Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did a "minimalist" indirectly admit Judges 1 doesnt contradict Joshua
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 1 of 35 (586241)
10-12-2010 4:53 AM


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)

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2010 8:24 AM Nimrod has replied
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-12-2010 11:53 AM Nimrod has replied

  
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 4 of 35 (586259)
10-12-2010 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by PaulK
10-12-2010 8:24 AM


o.k.
quote:
PaulK
Now, depending on which version of events you (arbitrarily?) declare to be 'historical' either Joshua had already wiped out those Jebusites,
I typed "Joshua Judges Contradictions" into google and here is the first site I found.Hit o
ne on page one
http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/joshua.html
Here is the first contradiction the site went after
quote:
'leaving no one alive' (Joshua 11:14)
or, immediately after his death,
"the men of Judah made an assault on Jerusalem and captured it; they put its people (the Jebusites) to the sword, and set fire to the city." (Judges 1:8)
Or, then again,
"the men of Judah failed to drive out the Jebusites living in Jerusalem." (Joshua 15:63)
Or, then again, maybe the Benjamites attacked and failed. (Judges 1:21)
Here is a contrary view(one I mostly share)
quote:
On The Reiability Of The Old Testament
K.A. Kitchen
pp162-163
....Israel...remained based at Gilgal (cf. 14:6).These campaigns were essentially disabling raids;they were not territorial conquests with instant Hebrew occupation.The text is very clear about this.Cf. fig. 25.
We are told that Joshua wared for some time(11:18), but are not given precise detail.But there are indirect indications of the possible content of other similar raids.Thus the list of thirty-one defeated towns/slain kings in Josh. 12 includes more than those who people the narratives in 10-11.Weadditionally find Hormah and Arad in the Negev (12:14);Adullam, Bethel, and Geder in the south part of central Canaan (cf. 12:13 , 15, 16);Tappuah, Hepher, Aphek, Sharon ("Lasharon"), and Tirzah in the north part (cf.12:17-18, 24);and Megiddo, Taanach, Jokneam,Qedesh, and Goyim-Gilgal in Jezreel and Galilee(cf12:21-23).
The first indication of a REAL move in occupation outward beyond Gilgal comes in 18:4.After the first allotment(14-17)of lands-to-be-occupied had been made,Ephraim-Manasseh began to act on their lot-and found it no pushover to make a takeover (cf 17:14-18).But they must quickly have made their way via Bethel up the twentyfive miles (fourty kilometers) or so through Shiloh to gain Shechem and Tirzah--and with enough assurance to allow for the establishing of the tabernacle at Shiloh(18:1 ........ Bethel probably fell at this time (cf. flashback entry, Judg. 1:22-26), and Tirzah (cf. Josh 12:24). As long noticed in Biblical studies, Shechem remains an enigma ......... ........... Thus, before Joshua's death, he first Israelite zone of settlement had probably extended from the Gilgal/Jericho/Ai district via Bethel and Shiloh up to Shechem and Tirzah.Southward, Caleb went to gain hebron and Debir (Josh 14:6-15 and 15:13-19 cf. flashback in Judg 1:12-15).And in the center-north Joshua himself was granted Timnath-serah (var. Timnath-heres), some sixteen miles southwest of Shechem (Josh 19:49-50; cf. 24:30; Judg 2:9).Under the elders, attempts were made to reach farther, but with little immediate headway (cf. Judg -2).
....This is not the sweeping, instant conquest-with-occupation that some hasty scholars would foist upon the text of Joshua.........
..Onto this initial picture Judges follows directly and easily, with no inherent contradiction;it contradicts only the bogus and superficial construction that some modern commentators have willfully thrust upon the biblical text..... The fact is that Biblical scholars have allowed themselves to be swept away by the upbeat, rhetorical element present in Joshua, a persistent feature of most war reports in ancient Near Eastern sources hat they are not accustomed to understand and properly handle.See next section.
quote:
ibid.
p223
..the book of Joshua does NOT present a sweeping conquest/instant occupation, whether expoused by Albright or anybody else.
Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2010 8:24 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2010 8:59 AM Nimrod has replied

  
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 6 of 35 (586264)
10-12-2010 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by PaulK
10-12-2010 8:59 AM


Re:
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2010 8:59 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2010 9:53 AM Nimrod has replied

  
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 7 of 35 (586266)
10-12-2010 9:40 AM


The "contradictions" website I linked.
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.

  
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 9 of 35 (586269)
10-12-2010 9:54 AM


A favorite beef with the contradictions site.
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 4916 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 10 of 35 (586270)
10-12-2010 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by PaulK
10-12-2010 9:53 AM


Re: Re:
quote:
PaulK
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2010 9:53 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2010 10:14 AM Nimrod has replied

  
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 12 of 35 (586273)
10-12-2010 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by PaulK
10-12-2010 10:14 AM


A "raid" means what?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2010 10:14 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2010 10:33 AM Nimrod has replied

  
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 13 of 35 (586276)
10-12-2010 10:33 AM


An archaeologist seems to see consistency
Listen to A. Mazar refer to Joshua and Judges in tandem.
quote:
The Quest For The Historical Israel
(multiple authors)
A. Mazar
pp. 64-65
Two additional examples of possible historical recollections in the biblical narrative should be mentioned.
....
A second example are the lists of unconquered territories in Canaan (Judg 1:27-35; Josh 13:2-6). These include mainly the Beth-Shean and Jezreel Valleys and the coastal plain;cities like Beth-shean , Taanach, Dor , Jibleam, Megiddo , Gezer , and Acre are mentioned as well as cities in the valley of Ajalon and others.Archaeological exploration in many of these cities, such as Beth-shean, Tel Rehov , Megiddo , Dor , and Gezer have confirmed the continuity of Canaanite urban culture throughout the Iron I period (twelth to eleventh centuries B.C.E.), thus suprisingly supporting these biblical traditions as reflecting a pre-monarchic historical reality.Another example, though less secure , is that of Shechem, which is located in the ehart of the tribal allotment of Manasseh and Ephraim.In Israelite traditions, this was the place where the covenant between the tribes of Israel and their God was made (Josh 24).The story of Abimelech (Judg. 9) indicates that a local Canaanite population remained at Shechem until a late stage in the period of the Judges.Indeed, in the opinion of the excavators, the Canaanite city at shechem continued to thrive until the eleventh century B.C.E.
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:
BAR
VOL XIV NO.V
Sept/Oct 1988
Searching for Israelite Origins
Israel Finkelstein
pp34-45
The material culture of indubitably Israelite sites, those in the central-hill country, is completely different from that of the Canaanite centers.
But my main point is that Mazar seemed to consider Joshua and Judges consistent in large part(?).
Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.

  
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 15 of 35 (586279)
10-12-2010 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by PaulK
10-12-2010 10:33 AM


Re: A "raid" means what?
quote:
PaulK
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2010 10:33 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2010 10:55 AM Nimrod has replied

  
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 16 of 35 (586281)
10-12-2010 10:45 AM


Definition of "raid"
Raid Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
quote:
Definition of RAID
1a : a hostile or predatory incursion b : a surprise attack by a small force
2a : a brief foray outside one's usual sphere b : a sudden invasion by officers of the law

  
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 18 of 35 (586290)
10-12-2010 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by PaulK
10-12-2010 10:55 AM


Re: post 17
I suppose we should compare the archaeological situation of the c.580 attacks to the biblical text of Joshua 10-Judges 3.
But Kitchen is also looking at a specific archaeological period for the Conquest(the terminal Late Bronze Age/Iron Age transition around c.1200 BCE).It colors his opinion.
Anyway,by any measure, the destructions of the Babylonian attacks were far more severe than the Conquest attacks.
Blenkinsopp argues that populations remained but did not build cities right away.I agree.Stern has made a super good case(elsewhere) that Edomites began to control parts of the Negev in 700BCE plus took over nearly all of it decades later then the Babylonians attacks and deported Edomits from the Negev c.600 BCE (580 BCE I think).The mainstream view is that Edomites attacked and destroyed (with Babylonians) the sites around 600-580BCE.Regardless,Edomite presence is clearly attested in the archaeological record by around 350BCE even though the towns were completely destroyed.Stern has written(elsewhere) that he feels small groups of semi-nomadic Edomites continued some degree of control over the Negev even during the period absent archaeological evidence from around c580-380BCE or so.He also believes that the centers of population in Edom proper(like Bozra which was outside Palestine) were destroyed by the Babylonians in 552 BCE and infact Babylonians texts support that argument.
I guess the issue is that populations can remain despite complete destruction.
There were continued Babylonian attacks on population centers but the Edomites survived and held their land(they were driven out of their main homeland by Nabataeans around the same time though).
With regards to the the Jewish/Edomite situation of c.580-540,I see consistency and good comparison with the situation of Canaanites surviving the Joshua raids, and then fighting back.Though the 580-540 Babylonians seemed to be superior to the Israelites of the (Joshua) Conquest.The Canaanites did a good job of fighting back(unlike the Jews of c.580-540BCE), but again, they were in a situation where they had major population centers left(unlike the c.580 BCE Jews and to some extent the Edomites).The Edomites still had their main population center left however nothing was left in the Negev frontier.
(EDIT: When I said "I agree" with Blenkinsopp, I still feel that the c.600 BCE population of 100,000 fell to around 5000 settled in some Benjaminite cities after c.580 BCE.The semi-nomadic population might make the population as high as 10,000-30,000 I suppose.I agree with him in part but I feel that the land was essentially "empty", while he sees population numbers as not so severely reduced.Finkelstein says that the population of Palestine was around 30,000 even by 400 BCE.)
Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.
Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2010 10:55 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2010 12:06 PM Nimrod has replied

  
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 21 of 35 (586298)
10-12-2010 12:12 PM


Problems with vanishing populations and urban centers.
There is a similar issue over what happned to the population of 65,000 estimated dwellers in the central hill country,shephelah, and Negev region of Palestine during the Middle Bronze Age/Late Bronze Age transition (typically dated at 1550 BCE but Albright,Bietak, Redford, and Stiebing have written that the period ended as late as 1450-1475 BCE).
There was widespread-complete destruction in those areas (typically attributed to the Egyptians but Kathleen Kenyon and some others attributed it to the Hyksos), but Finkelstein(who rejects Egyptian campaigns as the reason for the destruction) argues that most of the population remained.
quote:
Biblical Archaeology Review
VOL XIV NO.V
Sept/Oct 1988
Searching for Israelite Origins
Israel Finkelstein
pp34-45
..the patterns of settlement in the central hill country during the Middle bronze II to Iron I will make a crucial contribution to clarifying the course of Israelite settlement and will also shed light on the origins of the Israelite population.
In Middle Bronze II B (c. 1750-1650 B.C.) , the entire country flourished ...an unprecedented number of settlers inundated the central hill-country as well.Hundreds of sites of every size-fortified villages ... were founded throughout teh hill country...
....
At the end of the Mb II (c 1550 B.C.), the fortiied centers of the hill country , as well as many of the major cities of the lowlands, were destroyed.
....
The crisis was gravest in the hill country, where the reduction in the number of settlements was drastic.
....
Morever, many of the occupied sites shrank in size. For example, the fortified Middle bronze settlement at Shiloh was abandoned and replaced by only small-scale cultic activity in the Late Bronze Age.... Only in the southern coastal plain, the Shephelah and the northern valleys was human activity lively during the period.
....
The three patterns of settlement representing the MbII, late Bronze Age, and Iron I settlements illuminate the problem of the origin of the early Israelites.They raise two critical questions: Where did over half of the country's people (and almost all the hill-country population) "vanish" to at the end of the Middle Bronze Age? And from where did the people who settled the hundreds of sites in Iron I "materialize"?
....
..at the end of the MB II...
....
What then happened to the sizeable population if it was not decimated by war or pestilence?
....
...apparantly large parts of the sedentary population became nomadized
It seems probable that this is what happened in the "frontier zones", including the hill country , toward the end of the Middle Bronze Age.The network of permanent settlements fell apart, and many of the inhabitants adopted a nomadic existence.This would explain their archaeological disappearance", for we have yet to find a way to detect and identify the activities of nonsedentary, pastoral groups, especially in nondesert regions.
...back to population estimates.during the transition from the Middle Bronze to the Late Bronze periods ..... there was a change in the proportion of sedentary dwellers to pastoralist groups ,but only the reduced ranks of the fromer category are reflected in archaeological field work ... the new pastoralists of the late Bronze Age were simply not counted.
....
But can we produce any archaeological evidence whatsoever ... for the existence of a large population of pastoralists in the land of Israel in the Late Bronze Age?
Archaeologically, there are, perhaps , two intriguing clues. The first is the phenomenon of isolated sanctuaries , either unreleated to any settlementor else located close to permanent sites ... the Late Bronze cult place at Shiloh, where no permanent settlement settlement was found...
His main argument for continued occupation wasnt pottery (which was absent) but texts showing peoples in the area (such as the Habiru), and the Fosse Temple, Shiloh, and other isolated shrine/sacrificial sites.He used the evidence of lack of pig bones at those Late Bronze Age sites (Shiloh only survived from 1550-1400 before being abandoned for 200+ years, the Fosse seemed to remain but underwent changes such as unhewn stones from 1550-1500 to hewn stones later)(there was also a temple with unhewn stones on Mount Gerezim toward Shechem but only briefly during the Middle Bronze Age-Late Bronze age transition then abandoned)
Population issues are difficult with semi-nomadic groups outside deserts but fire-pits make desert semi-nomads easier to locate. But even the desert hs its difficulties as the 2 central Negev Middle-Bronze Age sites,before they were destroyed at the end of the period,(Mazar placed the destruction of Tel Masos at the very end of the MBA while some place its destruction 100 years earlier,Tell Malhalta was destroyed at the very end in 2 quick destructions, and all agree there) lacked evidence of travel between them (pottery),between them and Egypt, between them and Arabia, and between them and northern sites in Palestine though these large centers clearly had travel between them.
These are the sites near Kadesh-Barnea(where this entire central-Negev area outside Tell Masos and Tel Malhalta was absent pottery from 2300 to 1200).Hormah and Arad were in the region.Most agree that Hormah was either Tell Masos or Tell Malhalta as there arent any other good candidates near Tel Arad (Aharoni and others consider Tel Arad "Arad the greater"). Aharoni and others feel Tel Malhalta was "Arad the Lesser" and he feels it is the only choice since there wasnt any other settled candidate during the time of Shoshenq's 925 text.That means Tell Masos must be Hormah.
Anyway, the lack of pottery between these two sites (before they were destroyed at the end of the Middle Bronze Age) shows the difficulty of pinning down nomads.
The book "Le-David Maskil: A Birthday Tribute for David Noel Freedman (Biblical and Judaic Studies, V. 9 Eisenbrauns)" has a debate between Finkelstein and other achaeologists over the issue of nomads leaving remains in the desert.Finkelstein argues that nomads often leave no remains even in deserts while others argue against his points (they seem to fall on mostly fire-pits as their evidence for likely remains that must be left).
Anyway, there is a problem with places lacking urban centers and/or small towns and in-addition mainly containing semi-nomads.The problem is how to identify the population minus pottery and other gauges of activity.

  
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 22 of 35 (586299)
10-12-2010 12:12 PM


dupe
delete
Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.

  
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 23 of 35 (586300)
10-12-2010 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dr Adequate
10-12-2010 11:53 AM


Interesting post.
quote:
Who is this Blenkinsopp guy and why is he worth a thread?
Well done. Out of the zillions of people who disagree with you, you've found one that you can interpret as possibly contradicting other "minimalists" who are not him and do not share or endorse his views.
Huzzah
Only one of the top Bible scholars in the world.Interesting that you dont know who he is.Both he and Stern have written major volumes for the Anchor Bible Commentary series(Stern covered the archaeological volumes from around 722-331BCE, A.Mazar covered the volume from around 3000-700BCE.Blenkinsopp as a scholar wrote the volume introducing the state of Old Testament scholarship & the Bible plus 3 large volumes on the Isaiah.They have written much for other important publishers.)The Anchor publications (on scholarshipand to some extent archaeology too) have been accused of being anti-Israel and somewhat liberal.Anson Rainey and Hershel Shanks have had major falling out with Blenkinsopp and the Anchor editors.Rainey demanded that his contributions be canceled and they were.
Also, I like the minimalists.
Niels Peter Lemche agrees with me (in a Scandinavian Journal Of The Old Testament 1994 issue) that the terminal Middle Bronze Age/Late Bronze Age transition was a period of material culture change in the Israelite region of Palestine(the ONLY period for a possible in-migration).He even said that there was a possible migration of semi-nomadic tribes into the area of Benjamin and looked at the destruction of Jericho as possibly being them.He said the Israelites could have been called such as early as the terminal Middle Bronze Age (1550) but the Egyptians would have simply called them generic names such as "Habiru" or "Shashu".He considers the Habiru as ancestors of the Hebrews both in bloodline and linguistically.
I also agree with them that ethnicity is extremely complex and dont disagree with much on that issue at all.I find myself agreeing with them more than Dever frankly.
Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.
Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-12-2010 11:53 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-12-2010 2:59 PM Nimrod has replied

  
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 277
Joined: 06-22-2006


Message 24 of 35 (586304)
10-12-2010 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by PaulK
10-12-2010 12:06 PM


Re: PaulK
quote:
Nimrod
Anyway,by any measure, the destructions of the Babylonian attacks were far more severe than the Conquest attacks.The Babylonian destructions completely destroyed every last city aside from a few small ones in the highlands of Benjamin.
PaulK
Only if Kitchen is right. In which case you don't need Blenkinsopp.
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.
quote:
PaulK
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).
He tryed,he cryed.
Merneptah seemed interested in "genocide".Mesha too.
The Bible doesnt seem to indicate success beyond killing and destroying the cities and major population centers in a limited area.The text is full of Canaanite survival in certain centers especially the coast(where only Gaza,Ashkelon, and Ekron were taken-briefly).Especially the Jezreel Valley(only Hazor destroyed).Especially "Phoenicia".Plus Jerusalem,Gibeon, and Shechem in the highlands.
Take archaeological examples.
For example, at the very end of the Middle Bronze Age Ekron(lower city) and Ashkelon were completely destroyed but both picked up fairly quickly right after the Late Bronze Age started.Ashdod and Gath werent destroyed at the end of the period (Gaza only saw excavation in 1924 and briefly in a small section).
Even though two of the 4 explored sites were destroyed and two werent, all 4 were running strong just short years after the destructions.
quote:
Nimrod
I guess the issue is that populations can remain despite complete destruction.
PaulK
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.
Kitchen feels that towns were depopulated(briefly) by not burnt down.
Blenkinsopp argues for less destruction (though he only could prove that a few towns in Benjamin werent destroyed-something Stern always said anyway,I read his books),admits to destructions but feels it was Assyrians,Edomites,etc. in addition to Babylonians(and earlier than 580BCE too), plus argues that the destructions didnt equal a severe population reduction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2010 12:06 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by PaulK, posted 10-12-2010 1:31 PM Nimrod has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024