Understanding Joshua 10:12-14 in its Context

The narrative of the sun standing still in the sky during the battle of Gibeon recorded in Joshua 10 has attracted the attention of many scholars. ¹ Some try to explain it scientifically; ² others attempt to interpret it figuratively. ³ In this paper I will analyze the literary perspective of this chapter and argue that Joshua 10:12-14 is an artistic stroke in a picture of YHWH’s holy war.

Here is my reading of Joshua 10:

A: YHWH fought from the Heaven

1. Five kings formed a coalition (1-5)

2. Joshua was informed (6)

3. Joshua/YHWH responded (7-9)

4. YHWH struck the enemy with a great blow (10)

5. YHWH threw great stones on the enemy (11)

6. YHWH took revenge (12-14a)

7. YHWH fought for Israel (14b)

8. Joshua returned to Gilgal (15)

B: Joshua/Israel fought on the earth

9. Five kings found (16)

10. Joshua was informed (17)

11. Joshua responded (18,19)

12. Joshua struck the enemy a great blow (20,21)

13. Joshua laid great stones on the enemy (22-27)

14. Joshua struck the whole land (28-42a)

15. YHWH fought for Israel (42b)

16. Joshua returned to Gilgal (43)

I will address two syntax issues before I present the author’s artistry.

The first issue is that YHWH is the subject of v.10 (… וַיְהֻמֵּם יְהוָה לִפְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּכֵּם ... וַיִּרְדְּפֵם ... וַיַּכֵּם). This verse is similar to Joshua 11:8 (… וַיִּתְּנֵם יְהוָה בְּיַד־יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּכּוּם וַיִּרְדְּפוּם ... וַיַּכֻּם) not only in structure but also in the using of verbs. In 11:8, YHWH is the subject of only the first clause because the verb gave is in third person masculine single form, but Israel becomes the subject of the three subsequent clauses, since struck, chased, and struck are all in third person masculine plural form. Israel, as a collective singular subject, here takes a plural verb. ⁴ However, all the four verbs in 10:10, confounded, struck, chased, and struck are in third person single form. In KJV, ASV and NAU, YHWH is translated as the subject of the four clauses in v.10. Harstad also believes that YHWH was the only subject of the actions. ⁵

The second issue is that YHWH was the one who addressed the sun and the moon in v.12. In most Bible translations, Joshua was the speaker to the two celestial objects. Gruenthaner argues that v.12b was Joshua’s command to the sun and moon. ⁶ Hubbard believes that v.12b was Joshua’s plea to them. ⁷ However, such a view is challenged by many scholars. Boling claims that YHWH was the speaker. ⁸ Miller suggests that YHWH was the possible command giver. ⁹ Hom concludes that v.12b was YHWH’s response to Joshua’s prayer. ¹⁰ I now argue that YHWH was the speaker with the following five reasons.

First, when one speaks to somebody and the speech is cited, the most common Hebrew sentence pattern is “the speaker speaks (דבר) to/with the hearer, saying (לֵאמֹר)…,” using to (לאֶ) or with/to (אֵּת) as the prepositions before the hearer, followed by saying (לֵאמֹר) to introduce the speaker’s words. Two examples are Gen. 8:15 (וַיְדַבֵּר אֱלֹהִים אֶל־נֹחַ לֵאמֹר) and Gen. 23:8 (וַיְדַבֵּר אִתָּם לֵאמֹר). However, when לְ is used as the preposition before the hearer and when the key word saying (לֵאמֹר) does not appear, no speech is likely to follow. 1 Kg. 2:19a is an example: לְ before the hearer - no לֵאמֹר and no speech. If this is true, then it is natural not to consider the clause after וַיאֹמֶר in v.12 as Joshua’s speech. After all, if the author wants to convey explicitly that it was Joshua who spoke to the sun and moon, then even after the long adverbial clause – “in the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel” – he still could have used the word saying (לֵאמֹר) to introduce the speech: “Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.”

Second, the relation of 10:12b (… וַיֹּאמֶר) to 10:12a (… יְדַבֵּר יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לַיהוָה אָז) can be interpreted as either sequential or consequential. ¹¹ The narration marked by a series of wayyqtl is interrupted at v.12a. The subsequent clause, v.12b, can represent a situation that is usually successive and always ‘subordinate to a preceding statement.’ ¹² Therefore, v.12 can be translated as: ‘Joshua spoke to YHWH …, so He (YHWH) said…’

Third, the context suggests that YHWH was the acting agent in the battle. In fact, verses 10, 11 and 12 are to be read at the same time, because the three actions happened simultaneously: YHWH confounded the enemies…struck them…chased them…struck them…(v.10); as they fled, YHWH threw stones on them… (v.11); and at that time Joshua spoke to YHWH, so He (YHWH) said …(v.12).

Fourth, the way the author depicts the spatial relation between YHWH and Israel hints that YHWH was the speaker to the sun and moon. In the whole chapter, Joshua was described as fighting together with all Israel with him (v. 4, 7, 15, 29, 31, 34, 36, 38, and 43); yet YHWH was the one who acted before Israel. For example, it was YHWH who promised that no Amorites would ‘stand before’ Joshua (v.8); therefore, He confounded them before Israel (10) so that they fled before Israel (v.11); and when He delivered up the Amorites before Israel (v.12a), He also addressed the sun and the moon ‘in the sight of,’ or before, Israel (v.12b). As Margalit rightly says, Joshua and Israel were invited to ‘sit back and watch the show.’ ¹³

Finally, the structure of the chapter implies that YHWH was the command giver in v.12b. The author uses abundant parallelisms to describe how Joshua and Israel imitated YHWH. For example, YHWH said to Joshua: ‘I have given them into your hands’ (v.8); and Joshua told Israel the same (v.19). In addition, YHWH ‘struck them with a great blow…and chased them…’ (v.10); and Joshua commanded his people to ‘chase’ them (v.19), and they finished ‘striking them with a very great blow’ (v.20). Furthermore, YHWH ‘threw on them large stones’ and ‘many died because of the hail-stones’ (v.11); and Joshua first commanded his people to roll ‘large stones’ to the mouth of the cave, and then Israel threw the dead bodies of the kings into the cave and set large stones at the mouth of the cave (v.27). In order to construct parallelism, the author intentionally uses the word stones instead of hail (בָּרָד), which is used in most other places in the Bible, such as Ex. 9:18-34;10:5, 12, 15; Job 38:22; Ps.18:13, 14; 78:47, 48; 105:32; 148:8; Isa. 28:2,17; 32:19; and Hag. 2:17. Lastly, it seems that the author is sketching a picture of a cosmic war: YHWH fought for Israel from heaven (שָׁמַיִם) by throwing stones from heaven (v.11) and commanding the sun to stop in the midst of heaven (v.13); and Joshua and all Israel with him fought for YHWH on earth (אֶרֶץ) by striking the whole land (v.40, 41) and devoting the people to destruction (v.35, 37, 39, 40).

Therefore, here is my translation of v.12: At that time Joshua spoke to YHWH, in the day when YHWH gave to Amorites over to the sons of Israel, so He said in the sight of Israel: ‘Sun, stand still at Gibeon; and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon.’

Despite its two-part structure, Joshua 10 is a well-crafted story of one cosmic war. I will

argue for the unity of this chapter through exploring the author’s creativity throughout the development of the fate of the five kings, the theme of fear, the connection between the two battle fields, the usage of montage, and hyperbole.

First, the fate of the five kings is developed continuously from Part A to Part B. The names of the five kings were introduced formally in verse 1 and 3. Then the names of the five kingdoms appeared twice in verse 3 and 5, not to undermine the readers’ intelligence or memory, but to produce a sense of pressure when a large number of enemy troops were deployed near the border. The reaction of the Gibeonites was reflected in their letter, ‘…all the kings of the Amorites … are gathered against us’ (v.6). However, ‘all the kings’ became ‘these five kings’ in the eyes of Joshua and Israel (vv.16, 17, 22-24), and they turned to be ‘them’ in YHWH’s eyes (vv.8, 10, 11). The names of the five kingdoms appeared once again in v.23, but they were conquered when their kings were brought out from the cave and were put under the feet of Israel’s chief warriors. ‘Those five kings’ became ‘them’ (vv. 26, 27), nameless, after they were stepped under the feet of Israel. The author artfully uses these different words to show the different perspectives on these five kings by different parties.

The author also creatively crafts a theme of fear in the whole story. When the king of Jerusalem feared (v.2), he sent to the other four kings (v.3), saying, ‘come up, help me, and let us strike Gibeon’ (v.4); and the five kings went up (v.5). Likewise, when the Gibeonites heard about this, they sent to Joshua, saying, ‘come up and help us’ (v.6); and Joshua went up (v.7, 9). The author uses the repeated pattern to describe both the fear of the Gibeonites and Joshua’s faithfulness to them. Then, the author uses a simple chiasm to show that YHWH was the fighter:

Joshua went up from Gilgal (v.7)

YHWH spoke to Joshua (v.8)

Joshua went up from Gilgal (v.9)

Even YHWH’s speech can be read as a chiasm:

Do not fear them (v.8b)

YHWH has given them into Joshua’s hands (v.8c)

Nobody will stand (v.8d)

The two chiasms show that YHWH went up together with Joshua as his alliance and that He was the main fighter. His words to Joshua implied the fear of Joshua and Israel, because this was the first time they were to fight against an alliance of ‘all the kings of the Amorites’ (v.6). YHWH encouraged Joshua not to fear the enemy (v.8) and then He struck them (v.10); likewise, Joshua told his chief soldiers not to fear the five kings (v.25) and then he struck them (v. 26).

In addition, the author paints the two battles in Azekah and Makkedah in one picture. YHWH confounded, chased, and struck the five-king coalition as far as Azekah and Makkedah (v.10), and He threw large stones from heaven on them as far as Azekah (v.11). He even commanded the sun and moon to participate (vv.12-14). It seems that after the battle had ended, Joshua and Israel returned to Gilgal (v.15). But the war was obviously not over, and the second battle happened around Makkedah (vv.16, 17, 21, 28, 29). YHWH did not stop at Azekah but went as far as Makkedah (v.10). This means that the two battles in two places should be treated as one.

Therefore, chapter 10 should be read as a whole. But Gruenthaner thinks that v.15 disrupts the connection between vv.1-14 and vv.16-42. ¹⁴ Boling also believes that v.15 is not part of the original. ¹⁵ Margalit thinks that 10:1-27 is composed of two originally independent narratives. ¹⁶ However, if we take the literary aspect of the Hebrew narratives seriously, we need to ask why the author inserts vv.14b-15, which is almost a verbatim repetition of vv. 42.b-43. I believe that the author tries incorporating the multiple perspective of one story by using ‘a montage of viewpoints arranged in sequence.’ ¹⁷ Considering the apparent parallelism between vv.1-15 and vv.16-43, the whole chapter should be interpreted as a description of a war from two dimensions: heaven and earth. This further supports the idea of a holy war in which YHWH fought for Israel from heaven and Joshua/Israel fought for YWHW from the earth.

Furthermore, hyperbole is another artistic device the author uses to construct this cosmic war. עַד־תֻּמָּם in v.20a is translated as ‘until/till they were consumed, destroyed, wiped out’. Yet right after it, in v.20b, the author writes about survivors entering fortified cities. This is not discrepancy but hyperbole. This type of hyperbole is even more obvious in vv.28-41 when he writes Joshua ‘devoted every person to destruction and left no survivor.’ In fact, this kind of stereotyped record is very similar to ancient Near Eastern conquest accounts. ¹⁸ Hoffmeier notices the similarity between an Egyptian war record and Joshua 10: both use long narratives including detailed accounts of the most significant campaigns and brief reports of less-important battles ‘using repetitive, stereotyped language.’ ¹⁹ It is also hyperbole to say that ‘Joshua captured all these kings and their land at one time,’ (v.42b), just like a warrior killing three hundred (1 Chr. 11:11) or eight hundred men (2 Sam 23:8) at one time.

Since Joshua 10 is a well-crafted whole story, v.12-14 must be interpreted with the entire war story as its backdrop. One of the reasons why v. 12-14 is so difficult to interpret is that scholars differ from each other significantly on which verses were quoted from the Book of Jashar. Boling believes that the following six-line poem is quoted:

12c He said in sight of Israel,

12d ‘Sun, over Gibeon be still,

12e Moon too, over Aijalon Valley.’

13a Sun was stilled,

13b And Moon stood fixed

13c Until he defeated his enemies’ force. ²⁰

Hubbard thinks that the quoted poem has only five lines, starting from line 12c. ²¹ Gruenthaner reads 13a and 13b together; so for him, this is a quatrain. ²² Walton considers v.13d-e, the last two clauses in v.13, ‘the sun stood…and did not hurry to set…,’ as the quotation. ²³ Hom suggests that the Book of Jashar is not cited at all. ²⁴ de Troyer notices that this book is not mentioned in LXX and hints that it was probably inserted by a scribe named Jashar. ²⁵ Margalit even considers this whole episode as redundancy. ²⁶

Yet, this episode, if the repetition is taken seriously, can be read as a chiasm emphasizing YHWH’s taking revenge of his enemies:

12a Joshua spoke to YHWH

12b   in a day when…

12c,d,e    So He said in the sight of Israel

13a,b,c      He took revenge

13d,e    It is written in the book of Jashar

14a   a special day when…

14b YHWH listened to a man

In addition to Boling, who translates v.13c with YHWH as the subject, as shown before, Miller

also believes that YHWH was the one who took revenge. ²⁷ Gruenthaner further points out that this verse reads as ‘till God took vengeance upon His foes’ in the LXX. ²⁸ Hom agrees that such a translation ‘makes better theological sense and is more consistent with the main theme of this text that YHWH fights for Israel.’ ²⁹

What many scholars do agree with each other is the cosmic nature of the text. ³⁰ Hubbard considers the cosmic scale of the text ‘striking.’ ³¹ Such a cosmic feature of the text is also exhibited in the theories of omen, whether a good celestial omen for Israel ³² or a bad omen for the enemy. ³³ In addition, Kruger is correct to call it a divine war when he connects the celestial, God and war in this chapter. ³⁴ Vocabularies such as םרח (vv.1, 28, 35, 37, 39, 40) and םקנ (v.13) also point to a holy war. Moreover, it is helpful to understand the war in Joshua 10 from the perspective of an intrusion of the final judgment. ³⁵ The picture of kings hiding themselves in a cave (the word ‘cave’ repeated eight times in vv.16-27) is similar to Rev. 6:12-17, where the cry for judgment and vengeance (6:10) is followed by the sun and moon changing color (6:12), stars falling from heaven (6:13) and kings hiding themselves in caves (6:15).

In summary, Joshua 10 should be read as an entire literary unit describing a cosmic war against YHWH’s enemies. Jos. 10:12-14 is one of the figurative strokes of this gigantic picture, designed to portray the mighty power of YHWH, who judged His enemies. ³⁶

Reflecting on the Feminine Side of Christ

Nicola Slee, Seeking the Risen Christa (London: SPCK, 2011. £14.99. pp. 160. ISBN: 978-0-281-06256-0).

Nicola Slee’s latest offering is a collection of poems, prayers, short essays and journal entries exploring the significance of Christa for Christian thought and prayer. The book is well suited to personal reflection, group study or discussion; some poems and prayers are also designed for use in liturgy.

Much of the material in the collection emerged out of a women’s Easter retreat that Slee helped to facilitate in 2006, and so it is shaped around reflections on the events of the Easter Triduum. While this means some focus on images of women’s passion and suffering, the book is driven by a desire to find images of the risen Christa, as well as the suffering Christa. Slee is ‘in search of symbols of the feminine divine which can speak to and of women’s risenness, strength, power, vitality and liveliness, our quest for life in all its fullness – without ignoring and obliterating the wounds and without denying the reality of evil, sin and death’ (p. 24). Through exploring images of the risen Christa, the book sets out to challenge traditional images of Christ, both in their reliance on problematic ideals of masculinity, and in their reliance on the idea of redemptive violence.

The book certainly makes for moving and at times discomforting reading, and Slee’s work provides a welcome challenge to our well-worn ways of thinking and praying about Christ. The writing is intense and engaging (to the point where one occasionally feels a bit as though one is ‘wallowing’), but this probably reflects the book’s origins in a retreat setting. The collection is worth engaging with, not as a do-it-yourself Christa kit, but as an invitation to reflect on the same themes and images that Slee herself is trying to articulate and work through.

THEODORA HAWKSLEYSchool of Divinity, University of Edinburgh