What Does Joshua Have to Do with Jonah … and Jesus?
One of the perks of being a pastor is how often I get to meet with people, drink fancy coffee (I'm currently enjoying an oat milk macchiato), and talk about "spiritual things."
Each conversation is different, of course, but over the past decade of ministerial work, one of the recurring themes in these talks is "the Bible," namely, what it is, what we expect it to do, how we think it works, what we think it contains, what our faith communities have taught us about it, and, in some cases, how our ideas/beliefs/commitments about the Bible have changed (and the intellectual and/or spiritual strain that such changes cause).
I love the fact that I get paid to sit with people and unpack some of that baggage. As a “professional Christian,” it's familiar territory for me. On a more personal note, I can empathize with folks when what they used to think begins to get a bit murky when they (1) read the Bible or (2) take a "Bible as literature" course (or some equivalent ... like, reading one of Bart Ehrman's books?) or (3) experience things in real life that don't align with what they've been told. I've been there.
In this post, I'd like to focus on one aspect of these conversations, as I think it's pertinent for our thinking about Joshua. It’s the "historicity" of the Bible.
It comes up all the time. Here's how the conversation usually plays out.
My conversation partner (who is drinking a “red-eye”) asks, "Did [usually it's a famous Old Testament story] really happen?"
I say, "Probably not."**
And, depending on my relationship with the person (and the amount of times they have heard me/others at TRP preach), that response messes with their brains. In most cases, they had been brought up in a church that stresses the "truthfulness" and/or "trustworthiness" and/or "validity" and/or fancier theological terms like the "inerrancy" (or its close cousin the "infallibility") of the Bible. So for me, a minister of the Gospel, to not read the Bible literally or as a purely objective historical record is surprising.
(Let’s pause for a quick pic of a beautiful, traditional macchiato, not to be confused with the atrocity of the same name you get at St@rbucks.)
Without fail, a follow-up question is posed, "Well, if [usually famous Old Testament story] didn't happen, then how do we [different story in the Bible, usually one about Jesus] happened?" The thinking is, "If this ... then that ..." And so, my thoughts about Joshua or Jonah or Esther begins to erode one's view of the Bible as "truthful" or "trustworthy" or "valid" because, in their mind, it’s all-or-nothing.
I'll be the first to admit, I have some pretty substantial reservations with the way people describe the Bible—like when they use words like "truthful" or "trustworthy" or "valid" and what they really mean by them—but I'd rather tackle the problem of an all-or-nothing approach.
The Bible is an anthology. It contains different texts written by different people at different times in different styles (in different languages even) for different purposes. And these people, because of their varied contexts, had different beliefs about the world and humanity, they promoted different theologies and different ethics—they may have had different laws! I think we tend to overlook the depth of such diversity because “our Bible” is available to us with wide margins and wrapped in an artisanal goat-skin cover.
The Bible is way too diverse to play the all-or-nothing game, and more to the point, it's much too simplistic for us to reduce the discussion to "if this story didn't happen historically then how do we know that story happened historically?" Whatever we are comparing, they are different stories ... written by different people at different times in different styles blah blah blah... you get it.
So when I get an all-or-nothing type of question inspired by my take on a single story/event of the Old Testament, I have found it helpful to stress this: we need to consider each story on its own terms.
For example, what we conclude about the historicity of Joshua should have little to no bearing on our conclusions on the historicity of other stories in the Bible. They're different texts. And they should each be read on their own terms.
I don't think Joshua is best read as a historical account of an Israelite conquest for the following reasons:
the archaeological record is suspect (in fact, it seems to offer counter-evidence)
there are no extra-biblical texts
there are internal contradictions in the book of Joshua
some of the stories of conquest in the book (like Jericho and Ai) don't read as history; they seem to be much more stylized theological accounts or parabolic paradigms for obedience/disobedience
I might reach the same conclusion regarding the historicity (or lack thereof) for a different story, but my reasons will be different. They will be text-specific.
Take the parade example of Jonah. I don't think it happened. And the reason is, the text seems to be begging us not to read it historically/literally. The story is way too over the top: (1) Jonah is a terrible prophet, (2) the pagan sailors are doing what an Israelite prophet should be doing—they are the ones praying and sacrificing to Yahweh, Jonah isn't, (3) the unnamed king of a powerful empire actually listens to some random foreign prophet with no questions asked (uhhhh, yeah, right), (4) the unnamed king is ... unnamed, which is real weird for something trying to be historical, (5) not only do the Ninevites repent immediately, so do the animals ... the ANIMALS, people; in the story, they are wearing sackcloth and ash, and they are fasting ... (6) the stuff about the, let's call it a "magical," plant that provides Jonah with some shade as he sits on a hill waiting for God to throw a cosmic fireball on his enemies is not a miracle … it’s more of the same—over the top craziness to help the story along.
All told, it’s a lot, and it leads me to conclude the story isn’t just reporting history.
Oh, right. Notice what I didn't include! Right, the bit about the "big fish" swallowing a human and providing him with a personal prayer closet for three days before throwing him up on dry land. It's a weighted argument, but when all is considered, the story reads as a satire.
Note: I’m not rejecting Jonah as history because I don’t think God “could” do all this stuff. I just don’t think the story is asking us to believe God did.
So, I say, "It didn't happen."
My rejection of the historicity of Joshua and the Battle of Jericho has nothing to do with my rejection of the historicity of Jonah. They are different texts, and they should be read on their own terms. I have reasons for thinking both are doing something other than providing an objective report of history.
Get it?
It's not "If this ... then that ..." It's not all-or-nothing, as if Jonah being satire means Jesus wasn't crucified. The discussion should be much more nuanced. It should be text-specific.
A goat-skin Bible on ETSY. #supportlocal
Now, I will say this …
When you get to the place where you believe the best reading of [literally any story in the Bible that you used to read as objective history] is probably not historical, then you'll become open to reaching the same conclusion about another story if the evidence leads you there.
This is the "slippery slope" people talk about. And in some ways, they aren't wrong. When you experience a change of mind on something/anything, you're going to wonder what else you've gotten wrong and start to explore. I don't think that’s a bad thing or a dangerous thing or proof you are, in fact, a heathen. I think it's good and healthy and a sign of growth. It's bold to hear new evidence and weigh it and, in spite of what it may cost you, follow it.
For me, this "re-learning" has been nothing short of life-giving. It has allowed me to be intellectually honest. It has allowed me to be nuanced in my thinking. It has also helped me to approach some truly confounding stories in the Bible in new and meaningful ways.
Like Joshua ...
I used to read Joshua as a historical report. And when I did, that was the end/the goal/the application: It happened. God does miracles. (Neat, huh?)
But that's not what the stories in Joshua are about. Now that I've adopted a different take—a non-historical take—I've been led to consider (Rob Bell rip-off coming) much more "interesting questions," like, what do the stories in Joshua mean? What are they about? What's the underlying theology the authors are trying to get across? Why did the ancient Israelites retell stories of divine warfare and land acquisition? And then, what do we do with them? Can they be reconciled with Jesus?
I know many of you will ask big questions about the Bible after re-reading just one of its stories. Perhaps you’ll find when you approach texts one at a time that some of those words we attach to the Bible, words like "truthful" and/or "trustworthy" and/or "valid," will demand another look. Good. Maybe they should. But I think the work we are up to here (thinking about Joshua on its own terms) will provide an important point of departure for your rethinking of the Bible. So let’s start there.
——————————-
Notes:
**Ok, a made up conversation where I am negating the historical probability of any (?) Old Testament text is a bit irresponsible of me. My answer would clearly depend on the story being discussed. I don't want folks to think that I don't think any of the events in the OT happened in history. But statistically, we are usually talking about a predictable handful of Sunday school stories including the creation stories, Noah and the flood, the Tower of Babel, any of the stories of the ancestors (Abe, Isaac, Jacob), Moses and the exodus, Joshua and the battle of Jericho, David and Goliath, Jonah and the big fish, Esther ... that sort of stuff. Veggie Tales stuff.
And (sorry, Mom), I tend to not think that those stories happened, for various reasons.
