DH1b
The commonly called “historical books”—Joshua, Judges, 1–2 Kings, and to a lesser extent 1–2 Samuel—bear the imprint of the book of Deuteronomy. They share distinctive terminology and theological perspective. Simply put, the book of Deuteronomy is about one God, one covenant, and one sanctuary.
The frames of the DtrH indicate its narratives comprise a series of tests of Israel’s loyalty to Yahweh’s covenant in Deuteronomy: first of Joshua himself, then of corporate Israel in Judges, and then of each king in 1-2 Kings.
This oneness stems from the book’s frame as a covenantal document. Deuteronomy presents itself as a counter-covenant to the imperialistic treaties of the Assyrian Empire in particular. It mimics their literary form as a vassal treaty, only to subvert the overlord who routinely stipulates the treaty. Israel’s allegiance is to Yahweh alone, not to any human superpower, nor to any other so-called deity. The essential components of the covenant/treaty are the stipulations imposed on the vassal, followed by the blessings and curses.
For Israel’s part, this left them with the responsibility of choice (e.g., Deut 30:19; Josh 24:15): would they remain “loyal” to Yahweh or would they turn to “other gods” and practice idolatry (virtually to the same thing in Deuteronomy). For Yahweh’s part, this meant he would “test” Israel’s allegiance. To a large extent, the Deuteronomistic History is framed as a series of exams for each generation, whether or not they would obey and enjoy the blessings or disobey and suffer the curses.
● The book of Joshua begins with Yahweh commissioning Joshua, emphasizing that his success hangs on his obedience to “this book of the law,” that is, Deuteronomy (Josh 1:7–8). Although the narratives refer to “Joshua and all Israel …,” the book’s performance reviews focus on Joshua’s singular success (esp. Josh 10:40; 11:12, 15).
● The introductory frame of Judges is explicit that the remaining Canaanite nations are “for testing Israel to know if they would obey Yahweh’s commandments, which he commanded their fathers by the agency of Moses” (Jdg 2:21–3:4). So corporate Israel’s test is postponed to this book, which ends in civil war and anarchy—because they have no king (Jdg 17:6; 21:25).
● In 1–2 Kings each king of Israel and Judah receives a pass/fail report card: “he did what was right/evil in Yahweh’s eyes” (1 Kgs 11:6; 15:11, 26, 34, etc.), based largely on whether or not the king endorsed the one altar in Jerusalem, as prescribed in Deuteronomy. Monarchy ends in failure with the exiles of Israel and then Judah.
The Genre of Joshua
Joshua 1-12 uniquely reflects the genre of an ANE conquest account, which includes hyperbole to maximize the victor’s victories as an utter rout of the enemy.
The first half of Joshua is unlike any of the other material in the Deuteronomistic History. Joshua 1–5 presents Joshua as a second Moses. Joshua 6–12 is styled as an ANE “conquest/victory account.” This ancient genre memorializes a people’s leader and their patron deity by portraying their military victories as an utter rout of their enemies.
The viewpoint is binary: us versus them. (See K. L. Younger, Ancient Conquest Accounts, pp. 227–228, 244–246.) Joshua 6–12 echoes Egyptian, Assyrian, Hittite, and Moabite conquest accounts, where maximal claims and hyperbole are recognized components (e.g., “completely destroyed, no survivors, all the land”).
Egyptian: Pharaoh Merneptah (1208 BCE)
The (foreign) chieftains lie prostrate, saying “Peace.” Not one lifts his head among the Nine Bows. Libya is captured, while Hatti is pacified. Canaan is plundered, Ashkelon is carried off, and Gezer is captured. Yenoam is made into non-existence; Israel is wasted, its seed is not; and Hurru is become a widow because of Egypt. All lands united themselves in peace (COS 2.6, p. 41).
(It is ironic that the first extra-biblical mention of Israel claims to have destroyed it, leaving no descendants—an obvious hyperbole!)
Moabite: King Mesha (ca. 835 BCE)
… Israel has gone to ruin, yes, it has gone to ruin for ever!
… the king of Israel built Ataroth for himself, and I fought against the city, and I captured it, and I killed all the people [from] the city as a sacrifice (?) for Kemosh [Moab’s deity] and for Moab.
… Kemosh said to me: “Go, take Nebo from Israel!” And I went in the night, and I fought against it from the break of dawn until noon, and I took it, and I killed [its] whole population, seven thousand male citizens (?) and aliens (?), and female citizens (?) and aliens (?), and servant girls; for I had put it to the ban [ḥerem] for Ashtar Kemosh. And from there, I took th[e ves]sels of YHWH, and I hauled them before the face of Kemosh (COS 2.23, pp. 137–138).
(The Moabite account even uses the same Semitic word for “devoting” a population “under the ban” (ḥerem, explained below), as found in Deuteronomy and Joshua.)
Both the Egyptian and Moabite accounts refer to historical battles, but also make maximal claims, to the point of hyperbole. Within the book of Joshua, maximal claims are most prominent in its three summary statements of victory (below).
The Thematic Function of Joshua in the DtrH
As noted above, the Deuteronomistic History is framed as a series of tests. Yahweh’s quest has been to give “the land that he swore to your fathers,” reiterated in Deuteronomy (Deut 1:8; 6:10, etc.) and again in Joshua’s introduction (Josh 1:6).
The DtrH’s first test of obedience focuses on Joshua as an individual. The book frames him as a second Moses who is tasked with causing Israel to inherit the land by conquering Canaanite cities.
In the third summary statement Yahweh’s promise is restated again with Yahweh’s performance review: Yahweh fulfills—all—his promises (Josh 21:43–45).
The main subject of the Deuteronomic test, however, lies with the people of Yahweh. Will they be true to Yahweh’s covenant as articulated in Deuteronomy or not? But the Deuteronomistic History applies this test in two distinct stages: first of Joshua himself and then of corporate Israel in the book of Judges (lit. “the sons of Israel,” Jdg 1:1). The first report card is positive: Joshua passes with flying colors and exhibits obedience. The second in Judges is negative: the Israelites fail and spiral into chaos. Thus, Torah teaches with clarity: a positive example and a negative one.
The Deuteronomistic “frames” for the figure of Joshua portray him as Moses’ successor and indeed as a second Moses (Deut 1–3; 31; Josh 1-5). As Moses’ successor, Joshua’s chief task is (a) to “enter” the land and “cause Israel to inherit it” (Deut 1:38; 3:28; 31:7, 23; Josh 1:6; cf. 14:1; 19:51). In particular, he is (b) to do so by continuing Moses’ mode of ḥerem war (Deut 3:21). According to Numbers 21:21–35 (J), Israel’s battles against Sihon and Og were defensive, but in their retelling in Deuteronomy they were resignified as ḥerem wars upon their “cities” (Deut 2:34–35; 3:3–10). (The discussion of ḥerem continues below.)
The introduction to Joshua focuses on him as an individual (the verbs are singular in Josh 1:1–9). Promises for corporate Israel in the book of Deuteronomy become singular for Joshua (Josh 1:3 // Deut 11:24; Josh 1:5 // Deut 7:24; Josh 1:9 // Deut 7:21; 20:3). As a second Moses, Joshua’s experiences mirror those of his mentor. Both are exemplary models of Torah obedience.
Josh 1: Both give speeches, mediate between Yahweh and the Israelites, and to both they vow, “all you have commanded us we will do” (Josh 1:16–18; Exod 24:3, 7; Deut 5:27; 34:9; cf. Josh 4:14).
Josh 2: Both send spies into Canaan (Num 13).
Josh 3: Both consecrate the people (Exod 19) and pass through water on dry ground (Exod 14).
Josh 4: Both erect 12 stones for the 12 tribes (Exod 24:4).
Josh 5: Both know of circumcision with flint knives, keep Passover, and encounter a manifestation of Yahweh and remove their sandals (Exod 3:1–6).
Josh 8: As Moses commands the blessings and curses be recited between Ebal and Gerizim after crossing the Jordan, so Joshua does exactly that (Deut 27).
The Deuteronomistic test for the book of Joshua is laid out in the opening frame: Joshua’s success hangs on his obedience to “this book of the law,” “all the Torah that Moses my servant commanded you” in Deuteronomy (Josh 1:7–8). His report cards appear in the conclusion to each episode, including Jericho-Ai (Josh 8:28) and the altar on Ebal (Josh 8:30–35). Although the conquest narratives themselves refer to “Joshua and all Israel …,” the summary appraisals concluding each military campaign are phrased in the singular and credit Joshua alone for “all” the success: in the south (Josh 10:40–42) and in the north (Josh 11:12, 15) and after all three campaigns (Josh 11:16–23). His report card makes maximal claims and reiterates his obedience to what Yahweh had commanded Moses (Josh 11:12, 15–17, 23).
The Deuteronomistic framing makes the lesson of Torah clear: if you want success, like Joshua, follow the Lord’s instruction and commandments. To be clear, these performance reviews are phrased as Joshua’s alone. The performance review for “the Israelites” does not appear until the book of Judges (Jdg 1:1; 2:11; 3:1–6).
The Thematic Function of Judges in the DtrH
The DtrH frames Judges as corporate Israel’s test to see if they would defect to Canaanite gods. Its stories about the judges cycle downward into civil war and chaos.
In the important passage, Deuteronomy 13, Yahweh had promised to “test” Israel’s loyalty to their covenant overlord by those who advocate, “let us go after other gods” (Deut 13:1–3).
In the Deuteronomistic frame, Yahweh does so in the book of Judges (Jdg 2:6–3:4). Yahweh allows the six Canaanite nations to remain, “to know if Israel would obey Yahweh’s commandments, which he commanded their fathers by the agency of Moses” (Jdg 2:21–3:6). The successive stories about the judges (Jdg 3–16) demonstrate a repeated cycle (Jdg 2:11–19).
1. Israel provokes Yahweh’s anger by turning to other gods.
2. Yahweh gives them over to their surrounding enemies.
3. Israel cries for help.
4. Yahweh raises up a judge to save them.
5. After the judge dies, Israel turns from Yahweh and becomes more corrupt than their predecessors.
The book’s epilogue (Jdg 17–21) concludes Israel’s downward spiral into civil war with the refrain, “In those days there was no king in Israel. Each did what was right in his own eyes (Jdg 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). In short, while the book of Joshua makes maximal claims of success, Judges illustrates the Israelites’ precipitous decline. (This thematic contrast is comparable to the parallel recitals of the pentateuchal history in Psalms 105 and 106. They cover the same events, but the first hymns Yahweh’s saving acts, the second confesses Israel’s repeated sins.)
The Genre and Theme of “the Song of the Sea”
The third account of the occupation of Canaan, the Song of the Sea (Exod 15), is a poetic hymn to Yahweh as divine warrior. It spotlights Yahweh’s mighty deeds—in contrast to the preceding narrative account that highlights Israel’s murmuring (esp. Exod 14:10–15, 30–31).
The third account of Israel’s occupation of Canaan, the Song of the Sea, is a hymn highlighting Yahweh’s mighty deeds.
As a hymn of Yahweh’s victory, the change in Yahweh’s actions between the two parts is telling. Yahweh himself cast the Egyptians into the sea (Exod 15:1, 4), but once in Canaan Yahweh’s actions are solely on his people’s behalf (leading and settling, Exod 15:13, 17), none against the Canaanites. The Israelites simply “pass them by.” The absence of Yahweh’s conquest of the Canaanites is striking. This should not be construed as an argument from silence, as the genre leads us to expect Yahweh’s decisive hand against the Canaanites.
Herem and Violence
Herem War on the “-ites Confederation” is Deuteronomistic
What actions was Israel to take against the “-ites confederation” in Canaan? According to J and E, they were to destroy their religious objects. D uniquely instructs them to put the Canaanites themselves to the sword under herem.
The Deuteronomistic History frames the book of Joshua as a test of Joshua himself. As Moses’ successor, his main task is to “cause Israel to inherit” the land by continuing Moses’ ḥerem war on the Canaanites. In Deuteronomistic literature, ḥerem (or hereafter simply herem) denotes “devoting/dedicating (something) irrevocably,” especially “to the sword” (further explained under §13.3.2). His success hinges on his obedience to “this Book of the Law,” that is, Deuteronomy.
What makes the book of Joshua problematic is how Joshua proves his obedience and Yahweh his blessing: success in wielding the sword against entire cities—combatants and noncombatants, man, woman, and child. As these are staged as praiseworthy actions, words like invasion and colonization, genocide and massacre seem unavoidable. The book itself offers no rationale. There is no characterization or indictment of the Canaanites, no mention of their religion or their supposed moral wickedness—unlike Deuteronomy. The wars of Joshua make little sense without this preamble to the Deuteronomistic History.
When naming the inhabitants of the promised land in Canaan, the OT refers to a cluster of “-ites” or people groups: “Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites.” As these groups “joined forces” against Israel in both the southern and northern campaigns (Josh 9:1–2; 10:3–5; 11:1–5), they will be referenced as the “-ites confederation.” Though the order may vary, the consistency of this list across various sources (J, E, D, DtrH, Ezra-Nehemiah) suggests they had become the stock or stereotypical enemies residing in Canaan in Israelite memory. What actions does the Pentateuch instruct the Israelites to take towards these peoples? The Torah scrolls do not have a clear, consistent answer. It depends on the tradition.
● Yahwist (J, Exod 34:11–16)
● Elohist (E, Exod 23:23–24)
● Elohist (E, 23:27–33)
● Deuteronomist (D, Deut 7:1–5)
● Deuteronomist (D, Deut 7:16, 20–26)
● Deuteronomist (D, Deut 20:16–18)
According to the Yahwist and Elohist strands, Yahweh will somehow “expel” (grš) the Canaanite groups, but the clearest action for the Israelites themselves is simply to destroy their religious objects (altars, standing stones, Asherah trees). The attending prohibitions of intermarriage, alliances, and worshiping their gods imply the Canaanite population will in fact persist. D alone instructs the Israelites to practice herem and war on the Canaanite population.
Passages in the Elohist and Deuteronomist strands state that Yahweh will use hornets to expel the Canaanites (a metaphor that portrays “chasing away,” not execution) in a gradual process (“little by little”). D is explicit: “you will not be able to finish them off quickly” (Deut 7:22). E notes that Yahweh will not expel them, “until you become fruitful and inherit the land” (Exod 23:30), implying a multigenerational timeframe—not a definitive blitzkrieg conquest as portrayed in Joshua 6–12.
In addition, D re-signifies Israel’s defensive wars against Sihon and Og in Transjordan (Num 21:21–35, J) as herem wars upon their “cities” (Deut 2:34–35; 3:3–10, probably because D portrays Sihon as rejecting the terms of peace,” cf. Deut 20:10-12). Thus, unique to the Deuteronomic source is the action of devoting/banning (herem) the “-ite” population and defeating them, not merely attacking their religious objects.
Herem outside the DtrH
The meaning of this Hebrew term is critical to our understanding, but its rendering in most English translations has confused the issue. ESV, NRSV, NIV, KJV, and the Living Bible all render it as “destroying something completely.”
Outside the DtrH, herem appears in ritual contexts and means “to devote (something) irrevocably,” especially holy things.
But in priestly texts, the noun herem denotes something “devoted/dedicated” to the Aaronic priests (Num 18:14), which is included in a list of “the holy of holy things” that belong to the priests! These include the Israelites’ sacrifices, agricultural produce, and the firstborn of clean animals that they are to “eat” (Num 18:8-19). Ezek 44:28–31 corroborates this passage, which includes “every devoted thing” among the sacrifices that the priest shall “eat.” Lev 27:21, 28 reflects the same usage. According to Lev 27:29 and Exod 22:18–20, however, persons under herem were “put to death.” In the postexilic period Ezra applies this priestly usage of herem to property, not to people (Ezra 10:8).
This survey of the usage of herem makes clear that the term by itself does not denote death. On the contrary, its collocation with “holy” implies it denotes something devoted to Yahweh— irrevocably.