Did a "minimalist" indirectly admit Judges 1 doesnt contradict Joshua

Aside from the issue that I don't see any evidence that Blenkinsopp is in fact a minimalist, wouldn't it be better to actually provide some quotes indicating what the contradictions are actually supposed to be and how the quote resolves it ?

So isn't it more true to say that you take all the talk of the Israelites capturing and destroying cities as no more than successful raids ?Because if so, it doesn't really have anything to do with Blenkinsopp's quote. All it means is that the Bible exaggerates a lot.

If we take the references to the capture of a city to refer to the actual capture then we have a problem if it is captured twice without any record of a loss of control in between. Blenkinsopp does not address this issue. He simply argues that a substantial Jewish population was left behind when the Babylonians deported the Jews to exile.

Your quote from Kitchen argues that the attacks in Joshua 10 are raids, not conquests. Are you retreating from this to say that they were conquests but that the Canaanites kept retaking the conquered cities - all without any mention in Joshua or Judges ?And what does this have to do with Blenkinsopp who merely has a subdued population remaining behind when the upper classes are deported ?

Kitchen also suggests that the scale of the destruction is exaggerated - which would be what we would expect from a raid. So, the resolution - according to Kitchen, who you claim to agree with. is that Joshua is in part hyperbolic and Blenkinsopp's statement adds nothing.

quote:

---

Kitchen talks about Canaanites regrouping after attacks.Blenkinsopp talks about Jews regrouping after much more severe attacks.

---

Kitchen has to deal with the Canaanites as a significant military force, after their "conquest". He does this by saying that the successful "conquests" were hyperbolic descriptions of successful raids.Blenkinsopp simply says that many Jews managed to remain in Judah, under Babylonian rule. Which they did NOT fight against. He also argues that the destruction was less complete than Stern claims, leaving some smaller cities at least relatively untouched. This hardly seems to be the close parallel that you want to claim.

quote:

---

Anyway,by any measure, the destructions of the Babylonian attacks were far more severe than the Conquest attacks.

---

Only if Kitchen is right. In which case you don't need Blenkinsopp.Don't forget that Joshua was supposedly engaged in a campaign of outright genocide (which could not be expected to spare rural populations, another problem for you).

quote:

---

I guess the issue is that populations can remain despite complete destruction.

---

No, that's not the issue. Kitchen argues that many of Joshua's attacks were far less severe than a literal interpretation of the Bible says. Blenkinsopp argues that the Babylonian destruction was far less severe than Stern says. Arguing that the destruction was less says nothing about the ability of a genuinely destroyed population to survive.

quote:

---

Biblical scholarship has long considered the Conquest as only taking the central-highlands (and other minor regions).Kitchen has nothing to do with it.Im refering to the Bible text.

---

So you're saying that Blenkinsopp's comments are even less relevant than they might have been.

quote:

---

Merneptah seemed interested in "genocide".Mesha too.

---

Again this is not equivalent, since the Book of Joshua claims a divine command to commit genocide. That is more than just boasting about having slaughtered the enemy.

quote:

---

The Bible doesnt seem to indicate success beyond killing and destroying the cities and major population centers in a limited area

---

Your quote from Kitchen seems to indicate even less than that. Disabling raids don't require the destruction of cities.Again, what does Blenkinsopp's quote contribute if you already have an adequate explanation for the apparent inconsistency ?

quote:

---

Blenkinsopp is relevant because he suggested that you can have total destruction (though he might quibble with whether every or not every last site was destroyed) of a peoples towns in Palestine,yet the victims can bounce back in years.He doesnt see the "empty land" as empty with regard to Jews despite the conflagrations.

---

By quibbles you mean "outright denies": All you've got is: [bolding mine]So your point seems to be that if the destruction were more severe than you believe it is (or more severe than Kitchen - who you claim to agree with - says), the Canaanite farmers could have got going again in a few years. How is that relevant ?

quote:

---

f the Conquest was historical then it would pre-date the c600 BCE date of the current book of Joshua by nearly 1000 years or perhaps sligtly-somewhat less.Plenty of time for allo kinds of theological elements to be added and so much so that the writers of our current book of Joshua wouldnt even know what was or wasnt historical(they might have their views though).

---

OK, so you're saying that the Bible is wrong on the point of Joshua's genocidal intent, too. This doesn't sound like you're defending the Bible against criticism, you know...

quote:

---

Doesnt prove that they completely destroyed the Israelites in either case.At least the book of Joshua doesnt claim total destruction of Canaanites if you read it in its entirety.

---

Which misses the point. My point is that Joshua's army was allegedly bent on real genocide,and if the Bible is accurate on that point then the army would be destroying the rural Canaanites, too.

quote:

---

Kitchen and Blenkinsopp agree that there was population destruction of a large amount of cities, but recovery due to viccvtims taking refuge in some safe zones

---

That's not in the quote of Kitchen you provided. In that quote Kitchen argues that the objectives of the attacks were lesser ("disabling raids") and the results exaggerated. Did you quote the wrong passage ? Did you not notice ?

Use 'Peek' mode to make the formatting codes visible, then cut and paste.

quote:

---

But let me get to Blenkinsopp and his comments on the archaeological situation of c580-540 BCE.He disagrees with a 40 year period of an empty land where there was a dramatic population reduction.He doesnt disagree as much with the conflagrations.

---

He disagrees that they were as extensive as the "empty land" proponents claims. That is absolutely clear.

quote:

---

I said "He tryed .... He Cryed" earlier. I suppose the intent doesnt always come to pass.Perhaps he really attempted to do so but just couldnt? I suppose that would be the toughest historical element to confirm even the the whole darn thing (ie. Conquest) was proven to be mostly historical.

---

The rural communities would generally be more vulnerable than the cities. So it isn't clear to me that a real attempt at extermination would have the same results as a war of conquest. If the rural communities are hit harder, that reduces the chance of a bounceback.

quote:

---

But both propose defeated populations recovering after loosing battles and perhaps the larger war in the case of Joshua

---

But as the defeats proposed by Kitchen are less even than the ones Blenkinsopp actually does believe in, why is there any need to go beyond Kitchen ? Kitchen's reduction of the scale of Joshua's early victories is all that is required. I keep making this point but where's the answer ?So I'm still waiting for any evidence that Blenkinsipp adds anything that Kitchen says, I've not even seen any evidence that Blenkinsopp is a minimalist...

quote:

---

He seemed to let it hang on a further examination of every last city in detail(site by site).

---

Let me repeat again:

quote:

---

It wasnt just rural Canaanite communities that survived(if any).Large population centers held off.Sidon,Tyre, (what would later become) Philistine cities, Ammon, (dozens of towns in)Bashan, held off completely and others held off at one point or another such as Jerusalem and others.

---

While I doubt the relevance of some of these, this is yet another factor that has no parallel in Blenkinsopp's position, and thus, if correct, another reason why Blenkinsopp's claims add nothing.

quote:

---

Blenkinsopp proposes a somewhat radical proposal, for 6th century BCE Jews and their abilities to survive compared to the text of Joshua proposing Canaanites ability to reboun and fight back, though it might be reasonable (reasonability can only go so far when the archaeological record contradicts his main point- "There Was No Babylonian Gap" to which Stern's foll-up articles simply responds "Yes There Was").

---

Which does not make Blenkinsopp a minimalist, nor does it make his claims relevant to ssomeone who does not accept a genuine parallel between the situations (assuming that you told the truth about agreeing with Kitchen).In fact you make it clear that you - for some reason - choose to label everyone who disagrees with the "empty land" view as a minimalist. Whether the label is justified or not. And at this stage it appears that it is NOT justified in Blenkinsopp's case.