Introduction

Historical Books

According to the division of Old Testament books by content, as adopted in the Greek-Slavonic and Latin Bibles, the historical (canonical) books include the Book of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four Books of Kings, two Books of Chronicles, the first book of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. A similar classification appears as early as the 85th Apostolic Canon, the fourth catechetical lecture of Cyril of Jerusalem, the Sinai manuscript of the LXX translation, and in part in the 60th canon of the Council of Laodicea of 350 A.D.: Esther is placed in it between Ruth and Kings. Similarly, the term “historical books” is known from the same fourth catechetical lecture of Cyril of Jerusalem and the treatise of Gregory of Nazianzus “On Which Books of the Old and New Testament Are to Be Honored” (Book of Canons, p. 372-373). In the works of these Church Fathers, however, it has a somewhat different meaning than it does now: the name “historical books” is given by them not only to the “historical books” of the Greek-Slavonic and Latin translation, but also to the entire Pentateuch. “There are twelve historical books of the most ancient Hebrew wisdom,” says Gregory of Nazianzus, “the first is Genesis, then Exodus, Leviticus, then Numbers, Deuteronomy, then Joshua and Judges, the eighth is Ruth. The ninth and tenth books are the Acts of Kings and Chronicles, and lastly you have Ezra.” “Read,” replies Cyril of Jerusalem, “the divine writings of the Old Testament: twenty-two books, translated by the LXX interpreters, and do not confuse them with the apocrypha... These twenty-two books are: of the law of Moses the first five books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Then Joshua son of Nun, Judges with Ruth form one seventh book. Of the other historical books, the first and second Kings, for the Hebrews forming one book, as also the third and fourth, forming one book. Similarly, for them Chronicles first and second are considered one book, and Ezra first and second (in our Nehemiah) are considered one book. The twelfth book is Esther. These are the historical books.”

As for the Hebrew Bible, it knows neither the division of “historical books” nor their Greek-Slavonic and Latin arrangement. The Books of Joshua, Judges, and the four Books of Kings are included in it among the “prophets,” while Ruth, the two Books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther are assigned to the division of “the Writings.” The first—that is, Joshua, Judges, and Kings—occupy the leading place among the prophetic books; Ruth the fifth, Esther the eighth, and Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles the last places among “the Writings.” The arrangement of books in Josephus comes much closer to the LXX division. His words “From the death of Moses until the reign of Artaxerxes, the prophets after Moses recorded what happened in thirteen books” (Against Apion, I, 8) suggest that he regarded the Books of Joshua through Esther as books of a historical character. A similar view was apparently held by Jesus son of Sirach. In the division of “the Writings” he distinguishes between “wise discourses and narratives” (Sir 44:3-5), that is, didactic and historical books. The latter could only be Ruth, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. The inclusion of these books in the “Writings” in the Hebrew Bible is explained in part by the fact that the authors of some of them, such as Ezra-Nehemiah, were not granted the title “prophet” in Hebrew theology, and in part by their character: in them one sees the historian, teacher, and preacher. Accordingly, the entire third division is called in some Talmudic tractates “wisdom.”

In assigning one part of our historical books to the division of prophets, “who knew the former things by inspiration from God and wrote about what happened in their time with wisdom” (Josephus, Against Apion I, 7), and another part to “the Writings,” which is the name given to the entire collection of canonical Old Testament books, the Jewish church thereby acknowledged them as divinely inspired works. This view is expressed clearly and definitely in the words of Josephus: “Among the Jews not every man can be a sacred writer, but only a prophet writing by Divine inspiration, therefore all sacred Hebrew books (numbering twenty-two) are rightly called Divine” (Against Apion I, 8). Later, as is evident from the Talmudic tractate Megillah, a dispute arose concerning the divine inspiration of the Books of Ruth and Esther; but the result of that dispute was their recognition as written by the Holy Spirit. The New Testament church holds the same view as the Old Testament church concerning the divine inspiration of the historical books (see above the 85th Apostolic Canon).

In accordance with their name, the historical books relate the history of the religious, moral, and civil life of the Hebrew people, beginning with the conquest of Canaan under Joshua son of Nun (1480-1442 B.C.) and ending with the return of the Hebrews from Babylon under the leadership of Nehemiah in the time of Artaxerxes I (445 B.C.), to whose reign also fall the events described in the Book of Esther. The facts that occurred during this period are presented in the historical books either completely objectively or are considered from a theocratic point of view. The latter established, on the one hand, a strict distinction between proper and improper phenomena in the realm of religion, and on the other hand, recognized the complete dependence of civil and political life on faith in the true God. Depending on this, the history of the Hebrew people as presented in the light of theocratic ideology shows a series of normal and abnormal religious phenomena, accompanied sometimes by the elevation and advancement of political life, sometimes by its complete decline. Such a point of view is characteristic especially of the 3rd and 4th Books of Kings, the Book of Chronicles, and certain parts of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh 9:1).

The millennium of Hebrew history covered by the historical books falls, according to the internal causal connection of events, into several distinct epochs. The time of Joshua, marked by the conquest of Palestine, represents the transitional moment from nomadic to settled life. The first steps toward such life during the period of the Judges (1442-1094 B.C.) were not particularly successful. With the death of Joshua, losing their political leader, the Hebrews broke apart into twelve independent republics that lost consciousness of national unity. This was replaced by tribal division, and so great a division at that, that the tribes did not participate in the common political life of the country, living in such isolation, so shut off, that they did not even wish to help one another in times of calamity (Judg 5:15-17). In the same pitiful condition was the religious and moral life. Immorality became so universal that adulterous cohabitation was considered a normal matter and seemed to replace marriage, and in some cities developed the abominable vices of the times of Sodom and Gomorrah (Judg 19). At the same time, true religion was forgotten: its place was taken by superstitions spread by wandering Levites (Judg 17). The absence in the period of the Judges of restraining influences in the form of religion and permanent secular power resulted finally in complete licentiousness: “everyone did what seemed right in his own eyes” (Judg 21:25).

But these same negative aspects and phenomena proved beneficial in that they prepared the establishment of royal power; the period of the Judges proved to be a transitional time to the period of kings. Tribal division and the resulting weakness spoke to the people of the necessity of a constant, firm power, whose benefits were demonstrated by the activity of each judge, and especially Samuel, who succeeded in uniting all Israelites by his personality (1 Sam 7:15-17). And since, on the other hand, religion could not be such a restraining force on the people—they had not yet developed enough to be guided by a spiritual principle—the unification could come from earthly power, such as royal power. And indeed, the enthronement of Saul put an end, though only briefly, to the tribal division of the Hebrews: at his call, the sons of Israel and the men of Judah gather to war against the Ammonites (1 Sam 11:8). More a military commander than a ruler, Saul justified the people’s desire to see in a king a powerful military leader (1 Sam 8:20); he won a whole series of victories over neighboring peoples (1 Sam 14:47-48) and died as a hero in battle on Mount Gilboa (1 Sam 31). With his death, the tribal division of the period of the Judges reasserted itself in full force: the tribe of Judah, which had stood apart before from the others, now recognized as its king David (2 Sam 2:4), while the rest submitted to Saul’s son Ish-Bosheth (2 Sam 2:8-9). Seven and a half years later, the rule over Judah and Israel passed into the hands of David (2 Sam 5:1-3), and the aim of his reign becomes the elimination of tribal division, through which he hopes to hold the throne for himself and his house. Both constant wars contribute to achieving this. As a national undertaking, they maintain consciousness of national unity and divert attention from internal affairs, which are always capable of giving rise to discord; and a whole series of reforms aimed at placing all tribes on an equal footing before the law. Thus, the organization of a standing army, divided according to the number of tribes into twelve parts, each serving a monthly garrison in Jerusalem (1 Chr 27:1), places the people on equal terms with respect to military service. The transformation of the neutral city of Jerusalem into the religious and civil center does not elevate any tribe in religious and civil terms. The appointment of the same judges-Levites for all the people (1 Chr 26:29-30) and the preservation for each tribe of local tribal self-government (1 Chr 27:16-22) places all on an equal footing before the law. By maintaining the equality of the tribes and thereby giving no occasion for the manifestation of tribal division, David remains at the same time in the full sense an autocratic monarch. In his hands are concentrated military and civil power: the first through the submission of the commander-in-chief of the army Joab (1 Chr 27:34), the second through the high priest Zadok, the chief of the judge-Levites.

The reign of Solomon, the son and successor of David, brought to nothing the results of his father’s reign. The extraordinary luxury of Solomon’s court required enormous expenditures and corresponding taxes on the people. His resources now went not to national affairs, as under David, but to satisfying the personal needs of the king and his courtiers. At the same time, the righteous judgment of David’s time was corrupted: equality of all before the law disappeared. On this basis (1 Kgs 12:4), popular discontent arose, later turning into open revolt (1 Kgs 11:26). Suppressed by Solomon, it manifested itself again under Rehoboam (1 Kgs 12) and this time resulted in the separation from the house of David of ten tribes (1 Kgs 12:20). The immediate cause of it was discontent with Solomon, who had laid a heavy yoke on the people (1 Kgs 12:4), and Rehoboam’s unwillingness to lighten it. But judging by the words of the separating tribes: “We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse” (1 Kgs 12:16), that is, we have nothing in common with him; we do not belong to him as Judah does by descent, the reason for the division lies in the tribal, clan division that ran through the entire period of the Judges and for a time was quieted under Saul, David, and Solomon.

The division of the united kingdom (980 B.C.) into two—Judah and Israel—marked the beginning of the weakening of the power of the Hebrew people. The consequences of this kind first became evident in the history of the ten-tribe kingdom. Its strength was dealt a severe blow by wars with Judah. Begun by Rehoboam (1 Kgs 12:21; 2 Chr 11:1), they continued under Abijah, who killed five hundred thousand Israelites (2 Chr 13:17) and took from Jeroboam a whole series of cities (2 Chr 13:19), and came to an end for a while under Asa, who, with the help of Ben-hadad the Syrian, destroyed the population of Ain, Dan, Abel-Beth-Maacah, and all the land of Naphtali (1 Kgs 15:20). The mutual harm from this nearly sixty-year war was finally recognized in both states: Ahab and Jehoshaphat enter into an alliance, confirming it by family ties (2 Chr 18:1), by the marriage of Jehoshaphat’s son Jehoram to the daughter of Ahab, Athaliah (2 Chr 21:6). But hardly had the wounds inflicted by this war begun to heal when wars between the Israelites and the Syrians began.

With interruptions (1 Kgs 22:1) and varying fortune, they proceed through the reigns of Ahab (1 Kgs 20), Jehoram (2 Kgs 8:16-28), Jehu (2 Kgs 10:5-36), Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 13:1-9), and Joash (2 Kgs 13:10-13) and so weaken the military power of the Israelites that Jehoahaz has only fifty horsemen, ten chariots, and ten thousand infantry left (2 Kgs 13:7). Everything else was scattered like dust by Hazael the Syrian (Ibid: cf. 2 Kgs 8:12). At the same time as the Syrians, the Israelites wage war with the Judeans under Joash (2 Kgs 14:9-14; 2 Chr 25:17-24) and under Jeroboam II recover, of course not without losses in men, the limits of their former dominions from the entrance of Hamath to the Sea of the Arabah (2 Kgs 14:25). Weakened by a whole series of these wars, the Israelites find themselves finally unable to withstand the onslaught of their last enemies—the Assyrians, who put an end to the existence of the ten-tribe kingdom.

As an independent state, the ten-tribe kingdom lasted two hundred fifty-nine years (960-721 B.C.). It fell, having exhausted its strength in a whole series of continuous wars.

In a different light appears during this time the condition of the two-tribe kingdom. It not only does not weaken but rather strengthens. Indeed, at the beginning of its existence, the two-tribe kingdom had only one hundred twenty thousand or, according to the count in the Alexandrian manuscript, one hundred eighty thousand warriors, and therefore naturally could not repel the invasion of the Egyptian Pharaoh Shoshenq. He took the fortified cities of Judea, plundered Jerusalem itself, and made the Judeans his tributaries (2 Chr 12:4). Subsequently, the number of those armed and capable of war was increased by those Israelites (not counting Levites) who were discontent with the religious reform of Jeroboam I and went over to the side of Rehoboam, and strengthened and supported his kingdom (2 Chr 11:17).

The wars of the two-tribe kingdom with the ten-tribe kingdom affected it relatively favorably. At any rate, Abijah takes from Jeroboam Bethel, Jeshanah, and Ephron with the cities dependent on them (2 Chr 13:19), and his successor Asa is able to field against Zerah the Ethiopian five hundred eighty thousand warriors (2 Chr 14:8). The relative weakness of the two-tribe kingdom is evident only in that the same Asa cannot wage war alone against Baasha and invites Ben-hadad the Syrian to his aid (1 Kgs 15:18-19). Under the son and successor of Asa, Jehoshaphat, the two-tribe kingdom strengthens even more. Not being carried away by a desire for conquest, he devotes his activity to putting in order the internal life of the state, undertakes an attempt to correct the religious and moral life of the people, cares for their enlightenment (2 Chr 17:7-10), for the regulation of the law and judicial institutions (2 Chr 19:5-11), builds new fortresses (2 Chr 17:12), and so on.

The carrying out of these designs required, of course, peace with neighbors. Of these, the Philistines and Edomites are subdued by force of arms (2 Chr 17:10-11), and with the ten-tribe kingdom a political and family alliance is concluded (2 Chr 18:1). Necessary for Jehoshaphat as a means of carrying out the reforms mentioned above, the latter in time became a source of calamities and misfortunes for the two-tribe kingdom. According to the author of Chronicles (2 Chr 21), they were expressed in the revolt of Edom, which Jehoshaphat had conquered (2 Chr 21:10), in a successful raid on Judea and Jerusalem itself by the Philistines and Arabian tribes (2 Chr 21:16-17), in the revolt of the inhabitants of the priestly city Libnah (2 Chr 21:10), and in a fruitless war with the Syrians (2 Chr 22:5). The disintegration of the two-tribe kingdom evidenced by these facts (see also 2 Chr 21:2-4) was stopped by the activity of the high priest Jehoiada, the tutor of Joash, the son of Ahaziah, but with his death it manifested itself again with new force. Not having recovered from the calamities and disorder of previous reigns, it now underwent attack from neighbors. Specifically, the Philistines captured Judeans as prisoners and engaged in trade with them as slaves (Joel 3:6; Amos 1:9); the Edomites made frequent incursions into Judea and treated captives cruelly (Amos 1:6, Joel 3:19); finally, Hazael the Syrian, having taken Gath, turns his weapons on Jerusalem itself, and again the kingdom of Judah purchases its freedom at the high price of the treasures of the royal house and the temple (2 Kgs 12:18).

The reign of Amasiah, the son of Joash, marks the end of the time of calamities (an unfortunate war with the ten-tribe kingdom—2 Kgs 14:9-14, 2 Chr 25:17-24 and the invasion of the Edomites—Amos 9:12), and under his successors Uzziah the Leper and Jotham the two-tribe kingdom returns the glory of the times of David and Solomon. The first subdues the Edomites in the south and takes possession of the harbor of Elath, crushes the power of the Philistines in the west, and in the east the Ammonites pay him tribute (2 Chr 26:6-8). The power of Uzziah was so great that, according to the testimony of cuneiform inscriptions, he withstood the onslaught of Tiglath-Pileser III. Secured from without, the two-tribe kingdom now widely and freely developed its internal economic welfare, with the king himself being the first and zealous patron of the national economy (2 Chr 26:10). With the development of internal prosperity, trade also flourished widely, serving as a source of national enrichment (Isa 2:7). To the illustrious predecessor succeeded a no less illustrious and worthy successor, Jotham. During their reigns, the Kingdom of Judah seems to gather its strength for the coming struggle with the Assyrians. The inevitability of this struggle becomes clear even under Ahaz, who invited Tiglath-Pileser to protect him from the attacks of Rezin, Pekah, the Edomites, and the Philistines (2 Chr 28:5-18). In Vigouroux’s expression, he was unknowingly asking the wolf to devour his flock (Die Bibel und die neueren Entdeckungen. S. 98). And indeed, Tiglath-Pileser freed Ahaz from his enemies, but at the same time imposed tribute on him (2 Chr 28:21).

It is unknown how the dependence on Assyria would have affected the further history of the two-tribe kingdom, had it not been for the fall of Samaria and the refusal of Ahaz’s successor Hezekiah to pay tribute to the Assyrians and his turning, contrary to the advice of the prophet Isaiah, to the Egyptians (Isa 30:7). The first event deprived the Kingdom of Judah of the last cover from the side of Assyria; now access to its territory is open, and the path to its borders is laid. The second finally predetermined the fate of Judah. The alliance with Egypt, which in time turned into vassalage, forced her to take part first in the struggle with Assyria, and then with Babylon. From the first she emerged weakened, and the second led to her final destruction. As an ally of Egypt, against which the Assyrians waged war under Hezekiah, Judea underwent the invasion of Sennacherib. According to the inscription left by him, he conquered forty-six cities, captured much supplies and military materials, and carried away into captivity two hundred fifteen thousand people (Schrader ibid S. 302-4; 298). In addition, enormous tribute was imposed on Judea (2 Kgs 18:14-16). The alliance with Egypt and hope for its help brought no benefit to the two-tribe kingdom. And yet his successor Manasseh remains an adherent of the Egyptians. As such, during the campaign of Esarhaddon against Egypt, he becomes his tributary, is bound in fetters, and sent to Babylon (2 Chr 33:11). The weakening of Assyria that began under Esarhaddon’s successor Ashurbanipal made the alliance with Egypt unnecessary for Judea. More than that, Josiah, a contemporary of this event, attempts to stop the conquering aspirations of the Egyptian Pharaoh Neco (2 Chr 35:20), but perishes in the battle at Megiddo (2 Chr 35:23). With his death, Judea comes into vassalage to Egypt (2 Kgs 23:33; 2 Chr 36:1-4), and this circumstance involves her in struggle with Babylon. Neco’s aspiration to establish himself, taking advantage of the fall of Nineveh, in the Euphrates regions met with opposition from Nebuchadnezzar, the son of Nabopolassar. In 605 B.C., Neco was defeated by him at the battle of Carchemish. Four years later, Nebuchadnezzar himself undertook a campaign against Egypt and, in order to secure his rear, subjugated the kings under his rule, including Jehoiakim of Judah (2 Kgs 24:1; 2 Chr 36:5).

From Egypt, Judea passed into the hands of the Babylonians and under the condition of loyalty to them could have preserved her existence. But she was destroyed by hope in the same Egypt. Confident of its support, Sedekiah (Jer 37:5; Ezek 17:15), the second successor of Jehoiakim, revolted from Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kgs 24:20; 2 Chr 36:13), brought on the invasion of the Babylonians (2 Kgs 25:1; 2 Chr 36:17), and, not receiving support from the Egyptian Pharaoh Hophra (Jer 37:7), perished himself and destroyed the country.

If the international relations of Judea are reduced to continuous wars, then internal life is characterized by the struggle with paganism. Lasting throughout the entire history of the two-tribe kingdom, it did not bring victory to true religion. Pagan it began its existence under Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:22-24; 2 Chr 11:13-17), pagan and ended its political life (2 Kgs 24:19, 2 Chr 36:12). The reasons for this phenomenon lay chiefly in the fact that the struggle with paganism was waged by purely external means, was reduced to the mere destruction of monuments of paganism. The only exception in this regard is the activity of Jehoshaphat, Josiah, and to some extent Hezekiah. The first appointed a special commission of princes, priests, and Levites, entrusted it with going throughout all the cities of Judea and teaching the people (2 Chr 17:7-10); the second undertook a public reading of the law (2 Kgs 23:1-2; 2 Chr 34:30), and the third arranged a solemn celebration of Passover (2 Chr 30:26). All other kings limited themselves to destroying idols, cutting down sacred groves, and the like. And if even the activity of Jehoshaphat did not bring essential benefit: “the people had not yet devoted their hearts firmly to the God of their fathers” (2 Chr 20:33), then it is clear that external measures alone could not destroy the pagan disposition of the people, the inclination of their hearts and minds to the gods of the surrounding nations. Therefore, as soon as a king who persecuted paganism died, the pagan nation restored what had been destroyed and erected new sanctuaries for its idols; the zealots for the religion of the Lord had to begin again the work of their pious predecessors (2 Chr 14:3 and so forth).

Thanks to such circumstances, the religion of the Lord and paganism turned out to be far from equal forces. On the side of the latter was the sympathy of the people; it was acquired by the Hebrew as if with his mother’s milk, from youth entered into his flesh and blood; the former had only the kings and was forcibly imposed on the nation. It is not surprising, therefore, that it not only was completely alien to them, but seemed directly hostile. Repressive measures only supported this feeling, cemented the pagan masses, did not lead to obedience, but on the contrary prompted struggle against the law of the Lord. Such, among other things, was the result of the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah. Under the successor of the first, Manasseh, “innocent blood was shed, and Jerusalem was filled with it... from one end to the other” (2 Kgs 21:16), that is, there began the slaying of the servants of the Lord by the strengthened pagan faction. Similarly, Josiah’s reform, carried out with rare decisiveness, helped concentrate the forces of the pagans, and in the resulting struggle with the supporters of religion, they undermined all the foundations of theocracy, including, in particular, prophecy and priesthood. To weaken the former, the pagan faction selected and promoted false prophets, promising peace and assuring that no evil would befall the state (Jer 23:6). The priesthood too was undermined: it put forward only unworthy representatives (Jer 23:2). Josiah’s reform was the last act of an age-long struggle of piety against paganism. After it, there were no more attempts to maintain true religion; and into Babylonian captivity the Hebrews went as true pagans.

The Babylonian captivity, depriving the Hebrews of political independence, had a sobering effect on them religiously. Its contemporaries saw with their own eyes the truth of prophetic threats and exhortations, the justice of the principle that all Israel’s life depends on God, on fidelity to His law. As a direct and immediate result of such awareness, there arose a desire to return to the ancient and eternal truths and powers that once created society, at all times gave salvation, and though often forgotten and neglected, were always recognized as capable of giving salvation. On this path the community arriving in Judea embarked. As a preparatory condition for carrying out the religion of the Lord, they fulfilled the requirement of the Law of Moses concerning complete and total separation of the Hebrews from the surrounding nations (the dissolution of mixed marriages under Ezra and Nehemiah). The principle of separation and isolation is now placed at the foundation of future life and history.

Selected Bibliography of Domestic and Foreign Works on Biblical Historical Books

Bogorodsky – Bogorodsky Y. Hebrew Kings. Kazan, 1884.

Glagolev A. Old Testament Biblical Teaching on Angels. Kiev, 1900.

Olesnitsky – Olesnitsky A.A. Megalithic Monuments of the Holy Land. St. Petersburg, 1895.

Palmov – Palmov M. Idolatry among the Ancient Hebrews. St. Petersburg, 1897.

Pokrovsky – Pokrovsky E.Y. The Division of the Hebrew Kingdom into the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel. Kiev, 1885.

Popov – Popov T. Biblical Data on Various Diseases. St. Petersburg, 1904.

Troitsky – Troitsky I. G. The Religious, Social, and Political Condition of the Hebrews During the Period of the Judges. St. Petersburg, 1885.

Baedecker – Baedecker K. Palastina und Syrien: die Hauptrouten Mesopotamiens und Babyloniens und die Insel Cypern; Handbuch fur Reisende; mit 21 Karten, 56 Planen und Grundrissen und einem Panorama. Leipzig, 1910.

Bähr – Bähr K.Chr.W.Fr. Die Bucher der Konige theologisch-homiletisch bearbeitet // Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk: Das Alte Testament, 7. Bielefeld-Leipzig, 1868.

Bähr. Symbolik – Bähr K.Chr.W. Fr. Symbolik des Mosaischen Cultus. 2 Bde. Heidelberg, 1837-1839.

Benzinger – Benzinger I. Die Bücher der Könige. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1899.

Bertholet – Bertholet A. Die Stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den Fremden. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1896.

Böttcher – Böttcher Fr. Regum-Psalmi // Neue exegetisch-kritische Aerenlese zum Alten Testament. Abteilung 2. Leipzig, 1864.

Buddeus – Buddeus J.F. Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti ab Orbe Condito usque ad Christum Natum variis Observationibus illustrata. Halae Magdeburgicae, 1726.

Buhl – Buhl Fr. Die socialen Verhaltnisse der Israeliten. Berlin, 1899.

Burckhardt – Burckhardt J.L. Reisen in Syrien, Palastina und der Gegend des Berges Sinai. Weimar, 1823.

Cook – Cook F.C. The Holy Bible, according to the authorized version (A. D. 1611): with an explanatory and critical commentary. Vol. III: Kings – Esther. Murray, 1873.

Cornely-Knabenbauer-Hummelauer – Cornely R., Knabenbauer J., Hummelauer Fr. von. Cursus Scripturae sacrae. Vol. 2: Introductio specialis in historicos Veteris Testamenti libros. Parisiis, 1897.

De Lagarde – Lagarde P. de. Librorum Veteris Testamenti canonicorum pars prior Graece. Gottingae, 1883.

Dillmann – Dillmann A. Die Bucher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua. Leipzig, 1886.

Field – Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt: sive veterum interpretum Graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum; fragmenta / Post Flaminium Nobilium, Drusium, et Montefalconium, adhibita etiam versione Syro-Hexaplari, concinnavit, emendavit, et multis partibus auxit Fridericus Field. Oxford, 1875.

Geßner – Geßner Th. Über das Zahlen der Worter in hebraischen Dichtungen, ein zweiter Beitrag zum Verstandniss alttestamentlicher Poesie. Quakenbrück, 1873. Glaire – Glaire J.B. Introduction historique et critique aux livres de l’Ancien et du Nouveau Testament. T. 1-6. Paris, 1839-1841.

Graetz – Graetz H. Volkstümliche Geschichte der Jüden. Bd. 1: Von der Entstehung des judischen Volkes. Leipzig, 1914.

Guerin – Guerin V. Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine. Part I: Judée. Paris, 1868; Part II: Samarie. Paris, 1875.

Hävernick – Hävernick H.A.Ch. Handbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Theil II, Abteilung 1. Erlangen, 1839.

Hengstenberg – Hengstenberg E.W. Beitrage zur Einleitung ins Alte Testament. Bd. 2: Die Authentie des Pentateuches. Berlin, 1836.

Henry-Scott – Joshua to Esther // A Commentary upon the Holy Bible from Henry and Scott. London, 1836.

Hummelauer – see Cornely-Knabenbauer-Hummelauer.

Jastrow – Jastrow M. Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens. Bd. 1. Giessen, 1905; Bd. 2, Häften 1-2. Giessen, 1912.

Keil – Keil C.F. Commentar über das Buch Josua. Erlangen, 1847.

Keil – Keil C.F. Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen und apokryphischen Schriften des Alten Testamentes. Gütersloh, 1859.

Keil – Keil C.F. Biblischer Commentar über die Prophetischen Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments // Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament. Bd. 1. Leipzig, 1863.

Keil – Keil C.F. Die Bucher der Konige // Biblischer Commentar über das Alte Testament. Bd. 3. Leipzig, 1876.

Kessler – Kessler J.K.A. Chronologia Judicum et primorum regum Israelitarum quomodo recte constituatur. Lipsiae, 1882.

Kittel R. Die Bucher der Konige // Handkommentar zum Alten Testament, 5. Göttingen, 1900.

Knobel – Knobel A.W. Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua. Nebst einer Kritik des Pentateuch und Josua // Kurzgefaßtes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament. Lieferung 13. Leipzig, 1861.

Köhler – Köhler A. Lehrbuch der Biblischen Geschichte Alten Testamentes. Bd. 1. Leipzig, 1875.

Lagrange – Lagrange J. Le livre des juges. Paris, 1903.

Nowack – Nowack W. Lehrbuch der hebräischen Archäologie. Bd. 1: Privat- und Staatsalterthumer; Bd. 2: Sacralalterthumer. Freiburg im Breisgau – Leipzig, 1894.

Oettli – Oettli S. Das Deuteronomium und Josua und Richter // Kurzgefasster Kommentar zu den heiligen Schriften Altes und Neues Testament / Hrsg. von Hermann Strack und Otto Zöckler, 2. München, 1893.

Philippson – Philippson L. Die Propheten // Die israelitische Bibel. Th. 2. Leipzig, 1858. Raumer – Raumer K. von. Palästina. Leipzig, 1860.

Riehm – Riehm E.K.A. Handworterbuch des biblischen Altertums fur gebildete Bibelleser. Bd. 1: A – L. Bielefeld, 1893; Bd. 2: M – Z. Bielefeld, 1894.

Riess – Riess R. Bibel-Atlas: in zehn Karten; nebst geographischem Index. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1895.

Robinson – Robinson Ed. Palästina und die angrenzenden Lander: Tagebuch einer Reise im Jahre 1838. 3 Bde. Halle, 1841.

Scholz – Scholz J.M.A. Einleitung in die Heiligen Schriften. 2-er Theil: Die specielle Einleitung in die historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments. Köln, 1845.

Smith – Smith W. Dictionary of the Bible. 4 Vols. Boston, 1885. Schrader – Schrader E. Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament. Berlin, 1903.

Stade – Stade B. Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Berlin, 1887.

Stanley – Stanley A.P. Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church. 3 Vols. (s.l.) 1893.

Swete – Swete H.B. The Old Testament in Greek According To The Septuagint. Vol. 1: Genesis – IV Kings. Cambridge, 1909.

Tristram – Tristram H.B. The Natural History of the Bible Being a Review of the Physical Geography, Geology and Meteorology of the Holy Land. London, 1868.

Tristram – Tristram H.B. Scenes in the East. Consisting of twelve coloured photographic views of places mentioned in the Bible, with descriptive letter-press. London, 1870.

Trumbull – Trumbull H.C. Kadesh-Carnea, its importance and probable site with the story of a hunt for it including studies of the route of the exodus and the southern boundary of the Holy Land. New-York, 1884.

Trusen – Trusen J.P. Die Sitten, Gebrauche und Krankheiten der alten Hebraer: Nach der Heiligen Schrift historisch und kritisch dargestellt. Breslau, 1853.

Ubaldi – Ubaldi U. I Introductio in Sacram Scripturam ad usum scholarum Pontificii Seminarii Romani, et Collegii Urbani. T. 1-3. Roma, 1877-1886.

Vigouroux – Vigouroux F. Manuel biblique ou cours d’Écriture Sainte a l’usage des séminares. T. 1-2. Paris, 1878.

Vigouroux. Bibel – Vigouroux F. Die Bibel und die neueren Entdeckungen in Palästina, in Ägypten und in Assyrien. Bde 1-2. Mainz, 1885; Bde. 3-4. Mainz, 1886.

Winer – Winer G.B. Biblisches Realworterbuch zum Handgebrauch für Studirende, Kandidaten, Gymnasiallehrer und Prediger. Bd. 1: A – K. Leipzig, 1833; Bd. 2: L – Z. Leipzig, 1838.

Concerning the Book of Joshua

The Inscription of the Book and Its Author.

The series of historical books of the Old Testament begins with the Book of Joshua. In the Hebrew text, the Book of Joshua is inscribed “Yehoshua,” in the Greek translation of the LXX interpreters: “Jesus.” Such an inscription was given to it “because it contains the history and deeds of Joshua, the successor of Moses.” Thus it is said in the “Synopsis of Sacred Books,” attributed to Saint Athanasius of Alexandria. A certain Jewish tradition that “Yehoshua” wrote his own book and eight verses in the Law (Deut 34:5-12) was not universally accepted among the Church Fathers and teachers and does not correspond to the content of some passages in the book. The book itself says only that Joshua, at the time of the last assembly of the people during his lifetime, after the ratification of the Covenant, “wrote these words in the book of the law” (Josh 24:26), that is, wrote the exhortation to the people and their promise to serve the Lord as set forth in (Josh 24). The conclusion drawn from this—that Joshua himself wrote the other sections—would be correct if the content of this sacred book fully corresponded to the time of Joshua. But in reality, it contains passages that point to a time following his death. Already blessed Theodoret drew attention to one such passage and concluded that Joshua was not the author of the book bearing his name. After citing the words “is this not written in the book of the upright” (Josh 10:13), blessed Theodoret says: “The writer, having told us of such power of the prophet, that by a single word he stayed the course of the great luminaries... and fearing that someone would not believe this account, says that it was found in an ancient writing. From this it is evident that someone else, who lived later, wrote this book, drawing this from that book.” Such a view of the author of this book is suggested also by other events related in it, among which the following are of particular importance in this regard. In (Josh 15:14-19) it is told of the conquest by Caleb of the cities of Hebron and Debir. This conquest is related with the same details in the Book of Judges (Judg 1:10-15) among events that occurred after the death of Joshua (Judg 1:1). The words read there (Josh 15:63): “but the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the people of Judah could not drive out...” also point to a time following the death of Joshua, since the conquest of Jerusalem by the people of Judah, according to (Judg 1:1), took place after the death of Joshua. A similar observation is made in (Josh 16:10), about the Ephraimites, who “did not drive out the Canaanites who lived in Gezer.” This event in (Judg 1:29) is also assigned to those that occurred or became clear and drew attention after the death of Joshua (Judg 1:1). Similarly, the author of the Book of Joshua knew of the conquest of Laish by the tribe of Dan, which was afterward named Dan (Josh 19:47). This event, related with detail in the Book of Judges (Judg 18:1) as the conquest of Laish, which also received the name “Dan,” took place at a time when “there was no king in Israel” (Judg 18:1), that is, during the period of the Judges (Judg 19:1). The idea expressed by some authors of educational works on Scripture that the passages mentioned were added later cannot be considered plausible in view of the fact that passages of this kind are read without omissions in the Hebrew text and in ancient translations; and the idea itself about additions to the biblical text is not reliable, since, as correctly noted by one of our biblical scholars, it “may lead and does lead to sad, false results.” With the elimination of the notion of later insertions, to which the aforementioned passages in Joshua supposedly owe their origin, the latter, together with some others similar in content, must have the significance of indications of the origin of the Book of Joshua after his death, and approximately when—this can be seen from other passages of this book. Thus, it was written before the first years of Solomon’s reign, because (Josh 16:10) speaks of Canaanites “living in Gezer... to this day,” whereas during Solomon’s reign this city was conquered by an Egyptian pharaoh and the Canaanites living in it were destroyed (1 Kgs 9:16). Its writing must further be dated to the time that preceded the conquest of Jerusalem by David, when the Jebusites (Josh 15:63) living in it were destroyed (2 Sam 5:6-8); before the reign of Saul, when the Canaanites living in Gibeon were subjected to slaughter (2 Sam 21:1-2), whereas in the Book of Joshua (Josh 9) they are spoken of as spared from destruction by virtue of a sworn covenant with the obligation to supply water and “wood... for the altar of the Lord... at the place that... [the Lord] should choose” (Josh 9:27). Such indications in the book lead to the end of the rule of the Judges as the time when it presumably received its origin. And the author of it in its complete form, as it exists at the present time, including the last verses (Josh 24), could have been Samuel or another prophet from the prophetic society founded by him.

The Subject, Division, and Historical Character of the Book of Joshua.

As relating what the Lord did to establish His Kingdom on earth, the Book of Joshua is closely connected with the Pentateuch, as indicated by its opening words in the Greek-Slavonic translation, which is a literal rendering of the Hebrew text: “And it came to pass after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord” (Josh 1:1). But as relating special events from the Old Testament history of the Kingdom of God, it has a separate, independent significance. Its subject is the fulfillment that occurred in the days of Joshua son of Nun and through his mediation of the divine promises concerning the granting to the chosen people of the land of Canaan. This fulfillment consisted in the conquest of this land and its division among the tribes that made up the Israelite nation. Accordingly, the Book of Joshua is divided into two equal parts. In the first part from Chapter I to XII, the conquest is related; in the second, from Chapter XIII to XXII, the division of the land. The last two chapters contain an account of what Joshua did after completing the work of God committed to him for its firm continuation.

The information contained in this sacred book regarding those individual events that do not go beyond the normal course of life raises no doubts as to their historical authenticity. Information about such events is presented with such details regarding the places where they occurred, the persons who acted in them, the remarkable words spoken by these persons (for example, (Josh 10:12) and so on), with such archaeological accuracy as to show that the author of the book had detailed, precise, not only oral but also written information about what took place in the time he describes. Archaeological accuracy is evident from the fact that in relating events, he emphasizes ancient views, as for example in (Josh 13:6), where he counts the Sidonians among the tribes that were expelled from their possessions, and assigns the latter to the lot of the tribe of Asher (Josh 19:28). Whereas in the time of the first Israeli kings, this idea was already abandoned and replaced by friendly relations with the Phoenician kings (2 Sam 5:11; 1 Kgs 5:1) and so on. The author demonstrates precise knowledge of the contemporary historical situation in calling Sidon great (Josh 11:8) and Tyre only “a strong city” (Josh 19:29), whereas in later times the precedence among Phoenician cities passed to Tyre, which became “the mother of Sidonians”; further in that, instead of the usual designation of the boundaries of Israeli territory from the time of the Judges in the words “from Dan to Beer-sheba” (Judg 20:1; 2 Chr 30:5), he chooses for designating the extent of the conquered land Mount Halak in the south and Baal-gad in the north (Josh 11:17). The author of the book showed a close familiarity with the condition of Canaan at the time of conquest in including in his account of events the ancient Canaanite names of some of the cities that fell out of use in subsequent times, such as Kiriath-arba (Josh 14:15), Kiriath-sepher (Josh 15:15), Kiriath-sanna (Josh 15:49), Kiriath-jearim, and Kiriath-baal (Josh 15:9).

The historical accuracy evident in all of this naturally inspires confidence in all the other information conveyed in the book. The information about those events that are depicted in the book as having occurred through the action of divine omnipotence alone raises doubts and questions for some commentators. The faith inspired by the canonical dignity of the Book of Joshua that these events occurred in exactly this manner and not otherwise finds support in understanding the purpose of what occurred and how it occurred during the time of Joshua. In his actions as leader of the Israelite people, special divine assistance was necessary because he, as well as the entire Israelite people, was only an instrument for the fulfillment of the divine promises to give the descendants of Abraham the land to which he was called, and in which he and his immediate descendants sojourned. If the Israelite people and its leader had been deprived of this assistance, they would have proved unable to accomplish what was laid upon them. Weakened though the Canaanite tribes were by their vices and disunity, even at incomplete unity of their forces they could offer strong resistance thanks especially to their warlike nature, fortified cities (Num 13:29; Deut 1:28), and war chariots (Josh 11:4). How insufficient the strength of the Israelites was in itself for the conquest of Canaan is evident from the fact that even after the Canaanite tribes had suffered defeat, they feel themselves unable to complete the conquest (Josh 17:16). If the Israelite people had been forced to remain on the eastern side of the Jordan until the flood subsided, they would certainly have been met by the Canaanite kings with numerous armies and would have been prevented from advancing further. That this did not occur was precisely because the miraculously dried riverbed of the Jordan at the time of flooding allowed the Israelites to enter Canaan at an unexpected time, and therefore no measures were taken to repel the attackers.

That the settlement of the Israelite people in Canaan was achieved not only through their own efforts but chiefly through the miraculous power of God has importance not only for that time but for the future, not only a particular but a broader significance. Such a method of establishing the Israelites in the promised land serves as a foreshadowing of the path of grace opened by our Lord Jesus Christ. In this respect, what is significant for the believer is that, just as it was none other than one bearing the name Jesus (so the son of Nun is called in (Acts 7:45), Heb 4:8) who led the Israelites into the land flowing with milk and honey, so also the path to the Kingdom of Heaven is opened to all mankind by Jesus the Son of God.

* * *

Notes

“To all who belong to the clergy and laity, let the books of the Old Testament be honored and holy: the five of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Joshua one, Judges one, Ruth one, Kings four, Chronicles two, Ezra two, Esther one.”

“The books of the Old Testament that should be read are: Genesis of the world, Exodus from Egypt, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges and Ruth, Esther, the first and second Books of Kings, the third and fourth Books of Kings, the first and second Books of Chronicles, the first and second Books of Ezra.”

See Vol. I of the Expository Bible, p. 12-14.

Prof. A. L. Olesnitsky. Guiding Information on Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament from the Works of the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church. 1894, p. 26-27.

This is understood as a saying found in the Talmudic tractate “Baraitā,” not included in the Mishnah. The origin of the tractate is dated to the second Christian century. The text of the saying, together with a Latin translation and analysis of its content, was expounded by Marx in Traditio rabbinorum veterrima de librorum Veteris Testamenti ordine atque origine. 1884.

See the aforementioned work by Mr. Olesnitsky, p. 29, where the following words from the named “Synopsis” are cited: “Beginning from the Book of Joshua even to the Book of Ezra, not all were written by those whose writings and mention they have, but it is related that they were written by prophets existing at the time of each.”

Works of Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus. Moscow, 1855 vol. I, p. 281. Blessed Jerome, however, attributed the writing of his book to Joshua himself. See the aforementioned work of A. A. Olesnitsky, p. 29.

In Russian biblical literature, Metropolitan Ambrose pointed out the aforementioned passages in the Book of Joshua as testifying that “Joshua did not write this book.” See his “Brief Guide to Reading the Books of the Old and New Testament.” New edition. Moscow 1803, p. 43. In a sketch of church-biblical history, the writing of the Book of Joshua is attributed to Joshua himself: at the same time, the inclusion in it of the account of the conquest of Laish is recognized as an addition made at a later time.

See, for example, Archpriest M. Kheraskova. Review of the Historical Books of the Old Testament. Archpriest P. A. Vladimirsky. Essay on a Brief Commentary on the Books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and on the First Twelve Chapters of the First Book of Kings.

Biblical Science. Book Three. Historical Books of the Old Testament. Academic Lectures of Bishop Michael. Published under the editorship of N. I. Troitsky. P. 9. Confirmation of the correctness of the cited words is the various exclusions of individual passages from Old Testament books, which supporters of negative criticism make, eliminating from the biblical text everything that does not accord with their views on the history of Old Testament religion.

Such as: (Josh 13:2-3), about the Philistine territories and the land of Geshur remaining unconquered, which are depicted in the same situation in (Judg 3:3), (Josh 17:11-12), about the Canaanites in five cities of the tribe of Manasseh, which is related similarly in (Judg 1:27-28).

See the aforementioned “Brief Guide” by Metropolitan Ambrose, p. 43.

Works of Blessed Theodoret. I, 270.