Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why was Achan's family destroyed?
DeclinetoState
Member (Idle past 6438 days)
Posts: 158
Joined: 01-16-2006


Message 1 of 12 (302440)
04-08-2006 3:22 PM


Joshua 7
quote:
24 Then Joshua, together with all Israel, took Achan son of Zerah, the silver, the robe, the gold wedge, his sons and daughters, his cattle, donkeys and sheep, his tent and all that he had, to the Valley of Achor. 25 Joshua said, "Why have you brought this trouble on us? The LORD will bring trouble on you today."
Then all Israel stoned him, and after they had stoned the rest, they burned them.
This happens because Achan has taken things for himself that were supposed to be given to the LORD (i.e., destroyed) after the sacking of Jericho. After God reveals to Joshua (through a long, drawn-out process, IMHO) that Achan is the culprit, and Achan confesses to his sin, he, his family, and all their property are destroyed.
My question is why? Giving Achan the death penalty for stealing loot from God seems extreme (though I guess it's similar to what happened to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts), but why the whole family, including the children and animals? Were they all in it together—a crime family (a precursor to the Mafia, if you will)? If so, why go through all the rigmarole to find out who they were? It's hard to imagine that an entire family of crooks could go wandering through the desert with other wanderers for any length of time without arousing suspicion.
Or is this simply another reason why Joshua as not regarded is historically accurate?
Unless there is some desire to approach this topic from the question in the last paragraph above (thus putting it in the Accuracy and Inerrancy forum), I believe this should go in Bible Study.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 04-08-2006 6:13 PM DeclinetoState has not replied
 Message 4 by Modulous, posted 04-09-2006 8:16 AM DeclinetoState has not replied
 Message 5 by jar, posted 04-09-2006 10:26 AM DeclinetoState has not replied
 Message 6 by Brian, posted 04-12-2006 2:16 PM DeclinetoState has not replied

  
AdminBrian
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 12 (302504)
04-08-2006 5:52 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 12 (302510)
04-08-2006 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DeclinetoState
04-08-2006 3:22 PM


I don't understand the question. It has only been relatively recently that collective punishment and that taking and killing of hostages has been considered unethical. To both the writer and the intended audience of the Book of Joshua, what happened to Achan and his family would have been considered a normal instance of justice, and no one would have raised an eye-brow.
The problem is that you are reading the story after having been brought up to accept certain cultural beliefs that are at odds with Bronze Age Middle Eastern culture.
If there is an absolute standard of good and evil, and if God (and his prophets) are exemplars of this standard, then it must be part of perfect justice to engage in collective punishment and the collection and killing of hostages. I am surprised that we don't see fundamentalists advocate this more forcefully.

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DeclinetoState, posted 04-08-2006 3:22 PM DeclinetoState has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 4 of 12 (302587)
04-09-2006 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by DeclinetoState
04-08-2006 3:22 PM


The apple doesn't fall far from the tree
John 5 writes:
Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
The idea of descendents/family bearing the wages of the ancestors sin, is referred to a number of times throughout the bible. This doesn't explain killing his wife perhaps, but it does explain killing the children.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Sun, 09-April-2006 01:17 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DeclinetoState, posted 04-08-2006 3:22 PM DeclinetoState has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 5 of 12 (302600)
04-09-2006 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by DeclinetoState
04-08-2006 3:22 PM


Well Joshua and the Conquest of Canaan
is a totally made up story, an adventure saga. As such you'd expect to see lots of plot twists and sweeping adventures along with the embeded moral tales, the lessons.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DeclinetoState, posted 04-08-2006 3:22 PM DeclinetoState has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by riVeRraT, posted 06-08-2006 11:41 PM jar has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 6 of 12 (303561)
04-12-2006 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by DeclinetoState
04-08-2006 3:22 PM


Two independent tales
My question is why?
It was intended as a deterrent. It would be hoped that if the threat of you losing your life for disobeying the LORD wasn’t enough to deter you, then the thought of all your family being killed as well would be enough to make you think again.
Giving Achan the death penalty for stealing loot from God seems extreme (though I guess it's similar to what happened to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts), but why the whole family, including the children and animals?
It is the idea of corporate guilt. The Israelites were always treated as a nation by God, if one person sinned it brought the wrath of God onto the whole nation. Look at the period of the Judges, Israel is delivered into the hands of oppressors many times and it is difficult to imagine that every single Israelite forsook God.
Were they all in it together”a crime family (a precursor to the Mafia, if you will)?
No, and there is nothing in the story to suggest they were.
It's hard to imagine that an entire family of crooks could go wandering through the desert with other wanderers for any length of time without arousing suspicion.
The Bible is clear that it was Achan that sinned and not his family, he even confessed to it.
Joshua 7: 20-21
Achan replied, "It is true! I have sinned against the LORD, the God of Israel. This is what I have done: When I saw in the plunder a beautiful robe from Babylonia, two hundred shekels of silver and a wedge of gold weighing fifty shekels, I coveted them and took them. They are hidden in the ground inside my tent, with the silver underneath."
Achan takes sole responsibility for the theft. Incidentally, the silver is placed underneath because it is the most valuable.
Or is this simply another reason why Joshua as not regarded is historically accurate?
There is a bit more to it than just calling it unhistorical. Textual analysis does suggest that the Achan incident is a myth, or to be more accurate, an aetiological tale. In fact, if you critically analyse the Book of Joshua, it is easy to demonstrate that the story of the Israelite defeat at Ai and the Achan incident were both originally independent aetiological tales that were taken and edited into one story by the Deuternomist historian.
One reason why we know Achan's tale is untrue is because it would have been impossible for anyone to have taken part at the victory at Jericho and have anything to do with Ai. What has been demonstrated beyond all doubt is that Jericho and Ai were never inhabited at the same time, so Achan's story, as well as the victory at Jericho and Ai (and others), is a work of fiction.
See this thread Jericho and Ai: Fictional history in the Book of Joshua for more archaeological info.
But, with a little care we can unravel the two aetiological tales with the Ai story explaining how the town of Ai got its name ('Ai' means 'ruin' in Hebrew) and Achan's story is to explain the heap of stones near the plain of Achor (lit. ”trouble’).
Look at the ending of Achan’s story:
Joshua 7:26
Over Achan they heaped up a large pile of rocks, which remains to this day. Then the LORD turned from his fierce anger. Therefore that place has been called the Valley of Achor ever since.
There are a couple of interesting points here. Firstly, “ which remains to this day”, suggests a late final editing of this text.
Secondly, the “Valley of Achor” is another one of those play on words that the Old Testament is famous for. In this instance, Achan was modified to Achar in the LXX in assimilation to Achor (John Gray (ed.) 1967. Joshua, Judges and Ruth , Nelson: London, p 81 n 1).
So, once upon a time there existed a large heap of stones, probably to mark the border of something, along came the Israelites and invented a story to explain how the stones got there, hey presto he story of Achan (corruption of 'Achor' meaning 'trouble') was invented.
How do we know that the Ai and Achan stories were once separate independent traditions? It is surprising easy to demonstrate. First off, in Achan's tale we are told that Yahweh was angry because Achan had stolen some of God's treasure, this is given as the reason why Israel was defeated at Ai. But, in the independent story of Ai, we are explicitly told why the Israelites failed at Ai, over confidence and underestimating the foe.
Joshua 7:3-5:
When they returned to Joshua, they said, "Not all the people will have to go up against Ai. Send two or three thousand men to take it and do not weary all the people, for only a few men are there." So about three thousand men went up; but they were routed by the men of Ai, who killed about thirty-six of them. They chased the Israelites from the city gate as far as the stone quarries and struck them down on the slopes. At this the hearts of the people melted and became like water.
There is a scribal error in this quote; three thousand men should read three hundred men as losing 36 out of 3000 would hardly be a rout.
Incidentally, the victory of the Israelites in the 'rematch' at Ai is another intertwining of two originally independent traditions. One clue is the comparison of Joshua 8:3-4 and 8.12.
Joshua 8:3-4:
So Joshua and the whole army moved out to attack Ai. He chose thirty thousand of his best fighting men and sent them out at night with these orders: "Listen carefully. You are to set an ambush behind the city. Don't go very far from it. All of you be on the alert.
Joshua 8:12
Joshua had taken about five thousand men and set them in ambush between Bethel and Ai, to the west of the city.
Anyway, the reason that Achan and his family were executed was simply as a deterrent. It was hoped that the threat of your family being executed as well as yourself would make potential offenders think twice.
But, don't lose any sleep over it, Achan didn't exist so no one was hurt during the invention of this tale and any similarity to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by DeclinetoState, posted 04-08-2006 3:22 PM DeclinetoState has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jaywill, posted 04-17-2006 6:53 AM Brian has not replied
 Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-30-2006 9:01 PM Brian has replied

  
DeclinetoState
Member (Idle past 6438 days)
Posts: 158
Joined: 01-16-2006


Message 7 of 12 (303995)
04-13-2006 4:14 PM


Joshua's attitude
Joshua 7: (NIV)
quote:
19 Then Joshua said to Achan, "My son, give glory to the LORD, the God of Israel, and give him the praise. Tell me what you have done; do not hide it from me."
20 Achan replied, "It is true! I have sinned against the LORD, the God of Israel. This is what I have done: 21 When I saw in the plunder a beautiful robe from Babylonia, two hundred shekels of silver and a wedge of gold weighing fifty shekels, I coveted them and took them. They are hidden in the ground inside my tent, with the silver underneath."
In the above passage, Achan seems genuinely repentant, and Joshua seems almost ready to forgive him.
quote:
24 Then Joshua, together with all Israel, took Achan son of Zerah, the silver, the robe, the gold wedge, his sons and daughters, his cattle, donkeys and sheep, his tent and all that he had, to the Valley of Achor. 25 Joshua said, "Why have you brought this trouble on us? The LORD will bring trouble on you today."
Then all Israel stoned him, and after they had stoned the rest, they burned them.
No such luck here. Achan and his family are all stoned to death, then burned.
I don't know if this is evidence of inconsistencies in the story, but if the story is shown to be most likely fiction for other reasons, I guess it doesn't matter.

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 8 of 12 (304695)
04-17-2006 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Brian
04-12-2006 2:16 PM


Re: Two independent tales
test
This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-17-2006 07:02 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Brian, posted 04-12-2006 2:16 PM Brian has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 9 of 12 (316404)
05-30-2006 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Brian
04-12-2006 2:16 PM


Re: Two independent tales
One reason why we know Achan's tale is untrue is because it would have been impossible for anyone to have taken part at the victory at Jericho and have anything to do with Ai. What has been demonstrated beyond all doubt is that Jericho and Ai were never inhabited at the same time
The poster for some reason or another forgets to tell the audience the great trouble archaeology has had even identifying Ai. No mention of this fact ? = exposes grinding axe.
Ray
Edited by Herepton, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Brian, posted 04-12-2006 2:16 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Brian, posted 05-31-2006 2:23 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 10 of 12 (316481)
05-31-2006 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object
05-30-2006 9:01 PM


Re: Two independent tales
There has been no trouble identifying Ai, the trouble has been with the fundy archaeologists unwillingness to face facts that blow the biblical tale apart.
Ai is located at Et-Tell, which means the ruin, what does 'Ai' mean Ray?
If this crystal clear clue isn't acceptable, tell me which other site in the area was occupied at the same time as Jericho.
Brian.
Nice to see you again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 05-30-2006 9:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 11 of 12 (319392)
06-08-2006 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by jar
04-09-2006 10:26 AM


Re: Well Joshua and the Conquest of Canaan
is a totally made up story, an adventure saga.
Similar to your posts.
I am sorry jar, but you make these wild assertions, and have no way of proving it, or do you even try to back it up.
To say the stopries of the OT are all fictional is wrong IMO, and post like the one you just made upset me a little.
The feeling I get from you is, that if you come across this way, you will be able to reach more people with Christ? It's like your saying, see look at me, I am not like the others, I am not part of the group. I am the real Christian. But why believe in Christ if it doesn't matter?
Please, explain why the story in the OP could not have been true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 04-09-2006 10:26 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 06-08-2006 11:52 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 12 of 12 (319394)
06-08-2006 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by riVeRraT
06-08-2006 11:41 PM


Re: Well Joshua and the Conquest of Canaan
Let's talk about that.
First, at the time of the Josuah story Jerico had no walls, wasn't even much of a village. In addition the Armana letters show that conquest of Canaan never happened at all. There is no archeological evidence there was a conquest of Canaan and lots of evidence that it did not happen.
Furthermore, you have NEVER seen me say I was "the real Christian". In fact I have ALWAYS said that those who claim to be Christians, are Christians.
And I have never said that all of the stories in the OT are fictional. I think some very definitely had some basis in fact. It's likely that the flood story does refer to a flood, a local flood. Its very likely that some of the stories in Judges and Kings had a basis in fact. But they have been embellished and edited.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by riVeRraT, posted 06-08-2006 11:41 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024