|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did a "minimalist" indirectly admit Judges 1 doesnt contradict Joshua | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: So you're saying that Blenkinsopp's comments are even less relevant than they might have been.
quote: 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: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: By quibbles you mean "outright denies":
The bottom line is that destruction of urban centers, although considerable, was not nearly as complete as the Albright-Stern thesis postulates.
All you've got is:
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.
[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: 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: 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: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
Use 'Peek' mode to make the formatting codes visible, then cut and paste.
quote: He disagrees that they were as extensive as the "empty land" proponents claims. That is absolutely clear.
quote: 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 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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Let me repeat again:
The bottom line is that destruction of urban centers, although considerable, was not nearly as complete as the Albright-Stern thesis postulates.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024