Joshua 10:13 (Joshua making the sun stop)

The closest parallel is Habakkuk 3:10
This is one of the examples of the chaoskampf typology depicting Yahweh as a storm god battling against the primordial waters:
Töyräänvuori, Joanna. “Weapons of the Storm God in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Traditions.” Studia Orientalia 112 (2012): 147–80.

There are also allusions to the weapons of the storm god in many of the theophanies of the weather god in the Old Testament. For example, in Isa. 30:30 Yahweh is portrayed using thunder and lightning as his weapons: “And Yahweh will cause the majesty of his voice to be heard. And he will show the lightning down of his arm with furious anger and the flame of a devouring fire, With a bursting of clouds, and a storm of rain, and hailstones.” The “word of fire”, referring to the thunderous boom of the storm god’s voice, is depicted in various seals of the Syrian-Anatolian area as a vegetal outgrowth emanating from the god’s mouth.

Pfeiffer, Henrik. “The Origin of YHWH and its Attestation.” In The Origins of Yahwism, 115–144. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2017.
Only the cultic songs of the monarchic period – according to current scholarship likely the oldest texts in the Hebrew Bible – preserved in the Psalter provide a secure tradition-historical basis. These texts depict YHWH as a storm-god analogous to the type of Baal-Hadad attested in Syria-Palestine. The core of Ps 29 is an old litany of the thunderous voice of YHWH. This voice is accompanied by the classic elements of a theophany of a storm-god: storm (v. 5.9), earthquake (v. 6.8) and fire (v. 7).
John Calvin, in his commentary on Psalm 29, makes a comparison to Zeus’ fiery lightning.
The voice of Jehovah is upon the waters. David now rehearses the wonders of nature which I have previously referred to… as even Horace was compelled, though he was not only a heathen poet, but an Epicurean, and a vile contemner of Deity, to say of himself in one of his Odes, “… Who frequent cleaves the clouds with fire, Parent of day, immortal Jove; …” … Similar is the figure, when he says, the Lord striketh out flames of fire, which is done when the vapours, being struck, as it were, with his hammer, burst forth into lightnings and thunderbolts.
Anyways,
In this chapter, the waters are referred to by the titles Yam, Naharim, and Tehom. Yam-Nahar was the Canaanite sea and river god who participated in a similar combat with the storm god Baal, while Tehom may be related to the Babylonian Tiamat slain by Marduk (c.f. Genesis 1; note that in Hab 3 the deep is clearly personified with hands and a voice). The sun and moon are therefore depicted as deified characters looking on the conflict, stopping and then fleeing from Yahweh’s weapons (identifiable as his lightning; c.f. Psalm 18:14). Habakkuk uses this mythos to serve a political context involving the Babylonians who occupied the land.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/3224-years-later-scientists-see-first-ever-recorded-eclipse-in-joshuas-battle/ Potentially a mistranslation of Hebrew.
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2015/07/30/the-day-the-sun-stood-still-interpreting-the-miracle-of-joshua-10/
━━━━━━
The Historicity of Joshua 10 📜
To put it bluntly, this story is not historically accurate. It never happened. This conclusion is based in part on archaeology. As Yigal Levin, professor of Israelite history at Bar-Ilan University, puts it:
Very briefly, Jericho, Ai, Gibeon, Hebron and Jarmuth don’t even seem to have been settled during the Late Bronze Age, not to mention conquered during the Early Iron Age. Lachish and Hazor, which for so long were considered examples of the archaeological evidence fitting the biblical text also seem problematic upon closer examination. All of the other towns mentioned have either not been conclusively identified or not been excavated. (pp. 363–364, see bibliography)
The internal biblical evidence is equally decisive: the account in Joshua 10:1–27 is contradicted on numerous points by the follow-up story in verses 28–43, by an alternate account in Joshua 15, and by yet another alternate account of Israelite conquest and settlement in Judges 1. Jerusalem was supposedly unconquered until the time of David despite its defeat in Joshua 10 and another conquest in Judges 1. Also according to Judges 1, Hebron and Debir were conquered by Judah and Othniel after the death of Joshua. These stories cannot all be historically accurate.
Table 1. Parallel Accounts of the Hill Country Conquest
(Blue text indicates alternate Old Greek readings.)

━━
Narrative Cohesion
That the text is a composite work is evident from its editorial seams and incongruities. Most of the following observations come from Israeli scholar Baruch Margalit (1992, see bibliography below):

1. The description of Gibeon in v. 2 as “a large city like one of the royal cities” populated entirely by warriors (like a Canaanite version of Sparta) seems inconsistent with ch. 9, in which its lowly residents become menial slaves to the Israelites.

2. Why is Joshua so keen on helping the Gibeonites? We get the impression from ch. 9 that they are con-artists whom Joshua would not risk the Israelites’ well-being for. Furthermore, their peace treaty says nothing about requiring Israel to come to Gibeon’s defence.

3. The reassurance from Yahweh telling Joshua to “fear not” in v. 8 seems out of place. The previous verses gave no reason for needing such assurances, and Joshua did not even inquire of Yahweh for instructions before setting out.

4. V. 10, in which Yahweh takes over the battle, seems to make the effort of the Israelites in vain. The role of Joshua’s army is reduced to chasing down survivors in far-flung corners of the hill country. (Some translations, like the NIV, make Joshua and the Israelites the agents of destruction instead of Yahweh, but that is not what the Hebrew says.)

5. There are serious geographical issues. I will go into more detail below, but to give one example: it makes no sense for Joshua, having pursued the enemy to the Lachish/Makkedah area, to return to his distant camp at Gilgal (v. 15), and then to resume the campaign at Makkedah shortly thereafter. The statement that the Israelites “returned” to their camp at Makkedah also makes little sense in context (v. 21).

6. The follow-up campaign (vv. 28–43) is essentially an alternate version that contradicts the first half of the story as the passage now reads. For example, if Joshua killed the king of Hebron at Makkedah (v. 26), how is it that Joshua attacks Hebron and kills its king again a few verses later (v. 37)?

━━
Geographical and Chronological Issues

The timeline of the story, even given an extra 12 or 24 hours of sunlight, is implausible. It begins with the overnight march of the Israelite army from Gilgal to Gibeon. This is some 26 km as the crow flies—all uphill—and probably 30–40 km if roads are factored in.

Armies in the ancient world could not go very far without their supply train and other material support. According to my research, an army that used ox-carts could move about 16 km (10 miles) per day. Logistical advances many centuries later allowed Alexander the Great to travel 20 km (13 miles) per day, a rate “simply unheard of before Philip [of Macedon’s] reforms” (source for all the above). 30 km in one night is a nigh-impossible feat for an army in the late Bronze Age.

And it gets worse. The Israelites pursue the enemy to Azekah and Makkedah, another 50 km or so from Gibeon. (Mind you, we’re not even sure where Makkedah was; some scholars locate it even farther away, south of Lachish.) Joshua’s brief, mid-day return to the camp at Gilgal is a 90-km detour each way. And that’s not to mention the tour of Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, and Debir that follows—which the text seems to suggest all occurred that same day. And then there is one final return to Gilgal (v. 43). This is a campaign that should have taken weeks.

Margalit, observing that “the narrative as attested makes no sense geographically,” proposes that the author responsible for the current text was raised in Babylon under the exile and had poor knowledge of Canaanite geography (p. 487).

━━
Manuscript Variation 📜
The Old Greek (Septuagint) version of Joshua 10 differs on some significant details, and some experts on the text, particularly Kristin De Troyer (see bibliography), think it reflects an earlier Hebrew version.

For example, in the Greek, Joshua’s returns to Gilgal in vv. 15 and 43 are missing. (A later reviser wanted to emphasize Gilgal as Joshua’s headquarters.) Hebron is ruled by a different king named Ailam. King Adonizedek of Jerusalem is called Adonibezek, which is also his name in Judges 1. (Graeme Auld suggests it was altered in Hebrew to resemble the name “Melchizedek” from Gen. 14.) Eglon is replaced by an entirely different city, Adullam. King Horam of Gezer (v. 33) becomes king Ailam of Gezer or Ailam of Gaza, depending on the LXX version.
━━
The Quotation from the Book of Jashar 📜
Now let’s look at the heart of the Long Day miracle: the quotation from the Book of Jashar in vv. 12b–13a. The Book of Jashar—a name meaning “book of the upright” or possibly “book of songs”—is explicitly quoted two or three times in the Old Testament and was apparently an ancient collection of Israelite poems.

The poetic excerpt itself lacks any historical context. It portrays the Sun and Moon as personified cosmic entities, standing still over Gibeon and the nearby valley of Aijalon while the nation takes vengeance upon its enemies. Yahweh is not directly mentioned, and I’m not sure that “taking vengeance” is an apt description of the situation in Joshua 10.

What does it mean for the Sun and Moon to “stand still” upon command? Some scholars think it is basically what it sounds like: the sun and moon halting in their motion across the sky to extend the daylight hours. Others believe the Sun and Moon are standing by during a fierce theophany (manifestation) of Yahweh the storm god, as suggested by the parallel language in Habbakuk 3:
The sun raised high its hands;
the moon stood still in its exalted place,
at the light of your arrows speeding by,
at the gleam of your flashing spear. (Hab 3:11)
Margalit, however, notes that Hab. 3 is textually corrupt, and according to the early Greek “Barberini” manuscript, which may reflect an older reading, the sun actually stops shining.
A light held back the brilliance of the sun,
but the radiance of the moon stayed;
according to the radiance of your missiles they shall go forth,
according to the radiance of the lightning of your sword.
(Hab. 3:11, Barberini manuscript, NETS translation)
This “daytime darkness” motif can be found in other ancient sources. The basic idea is that Yahweh, as the lord of the heavenly host (the sun, moon, and stars), may command them to accompany him into battle, leaving the heavens “unattended and devoid of illumination” (Margalit p. 483).
The Song of Deborah, an ancient poem included in Judges, describes a similar event in which the stars from heaven fight on behalf of Israel:
The stars fought from heaven,
from their courses they fought against Sisera.
The torrent Kishon swept them away,
the onrushing torrent, the torrent Kishon.
(Judges 5:20-21a)
Other scholars agree that Josh. 10:12-13 and Hab. 3:11 describe a darkening of the sun rather than a halting of its motion. (Cf. John Day, 2000, p. 154)

Whatever the case, it is generally agreed that the compiler of Joshua 10 has taken this poem from its original context and incorporated it into a new setting. As the passage now reads, the story is clearly about the Sun stopping to prolong the day. What exactly is the author of the final work trying to depict?
━━
Portraying YHWH as a Sun God? 📜
The are several reasons for thinking that Yahweh was originally associated with sun worship when the religion was introduced to Judah and the temple in Jerusalem. This passage may lend additional support for that position. OT professor J. Glen Taylor (University of Toronto) points out that we should expect Joshua to pray to Yahweh, and for Yahweh to command the Sun to stop. But what we actually have is an introduction to the poem, “Joshua said to Yahweh” (v. 12), followed by Joshua’s command to the sun without any change in speaker. The summary in v. 14 says there has been no day like it before or since, for Yahweh heeded a human voice. The logic only works if Yahweh is to be understood as the Sun himself. Taylor concludes:
…the poetic fragment must be taken to clearly imply a one-to-one correspondence between Yahweh and …’Shemesh-in-Gibeon’. [Note: Shemesh is the name of the sun in Hebrew]

[…] First, only on the assumption that Yahweh-in-Gibeon is the sun can one take seriously the claim that it was unusual for ‘Yahweh’ to listen to the voice of a man (which Yahweh regularly does with Joshua and others in DH). Secondly, only on the assumption that Yahweh was the sun at Gibeon can one account for the way in which Yahweh’s listening to the voice of a man is implied by its placement in v. 14b (that is, after the halt of the sun) as a phenomenon equal to or even greater than the sun’s miraculous arrest in mid-heaven. (p. 118)
An alternative interpretation is given by Jeffrey L. Cooley (Boston College). He notes that in the theology of the Deuteronomist (the author(s) responsible for the final form of Deuteronomy through 2 Kings), just as Yahweh was the god of the Israelites, the other nations had their own proper gods. He suggests that this story is about Yahweh taking command of two Canaanites gods—the Sun and the Moon—thereby asserting authority over that region on behalf of the Israelites.
For the [author], the sun and moon are, in fact, proper gods of the Canaanites, assigned by Yahweh to this task. Even if the Israelites were commanded not to worship them, according to Deut 4:15–19, receiving worship is precisely the role that the sun and moon were to fill for the nations. […] These celestial deities, who would otherwise be protecting their people, the Amorites, were made subservient to the Israelites’ own sovereign, Yahweh, who acknowledged Joshua’s order and fought on his behalf. (pp. 295)
Thomas Römer holds a similar view, stating that the text is meant to show Joshua’s authority over the sun and the moon—important Assyrian deities—implying that Yahweh and his chosen leader are superior to the Assyrian pantheon. (Römer p. 89)
━━
A Composite Narrative 📜
The difficulties with the story are more readily understood if we take seriously Margalit’s theory that Joshua 10:1–27 is a combination of two separate stories: a non-miraculous story about Joshua conquering five Amorite kings, and a “holy war” story in which Yahweh assists Joshua in defeating the mighty warriors of Gibeon. This would explain the importance of telling the reader how mighty the Gibeonites are, and why Yahweh has to reassure Joshua of victory. His arguments are compelling but too lengthy to fully describe here.

An integral part of the holy war segment is the boulders hurled by Yahweh at the fleeing army. At one point (v. 11), these are called “hailstones”, but they seem to have been actual rocks—at least originally. The reader is meant to understand that these are the same boulders rolled in front of the cave at Makkedah—first to trap the five kings, and then to seal shut their tomb. The passage ends by stating that the stones remain there “to this very day”, suggesting an etiological function: the author knows of such a cave, and this tale provides an origin story. (See Cooley, p. 294; Noort, pp. 388–393.)
The continuation of the battle, vv. 28 onward, is (as already mentioned) a separate story welded onto the first half of the chapter. It features no supernatural manifestations at all, and the details of the cities and their kings differ somewhat. Note, for example, that Debir, a king in v. 3, becomes (more correctly) a city in v. 38.

To sum up so far, the story in Joshua 10 is one of several parallel, but different, accounts of the Israelite conquest of the Canaanite hill country. The heart of the story consists of a remarkable holy war in which Yahweh himself fights for Israel by slaughtering the enemy and pounding them with boulders from heaven. Embracing the holy war theme, the author incorporates an ancient theophany poem known to him; its original context might have intended a “daytime darkness” as the celestial deities accompanied Yahweh into combat, but the new context implies a lengthening of the day and the obedience of the sun to Joshua’s command.
━━━━━━

Introduction

The concern of the story is to create identity and teach values, not to report what really happened. The history in Joshua is composed for only theological purposes.

The prevailing scholarly view is that Joshua is not a factual account of historical events.

Comparison with Hittite history

Historical difficulties with the book of Joshua

The external material evidence suppoets almost nothing of the biblical account of a large-scale concerted Israelite military invasion of Canaan.

The cities were not occupied in a significant way in the Late Bronze II Period. They couldn’t have been victims of an Israelite conquest.

Inconsistencies between Joshua/Judges

Biblical evidence for a sweeping conquest is not as straightforward. Different models have been proposed to explaint he origin of Israel in Canaan.