Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Andrew C Smith <a.c.smith AT juno.com>]

>There are two accounts describing the occupation of the land:
>Conquest by all Israel  in Joshua;  in Judges, small, tribal 
>victories  and partial defeats---and co-existence with the natives.  Why
are 
>there two accounts?  What (ideological) function does Joshua have?  Why
do
>biblical interpreters focus on Joshua rather than Judges?  How 
>does the archeological data fit the two reconstructions?

Joshua and Judges give us two very different "spins" on the early history
of Israel!

Why are there two accounts? They served different purposes. Joshua was
written to show how things were supposed to be - a spiritually united,
politically coordinated, militarily organized nation moves into the land,
gets rid of its enemies, and establishes itself with a strong spiritual
sense of identity and leadership - the book of Joshua gave this as an
example to later Israelites (how late? pre-exile? post-exile? probably
post-exile, but maybe earlier) to say, "here's how you ought to organize
yourselves."

Judges was written to answer the question, why did the kingdom eventually
fall? Even before David and Saul, the seeds of idolatry were there, and
the tribes did not submit to spiritual leadership, but rather selfishly
looked after their own interests, and even occasionally attacked each
other.

Later Biblical passages focus on Judges for two reasons, [1] because it
gave a good moral example, and [2] people don't like to think about their
own country's weaknesses.

A.C. Smith


"... if Bach is the sound of God thinking, then perhaps Gershwin is, at
least, the sound of St. Anthony of Padua whistling as he works ..."
- Michael Bywater







___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]