Posts
Joshua and the Israelites continue to kill untold numbers as they continue to occupy the Promised Land.
The only thing that stood out for me in these chapters was that God stopped the Earth's rotation so they Israelites would have enough sunlight to chase down and slaughter the fleeing enemy. God helps out by killing the majority with giant hailstones.Nice.
Chapter 12 ends with a wrap-up of with a fond remembrance of all the kings they killed.
I wonder what Christians make of the five kings who are shut up in a cave by a great stone and are killed when the stone is rolled away.
ReplyDeleteI have to say, though it's fairly off-topic, after an emotionally exhausting IEP meeting at my son's school, some serious smiting was exactly what I needed. Go Joshua! Kill 'em all! :)
ReplyDeleteJosh 10:12-13 - The sun stood still? Sounds pretty flat earth and geocentric to me. At least it was for a good cause - Joshua had more killing to do. Ugh.
ReplyDeleteJoshua 12 makes it sound like the whole area was lousy with kings. I sense the author was playing a little fast a loose with what we would consider a king nowadays.
@David I think you're right that they have a different definition of king because Joshua 11:10 says that they killed Hazor's king (who seemed to be named Hazor for it to all make sense) saying he had been the king of all the kingdoms. I'm not sure if the past tense refers to his rule ending post-smotem or earlier allowing for all these other kings.
ReplyDeleteJoshua 11:20 says that God hardened the hearts of these armies so that they wouldn't make peace and accept Him as their God then he also made sure the Israelites would win. This sure reads like God's playing in His sandbox with army men...
Speaking of which, has anyone here studied the Koran? I keep hearing how violent it is and can't imagine how it can be singled out compared to this stuff.
Joshua 12 makes it sound like the whole area was lousy with kings. I sense the author was playing a little fast a loose with what we would consider a king nowadays.
ReplyDeleteThese "kings" (melech) are more accurately chiefs of small city-states. These were very small settlements.
The total regional population in the iron age was about 150,000, with average towns having 500-1,000. Jerusalem had maybe 2,000 at its height. (all per Willian Dever)
I think the Gibeonites/Hivites are quite clever. Then they get enslaved in the Temple. Awesome. (One wonders if this story was written to explain to the audience why Gibeonites were enslaved to work in the temple, to show why they "deserved" it.)
The Book of Jashar is an enigmatic reference. I love when the perfect Bible quotes external, lost sources.
Joshua wipes out the Anakim, which is why we no longer have giants roaming around. Pity. (Goliath will just be an unusually large Philistine, in case you're wondering.)
This LORD guy seems like a murderous dirtbag ... or am I being too harsh?
ReplyDeleteI too, wondered about the "book of Jasher". If I find one laying around, I'll share it with everybody.
When was Joshua written? I assumed that it was post-exilic, based on the discussion surrounding Deuteronomy. The "...to this day..."s noted by @Susan and @Bruce in the last reading make it seem those passages are a re-telling. Anyone know the chronology? The Google didn't grace me with any profound revelations in my brief search.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if @Abbie mentioned the "Mysterious stranger" from Josh 5:13 here or at her blog, but I'll be interested to find out about him. Was that a biblical spaghetti western that never made it past the pilot? ;-)
Joshua is considered to contain J, which is circa 9th-8th century BCE. The events of Joshua are placed around 13th century BCE (by people who believed they happened.)
ReplyDeleteI dunno exactly when the Deuteronomist school supposedly edited Joshua, but it was sometime after 7th century (after King Hosiah "discovers" the Deuteronomic law.) The Deuteronomic histories could have been compiled *before* the Torah, which was finished post-exile (6th century).
Most everything before late parts of Kings is a "re-telling". The Song of Deborah (Judges ch. 5) is probably the only pre-monarchal eyewitness account in the Bible.
The "to this day" (עד היום הזה)phrase is used by J, E, and D, but only twice (in one verse) by P. (Other variations probably exist.) So when you see "to this day", it's in the window of 9th-6th centuries BCE.
On Joshua's mysterious stranger, I read it a lot like I do the time Jacob wrestles with an angel (and when God tries to kill Moses): a inexplicable random insertion; and strong proof that the text was composed from various once-independent sources.
@Abbie && Skepticali,
ReplyDeleteAbout 5:13 there are people that have a good idea on who that guy is. If you make it through the NT you might realize who it is.
@Vt Teacher,
ReplyDeleteThe OT is what the Hebrew people did to their enemies in the past. The Koran is what the Muslim is to do to people, even to this day.
What's interesting is that in the initial stages of Muhammad's mission, the early Suras validated the biblical scriptures, only to be abrogated by later ones. Be aware that it's not unusual for Muslim speakers to impress their western audiences with these earlier "friendly" verses and to proclaim that there is hardly and difference between Islam and Christianity.
When they deny what i have just said it's known as Takkiya, and it's very effectively used in their apologetics. A Muslim debater will hide or deny certain parts of the Qur'an to justify and advance the cause of Islam.
So what i have learned is that it's okay for them to lie, as long as it advances the cause of Islam.
Just some of the little i know about their faith.
@Abbie,
ReplyDelete"I love when the perfect Bible quotes external, lost sources."
<joke>
So can i take it that you have a copy of the Book of the wars of the LORD? I have wanted to get my hands on a copy of that. It's mentioned in Numbers 21:14. There are also some other books mentioned, however i just want a copy of The Wars of the LORD.
</joke>
:-D
@Abbie - thanks for the explanation
ReplyDelete@Edward -
About 5:13 there are people that have a good idea on who that guy is. If you make it through the NT you might realize who it is.
oooooo - I can't wait - I love surprises! I'll stick my neck out and say it someone with demonstrated time-traveling experience. Since Socrates and Abe Lincoln didn't have first hand piloting experience, I'm putting my money on Bill S. Preston Esquire.
;-D
@Helene,
ReplyDeleteI just have to say when i read your post i laughed. The meeting went that well hu?
@David,
ReplyDelete"The sun stood still? Sounds pretty flat earth and geocentric to me"
Can you elaborate on that statement? If the sun had the same course every day, then one day it stood still how would that lead one to believe that the earth was flat and geocentric?
Author:
ReplyDeleteFrom An Introduction to the Old Testament by Edward J. Young. pp. 172,173
According to the position of the dominant negative criticism the book of Joshua is not a literary unit, composed by a single author. Rather, the alleged sources of the Pentateuch are said to be present here also. The two primary sources are thought to be J (c. 950-850) and E (c. 750). These were re-edited in the JE (c. 650), most of J being discarded. Thise editor is supposed to have introduced harmonistic statements. JE was thoroughly revised (c. 550) by the Deuteronomic school, which provided the introduction (chap. I) and conclusion. This revision continued until about 400. At the end of the fifth century P was added by a priestly redactor(Rp). Further additions also were made as late as the third and even second centuries.
Joshua, therefore, is regarded as essentially a Deuteronomic book, whereas the Pentateuch is supposed to have a priestly framework. Incidentally, this is a strong argument against the whole idea of a Hexateuch.
For our part we cannot accept the documentary analysis as applied to Joshua. We are too greatly impressed with the internal unity of the book to give credence to such analysis. Furthermore, there is trugh in the remark of Steinmueller: "The literary arguments of the critics are based fundamentally upon a false religious preconception of the evolutionary development of the religion of the Hebrews, which cannot be sustained" (A Companion to Scripture Studies, Vol. II, 1942, p. 73).
Certain parts of the book are said to have been written by Joshua himself (24:26). Some parts seem to be the work of an eyewitness (e.g., 5:1, "until we had passed over," though some manuscripts read "they"; 5:6; 16:4; and the detailed descriptions of chaps. 7-8). From this we may conclude that there was a basis written by Joshua.
In its present form, however, the book cannot have been written by Joshua, for it records events which did not take place until after his death. Among these are the conquest of Hebron by Caleb, of Debir by Othniel and of Leshem by the Danites. And the accounts of the death of Joshua and of Eleazar show that the book is later than Joshua's time. (A Jewish tradition alleges that Eleazar added the account of Joshua's death, adn that Phinehas added the account of Eleazar's death.)
Although the book in its present form is not from the hand of Joshua, it is nevertheless very ancient. In all probability it was written under divine inspiration by someone, possibly an elder (Kiel), who had been an eyewitness to most of the events recorded in the book.
@Edward - yes,it did! And Joshua was almost as effective for working through anxiety as a particularly bloody Mighty Ducks game after the 1994 earthquake . . .
ReplyDeleteI've got to go with Edward on the sun standing still thing. You can't make the inference that just saying "the sun stood still" means the writer believed in a geocentric solar system. If for some reason the earth stopped rotating for a while today I'm sure most of the news outlets would report that "the sun stood still in the sky."
Now mind you, yes, I know they DID have a geocentric mindset, but I'm just saying if you deal with text alone you can't infer that. IMO, of course. :)
ReplyDeleteWhen they deny what i have just said it's known as Takkiya, and it's very effectively used in their apologetics. A Muslim debater will hide or deny certain parts of the Qur'an to justify and advance the cause of Islam.
So what i have learned is that it's okay for them to lie, as long as it advances the cause of Islam.
Just some of the little i know about their faith.
Very little. You've managed to set up a situation where no Muslim can successfully contradict you about Islam because if they contradict you they are obviously lying since their religion allows lying. However you are wrong about when their religion allows lying.
First Takkiya is a not the usual transliteration, that would be Taqiyya. Second Taqiyya is mostly a Shi'a concept though the idea that lying is permitted in certain circumstances happens in all religions (Rahab lies to save the spies and is rewarded by being saved herself). Today we generally praise people who lie to save an innocent life (e.g., misdirecting a lynch mob away from its prey). Third Taqiyya is only permitted in rare circumstances to prevent death or persecution not for profit; the standard is to be truthful and betrayal is forbidden. I don't know much about Islam (well beyond visiting Turkey and reading several scholarly volumes on the history of Islam and helping an editor prepare a book on Arabic and knowing several Muslims including some who stood shoulder to shoulder with Jewish students when Westboro Baptist Church showed up to protest outside the local Hillel Center), but, I know enough to recognize when someone is probably spouting nonsense about it and to check.
This has me excited for The King and I 2: Medina Boogaloo. (Or shall it come to pass that we do the Book of Mormon next?)
ReplyDeleteI have a paperback translation of the Qur'an, haven't got around to tackling it. I'm pretty sure there's some horrible stuff in there, but I'm sceptical it could be much worse than the Bible.
@Abbie,
ReplyDeleteI won't do a "read the Qur'an in a year" project unless I can come up with a clever name. ;-)
The Book of Mormon is a definite possibility. I know a fair amount about the Mormon faith but very little about their holy book.
Wow, in previous readings I hadn't noticed the mention of fenced cities (10:20). The Joshua program has -all- the hallmarks of an ethnic cleansing program, doesn't it?
ReplyDelete