Historical BooksJoshua–2 Kings Thomas Hieke, Fred W. Guyette, Christopher T. Begg, Jaime A. Banister, William J. Urbrock, Francis M. Macatangay, Richard A. Taylor, and Paul R. Redditt 1683. [Dtr] Jean-Pierre Sonnet, "The Siege of Jerusalem between Rhetorical Maximalism (Deuteronomy 28) and Narrative Minimalism (2 Kings 25)," Fall of Jerusalem, 73-86 [see #2004]. S. treats the literary relationship between the description of Jerusalem's siege and fall in 2 Kings 25 and Deuteronomy 28. According to S., already the narrative in 2 Kings 22 directs the reader to the Book of Deuteronomy, especially chap. 28. As Josiah deciphered the fate of Jerusalem by relating this to the curses of the Torah book, the reader is called to make sense of the ending of 2 Kings in terms of Deuteronomy—in particular the curses in Deuteronomy 28 and the prospect of return in Deuteronomy 29–30. Josiah's reading of the mysterious book is a mise en abyme of these interpretative operations in the coordination of 2 Kings and Deuteronomy. An analogy to this process occurs with the figure of Joshua (see Josh 1:8). At key junctures, the Deuteronomy–Kings sequence evokes elements of cross-reference and parallel reading. Finally, S. comments on the ending of the references to the [End Page 553] Annals of the Kings of Judah: "At the demise of royal historiography, the Deuteronomic Torah book is what provides the fall of Jerusalem with its authorized written legend. In that sense, the fall of Jerusalem indeed means the rise of the Torah" (p. 85).—T.H. 1684. [Joshua] L. Daniel Hawk, "The Myth of the Emptied Land: Biblical Conquest and American Nationalism," W&W 37 (2017) 252-62. Many people see similarities between the story of the Conquest in the Book of Joshua and America's expansion across North America. To be sure, however, neither land was empty when the occupiers "found" it. What drove Americans to erase the indigenous presence from conquered lands and from the nation's vision? The erasure of the indigenous presence was a means to transform a conquered land into a national homeland, in a way that camouflaged un-biblical practices. Part of that camouflage involved erecting monuments, shrines, and memorials, and reverencing them as sites where national identity was "won" for future generations of white people. Some politicians want to "Make America Great Again," but how far back would they need to go to find truly moral policies toward the human beings who were here before us? New policies of erasure try to persuade us that we have every right to build walls, deport the undocumented, block immigrants, and dismiss the concerns of minority groups. However, if we fail to examine and critique nationalist myths and symbols, the United States will likely try to "solve" new domestic and global challenges by rehearsing the same old destructive scripts. Against this background, H. seeks to show how the Book of Joshua can be problematized and read against the grain, so that the above challenges come into sharper focus, and he contends for a reading of the canonical Book of Joshua in which wrestling over the identity of the people of God is finally separated from the idols of land, race, and civil religion.—F.W.G. 1685. [Joshua] Paul Hinlicky, "The Theology of the Divine Warrior in the Book of Joshua," W&W 37 (2017) 271-80. Genocide in the name of the Lord? Obsession with matters of identity and boundaries at the expense of the Other? Conflicts over proper worship and religious pluralism? We could add to that list of questions raised by the Book of Joshua the bizarre exchange at the conclusion of the book. After recounting how the people obeyed Joshua in their sweeping victory over the Canaanites, the book culminates with a reproach. Joshua asserts that the people, who have just sworn their everlasting fidelity to God, cannot and will not keep the covenant (Josh 24:19-20). The Book of Joshua it seems, cannot make up its mind about what story it is trying to tell! In NT terms, we could say that Joshua, the book's protagonist...