textually challenged with a dozen scholars cited offering different views. A section called "Form/Structure/Setting" showed how the chapter could be structured and subdivided. The discussion mentioned numerous scholars and their views of the settings and traditions. There was a comment section that re-examined each verse picking out key Hebrew words like those for "tribe", "obligation to God" and "offering". This commentary closed with a one-page "explanation" of the chapter. The New American Commentary organized the material differently than the other two commentaries. The last three chapters of Joshua were grouped together and prefaced with the title "Farewells". Chapter 22 was divided into two parts: "Joshua's Farewell to the Transjordan Tribes" (22:1-8) and "A Crisis of Loyalties" (22:6-34). The first part was covered in only one page. The second part was covered in nine pages. Each of the two parts began with a literal translation of the textual paragraph in bold type, then followed with a discussion of the text. The NAC did not address the textual variations as did the WBC and the AC. This commentary was the easiest to read and for me to understand. An article in Andrews University Seminary Studies was entitled "The Transjordanian Altar". The author of this article reviewed the writings of two authors from the first century AD. These two interpreted and re-wrote the narrative of Joshua 22. The Jewish historian, Josephus, retained the basic biblical story line and historical context. He overstated the role of Phinehas in the altar events. Josephus wrote for a Greek/Roman audience casting Phinehas in the role of a great orator in the fashion of classical orators of the period. It appears that his aim was to demonstrate to his gentile contemporaries that Israel had a rich heritage that included great orators. The other first-century writer was dubbed "Pseudo-Philo". He wrote for a Jewish audience and took liberties with both the scriptural record and historical context. Pseudo-Philo wrote just after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. It appears that his motive was to discourage survivors in Jerusalem from offering sacrifices in other locations. He recast the altar story, putting a command in mouth of Joshua that sacrifice outside of the temple is forbidden. He taught that meditation on God's word was of more worth than sacrifice. Both of these writers took hold of the ancient narrative and reshaped it to meet the needs of their first-century audience.
VII. Examination of passage from other points of view I thought that this passage was straightforward and that examining other points of view would not aid interpretation. I thought this because there were no non-Israelites or women in the narrative. I was mistaken. In the book Stony the Road we Trod a section is entitled "The Black Presence in the Old Testament". The author suggests that the Moses family was Black. He contends that Moses' family was of Nubian origin and that the Cushites were prominent in Asia as well as Africa. The author also points out that the name of the central figure in my passage, Phinehas, means "Nubian/Negro". I did not receive that information in all my other reading. Does this name serve as a clue to the racial or color identification of Moses' family? The author thinks that it does. I do not know. It is certainly food for thought. The question that I ask myself is this: "would it effect my theological thinking if I were convinced that Phinehas was a Black man?" My honest answer is "I don't know. I hope not." A book taking the feminist perspective was authored by Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza. It is entitled But She Said. In her introduction to this book, Fiorenza quotes extensively from a political novel by Margaret Atwood called The Handmaid's Tale. On the fifth line of this introduction appears this quote: "She is called Offred who lives in the Republic of Gilead. Gilead has replaced the United States of America. … the regime of this modern biblical republic is established. Women lose their right to property and employment." The name "Gilead" leaped out. Out of all possible names in the Old Testament why is Gilead, the home of transjordanian tribes, most fitting for this fictitious misogynist biblical republic? I cannot find an answer. This book makes the case that all discourses represent political interests. The author points out that true interpretation cannot take place until a reader views the situation through the eyes of a woman. What is obvious from the female perspective may be hidden from traditional male eyes. I discovered that it is important to view the passage from different points of view, even if minority characters do not appear in the specific passage. Proper interpretation needs as many threads of understanding as possible.
VIII. Synthesis My understanding of this passage was enlarged with my recent acquisition of six Hebrew words: riv, zadek, mishpat, goel, shalom and hessed. The concepts behind these words express the drama contained in Joshua 22. The chapter begins with Joshua and the people of Israel in shalom (peace and wholeness). All enemies are defeated. The twelve tribes are united. Joshua is a strong and confident leader. The world is in mishpat (proper order). Perhaps more than at any other time in the entire Old Testament all is right with the world. It can only go downhill from here. Joshua sends the two-point-five tribes across the Jordan River. Suddenly a riv (in the sense of controversy) arises. This is not an average riv. This is the mother of all rivs. One part of Israel wants to utterly destroy another part. Can there be a bigger controversy? The cause of this controversy in a pile of stones erected by the transjordan tribes. The cisjordan tribes accuse their eastern brethren of violating hessed (in the sense of covenant loyalty) by building an altar contrary to the law of Moses. The two-point-five tribes are not showing hessed (in the sense of love) to Yahweh. With zadek (righteousness) the western tribes plan a war against their brothers. Before a war can begin, Joshua appoints a goel (redeemer) to confront the two-point-five tribes. The redeemer, who is Phinehas, will try to bring the wayward back into the fold or else he will destroy them. The two opposing sides meet. A stylized riv (in the sense of a trial) takes place. Is there a more succinct example of a riv? The western tribes say that the actions of the easterners will upset mishpat and not only ruin shalom in the east, but also in the west. Remember Peor and Achan, they say. The western tribes insist that their pile of stones in not an altar, but a memorial. They swear up and down by Yahweh that their actions are zadek (righteous). They swear that they have hessed (covenant love). The riv is resolved in favor of the eastern tribes. Phinehas agrees that the two-point-five tribes are zadek and have not violated hessed. Upon the return of the delegation to the west Jordan, mishpat (proper world order) returns, and on the heels of mishpat, shalom (wholeness) returns. Is there a better illustration of the interplay of these key Hebrew words in the entire Hebrew scripture?
IX. Application / Adult Bible Study in 50 minutes / An Outline
I. Introduce the narrative of Joshua 22 in context. X. Bibliography Biblical Translations 1. Good News Bible: Today's English Version. American Bible Society: New York, NY, 1976. 2. Holy Bible: King James Version. Omega Publishing House: Nashville, TN, 1971. 3. New Revised Standard Version: The New Oxford Annotated Bible. Oxford University Press: New York, NY, 1973. 4. The Jewish Bible: Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The Jewish Publication Society: Philadelphia, PA, 1985. 5. The Holy Bible: New International Version. Zondervan Publishing: Grand Rapids, MI, 1996. Commentaries 1. Butler, Trent C. Joshua. Word Biblical Commentary, v3. Word Books Publishers: Dallas, TX, 1973. 2. Boling, Robert G. Joshua. The Anchor Bible. Doubleday: Garden City, NY, 1971. 3. Howard, David M. Joshua. The New American Commentary, v5. Broadman and Holman, 1988. Journal Articles 1. Begg, Robert. "The Transjordan Altar." Andrews University Seminary Studies. Volume 35 / No 1, pp. 5-19, Spring 1997. 2. Snaith, N.H. "The Altar at Gilgal." Vetus Testamentum. Volume 28, pp 330-335, 1978. Books 1. Fiorenza, Elizabeth Schussler. But She Said: Feminist Practices of Biblical Interpretation. Boston: Beacon Press, 1992. 2. Felder, Cain Hope, editor. Stony the Road We Trod: African American Biblical Interpretation. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991. |