Josh, Judges and Ruthie

I'd like to explore the possibility that Judges, Joshua and Ruth are all contemporary tales, describing events from the points of view of the tribes. Is it possible that all the events took place at about the same time, and that Judges is actually a more accurate description of the move into Canaan, a collection of the tales from each individual tribe and that Joshua is only an idealized later addition?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

it doesn't really fit the joshua/judges genre at all, it just happens to be set in about the right time. it's not in the hebrew nevi'im with joshua and judges, but the kethuvim.

---

Yes, it is off in the Writings. But it is about the same time and after we deal with Judging Josh maybe I can make the connection.Let's begin with Josh and Judges.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

ok. i'm looking forward to seeing SOMEONE do the math on this one. someone who is not me.

---

Well, that's one of the first things I think needs to be thrown out.Forget the math. The sequential stuff IMHO is all stuck in there by the redactors to make things fit together.BUT...if you look at Judges as a collection of descrete tales, many happening at about the same time, you actually find a scenario that might even be reasonable.The first thing is to admit that Josh just never happened, particularly in the 1400BC time frame. All of the available evidence supports that conclusion. And even if we move the time frame, there still is no evidence that I've ever found that supports a major organized invasion of Canaan by some Israeli Army. So there just is no indication that Josua ever happened.But if we look at Judges, and consider that the stories are separate, unique and not sequential, we see something that lines up pretty well with all the other evidence. There is no uniform government for all the tribes. Instead there is tribal warfare, temporary alliances between two or more tribes for some short term goal or raid. They are as likely to attack another Israeli Tribe as a foreigner. They are mostly in the country and when they do come against major cities they tend to get their butts whomped.It fits well with what is known of the area and the period from around 1500BC until the 1200s.In addition, there are tales like Samson, considered a Judge even though he did no judging that is seen in the Bible, and alleged to be a Nazarite even though his behaviour would disqualify him from holding that position. Plus the whole hair bit seems to be some story they picked up from other folk, there is nothing in the Judaic Faith that points to hair as a source of strength.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

no no, that's not what i meant. there's a rather well known discrepancy between the timeframe the bible gives for the period from the exodus to the kingdom of israel and the length of johua and judges.i'm interested to see if it lines up if we assume that judges is not sequential, but rather independent tribal stories happening contemporarily to each other. right. that's what i want to see the math on. if it lines up, that would be very interesting. what about the exodus?

---

I'm not at all sure what you're talking about here. Why would I think that any of the timeframes would add up? Yup. And I'm saying that all the dating was simply faked in the first place. When these stories were finally compiled into the format we see today, it was almost a 1000 years after the fact. What Exodus?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Is there anything in Judges or Joshua that can be supported with external evidence? If there is, then maybe these would be good underpinnings around which we could work from.The settlement described in Judges is certainly more plausible than that of the Book of Joshua, with some major contradictions between the books. Albright abandonned Joshua's version of events in favour of the Judges account, and Alt, Mendenhall, Gottwald, Wright et al, all opt for Judges. With the overwhelming evidence against a military conquest described in Joshua, I think the Judges account is chosen as the lesser of two evils, neither account can be confidently supported.The Book of Ruth looks like a work of fiction, a quick look at the meaning of the names Ruth, Naomi, Chilion, Mahlon, Oprah, Elimelech and Boaz is strong support for this. Said to be set at the time of the Judges (Ruth 1:1), with its primary purpose being to show Yahweh's compassion for all humans. Ruth being portrayed as a Moabite is particularly poignant.It looks as if 4:17b-22 is a later addition to the text, it certainly couldn't have been written during the period of the Judges.Brian

i'm just saying that it would be interesting if they did line up, done this way. might be evidence for a bad redaction from earlier independent records? exactly.

---

Hi Jar,I had another wee look at your OP and have a few points to make. We both know that the Conquest described in Joshua has been falsified beyond all reasonable doubt, so how can this have ”taken place at the same time’ as the entry described in Judges?The ”event’ described in Joshua never happened. Aren’t you contradicting yourself here?If it is an idealised later addition, then it cannot be a contemporary tale.Maybe I am reading your post incorrectly.My own take would be that Judges is an exaggerated and largely fictional account, and that Joshua was written much later, long after the reality of the situation had faded. Joshua is clearly fictional, and hugely contradicted by the evidence. It could be that the tale of a sweeping victory was to give the Israelite mind some justification of their right to the land, after all, even today, if we ignore the Bible, what right does Israel have to the land she occupies?Brian.

There's little to argue about in your post except my choice of words. I am in no way implying that the story of Josh's conquests ever happened. Right now, all of the available evidence seems to show that to be the case. I also think that it is also not just possible, but very likely that the very earliest that the story of Josh would have found its final form was not less that 500 years after the fact, and far more likely 700 to 1000 years after the fact.The timeline I'm discussing is not the timeline of when the stories were written or first told, but rather of the events. When I say that Josh and Judges are contemporary, I'm not saying they were written at the same time (I happen to think that they were probably all written independantly and then redacted into the final form many, many centuries later), but that the events in the stories were contemporary. It is the issue of whether the key event in the War of 1812 happened off Fort McHenry or the Invasion of Russia?Josh was likely a idealised retelling of some story that took place during the very early period of the establishment of a Hebrew Peoples.Does that make more sense?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Much clearer thanks.Reply tomorrow.Brian.

Hi Jar,With the rise of archaeology there has been a major rethink in the ”origins’ debate. The Joshua version was originally taken to be accurate, but as more and more excavations were carried out it became obvious that Joshua’s version didn’t happen. One reaction to this was to look for alternative versions to Joshua’s and the obvious one was the Judges version. There are only two or three extremists who hold to the Joshua account nowadays, the alternative version of Israel’s appearance in Palestine found in Judges seems to be the only version that Bible believers can adhere to that permits them to keep the Bible as some sort of accurate historical book.However, I do not believe that the version in the Book of Judges is historically accurate either. A “More accurate description of the move into Canaan” is still in opposition to the wealth of evidence that points to a gradual emergence from within Palestine as the most likely way that Israel appeared on to the world stage.But, to be a more accurate description that Joshua doesn’t really mean much in itself if there is nothing to support the Judges version. Granted, at face value, the Judges version is more plausible, but a plausible account still needs external evidence to support it, so what evidence do you have to support the Judges account?Brian.

First Brian, I don't believe Judges can be taken any more literally than Genesis or Exodus or any other Biblical tale.Before going on I would like to outline a few things I consider essential.First, Judges is not a chronological tale but a collection of stories, many describing things that happened concurrently.Second, it is propaganda as it often exagerates what actually happened.Third, what is not said in many cases is as important as what is said.With those out in the open can we proceed?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion