Sunday, December 24, 2006

Another Look at Joshua's Long Day

Whether or not you agree with his interpretation, it does illustrate the pitfalls of jumping into an ancient text without any regard to its cultural code language.

*************************************************************

A much more plausible explanation for the so-called "missing day" has been offered by John Walton, professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College. Traditionally, Joshua's request for the sun to stand still (Jos 10:12) has been understood as a request to God for additional daylight so that Israel would have more time to annihilate the Amorites. Walton points out, however, that at the time the request was made the sun was over Gibeon and the moon was over Aijalon to the west (Jos 10:12). With the moon in the west, the sun must have been in the east, making it morning. Since it was morning, there would have been no need for extended daylight (1994: 182).

To understand what Joshua was asking for (actually commanding, cf. Jos 10:12), Walton appeals to the celestial omen texts from Mesopotamia. The first day of the full moon, which took place in the middle of the month, was defined as occurring when the sun and moon were both fully visible for a few minutes on opposite horizons in the morning. If the first day of the new moon fell on the 14th day of the month, this was considered a good omen. Conversely, if the first day of the new moon fell on either the 13th or 15th day of the month, that was considered a bad omen.

The terminology of Joshua 10:12-13, of the sun and moon "standing" or "waiting," is the same as used in Mesopotamian celestial omen texts. This, plus the fact that Joshua focuses on both the sun and moon, prompts Walton to interpret the passage in light of the omen texts. Great significance was attached to such omens in the ancient Near East and undoubtedly the Amorites would have wanted to fight the Israelites on the first day of the new moon on the 14th day of the month.

Walton suggests that the Israelites confronted the Amorites on the 15th day of the month. If the sun and moon were both visible on the morning horizons on the 14th day of the month (a good omen) then on the 15th day the sun would be above the horizon when the moon was just on the horizon. Joshua was, in effect, requesting a bad omen for the Amorites--not because Joshua believed in omens, but for the psychological affect it would have on the Amorites. He commanded the sun to "stand" or "wait," so that it would be visible on the horizon at the same time the moon reached the horizon, thus resulting in a bad omen in the eyes of the Amorites.

The statement at the end of verse 13 is what has prompted the interpretation of an extended day: The NIV, for example, translates the passage: "The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day." Walton, however, translates the passage as, "The sun stood in the midst of the sky and did not hurry to go as on a day of full length" (1994:187). He explains that "the midst of the sky" does not necessarily mean that the sun was high in the sky at midday. The sky was viewed as having various segments, one major segment being below the horizon, others being above the horizon, and so on. The Hebrew wording can mean that the sun was positioned in the eastern half of the sky. When the full moon comes on the 14th, and the month has the proper number of days, then each of the days of the month is a "full-length" day, according to ancient Near Eastern thought. That constitutes a good omen. This was not the case with the events of Joshua 10; the sun and moon did not act as they would on a "full-length" day.

Walton has provided a good example of how we can combine knowledge of ancient near eastern terminology, ancient near eastern beliefs and the Hebrew language, to reach a clearer understanding of a difficult Biblical passage.

References

Walton, John H.
1994   Joshua 10:12-15 and Mesopotamian Celestial Omen Texts. Pp.181-90 in Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context, eds. Alan R. Millard, James K. Hoffmeier and David W. Baker. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.

http://abr.christiananswers.net/articles/article2.html

3 comments:

  1. Thanks for posting this. I've long thought that texts like these have been the most perplexing challenges to Christianity, especially this passage. Even more than the problem of evil. Just a little further research shows there are plausible ways to understand the texts in their historical context.

    Merry Christmas.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Two other books which take this same basic approach on a broader range of topics are:

    Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Baker 2006)
    by John H. Walton

    • ISBN-10: 0801027500
    • ISBN-13: 978-0801027505

    The NIV Application Commentary Genesis (Zondervan 2001)
    by Dr. John H. Walton

    • ISBN-10: 0310206170
    • ISBN-13: 978-0310206170

    ReplyDelete
  3. I really like this explanation.

    ReplyDelete