DID JOSHUA'S TROOPS CONQUER JERUSALEM? (JOSHUA 10:23,40 vs. 15:63)

In Joshua 10:23, the king of Jerusalem is killed by the Israelites and in v. 40 of that chapter it states that they conquered all the Canaanite land mentioned in the previous verses until there was no breath of life left. But as one Bible critic on the internet states, “If that is so, why are they still not able to oust the Jebusites from Jerusalem in Joshua 15:63?”

I must say at the beginning that one must be very dubious regarding any supposed contradictions found within the same book of the Bible. For them to have persisted for centuries without being taken out or rewritten by subsequent editors is inconceivable and also throws grave doubts regarding the collective intelligence of the myriad of believers over that time period who were apparently too dense to catch on to the contradiction.

With that said, the issue here is certainly a good one to delve into further, and scholars have offered several approaches to resolving the differences between these passages in Joshua, and some of these approaches are overlapping.

Textual Point

Butler notes that the Greek Septuagint lacks the word 'all' in 10:40 “which has been added by tradition [to the Hebrew text] to underline the completeness of the conquest.”

Hyperbolic Language

One possible reason why modern readers sometimes have trouble properly understanding the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is that they don't comprehend some of the literary commonalities used in those days which appear to be untruths in our eyes. Thus, Younger characterizes the summary statement in Joshua 10:40 in the following words: “This typical ancient Near Eastern war account was hyperbole to emphasize the success of Israel and its God.” Ortiz similarly attaches the same term, hyperbole, to verses 40-41.

Qualifications to Joshua 10:40

Various caveats have been mentioned by scholars against taking this verse at its literal face value.

For one thing, it is interesting that the account of the deaths of the kings, including the king of Jerusalem, is followed by a detailed list of the Canaanite areas and specific cities which were destroyed. However, Jerusalem itself is not found in that listing. Thus, the summary statement of conquest in v. 40 may possibly be taken to apply only to the many specific regions conquered, as numerous as they are, but not to the entirety of the enemy territory, some of which remained to be taken at a later date.

That is the general approach of Mabie, who adds that “it should be pointed out that the Israelites return to the camp at Gilgal (Josh 10:43), illustrating the reality that battles might be won over various cities without those cities being subsequently occupied by the Israelites.” This would open the door for devastated cities (including Jerusalem?) to be subsequently reoccupied later by scattered Canaanites such as the Jebusites.

The above scenario would fit well with Lilley's observation: “It is interesting that the Jebusites are not linked to Jerusalem at this stage [i.e. Joshua 11:3].” And on Joshua 15:63, he states, “The Jebusite connection with Jerusalem reflects the [later] times of the judges; see Jg. 19:10f, 2 Sam 5:6...”

Blair says, “There is...no ground for doubting that Joshua did launch a series of devastating attacks of key Canaanite strongholds, that these attacks demoralized the Canaanites and gave the Israelites a firm foothold, though the land was not entirely subdued at this time; later passages (e.g. 11:13; 13:2-13; 15:68) show clearly that much remained to be done.” For that reason, Blair feels that the statement in Joshua 15:63 “has to be qualified as in v. 20: 'the remnant which remained of them had entered into fortified cities; the only survivors were those who managed to make their escape.”

A Theological Reading

Another point is often missed by modern readers, such as our critic here. That is that all historical accounts, whether ancient or recent, are written with something in mind in addition to merely conveying dry factual matter. These authors all have a philosophical or theological thesis that they wish to demonstrate using history. Thus, we read the following opinions by other commentators on Joshua:

    Williamson says that “the book of Joshua...presents the reader with a compressed account, foreshortening a lengthy process into a single event in the interest of demonstrating the might and the goodness of God in providing his people with land...without denying that it has historical material within it, we should read it in this theological light rather than as a historical source pure and simple.”

    And Woudstra comments on Joshua 10:40 as follows: “As appears from other parts of the book (11:22; 13:2-3; 15:63), the conquest of this territory and of the cities in it was not final in all respects. Nevertheless the author of this section is at pains to draw a provisional conclusion which indicates that enough had been accomplished to pause and reflect on the very substantial progress that had been made toward subjugation of the land.”