Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Lloyd Barre <barre AT c-zone.net>]

Peter,

My response to your question could be rather lengthy, so I will endeavor to 
as brief as possible.

First of all, let me preface the following remarks with the statement that 
the methods I use have by no means been developed by myself.  They are 
standard procedures that have been used by many historians of ancient Israel. 
 In setting about the task of historical reconstruction, one must first of 
all isolate sources.  Next one must understand the nature of those sources so 
that they are not misused or misapplied.  In examining Israelite narratives 
as a whole,  I have concluded that these "accounts" do not reflect a serious 
intention to convey "information."  Rather, they are almost always driven by 
a religious intention, and sometimes a political or sociological concern.  
Almost always the dialogues are stylized and artificial and contain content 
that no one could have been privy to.  Nor is there anyway to account for how 
such information could have been transmitted.  One very important assumption 
that no one seems to question regards the reality of Yahweh acting in history 
!
in which he speaks, directs, appears and so forth.  Because I personally 
could not defend the view that Yahweh is any different from any other god, 
that is that he is a mythological creation, I would also for that reason 
dismiss regarding him as real source of historical causation.  Thus, the 
literary features mention above found in most of these narratives, led me to 
a certain understanding that I must take into account before I can extract 
any historical information from them, much of which will be obtained 
indirectly as it were.  As far as "face value" information, I find that the 
most one can hope for is a a very general nature regarding the major figures 
involved and references to major events.  All the details such as dialogue 
and specific actions of a character seem to me to have been supplied, by 
default,  by the imagination of story tellers or the author of a composition.

With regard to Joshua and Judges,  I accept the view that this material 
belongs to a larger composition know as the Dueteronomistic History 
(Deuteronomy-2 Kings).  In terms of literary composition, the author, who is 
thought to have written it during the reign of Josiah (or during the Exile), 
took most of Deuteronomy and used it to introduce his history that follows.  
In creating this piece, he incorporated a number of texts and organized 
around a central themes.  He also includes a number of key passages, 
recognizable by Deuteronomic phraseology and recurring themes that are 
present in Deuteronomy, such as Yahweh's command for a central sanctuary.  
Thus the kings of Israel and Judah are judged according to Deuteronomic 
teachings.  Thus, his presentation of the history of Israel is, we would say, 
highly biased and not informed by anything close to what modern historian 
would call objectivity.

His portrayal of the conquest in Joshua is clearly intended to portray Joshua 
as one who enjoyed unstoppable military success because he was obedient to 
Deuteronomic law.  This is made very clear in Josh 1:1-9 which sets the theme 
for his presentation.  Both the scope and the swiftness of Joshua's victories 
are presents to show that Joshua was obedient to Yahweh.  This 7th century 
portrayal of the conquest of Canaan by Joshua and his forces was one part of 
the thinking that emerged during Josiah's reform, that the inspiration of 
military morale.

Beside this decidedly "theological" version of the conquest, there is clear 
indication that the conquest has been schematized.  Thus the so-called 
northern campaign is actually a duplication of the conquest of Jabin during 
the time of Deborah.  It is both anachronistic and artificial.  It seems to 
me that the the central and southern campaigns may also have originally been 
separate traditions that likewise have been fused in order to show that 
Joshua conquered all of Canaan in one war.  Thus his accomplishments, 
whatever they actually were, have been exaggerated to fully the theological 
interests of Dtr.

As I have said, the DtrH is compositional made of up smaller traditions that 
have been organized around themes central to Dtr's concerns.  
Methodologically then, we must define and assess the nature of his many 
sources in order to extract what historical information they may contain.  
With the song of Deborah, we clearly have a text which preexisted, simpleyon 
the basis of the fact that it is a poem embedded in a narrative context.  
Both the poem's form and content support the conclusion that we are dealing 
with a song that was song shortly after Israel's victory over Jabin.  As a 
song of victory, it makes little sense to date it long after the event is 
celebrates.  Also, a song that shames the tribes that did not participate 
would have no meaning unless those tribes existed at the time of composition. 
 It also mentions the tribe of Machir, a fact that attests to its 
authenticity since it is almost impossible to explain why this otherwise 
unknown tribal name should appear.  In!
 our discussion, the lack of a mention of several tribes that later came to 
comprise Israel is yet another indication that the song is old and predates 
texts that include more tribes members of Israel's tribal confederacy such as 
we find in Joshua or in the Blessing of Jacob and the Blessing of Moses.  
Thus the Song of Deborah for me serves as an anchor for a historical 
reconstruction of pre-monarchic Israel since its authenticity is 
unimpeachable and its context supply enough information to date it firmly in 
the 12th century.  It is a rich and reliable source of historical information.

Lloyd Barre 

 

> **--------- Original Message follows... 

>To summarise, I am asking, on what basis are you choosing to accept 
certain parts of Joshua and Judges as historical (e.g. Adoni-Zedek 
king of Jerusalem, the song of Deborah) and other parts as 
unhistorical (e.g. the picture of a unified Israelite invasion of 
Canaan)? It sometimes looks a bit as if you accept what fits your 
theory and reject what does not, with no other criterion.

Peter


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[5]: The Origins of the Divided Monarchy
Author:  barre AT c-zone.net at internet
Date:    02/02/1999 13:17


Dear Peter,

I am unclear what you are saying here.  Would you elaborate?

Thanks,

Lloyd Barre

> **--------- Original Message follows...

>Thank you for the interesting speculation. I can't see it as more than 
that because it seems to me that you are choosing part of Judges etc 
arbitrarily to support your theory while rejecting others which do
not. But maybe you can find proper support for these ideas.

Peter Kirk

..
> ** Original Subject: Re[4]: The Origins of the Divided Monarchy 
> ** Original Sender: Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG
> ** Original Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 11:41:00 -0500 (EST) 
> **---------

>

Lloyd M. Barre, Ph.D.

barre AT c-zone.net
http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/AncientIsrael

"Do I dare
  Disturb the universe?"

  T.S. Eliot from, "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock." (1917)

.
> ** Original Subject: Re[6]: The Origins of the Divided Monarchy
> ** Original Sender: Peter_Kirk AT SIL.ORG
> ** Original Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 12:32:32 -0500 (EST)
> **---------

> 

Lloyd M. Barre, Ph.D.

barre AT c-zone.net
http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/AncientIsrael

"Do I dare
  Disturb the universe?"

  T.S. Eliot from, "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock." (1917)