Suspicions of the Conquest Narratives

Joshua as a text, inclusive of the conquest narratives, asks to be read as an historical narrative: an account of ‘true’ events outside the narrative. Ricoeur argues that both historical narratives and fictional narratives are species of the genus ‘story’ and as such have in common a reference to historicity. Histories purport to relate to events which actually happened but, as a report of these happenings, contain point-of-view, plot, characters, symbolism and so on. In fictional narratives, on the other hand, characters, events and plots are imaginary, but are mimetic of human action so that they might be appropriated.⁵ Therefore, historical and fictional narratives share ‘the fundamental fact that we make our history and are historical beings.’⁶ As a result, when addressing an historical narrative, as with any other narrative, a hermeneutical dimension must be introduced into reflective thought.⁷

Joshua and Ricoeur’s Hermeneutic of Suspicion

Semiotics provides the groundwork for Ricoeur’s philosophy and he begins the hermeneutic task with a phenomenological question: why does the language of the narrative at hand draw so heavily on these metaphors, myths and symbols?⁸ Language, and words in particular, have the capacity for double or even multiple meanings, a feature known as polysemy; Ricoeur sees metaphorical, mythical and symbolic language as a product of polysemic possibilities and consequently containing layered meaning.⁹ The question is, however, further complicated. There is an absence of interlocutors for this ‘discourse fixed in writing’ and instead, the interlocutors must be sought in the text, where the narrator is only present ‘by the signs of narrativity.’¹⁰ The symbols themselves need exegesis to examine their status and role, and any particular exegesis can always be contested.¹¹

We are confronted with much symbolic language in the Joshua text. The earliest and most significant symbol is Joshua himself.¹² His name is highly symbolic, embodying ideas of both salvation and victory, reinforced by the frequent command to him to be strong and courageous.¹³ The motif of hands and feet, especially ‘giving into your hands’ is similarly frequent, with references to: the land;¹⁴ the people;¹⁵ an act of violence or war;¹⁶ possession.¹⁷ Other important symbols can be grouped by theme: victory (the sword;¹⁸ feet [especially things being under];¹⁹ ‘the Lord fights for us’²⁰); fear and courage (outstretched arm;²¹ melting and hardened hearts²²); covenant and election (the Ark;²³ circumcision;²⁴ oaths;²⁵ covenant renewal²⁶); corruption and purity (leaven in the Passover;²⁷ devoted things;²⁸ the inhabitants of the land²⁹).

The presence of layered meanings in the symbolism of a text prompts Ricoeur to take a psychoanalytic approach to interpretation. For this Ricoeur relies on Freud as the master of psychoanalysis.³⁰ Freud, together with Marx and Nietzsche, observes that consciousness is ‘false’ consciousness, as a thoroughgoing extension of Cartesian doubt, and exegesis of meaning is offered as the triumph over doubt of consciousness.³¹ Freud’s postulate is that consciousness is unconsciously ciphered and to seek meaning is to ‘decipher its expression.’³² Freud, Marx and Nietzsche all begin with suspicion concerning the illusions of consciousness and employ strategies to decipher these illusions.³³ The intention with all three, however, is not to disparage consciousness, but rather to extend it.

What Freud desires is that the one who is analyzed, by making his (sic) own the meaning that was foreign to him, enlarge his field of consciousness, live better, and finally be a little freer and, if possible, a little happier.³⁴

Ricoeur appropriates this Freudian suspicion for his hermeneutical task, except that, in the absence of interlocutors, the reader must enter into dialectic with the text itself.

Every work evokes a world, understood as the ensemble of references that the text opens up, constructed from both the semantic and semiotic structure.³⁵ Rather than requiring the reader to transfer him- or herself into the spiritual world of the writer, texts present the reader with possible worlds and possible ways of becoming oriented in those worlds.³⁶ By combining Freudian psychoanalysis with linguistics Ricoeur is able to propose the notion of depth semantics to facilitate critical interpretation of the worlds evoked.³⁷ Depth semantics seeks to follow the movement of the text from sense to reference, ‘from what it says, to what it talks about,’ and in doing so ask the resisting question, ‘Do I myself believe that? What do I personally make of these symbolic meanings?’³⁸

The meta-symbol of Joshua is Joshua himself, representing salvation and victory. Joshua is the leader of the people. He mediates the actions of the nation, stands vicariously before God for the people and before the people for God, conducts their battles and becomes their talisman for victory, has oversight of their administration, and he initiates their sacred rites and rituals. It is through Joshua’s right actions with divine mandate that the people are saved and experience victory. The sentences of the text can then be categorised around the Joshua symbol: those that are to do with victory, courage (especially in battle), salvation and purity as a result of obedience to God; and those that are to do with defeat, fear, damnation and corruption as a result of rebellion from God. Reflecting Lévi-Strauss’s analysis of Oedipus, it can be argued that, in Joshua, victory-courage is to defeat-fear what salvation-purity is to damnation-corruption, but this only a structural analysis or an explanation of the myth, not an interpretation.³⁹ However, structural analysis has enabled us to move from a ‘surface semantics, that of the narrated myth, to a depth semantics, that of the boundary situations, which constitute the ultimate “referent” of the myth.’⁴⁰ Depth semantics, then, has opened up the world-propositions of the narrated myth of Joshua. The alternation between victory and defeat, courage and fear, is mirrored by alternation of salvation and damnation with a consequent impact on purity or damnation, and this has deep existential and psychological bearings.⁴¹ Therefore, the world proposed in Joshua is one where salvation-purity is contingent on victory-courage (especially in battle), and as such victory, courage and ultimately violence is divinely mandated, supported and enacted. Violence is portrayed as in some way redemptive.⁴²

But do I myself believe that? What do I make of these symbolic meanings? As noted in the introduction to this essay, the world proposed by these symbolic and mythical structures is hard to reconcile with a Christianity that regards Jesus’ nonviolence as normative. Wink’s use of Girard in his devastating critique of the myth of redemptive violence extends our suspicion of the symbolism of Joshua.⁴³ The following socio-critical and ideological remarks will further deepen our engagement with the symbolism of Joshua.

Footnotes