LEGITIMATION IN JOSHUA AND THE INVASION OF CANAAN:

Legitimation in Joshua and the Invasion of Canaan:

A Psychological Inquiry

Patrick Scott Smith

Southwest Missouri State University

Introduction

The question, is the Bible literature or history, in short time begins to include investigation = into the areas of rhetorical and narrative analysis, canonical and reader considerations, textual and redactional applications, social inquiry, folk literature, myth elements, etc.[1] The following study will be a psychological inquiry behind the invasion story in the book of Joshua, focu= sing, specifically in Joshua 1-5, on the effect of the promise and importance of legitimation.

The Mindset of Israel: The Effects of Stolen Status and Deferred Promise

From the text we get multiple indications that the Hebrews in Egypt rose to a privileged status which was suddenly taken away. As individuals, when something we view as ours is taken, we resent that and there is a desire for the righting of a wrong by repossession= of the thing stolen, plus more to cover the wrong and the inconvenience.[2] In Exodus 22:1 the principle of rec= eiving back more then was stolen is mirrored in the command, "If a man steals= an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he must pay back five hea= d of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep." Num. 5:5-7 requires restitution plu= s one-fifth added.

When somethin= g is stolen or taken away, we want that something back. That is the first reaction. But if we cannot get back the thing stolen, we demand material recompense.&nbs= p; On a national scale we see a similar sequence of emotion played out = in modern times by Germany between the two world wars, which out of humiliation and bitterness rose with the purpose of regaining status among nations. With specific regard= to the stolen status emotion and reaction, we see the same sequence of emotion= and action played out by the Jews after World War II. Today the Palestinians are similar= ly situated. But with the Israel= ites in Egypt, this psychological condition for a national mind-set that desires to right a wrong by repossession, when combined with a promise for future glory, may explain much of the Israelites' later infighting and final and swift incursion into Canaan.

For Israel the promise of future greatness began with Abraham. "I will surely bless you and = make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky. . . . Your descendants will take possess= ion of the cities of their enemies and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed." This i= s a future promise of future glory, and begs the question, "When will it happen?" That a group of people are so enamored with this promise is evidenced in it being passed on= as a tradition, in it being stolen, and even argued over.[3]

The promise s= tarts with Abraham, who was told his descendants would receive the blessings. But "descendants" is pre= tty general and leaves one wondering if this blessing would come upon Abraham's immediate descendants or would it be realized by descendants who would come much later? Abraham's son Isa= ac did not receive the full blessings and therefore planned to pass the promise on= to Esau; but Jacob, through deception, obtains the blessing which contained the same elements promised to Abraham: "May God almighty bless you and make you fruitful and increase your numbers until you become a community of peoples" (Gn. 28:3). Jac= ob is so impressed and infatuated with this promise he dreams about it and at the= top of a stairway sees God, who expands on the promise: "Your descendants = will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to t= he east, to the north and to the south. All peoples on earth will be blessed through you and your offspring" (Gn. 28:14).

Here the "you" seems to be more inclusive . . . "will be blessed thro= ugh you and your descendants." But did a semblance of this great expectati= on, this promise, materialize for Jacob? Jacob is to be disappointed. His life is full of set backs and hardships--even living in a time of famine. He must have wondered why he was n= ot being blessed according to the promise he had received. <= /p>

That Jacob was preoccupied with the promise and its blessing again surfaces when he later wrestles with the cosmic stranger. <= /span>After a night of evenly matched competition when Jacob finally has the stranger i= n a hold he cannot extricate himself from, he sees an opportunity, and what is = his main concern? Jacob tries to = extort a promise and says to the stranger, "I will not let you go until you b= less me" (Gn. 32:26b).

Though Jacob = in his lifetime did not see the blessings that were promised, he might have though= t he glimpsed its start in his sons. When Jacob and his sons go to Egypt, through Joseph they settle in Goshen, "= ;the best part of the land" (Gn. 47:11) and there the "the Israelites = were fruitful and multiplied greatly and became exceedingly numerous, so that the land was filled with them" (Ex. 1:7). Surely this met the criteria predicted, and the promise was therefore thought to be fulfilled. But that was not to be, and this p= romise will have to be deferred again. This explains the hyperbole of "a land flowing with milk and honey" th= at Moses had to use to get the people to leave because Goshen would be hard to beat.

So there is a= lways this promise of greatness which is always deferred which builds anxiety and expectation. Then when it is thought the promise is really fulfilled and it is found it is not, this cre= ates a frustrating psychological dilemma that will later cause the Israelite lea= ders trouble with their own uncooperative people. For example, in the Korah and comp= any scene, while Korah complains that Moses is lording it over the people, Dath= an and Abiram's complaint reflects a more deep-seated problem.

Then Moses summoned Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab. But they said, "We will not c= ome! Isn't it enough that you have broug= ht us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey to kill us in the desert? And now you also want to lord it ov= er us? Moreover, you haven't brought= us into a land flowing with milk and honey or given us an inheritance of field= s and vineyards. Will you gouge out= the eyes of these men?"[4]

&nbs= p;

Dathan and Abiram's problem appears to be more = with failed promises then with Moses' authority. Moses promised a land flowing with= milk and honey. That did not happe= n—as usual. Part of the promise wa= s land. They had no land. They thought they were living the promise in Egypt and that was taken away and now they are being promised ag= ain. As Ashley points out, "Dathan= and Abiram continue to paint a picture of Moses' failed leadership. Not only has he taken them out of = the paradise of Egypt, he has not provided them with a new one to take its place."[5] The frustration is therefore evident.

This may also explain in part the Israelites' other grumbling and reluctance to invade Ca= naan accompanied with an unrealistic reference of returning to Egypt (Ex. 14:11-12, Ex. 16:3, Nu. 14:2-4).[6] But Moses and Joshua both realize t= here is no turning back and the promises are still clung to and are still effectively held out. Joshua = and Caleb report a land "flowing with milk and honey" and with faith = this "promised" land can be taken (Num. 14:5-9).

But there is = no getting around what has happened: blessings that were thought to be fulfill= ed, because of promises that were held out, were taken away. Bitterness and resentment results,= and there is a feeling of "stolen status" and that wrong will be righ= ted and the real promises will be delivered.[7] The promise to Abraham, Isaac, and = Jacob was always deferred to the descendants of those men (Gn. 28:3, 14); bu= t to Moses and Joshua, the promise is now made to be more effective because of i= ts immediacy. To Moses: "Se= e I have given you this land. Go = in and take possession of the land that the Lord swore he would give to your fathe= rs. . . ." (Deut. 1:8). To J= oshua: "Now then, you and all these people, get ready to cross the Jordan Riv= er into the land I am about to give them—to the Israelites. I will give you every place where = you set your foot, as I promised Moses" (Joshua 1:2-3).<= /p>

The= Mindset of Joshua: Some Psychological Indications about his Person

Joshua's original name has generally been rendered "Hoshea" (Num. 13:8, 16= ), which means "salvation," but Moses changed his name to Joshua, wh= ich means "The Lord saves" or "The Lord gives victory."[8] But the victory that Joshua will gi= ve is one of a military kind and not of the mind and spirit. Though Josephus later depicts Josh= ua as an idealized leader,[9] Joshua was first and foremost a military man.[10]

In comparison= , in the narrative sequence, when we first meet the person of Abraham, he is preparing to travel (Gn. 12:1-4).&nbs= p; When we first meet Moses, he is a baby (Ex. 10) and as a man he tends flocks (Ex. 3:1).[11] We know Isaac as an obedient boy in= a helpless condition (Gn. 22). = Jacob is described as "a quiet man, staying among the tents" (Gn. 25:27= ). But when we first encounter the pe= rson of Joshua he is immediately connected with military efficiency. "The Amalekites came and atta= cked the Israelites at Rephidim. M= oses said to Joshua, 'Choose some of our men and go out to fight the Amalekites.'" Here we ge= t a picture of an efficient, well-trained military commander who is ordered to = stop the enemy.

Joshua's mili= tary and possible competitive nature may also manifest itself in Numbers 11:28 w= hen he hears of two men who failed to go up to the tent with the seventy elders= as ordered by Moses, but despite their not heeding Moses' directive they still receive the spirit and prophesy as the others. Yet, Joshua's response was, "= Moses, my lord, stop them!" It = would appear Joshua was either upset because of this aberration of Moses' order, which belies a proclivity for regimentation, or he was jealous, as Moses mentions (vs. 29), of a competing recognition, or both. Another possible indication of a military mind-set may be betrayed when Joshua is pictured descending Mount Sinai with Moses. As they app= roach the Israelite camp, there is party noise below, but Joshua mistakenly hears battle noises. "When Jos= hua heard the noise of the people shouting, he said to Moses, 'There is the sou= nd of war in the camp.' Moses replied: 'It is not the sound of victory, it is = not the sound of defeat; it is the sound of singing that I hear.'" The contrast between battle noises = and singing seems to accentuate Joshua's conditioning and possible proclivity to and/or experience with military life which surfaces as a subconscious react= ion to unidentified sounds.

The Legitimation Rubric in Joshua

If there is one area of authorial intent that clearly comes to us through the text, it is indubitably in the area of theology. No doubt the Bible authors were theologians. The text claims = a God—He is mentioned more then anyone else—and He is shown to be involved. But the thing that drives theology= is intent, and when we look at intent, we look at concern. What quickly becomes apparent with respect to biblical authorial concern is that there is a God, He reveals Himself, and He is to be revered. With the very first verse in the Bible, these three elements come to the surface= . "In the beginning God created= . . . ." In this statement the existence of God is proven and implies reverence. The statement in essence says ther= e is a God . . . but how do we know? Because He is doing something. How do we humans know we exist exc= ept that we perceive ourselves doing something: talking, moving, thinking, etc.= But in this instance God is doing something we cannot do. He fi= rst creates something from nothing (e.g., matter, as in earth and water) and th= en with that something, which does not have life in it, He builds life. "From the dust of the ground = He created him." That is impressive. And that is the i= ntent—to impress to a degree which elicits awe.&nbs= p; When we are awed by something, we may tend to revere that somet= hing. This pattern of thinking, which re= veals a concern and a theology, is the issue with almost every Bible author or redactor and shows up in a generally systematic way.

Berger defines legitimation as "socially objectivated "knowledge" that serv= es to explain and justify the social order."[12] As regards religion and legitimatio= n, Berger states, "Religion legitimates social institutions by bestowing = upon them an ultimately valid ontological status, that is, by locating them with= a sacred and cosmic frame of reference. The historical constructions of human activity are viewed from a van= tage point, in its own self-definition, transcends both history and man."[13]

The Bible aut= hors are no doubt concerned with the legitimation of God, and do so by showing H= im as involved in history and interfacing with humankind. The legitimation rubric used to fur= ther this type of theology generally consists of the glorification of God through improbable or impossible means, the legitimation of the affectant through repeated improbable or impossible means, and the legitimation parallels. This at once not only legitimates = God, but it also legitimates action. In their narrative structures the Bible authors will generally use a combination or all three of the facets of the legitimation through improbab= le means rubric, which consists of a legitimation through (1) improbable human means, (2) distortion of natural means (accomplishing the impossible as a result), and (3) legitimation through improbable circumstance.[14]

Legitimation Through Improbable Human Means

For example, = in the book of Jonah, despite this procrastinating, uncooperative character, who r= uns from God and disagrees with His agenda, God's purpose through Jonah is still fulfilled, which shows God to be all the more great. In Judges, regardless of Samson's irresponsible behavior which leads him to be trapped in an inescapable predicament, God still does a work through him by hearing Samson's prayer a= nd giving him strength to bring the temple of Dagan down. Improbable men like Gideon, David = and Saul, from places of no account or out of lineage holding no sway, all surf= ace to greatness in the service of the great God. In Judges 6:15, Gideon asks God, "How can I save Israel? = My clan is the weakest in Manasseh and I am the least in my family."=

Through Distortion of Natural Elements (Miracle= s)

In the Exodus account we see the distortion of natural elements: water turning to blood, = the protective pillar of smoke and fire, the wall of water, the traveling colum= n of smoke, all attest to the greatness of God.= Fear, awe, and reverence is the intent because this is how God is wh= en he manifests Himself through the physical (God's voice, the people tremble.= Angels appear and there is fear.).=

Through Improbable Circumstance

This shows the superior intelligence of God. In Judges 7:1-25 the literary structure alone belies the theology of the autho= r in promoting God's greatness because when God is involved, the improbable happens. Through God's intell= igence alone, circumstances that seem impossible become possible. This is proof God exists. This agenda is revealed when God s= ays to Gideon, who has organized an array of men ready to go to war, "You have too many men for me to deliver Midian in their hands. . . ." In other words, God is going to sho= w what He can do against all odds. T= hen with ascending expectation the stakes are raised and the odds made even more improbable. God first culls t= he army by telling Gideon to tell those who "tremble with fear" to go home. Out of 32,000 men, 22,0= 00 men leave. That is two-thirds few= er men. This leaves the reader thinking, &= quot;I would think the more soldiers the better, but a leaner fighting machine mig= ht make sense." But the add= ed step of increasing the odds of improbability near to impossible is tak= en through a selection process improbable in itself. God now culls the army down to 300= men by choosing those who kneel and drink out of a stream with their hands inst= ead of those that lap the water like a dog.

Impossible, Improbable Circumstances=

At this point= , in the Gideon story, the reader is sent in one direction contemplating the impossibility of the circumstances and that the Israelites will just plain = get decimated. The reader is thus anxious and concerned. But th= rough an ingenious idea that God comes up with, these 300 men defeat the Midianit= es with a ruse that sends the Midianite camp into confusion and battle against itself leaving the Israelites not having to even raise a sword. The intended response is one of re= lief and amazement. Therefore, thr= ough the narrative structure itself, we see a theology which is concerned with proving a one God that interfaces with humankind and history (theophan= y), Who is to be revered and Who through improbable means proves Himself.<= /o:p>

Leg= itimation of Joshua: The Moses and Exod= us Parallels

As Matthews mentions, in the book of Joshua, "Joshua emerges as a 'new Moses.'" On many occasio= ns his career parallels that of Moses. This was necessary to ensure that he would be accepted as the new leader of the people."[15]

Uniquely, the exception to the legitimation of God through improbable means is Joshua, wh= o, because of the role he must assume, has to be legitimated on a differe= nt level.[16] After all, considering the great miraculous things God did with and through Moses and the full approval and backing God gave him, Moses would be a hard act to follow.[17] The all important mission of finally delivering the deferred promise, which Mos= es had worked hard for and had brought the Israelites close to, would require a person with few flaws and thus fully legitimated. With some study we see Joshua= is one of the few affectants that God interfaces with who shows the fewest character flaws or weaknesses. Moses was reluctant and lacked confidence and lost his temper. Aaron was weak. We know the sins of Saul, David and Solomon. Jonah was uncooperat= ive; Gideon was backward; Deborah, dependent; Job, prideful. Elijah lost his temper. Jeremiah was paranoid and cynical,= and so on. But Joshua, who is fir= st and foremost a military man, is always obedient, always succeeds, and is milita= rily efficient. And he therefore f= ills Moses' shoes.[18]

The Moses/Joshua Parallels

The legitimat= ion of Joshua's succession to Moses and the subsequent incursion into Canaan is further evidenced in the Moses/Joshua parallels where legitimation is the message from the outset because anyone that God is with, and

works through, is made credible.[19] In Exodus 3:12, after God explains = his mission, he tells Moses, "I will be with you." In Joshua 1:5, after explaining his mission to Joshua he says, "As I was with Mo= ses, so I will be with you." = In Joshua 3:7, God again draws a parallel between Joshua and Moses and legitimates Joshua by saying, "Today I will begin to exalt you in the = eyes of all Israel, so they may know that I am with you as I was with Moses.&quo= t; Legitimation through the distortion= of natural means follows with the miraculous parting of waters. Here, both accounts are similarly structured.[20] In Exodus 14:4, God, without = going into particulars, says he is going to do something that will raise reverence for Himself. In Joshua 3:7, G= od, without going into particulars, says He is going to do something that will raise reverence for Joshua. In Exodus 14:5-28, the particulars of the water being parted, the people going through "on dry ground," and the waters receding is explained. In Joshua 3:14-4:13, the waters are parted (heaping up in great amounts, since the Jordan was at flood stage; J= os. 3:15-16) and the people go over "on dry ground" and the waters re= cede. In the Exodus account the net effe= ct was "the people feared the Lord and put their trust in him and in Moses his servant" (14:31). In Jos= hua the result is, "That day the Lord exalted Joshua in the sight of = all Israel; and they revered him all the days of his life, just as they had rev= ered Moses" (Jos. 4:14).

Finally, at t= he end of the legitimation chapters in the book of Joshua, Joshua's credentia= ls are further raised by a similar circumstance which Moses experienced at the beginning of his commission. = In Exodus 3:5, when we are first introduced to the man Moses in the burning bu= sh scene, the ground is made holy by God's presence and God requires Moses to = take his sandals off to approach His presence.&= nbsp; In Joshua 5:15, Joshua also enters holy ground made so by the presen= ce of God's representative and also, like Moses, is required to remove his san= dals. Who but Moses is able to enter the presence of God?

Conclusions=

When it comes= to the universe of scripture, no doubt part of that universe is of a theologic= al nature, which reveals concerns and intent and which shows up, as we have se= en, in patterned ways. In this sa= me universe there is also a claimed history.&= nbsp; But if that history is found to be largely inaccurate, then the theo= logy which interacts with it will also be suspect. Therefore, it is my belief that it= was in the interest of the original theologians to also relate real history. In this instance not only can we d= iscern theology and the psychology behind it, but we can also view the psychology = of individuals and of a nation and we can also unearth socio-economic elements= as well. In the book of Joshua a= nd the story of his succession to Moses, we see how society, history and psychology interconnect. As we have shown, the biblical narrative relates a story of a socially and economically capable people given a promise that causes problems and is itself used to legitimate action. From the narrative we also are able to distinguish not only a character type in the person of Joshua, but we are able to uncover a process—the legitimati= on rubric—used by other Bible authors as well, to legitimate action and persons.

Bibliography=

Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman= . Vol. 3, Archaeology and the Israelite Co= nquest. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Ashley, Timothy R. The Book of Numbers: The= New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm.= B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993.

Berger, Peter L. The Sacred Canopy: Element= s of a Sociological Theory of Religion. New York: Doubleday, 1969.<= /span>

Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. The = Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Doubleday, 1966.

Cairns, Ian. Deuteronomy: Word and Presence International Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdm= ans Publishing Co., 1992.

Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy: T= he New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm.= B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976.

Feldman, Louis H. "Josephus's Portrait of Joshua." Harvard Theological Review 82:4 (1989): 351-76.

Gowan, Don E. Theology in Exodus. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994.

Harrison, R. K. Numbers. Grand Rapids, Mi= ch.: Baker Book House, 1992.

Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible. Vol. 2= , Joshua Son of Nun. New York: Abing= don Press, 1962.

The Lost Books of the Bible: T= he Gospel of the Birth of Mary. New York: Gramercy Books, 1979.

Matthews, Victor. "Old Testament in Context." Unpublished manuscript.<= /o:p>

McKenzie, Steven L. To Each Its Own Meaning.<= /i> Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.

NIV Study Bible. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995.

Noth, Martin. "Disaffection of the People in the Wilderness." In Numbers: A Commentary. Philadelphi= a: Westminster Press, 1968.

Sarna, Nahum. JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus= . Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1991.

Soggin, Alberto J. Joshua: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972.

Trible, Phyllis. Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,= 1994.

The Works of Josephus: Complet= e and Unabridged. Translated by William Whiston. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987= .