Reading Joshua: A Historical-Critical/Archaeological Commentary

Laughlin's Reading Joshua (Smyth & Helwys, 2015) brings genuine archaeological competence to the table — his survey of the LBA/Iron Age I transition, his treatment of extra-biblical inscriptions, and his discussion of DH literary structure are all solid — but the volume is fatally compromised by an ideological agenda that overwhelms its scholarship. From the preface onward, Laughlin treats the non-existence of God not as a methodological bracket but as a settled conclusion, repeatedly characterizing Yahweh as a "killer god," "celestial despot," and "xenophobic and genocidal deity," and approvingly quoting Dawkins, Hitchens, and — remarkably — Archie Bunker as theological authorities. He claims agnosticism while practicing atheism, invokes the "comfortable theory" warning against scholarly bias without applying it to himself, and calls for tentativeness in archaeological conclusions while simultaneously declaring the Jericho and Ai stories "abundantly clear" fictions. His false dichotomy between naïve "literalists" and evasive "decoders" leaves no conceptual room for the serious theological-historical scholarship of commentators like Nelson, Butler, Hess, or Firth. There is also a striking internal contradiction: the series editor's foreword explicitly states that the Reading the Old Testament series aims to present the Bible "as authoritative Scripture" and hopes its scholarship will "water the faith of another generation," yet Laughlin announces in his preface that he will not assume Joshua is "the 'word' of the god, Yahweh" — a repudiation of the series' stated mission that the editor appears not to have anticipated. As a commentary proper, the book also disappoints: despite offering fresh translations of the Hebrew, actual exegesis is frequently thin, with large sections of chapters 13–21 receiving little more than perfunctory translation notes, and the sustained attention to narrative structure, rhetorical strategy, and theological implication found in Butler (WBC), Nelson (OTL), Hess (TOTC), or Firth (EBTC) is largely absent — the volume reads more as an extended archaeological and ideological essay that uses Joshua as its occasion. Even at the level of individual passages, the approach misfires: on the spies "lying down" in Rahab's house, Laughlin volunteers that "knowing human nature, sex would be my guess" — a conjecture with no lexical basis in the standard Hebrew verb shakav, one that every other serious commentator reads simply as lodging, and that demeans Rahab while misleading readers about what the text actually says. A fabricated mocking epitaph for Joshua — complete with scotch and cigars — and a closing recommendation that the book simply be "put on the shelf" confirm that this is advocacy, not commentary. It can be read as a representative of the skeptical-minimalist position, but should always be paired with more balanced critical works such as Nelson (OTL) or Butler (WBC), and readers should be forewarned that its hostile tone and sweeping dismissals do not reflect the mainstream of historical-critical scholarship.

I have read a handfull of commentaries on Joshua. I have wanted to dive into it deeply because the content of the book is very disturbing to be. How should I read this book in the context of being a modern Christian? This commentary gave me the most peace of mind. John C. H. Laughlin does not believe Joshua to be a running historically accurate account of Israel's conquest of Canaan. It is, rather, an idealized history from the perspective of the compilers of the book for a completely different time and setting. It is not clear what period the book is influenced by but it is fairly certain what period the compilation of the book is NOT. It was not composed in any period befor the Babylonian exile. In very brief summary, If it was written in the exile, the authors were reflecting back and thinking about how wonderful it would have been if the early Israelite settlers had wiped out the Canaanites so the Israelites would not have dabbled in Canaanite religion which they blame for the exile. If the book of Joshua was written in the Persian period, then the authors were championing the doctrine that only pure Jews could be considered a pert of the community called God's People. Any children born to mixed race parents were automatically outside the community/assembly. The commentary spends most of its space showing that almost every account described in Joshua could not possibly have happened as describedd and most likely never happened at all. That's really good news for those of us who are disturbed by Joshua's content. If you study Joshua with this commentary, I recommend that you supplement your study with a commentary that suggests practical applications in the reading. I recommend J. Gordon Harris' commentary in the '"Understanding the Old Testament"' series.