“Joshua 1-12: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary” by Thomas Dozeman

DozemanThomas Dozeman. Joshua 1-12: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Yale Bible Commentary, Volume 6B. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2015, 656 pp., $100.00  (hardcover).

*I’d like to express my gratitude to Yale University Press for providing me with a review copy in exchange for my honest opinion.

In one of the most recent additions to the renowned Anchor Yale Bible Commentary series, Thomas Dozeman (Professor of Old Testament at Union Theological Seminary) explores developments in the study of the book of Joshua and proposes new arguments in order to further our understanding of the book of Joshua. The first volume of the commentary, especially focused on interpreting the theme of religious violence, includes valuable commentary on passages, up-to-date scholarly arguments about interpretive issues, fresh translation comparison of the MT and LXX, and comparison of geographical terms in the MT and LXX.

He operates on the basis that Joshua is a post-exilic, independent book from the Deuteronomistic History, written from a Northern point of view and acquired present literary form late in the development of the Pentateuch and former prophets.[1] On the issue of source priority, he draws from the Vorlage of the LXX, MT, and the Joshua scrolls from Qumran, in agreement with E. Ulrich’s characterization of the “pluriformity” of  textual traditions in Joshua, by arguing that textual expansion operates in multiple directions. This is in contrast to textual critics who assume a linear progression of development within the composition history of the book of Joshua.

The format is, of course, the same as every commentary in the series: (1) Central Themes and Literary Structure, (2) Translation, (3) Notes, (4) Composition, and (5) Comments. Additional to this general layout, Dozeman provides a valuable comparative translation by placing the LXX and MT side-by-side in Appendix I, which should be consulted in any studies. Another valuable tool is Appendix II, which should be consulted for geographical terms as it compares location titles from the Masoretic Text, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Vaticanus.

Like any commentary, Dozeman offers insightful and detailed reviews of various arguments through the history of studies in Joshua. Contributing to the tapestry of historical and composition positions, he consistently draws on major predecessors like Wellhausen, Eissfeldt, Noth, and Nelson. Numerous non-biblical texts are also referenced in order to demonstrate how Joshua reflects ancient Near Eastern conquest accounts. Importantly, his use of ancient Near Eastern conquest accounts, especially, those of Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions, move forward interpretation of the Joshua conquest account in significant ways. One major movement forward relates to how ancient Near Eastern conquest accounts relate to Joshua.”Van Seters and Younger illustrate the influence of the ancient Near Eastern conquest accounts on the author of Josh 9-12. But their emphasis on similarities tends to obscure significant differences” (71). Dozeman arranges six themes used in Assryian conquests and demonstrates how Joshua 9-12 only uses four of the themes. The author excludes acts of rebellion that create disorder (no. 1) and forced submission of rebels to reestablish empire order (no. 2) (72-73). His new and innovative paradigm about how Assyrian conquests and Joshua 9-12 compare is an invaluable contribution to biblical studies.

Other major contributions flow and ebb, of course, through the whole work. His sustained focus of herem, geographical terms and locations, and the divine warrior motif surely mark it as an incredibly valuable contribution. His many nuanced conclusions also provide important conclusions for future research and scholarship. Without a doubt, Dozeman’s commentary is a must for any research relating to Joshua.

Overall, I only had one major contention that would significantly affect interpretation of portions of Joshua 1-12. He notes in the introduction that the Pentateuch, being composed in the exilic or post-exilic period, functioned in an authoritative manner as the Torah of Moses (28). While this is true to a certain extent, he fails to clarify what “authority” signified in a post-exilic context. This is something Michael Satlow explores well in How the Bible Became Holy. Dozeman’s lack of clarification on this point results in a later statement in the commentary that the Torah of Moses was authoritative for Diaspora Jews and that it played “the central role of a Torah-based religion”, which is “underscored in the divine demand that Joshua mediate on the Torah” (217). Without a doubt, his focus on the centrality and authority of Torah is true, but to what extent? Clarification of this issue would significantly improve the value of his commentary by exploring the historical nuances of what “authority” actually represented in the post-exilic period and early reception and pluriformity of Joshua 1-12. It would also assist in interpreting what the author is implying by pushing for Joshua to mediate on the Torah and his choice to include the ceremony in which the Torah is written and read. With regard to inner-biblical exegesis, a major tool of the author, it would clarify what the author thinks about Joshua’s relationship to Deuteronomy. Moreover, it would reflect what the author, within his post-exilic context, thought about how people should relate to the Torah.

In conclusion, Dozeman’s commentary on Joshua 1-12 is a necessity for libraries, students, and scholars working with Joshua. While the price is steep, $100.00 through Yale University Press, its contribution to biblical studies is invaluable. Through the commentary, Dozeman’s nuanced arguments are compelling and essential for developing a better understanding of how the book of Joshua functions as literature and how it functioned historically. While he does need to clarify what he means by the Torah being “authoritative”, this does not take away significantly from his sustained focuses on herem, ruralism, anti-monarchism, and composition history. Without a doubt, Dozeman’s commentary is valuable to libraries. For lower and upper-division undergraduate students, it is an excellent option as a secondary source. For graduate student, the bibliography and discussion provides incredibly important resources for moving forward into more nuanced arguments about Joshua. All-in-all, Dozeman’s commentary and translation of Joshua 1-12 is fantastic.

 

[1] Edit: In response to some confusion about how Joshua was post exilic and written from a Northern point of views, Dozeman’s words explain this: “The literary themes of Joshua and its dependence on a form of the Pentateuch suggest its composition in the postexilic period; it represents a myth of origin, in which the promised land is heavily populated with kings and royals city-states requiring holy war to empty the land of its urban culture, as the ark processes to its northern cultic site near Shechem… The origin story in Joshua contrasts with the competing myth of the empty land in Ezra and Nehemiah, where the promised land has lain fallows during the exile with the absence of cities so that the returning exiled Judaeans had to rebuild the temple and reestablish the lost city of Jerusalem. The rebuilding of Jerusalem in Ezra/Nehemiah represents a response of assimilation to the rule of the Persians… In the book of Joshua, there are no benevolent rulers or royal city-states in the promised land. All are condemned by Yahweh and thus require extermination under the ban” (31). He follows that with some brief notes on later revisions into its present narrative context.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on ““Joshua 1-12: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary” by Thomas Dozeman

  1. Hi Will! I have a question about this statement:

    “He operates on the basis that Joshua is a post-exilic, independent book from the Deuteronomistic History, written from a Northern point of view and acquired present literary form late in the development of the Pentateuch and former prophets.”

    I am wondering how Joshua could be post-exilic, yet from a Northern point of view. Does Dozeman mean that it was written by the people north of Yehud? That its final form is from post-exilic Yehud, yet it has older Northern Israelite traditions or layers? That it was written in post-exilic Yehud, but the author there decided to write it through the eyes of a Northerner (kind of like historical fiction)? Or something else?

    • The latter is correct. It has older Northern Israelite traditions. This results in interpretations where the present form is a critique of the Jerusalem cult. Take, for example, the movement of the Ark towards the north. Dozeman, along with others, consider this evidence for an emphasis on the northern region rather than the southern region. This is also apparent through things like the failure of Jerusalem to eradicate the Jebusites (Josh. 15:63) and Achan’s sin as one within the tribe of Judah (Josh. 7:1). Allow me to also provide Dozeman’s conclusion to a section of his introduction:

      “the literary themes of Joshua and its dependence on a form of the Pentateuch suggest its composition in the postexilic period; it represents a Samarian myth of origin, in which the promised land is heavily populated with kings and royals city-states requiring holy war to empty the land of its urban culture, as the ark processes to its northern cultic site near Shechem… The origin story in Joshua contrasts with the competing myth of the empty land in Ezra and Nehemiah, where the promised land has lain fallows during the exile with the absence of cities so that the returning exiled Judaeans had to rebuild the temple and reestablish the lost city of Jerusalem. The rebuilding of Jerusalem in Ezra/Nehemiah represents a response of assimilation to the rule of the Persians… In the book of Joshua, there are no benevolent rulers or royal city-states in the promised land. All are condemned by Yahweh and thus require extermination under the ban” (31). He follows that with some brief notes on later revisions into its present narrative context.

      So in some ways you make a good point. His methodological foundations don’t assume that Northerners actually wrote it; rather, it reflects sentiments of Samarians, who were, of course, in the north.

      Does that clarify it?

      I do appreciate the feedback. It helps me to sharpen my own analytical skills.

      • I think I’m getting it. From the Dozeman quote, it sounds as if the Samarians and Ezra-Nehemiah—-all in the post-exilic period, were polemicizing against each other.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s