John C. H. Laughlin, Reading Joshua

I have read a handfull of commentaries on Joshua. I have wanted to dive into it deeply because the content of the book is very disturbing to me. How should I read this book in the context of being a modern Christian? This commentary gave me the most peace of mind.

John C. H. Laughlin does not believe Joshua to be a running historically accurate account of Israel's conquest of Canaan. It is, rather, an idealized history from the perspective of the compilers of the book for a completely different time and setting. It is not clear what period the book is influenced by but it is fairly certain what period the compilation of the book is NOT. It was not composed in any period before the Babylonian exile. In very brief summary, if it was written in the exile, the authors were reflecting back and thinking about how wonderful it would have been if the early Israelite settlers had wiped out the Canaanites so the Israelites would not have dabbled in Canaanite religion which they blame for the exile. If the book of Joshua was written in the Persian period, then the authors were championing the doctrine that only pure Jews could be considered a part of the community called God's People. Any children born to mixed race parents were automatically outside the community/assembly. The commentary spends most of its space showing that almost every account described in Joshua could not possibly have happened as described and most likely never happened at all. That's really good news for those of us who are disturbed by Joshua's content.

If you study Joshua with this commentary, I recommend that you supplement your study with a commentary that suggests practical applications in the reading. I recommend J. Gordon Harris' commentary in the '"Understanding the Old Testament"' series.

Carolyn Sharp, Joshua

 Carolyn Sharp’s commentary on Joshua (S&HBC, 2019) is a welcome voice in the studies of this very troubling book. Along the way through the study, Sharp offers some solutions to the obvious setting of Joshua as it pertains to the extermination of indigenous Canaanites. She takes many opportunities to show accounts from the perspective of the vanquished. There are many sidebars that speak from the perspective of Native Americans and their plights at the hands of the westward push of the United States. Sharp includes where she can writings from ancient grieving Canaanites who died resisting the Israelite aggressors (248). She wrote, “Any cessation of hostilities won by the sword is not true rest” (253). One helpful solution for Christians, she offers, is that we can protest to God with lamentation over the suffering we read in Joshua and over other suffering we see around us. “In response to anyone who might claim that militarized extermination of enemies is authorized by god or that God’s ways narrated in Joshua are sovereign and ought not to be contested, one may respond that lament, too, is eminently biblical” (253).

 Sharp suggests, and I agree with her on this, that any notion that the Canaanites deserved to die is not necessarily a true reflection on the character of God. Rather, it is the perspective of the scribe(s) who chronicled the accounts in the book. “To contemporary ears,” she writes, “it may sound absurd to say that all Canaanite indigenes, including noncombatants, brought torturous deaths upon themselves through the will of Yhwh at the hands of divinely appointed invaders. Indeed, the present author robustly declines that logic. But it is evidence of scribal theological and ethical reflection on the challenges presented by the countless deaths narrated in these sacred texts—including the deaths of all the Egyptian firstborn sons back in the time of Moses and the deaths of entire villages of Canaanite families in the time of Joshua” (241). Sharp approaches her exegesis from the assumption of Christian pacifism (192) and it shows.

 Sharp offers some valuable connections that address concerns for modern Christian readers. One important connection has to do with the value of a fresh theological perspective that can be gained from outsiders. Churches should not be closed communities. They should integrate their culture with others who may join the community late in their church lives. Good stuff. Sometimes Sharp goes into lengthy study on topics that would interest few readers—like when she takes a deep dive into Yahweh’s lordship over the heavenly hosts (a spin-off study from Joshua 10:12-13). I find Joshua difficult too.

 I confess that Sharp’s suggestions on how modern readers might handle the disturbing attitudes in the book left me a bit hollow. Most of her approach was to admit that the stories are terrible, just terrible; and the modern reader should just reject that kind of behavior from God and God’s people. She touched on the likelihood that the stories were embellished for an exilic or post-exilic audience. If that’s true, then the stories in Joshua are fanciful and we should not read them as events that actually happened. That approach is fine; but then we need a little more help in how we could read Joshua as sacred scripture with the exilic or post-exilic reader in mind. She suggested that we could accept the accounts as accurate and then we can respond with lamentation. That works too. The idea should be fleshed out a little more. If we go to God in lamentation, does God learn a better way to deal with human iniquity? Is the conquest of Canaan a part of God’s quest for covenant with man that eventually led God to the offering of the Messiah? I find that solution surprisingly satisfactory; but Sharp didn’t take her lamentation motif that far. Maybe she should have. The only real surprise to me was that Sharp did not comment on the role of dishonesty in Rahab’s protection of the Israelite spies

***

I wrote this review some time ago and never posted it here. I am doing an ongoing study on Joshua—between my secular job and other personal studies. I will try to keep this blog active with my findings.

Troublemakers in the Church, by Mark Atteberry

 I was not encouraged by this book. It really comes across as a toolkit for preachers to keep their congregations in line.

There is a pathology in churches today in which the focus of ministry is to get churches to toe the official church narrative; and when someone thinks outside that box, preachers desire a way to smack that churchman back in line. If the churchman doesn't repent and properly place himself under the eldership like a good little sheep, then there's the door; and I'll leave my boot print on your butt so you have something to remember me by.

There are many troublemakers described in this book. I can summarize them all as church members who get under the skin of the preacher. The preacher cannot just get rid of those members for getting under his skin. Now, with this book, there are new excuses that make the preacher appear to be taking the spiritual high road.

There are several types of troublemakers described in this book that are especially easy to apply in a wide variety of situations.

THE PHARISEE: This one boils down to identifying church wolves. The offered solution is by addressing sin. But when a preacher is looking to get rid of someone, he can drill down on something quite rare in the person—such as that time when the individual lost his temper after a long period of badgering from the narcissistic preacher. Now the churchman is labeled as quick tempered and the preacher plays the innocent victim. If Atteberry's solution is to effectively root out Pharisees, the identified sin had better be chronic. If it is an outlier incident, it's not a church problem.

THE FALSE TEACHER: Atteberry advocates that teachers teach "without any denominational bias or personal agenda" (p. 89). He also says, in what I believe to be in direct self-contradiction, "Every attempt should be made to insure that every person ... holds views compatible with the church's positions on those issues deemed nonnegotiable" (p. 92). In practice, that means the preacher is in charge of identifying those issues and determining the correct church position on them. Elderships can easily be swayed to agree with the preacher. This teaching churchman is just another example of someone getting under the skin of the preacher and the preacher wielding his strong personality to convince the elders that the churchman is a false teacher who must be censored.

In the section titled, "Chose Your Leaders Carefully," Atteberry recommends a review period for recently appointed elders. I agree, by the way; but his suggested details concern me. Firstly, Atteberry suggests the elders police one another internally. What?! The church should be a part of the review process. If elders select new elders and discipline existing elders, the eldership becomes a good-ol boys club where nobody disagrees with anyone else. Everything is unanimous. If not, the minority view holders will be dealt with. Again, preachers are good at swaying elderships to their personal way of thinking. After a few years, the eldership becomes the preacher's elders. He is the mouth of the elders.

Secondly, recently appointed elders are evaluated according to whether they are "supportive of the church's vision" (p. 132). Who dreams up the church's vision? In practice, it is the preacher's job to lay out the vision. This process guarantees that the eldership eventually becomes a powerful squad of yes-men for the preacher.

This book is all about increasing the preacher's power is a congregation. That's a problem.

1 Kings 4:24 in NRSVue

The New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (NRSVue) shortened NRSV reading of 1 Kings 4:24. We cannot spy into the scholarly discussions and learn why they made this change, although I am certain somebody kept minutes of those meetings. I decided to look into what I could with respect to scholars' thoughts on the verse. Perhaps I could get a feel for what the NRSVue revisers might have been thinking. I think I found something. In the end, however, I still strongly desire to know how the conversation went in that closed room of NRSVue scholars who were revising the NRSV at 1 Kings 4:24.

Comparing Translations

Here is the new reading of the NRSVue:

For he had dominion over all the region west of the Euphrates, and he had peace on all sides.

And here is the verse as it reads in the NRSV:

For he had dominion over all the region west of the Euphrates from Tiphsah to Gaza, over all the kings west of the Euphrates; and he had peace on all sides. (my bold text indicates the additional information not included in the update)

NRSV does not have a footnote; but NRSVue has this at the word "Euphrates":

Gk: Heb adds from Tiphsah to Gaza, over all the kings west of the Euphrates

We would read note this as, "This is the way the Greek (LXX) reads. The Hebrew (Masoretic Text) includes the text, from Tiphsah to Gaza, over all the kings west of the Euphrates."

This note is rather interesting partly because the NRSV is one of the translations that tends to favor the Greek over the Hebrew when there is diagreement between the two. I have noticed this tendency especially when the Greek is the longer text. In this case, the Greek is shorter. Let's look at the other two translations that tend to favor Greek over Hebrew when there is disagreement.

New American Bible Revised Edition:

1 Kings 5:4 He had dominion over all the land west of the River, from Tiphsah to Gaza, and all its kings, and he had peace on all his borders round about.

(Some translations mark 1 Kings 4:24 at 1 Kings 5:4 because the Hebrew starts a new chapter at 1 Kings 4:21). NABre gives the longer reading although it does not repeat the phrase "west of the River."

Revised English Bible:

For he was paramount over all the region west of the Euphrates from Tiphsah to Gaza, ruling all the kings west of the river; and he enjoyed peace on all sides.

REB also gives the longer reading.

This decision on the part of the NRSVue scholars seems to go deeper than merely resolving a difference between Hebrew and Greek.

Scholarly Points

Dr. M. J. Mulder observes:

Two cities are mentioned: (1) Tiphsah and (2) Gaza, names which are missing in some Hebr. MSS and also in LXX(B, Luc); either by homoioteleuton or because it concerns an even later addition in certain Hebr. MSS LXX does have this addition in 2:46f. (Dr. M. J. Mulder and translator John Vriend, 1 Kings: Vol. 11 Kings 1-11, Historical Commentary on the Old Testament, 1998, p. 192)

In other words, some Hebrew manuscripts contain the shorter reading and two specific Greek texts, "Codex Vaticanus (and its recension)" and the Greek text "The (proto-)Lucianic recension," give the shorter reading. Either the additional text was added so late that it came into the text after the LXX was translated from the Hebrew, or it was dropped from the Hebrew text that was used in the LXX translation by homoioteleuton. Homoioteleuton has to do with a series of words that end the same. If it happened in this text, some Hebrew scribe was copying the text (I'll quote the NRSV):

For he had dominion over all the region west of the Euphrates from Tiphsah to Gaza, over all the kings west of the Euphrates; and he had peace on all sides.

When he finished writing in the new copy the first occurance of "west of the Euphrates," his eye returned to his master copy but he located the second occurance of "west of the Euphrates" and continued copying. The information between the two instances of "west of the Euphrates" was lost.

Mulder also mentions that the longer text does apper in 1 Kings 2:46. Indeed, in the LXX, much of the information in chapters 4-5 is documented, although not in quite the same order.

1 Kings 2:46 (NRSV) Then the king commanded Benaiah son of Jehoiada; and he went out and struck him down, and he died.
So the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon.

Compared with the LXX:

And King Salomon commanded Banaia son of Iodae, and he went out and did away with him, and he died. (4:20) And King Salomon was very prudent and wise, and Ioudas and Israel were very many as the sand which is by the sea in great number, eating and drinking and being happy, and Salomon was chief among all the kingdoms, and they were bringing gifts, and they were subject to Salomon all the days of his life. And Salomon began to open the resources of Lebanon, and he built Thermai in the wilderness. And this was (4:22) the midday meal for Salomon: thirty kors of choice flour and sixty kors of ground meal, (4:23) ten choice calves and twenty pasture-fed oxen and one hundred sheep, besides deer and gazelles and choice fatted birds. (4:24) For he was chief everywhere across the river from Raphi to Gaza, among all the kings across the river, and he had peace on all his sides round about, (4:25) and Ioudas and Israel lived in confidence, each under his vine and under his fig tree, eating and drinking, from Dan and as far as Bersabee, all the days of Salomon. And these were the officials of Salomon: Azariou son of Sadok the priest and Orniou son of Nathan chief of those in charge and Edram, over his house, and Souba, scribe, and Basa son of Achithalam, recorder, and Abi son of Ioab, commander-in-chief, and Achire son of Edrai over the levies and Banaia son of Iodae over the main court and over the brickworks and Zachour son of Nathan, the counselor. (4:26) And Salomon had forty thousand brood mares for chariots and twelve thousand horsemen. (4:21) And he was chief among all the kings from the river and as far as the land of allophyles and to the borders of Egypt. l Salomon son of Dauid reigned over Israel and Ioudas in Ierousalem. (New English Translation of the Septuagint. My italics: additional text contained in LXX. My bold: The additional text that contains the text missing in LXX at 1 Kings 4:24)

Simon J. DeVries ("1 Kings," WBC, Word, Waco, 1985) gives this translation of 1 Kings 4:24:

For he exercised dominion over all Eber-hanahar, from Tipsah to Gaza, over all the kings of Eber-hanahar, and he enjoyed peace on all the borders surrounding him; ... (64)

 So DeVries keeps the text in question. he notes that the text,

"from Tipsah to Gaza, over all the kings of Eber-hanahar,"

is missing in the Greek. His technical note is,

"MT. G(BL) omits (homoioteleuton)." (66)

Which means: This text is present in the Masoretic Text but is missing in the Greek text "Codex Vaticanus (and its recension)" and the Greek text "The (proto-)Lucianic recension." This note is similar to that of Mulder except DeVries is certain that the text was dropped by homoioteleuton (copiest's mistake).

DeVries says linguistic evidence indicates that 4:20-24 and 1 Kings 10:1-10 are extremely late (76). The evidence, he explains,

It is stated that Solomon controlled "all Eber-hanahar" (RSV: "the region west of the Euphrates"); this designation describes Syro-Palestine from a point of view eastward from the Euphrates and was actually the official name of this region in the Persian empire, hence a very late date is certain. Tipsah lay on the upper Euphrates and Gaza is the leading town of the Philistines, situated on the Mediterranean. Within this territory Solomon is said to have enjoyed perfect security; no one on any of his borders ventured to attack him. Thus "Judah and Israel dwelt safely." The fact that here and in 4:20 "Judah" precedes "Israel" is another clue to extreme lateness, for the reverse order is found in early documents where the two entities are mentioned together (in the post-exilic period, "Judah" began more and more to assume precedence because the returnees from exile were almost all Judahites). 4:20 has two superlatives respecting the people's happy condition: (1) they were too numerous to count and (2) they did nothing but eat, drink, and rejoice. 5:5 (4:25) has two superlatives likewise: (1) the entire land was safe ("from Dan to Beersheba") and (2) this lasted as long as Solomon lived. Here the image of eating, drinking, and rejoicing is kept rather modest in the familiar locution, "every man beneath his vine and beneath his fig tree," as if to suggest that privacy, quiet, and the simple needs of lite are enough to keep a man happy. (72-73, bold text mine)

My Thinking

It looks like much of the data about Solomon's administration came from legend and was added to the text by redactors at a very late date in the Persian period. The date may have been so late that earlier versions of the text were still available for the LXX translators. On the other hand, the late redactions could have been added to the text before the book of Kings was properly canonized and the missing text was dropped shortly afterward by the copiest of the manuscript. The copy with the dropped text became the source text for the LXX translators. I can see why the NRSVue team might have favored the LXX reading over the Hebrew Masoretic Text. The longer text may have been introduced into the Masoretic text long after the translation of the LXX. On the other hand, even in English, the missing text looks like an obvious haplography (homoioteleuton). A sleepy copiest dropped the text because of the repeated words "beyond the river."

End Comments

Incidentally, the reason this verse is even on my radar is because "west of the Euphrates" is a bad translation. It should read "beyond the River."

I was real impressed with what I read from Simon J. DeVries' commentary on 1 Kings. I obtained these resources through inter-library loan because I cannot afford to buy them. That said, DeVries' commentary is worth owning.

Forming Resilient Children, a book review

Forming Resilient Children: a book by Holly Jeanean Allen, IVP, 2021.

Holly Catterton Allen (the author's pen name) has produced a very helpful book about raising children to be spiritually healthy. The book is obviously born out of detailed research and observances in her project leadership at Lipscomb University. She and her students worked with children who were experiencing major personal trauma in their lives. She and her students found that lecturing these children and pressuring them to face their troubles was not useful. Instead, children benefited through relationships, particularly, relationships with self, others and God. Children grew stronger and took more control of their plights (rather than stewing in their victimhood) by gently expressing themselves in art, wonder and times of quietness when they can ponder God. The roles of the adults in their lives is to gently listen, express support and provide opportunities to think inwardly and outwardly. These activities build relationships and they offer hope. Allen aptly quotes Vaclav Havel, "Hope is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out."

While Allen collected most of her data from troubled children, she observes that everyone experiences personal trauma in their lives. It is a good thing to have friends and God, and a way back to the self-relationship, to provide meaning in those circumstances. "Every generation faces some form of upheaval and loss," she writes, "and this generation can take its place alongside those who have survived earlier crises, perhaps making connections that can contribute to their own resilience" (174).

I am 59 years old and I found a lot of personal benefit from the pages of this book. I am able to understand how my own childhood, with all the difficulties and losses, forged me in large part into the person I am today. I did not have anyone guiding me through those circumstances; but I can see that I found my way through them. Particularly, my relationship with God was critical to my coping.

I appreciated Allen's observance that children are often shuffled to the side when there is trauma in their lives. Instead of attending funerals of loved ones, for example, they are often shuffled off to baby sitters. A better treatment of the children is to provide space and opportunities for them to grieve along with the adults in their lives. If they are not afforded these opportunities, their loss will likely go unresolved. They may have not been able to go through the necessary process of grieving.

Allen did not mention it; but I know that children who do not have support in their losses often develop personality disorders and grow up to be narcissists. Those children are much better off having a community of good relationships with friends, God and self.

Being faithful in your relationships (Genesis 39)

Genesis 39:8-9

But he refused and said to his master's wife, "Look, with me here, my master has no concern about anything in the house, and he has put everything that he has in my hand. He is not greater in this house than I am, nor has he kept back anything from me except yourself, because you are his wife. How then could I do this great wickedness and sin against God?" (NRSVue)

Potiphar explicitly put his wife off limits to Joseph. Otherwise, Potiphar's wife may have had the power to give this order. Joseph's intention to avoid Potiphar's wife was connected with the covenantal relationships he had with Potiphar and with God. As John Goldingay says,

First, there is a relationship of trust between him and his master, which he cannot betray. Second, having sex with Potiphar's wife would be something very bad; it is a common evaluation of adultery in the Middle East. And third, it would involve doing wrong against God or offending God or falling short of God's expectations. ("Genesis," Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Pentateuch, 2020)

Relationships are important and it is important that we be totally faithful to our relationship partners.

---

Genesis 39:3-4

His master saw that the LORD was with him and that the LORD caused all that he did to prosper in his hands. So Joseph found favor in his sight and attended him; he made him overseer of his house and put him in charge of all that he had.

What did Potiphar see?
How does God's presence make things happen?

Here are some thoughts from Teranct Fretheim ("Genesis," NIBC, Abingdon, OliveTree e-book).

It probably presupposes that Joseph’s presence “in the house of his Egyptian master” entails theological conversation, or at least sufficient knowledge of Joseph to make the connection between his God and his words and deeds.
There are implications here for how God works in the world: not in overwhelming power, but in and through the ambiguities and complexities of the relationships of integrity God has established.
God also works with Potiphar, so that Joseph finds favor in his eyes. Thus God appears active, not only within the lives of the family of promise, but also within those who do not confess the name of God.

Discovering

 

I finally finished the book Discovering Biblical Equality. It works as a valuable compilation of current issues and debates within the topic of Christian egalitarianism. If you have not delved into the debate, this book is a good reference that speaks for the egalitarian perspective.

It contains contributions in areas of history, biblical interpretation (from the perspective of a high view of scripture, by the way), theology, hermeneutics and church community.

This text is probably now out of print as it is replaced by the update (Third Edition, copyright 2001, IVP). The update reprints several of the better and still-relevant articles from the previous edition, updates at least one (Kevin Giles, "The Trinity Argument for Women's Subordination") and offers new chapters that address more recent sectarian attacks against Christian egalitarianism. The update is on my self-assigned reading list.

Probably the best, most refreshing and also frustrating article that appears in both editions is by Alice P. Mathews "Toward Reconciliation: Healing the Schism." Mathews explains why it is so difficult to change one's mind about any conviction one has held for a long time. It is actually difficult to even understand the perspective of someone who thinks differently. In my humble opinion, if you want to argue persuasively for your perspective and against someone else's perspective, it would pay dividends to invest a lot of time to understand your opponent well enough to be able to effectively argue FOR his/her perspective to his/her satisfaction. But I digress.

Some quotes from Mathews:

Those who have spent their lives in service to Jesus Christ bring theological assumptions from their early training that continue to determine what they can and cannot see. Moreover, they are convinced that their assumptions are grounded in Scripture. Yet the history of the church should serve as a cautionary tale about assumptions that in fact were based at times more in political or social realities than in the core teachings of Scripture.

Whether we are egalitarians or hierarchicalists, there are people who hold things against us. In the process of acting to defend their paradigm, people hurt other people within the body of Christ. In the pursuit of truth we demonstrate an un-Christian priority system when the idea becomes more important than the people holding the idea.

All Christians defending or forwarding one of the competing paradigms face the temptation of devoting their time to shoring up their own arguments while giving little attention or respect to the arguments of their opponents. We must adamantly resist this temptation.

Every paradigm has its anomalies. Until we have explored the anomalies threatening both paradigms, we have not completed our task.

Does this begin to explain how something that is intuitively obvious to one remains opaque to another? In view of this tendency, how can we maintain an awareness of the chasm between the two paradigms even as we embrace those whose ideas we reject?

The pursuit of truth con never be a substitute for nurturing relationships within the body of Christ.

The book is outstanding and Mathews' article is especially outstanding. But it is also frustrating. Two people cannot find reconciliation unless both agree to try (Amos 3:2; Matthew 18:15-20). I know of two congregations that have successfully handled a division regarding a different issue: Women covering their heads in worship. Most often, churches just divide over these kinds of issues; but in two cases, churches actually organized open forums, with articles and verbal presentations, arguing for both sides of the dispute. Everything was documented and available for church members to reference in the future. Once everyone understood the perspective of their issue opponents, they respected the other perspective to the degree that they continue to worship together as church families. Some women covered their heads. Others didn't. Everyone respected everyone else's convictions on the head-covering issue.

Those two stories―two different churches on the same issue―give me positive feelings for the future of the church populated with people who hold differing convictions on the egalitarian/complementarian question. Unfortunately, churches most often censor one side of the debate and proclaim their own side as the official narrative. That method just drives away everyone who has questions. And church members wonder why all the Millennial and Zoomer generations have left the church.

The church is a long story of division over issues. Through a major part of its history, Christians executed their brothers and sisters in Christ for having different answers to doctrinal questions that church leaders wanted to consider settled issues.

Even in the first century, with all of Paul's preaching about Jew and Gentile Christians keeping their own convictions but still respecting the convictions of others in the interest of Christian fellowship, the Jewish and Gentile Christians formed their own homogeneous churches and no longer fellowshipped across the divide. This divide was complete before the end of the first century! This long history combined with my own experiences of division and character assassination of God-loving Christians over piddly issues that should not divide Christians, turns my optimism into pessimism. Nobody likes a change agent. That is what hung the Lord on a cross. That is what got most of the great believers in history killed.

At my age, it is probably time for me to step aside and let the next generation figure it out. It probably won't be in the churches of Christ. That little denomination (yes, denomination) is trying really hard to die.

My copy of Discovering Biblical Equality is an OliveTree e-book.