Chapter 7 of Provan, Long, and Longman’s book, A Biblical History of Israel, focuses on Joshua’s Conquest and the settlement of the land in the Book of Judges. A few years ago, I did a book analysis of John Walton’s book The Lost World of the Conquest, so I will first and foremost provide links to those posts here:
Israel’s Conquest of Canaan (Part 1)
Israel’s Conquest of Canaan (Part 2)
Israel’s Conquest of Canaan (Part 3)
Israel’s Conquest of Canaan (Part 4)
Israel’s Conquest of Canaan (Part 5)
Israel’s Conquest of Canaan (Part 6)
The Competing Models
Provan points out that there are four main theories regarding the Israelites presence in the Promised Land.
- The Conquest Model: This model pretty much says that there was an actual “invasion” of Canaan by the Israelites, just like the Bible says. The famous archeologist William Albright held this view.
- The Peaceful Infiltration Model: This model argues that there was a gradual and largely peaceful entrance into Canaan, during which a federation of tribes bound together by allegiance to a common deity. Scholar Martin Noth held this view.
- The Peasant Revolt Model: This model argues that peasant farmers revolted against urban overlords. Scholar George Mendennall held this view.
- Various Endogenous Models: These models argue, in some form or another, that “Israel” emerged mainly from indigenous Canaanite society, and they invented their supposed “history” of “biblical Israel” later on. Scholars William Dever, Israel Finkelstein and Philip Davies are prominent with this view.
To cut to the chase, the problem with the Conquest Model is that it tends to read the Book of Joshua is a very wooden, literalistic way, without any consideration for the literary artistry of the book. The problem with the other models shouldn’t be too hard to figure out: They simply throw out the biblical text entirely and proceed to make up their own stories. They don’t even try to understand the biblical text. Since archeology doesn’t line up perfectly with a wooden, literalistic reading of the Book of Joshua, these scholars automatically assume that the entire book is a work of fiction, and then proceed to make up their own narratives of Israel’s origins. It is simple as that.
Provan, though, says that one must begin with the biblical text and, first and foremost, understand what it is and what it is really saying. When we do that, he shows that the Book of Joshua, particularly chapters 9-12 shows itself to be a typical example of a kind of writing known as a transmission code that is common in ancient Near Eastern historiography. Transmission tell of real historical events but are clearly ideological and use a certain amount of hyperbole in the telling of that history. For example, phrases like, “no one was left remaining” are pretty much standard. If one fails to understand this about the Book of Joshua, one is bound to misread the biblical text in a flat, literalistic way.
The Literary Structure of Joshua and Judges and Their Portrait of History
The next thing to realize about the Books of Joshua and Judges are that they are, in fact, a work of literature—about real history, but a work of literature, nonetheless. And that means there is a literary structure to it. First of all, as Provan points out, Joshua opens with the promise and affirmation that God will give the Israelites the land, and then ends with emphatic pronouncements that God had done just that. Secondly, Provan relates the work of Hendrick Kooravaar, who showed that there were four main sections to Joshua, with each section characterized by a key word. Section 1 (1:1-5:12) has the key word, Cross the Jordan; Section 2 (5:13-12:24) has the key word, Take the land; Section 3 (13:1-21:45) has the key word, Divide the land; and Section 4 (22:1-24:33) has the key word, Serve the Lord.
The Book of Judges has a clear literary structure to it as well. Provan relates the work of Barry Webb, who argues that there are three major parts to what he calls the “symphony” of Judges. First, there is the Overture (1:1-3:6) thatintroduces the fundamental themes of Judges; Second, there are theVariations (3:7-16:31) that develop and move these themes along; and third, there is the Coda (chapters 17-21) that characterizes the whole and brings it to conclusion.
When it comes to the Book of Joshua, Provan emphasizes that if one reads it carefully, one will realize that it is not trying to present a little “conquest,” as if it were some kind of blitzkrieg in the traditional sense. As it is stated in Joshua 11:18, “Joshua made war a long time with all those kings.” Even though the entirety of the account of the Israelites’ gaining ascendency in the land is condensed within a mere eleven chapters, it would be a gross misreading to see it as if it all happened in a short time. In fact, Joshua relates three general phases. The Israelites first gained a foothold in the central part of the land, later gained further dominance within the southern part of the land, and still later gained more control in the north.
This is why I particularly don’t like to refer to the Book of Joshua as being about a “conquest.” That word evokes images of Hitler invading Poland or Eisenhower invading France. In reality, I think it is more accurate to speak of this group of Israelites moving back to the land of their forefathers, encountering other hostile groups, engaging in various battles with them, and over time becoming one of the more dominant groups in the region.
The same goes for the Book of Judges. Provan calls it a “portrait of an age” and says that it shouldn’t be assumed “to present a simple, straightforward chronological sequence.” If it were, there would a significant problem with the years. If simply added them together, the Judges’ years would total 410. If you consider I Kings 6:1 that states there were 480 years between the Exodus and Solomon’s Temple, that leaves only 70 years for everything else mentioned in the Bible for that time. If you add the reigns of Saul, David, the time of conquest, the 40 years in the wilderness, Eli, Samuel—that totals about 573 years. And that blows apart claims of a 15th or 13th century Exodus. Therefore, since a close reading of Judges shows that the various judges mentioned were in different tribes and regions, it isn’t hard to imagine that the times of the various judges were either concurrent or overlapping.
When one considers Joshua and Judges together, one realizes that Joshua focuses on God’s faithfulness, whereas Judges focuses on Israel’s flawed response and failure. Furthermore, the two books are not contradictory, as some scholars attempt to argue when they say Joshua claims that Israel wiped out the Canaanites, but we find in Judges that there were Canaanites still living in the land. Provan points out that Joshua conveys the defeat of various Canaanite leaders and the general subjugation of the land—but there is an important difference between subjugation and occupation. And so, to simply things, Joshua is about the subjugation of the land, and Judges is about Israel’s stumbling attempts to occupy the land. As Provan puts it, “In broad strokes, taking Joshua and Judges together, the biblical depiction of Israel’s emergence in Canaan is internally coherent: Israel entered and gained an initial ascendancy by means of involving (though not limited to) military conquest, but was far less successful in consolidating its victories by fully occupying its territories” (225).
Archeological Concerns: Jericho, Ai, Hazor, and Laish
So, all of the above is how Joshua and Judges presents a literary portrait of the history of the “conquest” and “settlement” of the land. The next question, therefore, becomes this: “Is there any archeological evidence for it?” That is what Provan addresses in the second half of the chapter.
Provan begins by pointing out that the assumption that the Book of Joshua depicts widespread destruction is not really faithful to what the text actually says. The Book of Joshua really claims that only four cities where burned down: Jericho, Ai, Hazor, and Laish. The claim made throughout Joshua of the Israelites “completely destroying” a place is an unfortunate mistranslation of the Hebrew word herem. I discuss this in detail in my analysis of Walton’s book. Simply put, herem literally means removing something from common use and devoting it exclusively for YHWH’s use. In any case, when it comes to the four cities of Jericho, Ai, Hazor, and Laish, Provan summarizes the potential archeological problems and the potential resolutions to those problems with each site.
Jericho
The claim regarding Jericho is that it wasn’t occupied during the purported time of Joshua. That is based partly on the fact that imported pottery associated with the Late Bronze Age was not found in the areas where excavations were done. However, not only have the excavations of Jericho been limited to a small percentage of the site, but they have also been done in what has been deemed the poorer districts of ancient Jericho, where one wouldn’t expect to find imported pottery. The local pottery that was found at Jericho suggests that there was, in fact, a small settlement in Jericho during the Late Bronze Age, within the timeframe of Joshua.
In addition, there is evidence of collapsed walls and burning taken place in the spring, just after harvest. This is deduced from the fact that there have been substantial quantities of grain found at the site. The fact that it was still there suggests that the city must have fallen quickly. And then there is the claim in Joshua 3:16 that the Israelites crossed the Jordan River into Canaan. The fact is that there is evidence over the centuries of water stoppages in the Jordan River in the vicinity of Adam—this provides a plausible explanation of how the Israelites might have crossed the Jordan River.
The biggest obstacle when it comes to discussing Jericho is that most people have this picture of some massive military assault on a major metropolis. But as Provan states, “When one undertakes a close study of the Hebrew text in Joshua 6 to see what the text actually says, the idea that it describes a massive military assault on a huge, heavily fortified metropolitan city that served as the center of the realm of a traditional king turns out to be a chimera” (235).
Ai
No one is absolutely sure where ancient Ai or Bethel is, but the general assumption is that Ai is associated with the modern Khirbet Et-Tell and Bethel with Beitin. The problem is that the site at Et-Tell appears not to be occupied between 2400-1200 BC. Of course, the deeper problem, as Provan points out, is that those the identification of those two sites as being the actual locations of ancient Ai and Bethel have always been “iffy.”
In any case, Provan mentions how, given Ai’s close proximity to Bethel in Joshua 7-8, that many scholars have suggested that Ai was a ruin that served as an outpost in the vicinity of Bethel. Therefore, the “king of Ai” might have been a local chieftain who was in charge of the outpost. Another interesting possible archeological feature is related to what is mentioned in Joshua 7:5, where we are told that the men of Ai chased the Israelites from the gates as far as “Shebarim,” where they cut down 36 Israelites. Most translations simply transliterate the Hebrew as a proper name, while some scholars think the word means something like “fissures” or “stone quarries.” Provan notes the work of J.M. Monson, who suggests that the word literally means, “the Broken Places,” and refers to a specific geographical feature in the area. Monson says that this can be found about 3 kilometers directly east of the ruin/outpost of Ai. He writes, “This region is totally hidden from view until one suddenly reaches a point where rugged beds of limestone plunge precipitously into the arid chalk wilderness and the deep Makkuk Canyon. …Pinpointing such a small and obscure geographical area not only illuminates Joshua’s initial campaign but also lends stark realism and credibility to the larger account.”
Hazor
There is no dispute that ancient Hazor is identified with Tell el-Qedah. It is also certain that it was destroyed by fire in the Late Bronze Age (i.e. 13th century BC). Its statuary in the palace of Hazor was deliberately destroyed. All this fits nicely into what we find in Joshua 11—that Hazor was completely burned down during the time of Joshua. Archeologists have shown that the site was not completely rebuilt until the time of Solomon in the 10th century BC. Here is where the problem arises, for Judges 4:2-3 claims that King Jabin of Canaan reigned in Hazor. So, if Joshua destroyed Hazor in the late 13th century BC, and if it wasn’t rebuilt until the 10th century BC, how can we make sense of the claim in Judges 4 that Deborah and Barak fought against Jabin and his general Sisera, who reigned in Hazor? Some scholars completely dismiss Judges 4 as unreliable, while others suggest that Joshua’s “conquest” took place in the 15th century BC (i.e. the other possible date for Joshua), during which he destroyed Hazor. Then, it was later rebuilt and occupied, only to be eventually destroyed again in the 13th century BC.
Simply put, the destruction of Hazor, which is universally acknowledged by the archeological evidence, does fit within what we find in Joshua and Judges.
Laish/Dan
Ancient Laish is connected to the story in Judges 18, where the Danites left their original tribal allotment and came upon Laish, burned the city and took over the area. This site is located at Tell-el-Qadi, known today as Tel-Dan. Although there is no evidence of widespread burning, there is some evidence of fire here and there. Furthermore, archeologists have found that in Stratum V of the excavations at Tel-Dan there is evidence of destruction of a rustic settlement there that dates to sometime in the mid-11th century BC. Simply put, there is archeological evidence of Laish that coincides with the account in Judges 18.
Other Key Archeological Sites: Gibeon, Shiloh, and Mount Ebal
Provan also touches upon three other archeological sites that are related to the time of Joshua-Judges. One is Gibeon, which is associated with the modern site of el-Jib. It was James Pritchard who excavated the site and found more than thirty jars with the inscription “Gibeon” on them, so there is no doubt that el-Jib is the site of ancient Gibeon. The problematic question regards whether or not Gibeon was indeed a “large city” in the Late Bronze Age (i.e. 13th century BC) as Joshua 10 suggests. To cut to the chase, Provan says the evidence is simply inconclusive.
Then there Shiloh, which according to Joshua served as the first centralized sanctuary for the Israelites. Shiloh is identified with Khirbet Seilun, which is between Shechem in the north and Jerusalem in the south. Provan notes that Finkelstein’s excavations showed that Shiloh was a fortified city that in the Middle Bronze Age that was destroyed, only to later become a cultic site in the Late Bronze Age. The Iron Age city associated with the site was probably destroyed by the Philistines in the 11th century BC in the aftermath of the Battle of Ebenezer (I Samuel 4). Provan further points out that near Shiloh, in the vicinity of Shechem, excavations have unearthed a sanctuary, an altar, and standing stone there. These findings coincide with what we find in Joshua 24, when the Israelites convened at Shechem for a covenant renewal ceremony.
Finally, there is Mount Ebal, the place where Joshua 8:30-31 says that Joshua built a large altar to YHWH after the defeat of Ai. At the site, there is a 23’ by 30’ rectangle structure of uncut stones, filled with ashes, broken pottery, and animal bones. Numerous scholars believe that could, in fact, be the altar of Joshua 8:30-31.
Conclusion About Joshua and Judges
This post has been unusually long and, admittedly, not exactly easy reading. Discussions of archeological finds and possible implications rarely are page-turners. But what we should take from Provan’s chapter about Joshua and Judges is two-fold: (1) We need to acknowledge that they are highly-crafted literary works that purport to be about real, historical events, and (2) Contrary to what many minimalist zealots try to claim (i.e. that there is absolutely no archeological evidence whatsoever to support the history of Joshua and Judges), there is, in fact, some archeological evidence that supports that very claim. Yes, it is not an unusually large about of archeological evidence; and yes, the evidence in question is interpreted in different ways by different scholars—but it is evidence and it does lend credibility to the historicity of Joshua and Judges.
Coming up in Chapter 8 of Provan’s A Biblical History of Israel will be the time of King Saul and King David.
Very interesting!
In 2011 Philip Jenkins wrote *Laying Down the Sword: Why We Can’t Ignore the Bible’s Violent Verses.* Have you read it?
If not, I’ll summarize his main arguments. In this book Jenkins calls Christians, Jews and and Muslims–but esp. Christians–to come to terms with the violence in many of the texts of their scriptures. Jenkins is especially concerned with the *herem*, or “genocide” he feels is present in the conquest narratives of the OT. While apparently once comfortable with the explanations of these texts in Paul Copan’s 2011 *Is God a Moral Monster?*, for which Jenkins wrote a glowing review, by the time his own book was published in 2011 he’d apparently changed his mind. as he criticizes Copan’s handling of the *herem* texts as unsatisfactory in his book.
He argues that the three monotheistic faiths, but esp. his faith tradition, Christianity, have a “holy amnesia” when it comes to the “Canaanite genocide.” While earlier centuries used these OT texts as license for crusades, inquisitions and religious wars, the modern church in its lectionaries has cherry-picked certain verses from these texts which downplay the violence. Yet we all, Christians in particular, need to come to terms with our faiths’ violent pasts and the texts such violence was based on.
Jenkins argues that a loving, just God would never command the Israelites to commit genocide, but knows he can’t simply disregard these texts which are considered canonical sacred Scripture. Jenkins’ answer is to argue basically that the historical conquest texts were written bet. the 8th and 6th centuries BC, and that, while the stories are based in the real history of Israel’s earlier “Yahweh Wars,” the texts as we have them now were exaggerated to create a kind of religious propaganda in order to allow Israel’s history to be a tool for reform during the monarchy. Basically later chroniclers read this “genocidal” violence *back into* Israel’s past. In Jenkins’ schema, Joshua and 2 Kings were written at the same time as Isaiah, Jeremiah and the other prophets. Thus historical chroniclers and anointed prophets were both working together to steer Israel back to a radical monotheism and urging her to divest herself of any vestiges of paganism, as a peaceful and just society could only come as the result of following YHWH alone.
I’m not sure I agree with him, because his hypothesis would have Israel’s chroniclers painting Moses, Joshua et. al. as essentially more bloodthirsty than the Philistines or the Amalekites simply in order to combat paganism. He seems not to be reading the texts in the nuanced way they deserve.
This would be another good book for you to review sometime.
Pax..
Lee.
Walton’s book on the conquest was really good. I wouldn’t call Joshua’s conquest “genocide.” I would call it warfare. And then, as Provan talks about in the “transmission code,” there is a certain amount of hyperbole.
Even with the Mernepthah Stele, he didn’t LITERALLY entirely wipe out “Israel’s seed.” It’s a hyperbolic statement. If one takes Joshua and Judges together, it is quite obvious they the Israelites DIDN’T commit genocide. They didnt wipe out entire ethnicities. They engaged in battles, and some were killed. And in the writing of those events, the writer employed the kind of hyperbolic language that was normally used to describe victories at that time.
That’s what I’ve come to see–that a lot depends upon the context and the translation, which often depends upon the bias of the reader/interpreter
In 2010 Zondervan published *Show Them No Mercy: 4 Views on God and Canaanite Genocide* as one of their point-counterpoint series, with essays by CS Cowles, Eugene H. Merrill, Daniel L. Gard, and Tremper Longman III.
Pax.
Lee.
@ Lee
And how exactly would you interpret this …
Joshua 10:40
So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded.
As a real test of your honesty:
a) would you read this to your kids?
b) how would you explain it to an eight year old?
Lovely…you’re taking the explanation of a poet and an blogger over the explanation of an academic scholar like Walton. You’re entitled to do that.
Read it, Joel, and take time to consider the implications of any form of justification in light of real, genocides such as Rwanda,
I am sure one of my readers won’t mind me nicking his very astute comment.
ARK: Firstly, Walton, like you is a Christian and as his view, like Provan’s happens to coincide with your view is it really any wonder you will select such writers as your ”back up”.
LEE: Firstly, Zande, like you is an atheist and as his view, like Dever’s happens to coincide with your view is it really any wonder you will select such writers as your “back up”.
Consistency, thou art a jewel.
Pax.
Lee.
The term “herem” according to Strong’s means: “חָרַם châram, khaw-ram’; a primitive root; to seclude; specifically (by a ban) to devote to religious uses (especially destruction); physical and reflexive, to be blunt as to the nose:—make accursed, consecrate, (utterly) destroy, devote, forfeit, have a flat nose, utterly (slay, make away).”
Pax.,
Lee.
ARK: …consecrate, (utterly) destroy, utterly (slay, make away).”
And in context of certain biblical verses ….Genocide
LEE: Only if the authors actually intended it to mean total annihilation, which they may or may not intend.
But again, why does any of this bother you? For the atheist God doesn’t exist, thus no Moral Law exists, therefore you can’t hold a non-existent God accountable to his equally non-existent Moral Law to condemn a non-existent series of non-historical conquests as evil, a non-existent moral category.
Pax.
Lee.
So much for the open-minded skeptic with no axe to grind.
Pax.
Lee.
ARK: They do not ”coincide with my view.”
What a daft thing to write.
The people – ”they” – are professionals and their views were established decades before I became aware of any of this stuff and it was only through research that I discovered such tales were myth.
As I mentioned before, if it weren’t for the fact I wanted background on Moses for a book I wrote I probably would have gone to my grave thinking the tales (sans miracles) were basically historically sound.
LEE: So. If archaeological evidence were discovered which caused the majority professional consensus to shift its view and proclaim the Exodis historical, you’d sign onboard?
But you aren’t fooling anyone. You only pay attention to scholars like William Dever who agree with your atheism, or NT Wright who you can misquote or cherry-pick to prove one of your lesser points.
We have an expression here in the States that says “I didn’t fall off of the turnip-truck yesterday.”
Pax.
Lee.
Dear Sir,
Thank you for all the work that you do. I am a regular reader of your blog and I do learn something when I read your work. I hope in the future, you can do a review of Dr. Joshua Bowen’s book does the old testament endorse slavery. Dr. Bowen has a PhD in Assyriology and has a good understanding of old testament scholarship. He holds the position that the Israelite slavery especially pertaining to non hebrews was no better than the slavery practiced by the surrounding cultures and he does believe the Bible does endorse slavery. What are your thoughts? I know you are a busy man and you don’t have to do that but I hope you consider the request.
Thank you in advance
We’ll see if I get to the book. I want to say I touched upon the topic of slavery when I did my book analysis of John Walton’s “Lost World of the Torah.” You might want to check those out.
In short, ancient Israelite certainly practiced slavery–it was just a common culture thing in the ancient world. What one should see, though, is that the Torah was rather different somewhat in the laws regarding slaves. Yes, from our perspective, slavery seems barbaric–and we ask, “How could the OT endorse slavery?” But the fact is ancient Israel was not modern America. They are going to reflect the general customs and practices of that time period and culture. And so, the Torah isn’t so much an “endorsement” of slavery–at least I don’t think that is a good way of putting it. I think we should see it as, GIVEN the cultural reality of slavery at the time, the Torah advocated for a certain treatment of slaves that was a significant improvement–a step in the right direction, so to speak.
But there’s obviously more to it. I suppose an underlying question is how one views the Torah. Most assume the Torah was essentially “God’s moral rule book” for the Israelites. John Walton thinks that isn’t a good way to view. I think he has a point.
Hello and greetings from Huntsville!
First, I should disclose I heard about your post from Ark’s blog. I’m an atheist. I promise, I come in peace.
Disclosures out of the way, I think it’s an interesting take you have on Joshua and Judges here. Taking a literary view of the books into account, I was wondering if this forecloses on the other three models of settlement into Canaan. Does it open the door to the possibilities of these other models?
Apologies in advance if you’ve addressed this point elsewhere and I missed it.
Regards,
SB
Hi SB,
First off, to be clear, Ark got the “spam” label because he’s been trolling my blog for the better part of a year. In the past week, I’ve deleted over 150 of his comments, many of which were belligerent and quite profanity-laced. I’m even doing this entire book analysis of Provan’s book because I recommended it to Ark awhile ago and he refused to read it, and then when he wanted quick, easy answers to the question of the historicity of the OT, I tried to explain that there is a lot of complexities and issues to it to consider, and that it why it would be good to read a book on the topic. And since he continued to troll my blog, I even told I’d personally go through the book, chapter by chapter for him. And even with these first seven posts, he has rarely addressed any of the actual points or issues that the posts have brought up. Hence, I have to conclude he’s not interested in actual dialogue.
In any case, in nutshell, I think the OT historical books are conveying real history, but they are written as stories. The easiest analogy I would give is a movie like “Hacksaw Ridge.” Yes, it is about WWII, a real historical event, and it is about Private Doss, a real historical person in the war, BUT those historical events are shaped into a narrative and story; certain dialogue is “made up,” themes are being teased out, etc. Mel Gibson is using artistic license to in the telling of that history.
What Provan is getting at in his book is that he is pushing back against the minimalist view in Biblical Studies scholarship that basically says, “If the text shows literary/artistic shaping and if it is promoting an ideology/point of view, then it can’t be real history.” That view has huge logical holes in it, and is, quite frankly, never used in the assessment of other ancient historical texts.
As for the “four models,” I don’t think any one of the four is entirely correct. A close reading of Joshua/Judges does NOT suggest that it was some sort of blitzkrieg-type “conquest” in which the Israelites swept in and committed mass genocide. As Provan points out, some of it is hyperbolic language that is consistent with the way those in the ancient world described victories. In addition, as both Joshua and Judges clearly point out, it took a long time for the Israelites to settle in the land, and they did not, in fact, wipe out the Canaanites–they continued to deal with them throughout Judges. What Joshua is describing by “herem” is the Israelites dismantling of the Canaanite/pagan religious centers–smashing altars, etc.
Given that, what Joshua describes isn’t so much a “conquest” of some sort of nation-state (Canaan was no such thing), rather the moving into the land by the Israelites and a series of battles with the various Canaanite tribes there that were, for the most part, initiated by the Canaanites tribes. Now, the writer of Joshua, because he is being creative in the shaping of all of that into a coherent story, he presents it in much more of a condensed fashion–within a few chapters, it seems the whole land is “conquered.” But as Joshua itself says, it wasn’t so quick, the fighting took place over a generation.
The other three models have their problems, and Provan discusses them in more detail in his book. But what I’ll say here is this: those three models/stories of Israel’s origins are, quite frankly, made-up by modern scholars. The Peasant Revolt model, for example, has more in common with the Marxist idea of a Proletariat revolution than it does with any hard evidence or testimony/text from the ancient world.
Anyway, I’ve rambled long enough. I skimmed Ark’s post–quite amusing that he’s portraying me as some kind of Fundie nut. Fundie nuts accuse me of being too secular. I find that when extremist on either side accuse me of being an extremist of the opposite side, I’m right where I should be–away from the extremist nuts.
To a militant atheist like Ark Teilhard de Chardin is a “fundie nut.”
Pax.
Lee.
Seriously, you have completely lost me here.
What are you upset about specifically?
Is it that in context the word herem meant (to) utterly destroy (which you acknowledged) – as reflected in Joshua 10:40, and similar verses or:
that I have compared Joshua 10:40 to genocide?
Will you please explain because I now have absolutely no idea why you are, once again, going off on a bender.
1. Joshua smote the hill country, the Negeb, the plains, and the slopes and ALL THEIR KINGS–he left none remaining. MEANING: he took out the leadership of those places.
2. And he “devoted to the ban” (i.e. herem) all that breathed. MEANING: the removal of group/community identity–i.e.break down Canaanite altars, smash Canaanite sacred stones, cut down Canaanite Asherah poles, and burn Canaanite idols in the fire, just as Deuteronomy 7:2-5 detailed. When you go into Canaan, put everything to “herem,” meaning the destruction of Canaanite altars, sacred stones, Asherah poles, and idols.
3. Yes, it was warfare; yes, that meant people were killed in the battles; no, Joshua 10:40 is not telling of genocide; verses like that, which talk about “herem” are about destroying the pagan sites and religious practices.
copy and paste this into the Google search bar.
It will work.
Open up the first one that reads verse by verse analysis.
Wegman, Mike (2006) “Joshua 6:15-21: Exploring the Deeper Meaning of the Herem,”
Not convincing.
But even with that, he concludes at the end that Joshua isnt saying that God condones genocide.
I doubt this is much more than a student’s paper. I can’t imagine an actual professional academic journal to publish an article that switches from double-space to single-space in the middle of the article.
So, what have we learned here? You mocked incessently Cornuke’s claims for jabal al lawz being possibly Mt. Sinai, despite the fact his findings were found credible by leading scholars and archeologists…and all because the guy was an amateur.
And yet with the Joshua-genocide question, you keep throwing up pieces written by poet-bloggers and students, and you reject the conclusions of scholars with expertise in Hebrew and Biblical Studies.
https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2983&context=pro_rege
Review by Dr Justin Bailey.
I would hardly call Bailey a ”student”.
“I take the positive contributions of this
volume to be twofold. First, the authors provide a
plausible alternative for kherem that is worthy of
consideration. Here, kherem signifies the removal
of Canaanite identities from use in the land so
that the land and the people in the land may
be co-identified with Yahweh.”
Well, thank you for sharing a review of a scholar who finds Walton’s explanation of herem to be a valid argument worthy of consideration.
Yes, Bailey is a real scholar.