|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did a "minimalist" indirectly admit Judges 1 doesnt contradict Joshua | |||||||||||||||||||
Nimrod Member (Idle past 4946 days) Posts: 277 Joined: |
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: 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Thread copied here from the Did a "minimalist" indirectly admit Judges 1 doesnt contradict Joshua thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Nimrod Member (Idle past 4946 days) Posts: 277 Joined: |
quote: I typed "Joshua Judges Contradictions" into google and here is the first site I found.Hit one on page one http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/joshua.html Here is the first contradiction the site went after
quote: Here is a contrary view(one I mostly share)
quote: quote: Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Nimrod Member (Idle past 4946 days) Posts: 277 Joined: |
Blenkinsopp was talking about a situation(c.582-539) where Jews were in a land where there was complete destruction, yet he suggested that the vast majority of the inhabitants were able to take refuge in the countryside(despite conflagrations in every city).
The same logic can be applicable to the situation the Canaanites faced, but the logic works far more for the Joshua conquest. Why? Because both Joshua and Judges show endless cities where Canaanites survived the attacks (Sidon, Tyre,etc.). It was a back and forth seesaw. Blenkinsopp disagreed with even a 40 year period of significant population reduction.He seemed to want to see the population surviving(despite city destruction that was unprecedented for 1500 years previous to the Early Bronze Age destructions) almost instant to the c.580 BCE destructions. If the population could survive a situation of complete destruction in c580 BCE, then the more limited destruction of the Conquest(Joshua) should be considered hospitable for the Cannanite ability to regroup and fight back. Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Nimrod Member (Idle past 4946 days) Posts: 277 Joined: |
That site seems to find a beef with Caleb taking Hebron in Joshua, but then it says that Judges shows him taking Debir as if it is a contradiction.
I think it makes perfect sense. Debir was extremely close to Hebron.He could have taken both. He also finds a contradiction between Judges 11:15 and 11:26.He feels that 11:26 saying Israelites lived in Heshbon,Arorer, and Arnon contradicts the earlier comment that Israelites didnt attack the Ammonites. But those lands were Amorite during the Conquest period (the Bible says so, and frankly archaeology does too though archaeologists dont place the c.1500 BCE period with the Conquest.They tend to doubt the Conquest completely).It was only later that the Ammonites took those lands. It is true that Joshua 13:24 refers to regional names as "country of the Ammonites" but there was constant updating of texts over a long period.It doesnt mean it was Ammonite controlled back then.The same situation applies to the "lowlands of Maob" in Joshua 13:31.Just a regional name but it doesnt mean Moabites ever controlled the land that far back.It just means that Amorite land in c.1500 BCE was taken at the time, but the land would later (time Joshua was updated and redacted, which could have happened often)become known and Moab. Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Nimrod Member (Idle past 4946 days) Posts: 277 Joined: |
The major beef seems to be the Joshua text constantly talking about complete slaughter and thus the surviving Canaanites in the same text (albeit different verses and/or chapters/books) are a contradiction.
But Egyptian,Moabite, and Aramean texts from c1200, 835, and c.840 BCE(Tel Dan) respectively also talk about complete destruction-however of Israel! Im sure they all three won battles.Fairly historical in the opinion of the vast majority of historians despite the bombastic style which seems typical of the region. EDIT: The Dan text doesnt menition complete destruction just defeat of the kings of Israel and Judah. Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Nimrod Member (Idle past 4946 days) Posts: 277 Joined: |
quote: But look at the constant references to Jerusalem for example.It was taken during Joshua 10-12, then Joshua 14 talks of Israel basing itself at Gilgal, then Joshua 15 says the Canaanites remained.Judges 1 (verse 8 or 21?, I am not looking at a bible now) says first that Jerusalem was then burnt and then says the Canaanites couldnt be driven out in the same chapter (as well as chapter 3). The more a town is covered, the more we see that there was constant battle.The text indicates a seesaw situation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Nimrod Member (Idle past 4946 days) Posts: 277 Joined: |
I think it refers to attacks but not settlements.
I suppose I might agree that the destructions of cities(however,he minimizes the use of conflagration so the Conquest can be squeezed in the terminal Late Bronze Age period of c.1200 BCE) minus instant occupation can be called a raid. I dont think I have retreated from anything though.I actually can live with his "raids" sentence though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Nimrod Member (Idle past 4946 days) Posts: 277 Joined: |
Listen to A. Mazar refer to Joshua and Judges in tandem.
quote: This has nothing to do with the Conquest (which he considers unhistorical), but shows how he seems to consider Joshua and Judges as a consistent story (not that he cared to dwell on the issue much) when surveying the different material(Israelite verses Canaanite sites) culture of the very early Iron Age (c.1200 BCE). (since I mentioned an archaeological issue-materal culture differences to I.D. an Israelite from a Canaanite-then I should point out that there is a debate as to how much those "Israelites" (12th-13th century) resembled the Israelites of the Bible depicted during the time in thought, religion, etc.) Material culture differences are identifiable in the c.1200 archaeological record.
quote: But my main point is that Mazar seemed to consider Joshua and Judges consistent in large part(?). Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Nimrod Member (Idle past 4946 days) Posts: 277 Joined: |
quote: Kitchen talks about Canaanites regrouping after attacks.Blenkinsopp talks about Jews regrouping after much more severe attacks. If the Bible-critic Blenkinsopp can see instant regrouping and survival, then the Kitchen (who defends more modest attacks) can be considered even more credible in his arguments. Kitchen and me are reading the same text (Blenkinsopp is addressing something elsewhere), so I can consider myself able to make the same argument EVEN IF I accept far more Israelite conflagrations inflicted on Canaanites than he sees in the text. Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024