Before I link to the Biblical Archaeological Review text(in an odd place-a Free Republic thread!) from a 2002 or 2003 issue(I am away from my issues,and the FR post doesnt source the issue #), let me explain some things.
First of all, minimalists have become obsessed with claiming that the "empty land" of the Babylonian Captivity(post 580 BCE), mentioned in places like Ezekiel, is archaeologically not true and thus a "myth".They say that most Jews remained in Palestine and did not go into exile in Babylon (thus the Babylonian Captivity and return were "myths")
I disagree strongly with their claim(because 580-540 BCE Palestine was entirely empty aside from the *small* land of Benjamin, everything else was destroyed, based on archaeological excavations covering the "Babylonian Period" of Palestine) but that has nothing to do with my post here.
(I have caught about a dozen minimalists use "empty land" in quotes and it is always in a deragatory manner."empty land" is a pejorative and it is used often.)
But I caught this interesting quote (years ago actually, I just never had time to do a larger Conquest thread where I planned on presenting it) by a minimalist while trying to explain how the destructions of 587/582 wouldnt demand an empty land right after the destructions.
The Babylonian Gap Revisited
quote:
(unknown BAR issue from around 2001-2002)
Joseph Blenkinsopp
The bottom line is that destruction of urban centers, although considerable, was not nearly as complete as the Albright-Stern thesis postulates. We are already witnessing a shrinkage of the data base for destruction that is reminiscent of early, now abandoned claims made for cities destroyed during the Israelite "conquest of Canaan"a case of dj vu all over again.
Moreover, most people did not live in cities, and we should not underestimate the resilience of a population to restore some semblance of normality in a relatively short time, despite a destruction.
As the Babylonian army approached, many Judahites no doubt took refuge in one or the other of the inaccessible places that southern Judah and the Jordan Valley liberally provided, only to re-emerge once the dust had settled. Biblical texts indeed confirm that this is what happened (Jeremiah 40:7,ll-12; 2 Kings 25:23).
This debate was also furthered in the Journal For The Study For The Old Testament(I have a JSOT issue from around 2003-2004 where Stern gives a good responce) plus the FR quotes completely miss the important footnotes and citations in the BAR debate (BAR gave Stern a responce in the same unknown issue that Blenkinsopp made his attacks of Sterns 2000 article, thats why the Free Republic site has Sterns responce quoted).
NOW MY POINT (Im sure most have figured it out already).
If Bible-critics claim that Judges 1 contradicts the Conquest of Joshua because the Israelites supposedly destroyed all the major Canaanite cities (the Bible doesnt exactly say that but the exxageration is still often claimed by Bible-critics), yet conflict continued with Canaanites after the death of Joshua, THEN how do they deal with the Blenkinsopp quote?
(Bible Accuracy forum please)
™ Version 4.2