Days of Future Past
And he said to the sons of Israel, “When your children ask their fathers in time to come, saying, ‘What are these stones?’” Joshua 4:21 NASB
In time to come – By now you certainly realize that theological paradigms determine textual exegesis. What I believe about the text determines what I read in the text. Unless we’re aware of these assumptions, we’re more than likely to think we’ve determined the true meaning of the text. We’re probably ready to stake our faith on what we think is the true meaning. Then we run into some apparent problem and immediately our apologetics rears its head and we scramble around to resolve the issue. All of this, by the way, is exactly how science actually proceeds (see Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. A little perspective demonstrates that this problem is no different in Judaism than Christianity. Let’s take this verse as an example.
The phrase is a repetition of the content of verse 6, “ . . . when your children ask later, saying, ‘What do these stones mean to you?’” The rabbis asked, “Why is this idea repeated?” There had to be an explanation. Of course, rabbinic thought rejected the suggestion that there are two sources here, combined by a redactor into one story. That isn’t possible if Joshua wrote the whole thing (that’s the assumption). So, why say it twice? There must be clues in the text itself (another assumption). Sure enough, in verse 6 we find the word lachem (“to you”), a word not found in verse 21. One Jewish commentator argued that this meant the question was asked to the immediate generation in this verse, but to unspecified generations in verse 21. In other words, Joshua issues two instructions, one for those adults who have crossed the Jordan so that they can explain the event to their children, and another to parents in general so that later generations will hear this story. That’s why the word māḥār, which literally means “tomorrow,” is translated as “in time to come,” that is, in any future time. The argument is that māḥār in verse 6 means later, in the immediate future, but in verse 21 it means sometime in the distant future. Of course, other Jewish commentators argue just the opposite.
What do we learn? First, we are reminded that Hebrew is messy! It has inherent ambiguities that leave Western thinkers unsettled, whether they are Jewish or Christian. We want definitive explanation. Hebrew doesn’t provide that, so we simply read it into the text. You will notice that the NASB provides no information about the different translations of the same word, māḥār.
Second, our suspicion that theological assumptions are more powerful than the words themselves is confirmed. The fact that two Jewish rabbis hold completely opposite opinions about the same words in the text should make it abundantly clear that the text is so malleable it can offer conflicting exegesis without sending us into theological spasms. What matters are the assumptions, not the linguistics.
Lastly, we should realize that the basic unity of the text is also a major assumption. If Joshua is not the author, if the text is redacted by others, if there are several sources, or even if Joshua is just repeating himself—all of these are legitimate explanations that are discarded because of a theological commitment.
So, you say, “Okay, that’s a problem of Joshua, but does it really matter? Joshua isn’t John.”
Really?
Topical Index: exegesis, assumptions, māḥār, tomorrow, future, Joshua 4:21
