I was recently reading through a section of Davies and Rogerson’s, The Old Testament World and came upon the statement below.
“An important point to bear in mind when reading about countries in the Old Testament is that traditional states did not have borders in the way that modern states do (see Giddens 1985:49–53). Modern states have borders defined both on maps and on the ground and claim total authority within those borders. In the world of the Old Testament countries were defined by border towns often sited near natural boundaries such as mountain ranges. Possession of a border town by a small garrison of soldiers enabled a monarch to claim to rule the whole country. In practice, very little actual control was exercised. This fact explains why the account of the “conquest” of Palestine by Joshua is so incomplete; for even if one doubts the historicity of the account, it will have made political sense to the writers and readers/hearers. It was necessary only for border towns such as Hazor and Lachish (Joshua 10:31–32; 11:10–13) to have been captured in order to claim that the whole land had been taken into possession, even though other conquests are also claimed in Joshua. Similarly, the heated arguments about whether or not David created a small empire may be seen in a different light if it is realized that it was necessary to capture and minimally garrison only a handful of border towns in order to claim control a number of surrounding nations. It is true that the book of Joshua contains descriptions of some of the tribal boundaries of an idealized Israel, but these are literary creations obtained by imagining lines running between towns claimed to belong to different tribes. These boundaries did not exist on maps (there were no maps in the modern sense) and were not boundaries in the modern sense (see Rogerson 1999: 116–26)” (Philip R. Davies and John Rogerson, The Old Testament World [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2005], 21–2.
While I tend to agree with the suggestion concerning the reality of fluid borders in the ancient world, I am not sure that the conclusions drawn from this by the authors is necessary or persuasive. Take for example the assertion that,
“This fact explains why the account of the “conquest” of Palestine by Joshua is so incomplete; for even if one doubts the historicity of the account, it will have made political sense to the writers and readers/hearers. It was necessary only for border towns such as Hazor and Lachish (Joshua 10:31–32; 11:10–13) to have been captured in order to claim that the whole land had been taken into possession, even though other conquests are also claimed in Joshua.”
Not only does this not square with the claims in Joshua 15–19, but it also difficult to explain the explicit recognition that the conquest was incomplete (Josh 9:14–15; 16:10; 17:12–18; 19:47; 23:7, 12–13; 24:23; cf. Judg 1:19–36). Indeed, one of the important theological points in Joshua and Judges is not that Israel could claim to have completed the conquest because it held the major border towns but rather that Israel had failed to complete the conquest of the land that God had given them.
One could also critique that statement that:
“Similarly, the heated arguments about whether or not David created a small empire may be seen in a different light if it is realized that it was necessary to capture and minimally garrison only a handful of border towns in order to claim control a number of surrounding nations.”
This statement is problematic for at least three reasons. (1) This argument implies that the ancient writers weren’t honest and the ancient readers were gullible. (2) This statement does not really do justice to the biblical text. For example, 2 Samuel 8 states that David put garrisons “in” the Aramean kingdom of Damascus and “throughout” Edom. These nations didn’t pay large tribute because David had a “minimal” number of men in a border town on the periphery of their territory; they submitted because their nation was subdued. (3) I am not sure how this “different light” really addresses the core issues that create the “heated arguments.” Such arguments typically involve whether David actually had a significant kingdom as the Bible seems to suggest or not. I do not believe that resorting to a geographical fiction, even if one could make a case for it culturally, really addresses that issue.
Finally, I am puzzled by the suggestion that,
“It is true that the book of Joshua contains descriptions of some of the tribal boundaries of an idealized Israel, but these are literary creations obtained by imagining lines running between towns claimed to belong to different tribes. These boundaries did not exist on maps (there were no maps in the modern sense) and were not boundaries in the modern sense (see Rogerson 1999: 116-26).”
Why would the author of Joshua resort to literary creation if it were not necessary to do so since the audience would not require it? Why would one draw imaginary lines running between towns if such lines were not the way boundaries were perceived in the culture? It seems like the authors of The Old Testament World want their cake and eat it too. Rather, one could just as easily argue that the reason why boundaries/borders were fluid is not because they could not be defined (or because ancient people could not conduct a survey), but because tribes and nations were often disputing the border (e.g., Judg 11; 1 Kgs 15; 2 Kgs 9). The very fact that there were border disputes indicates that borders were recognized and important.
“An important point to bear in mind when reading about countries in the Old Testament is that traditional states did not have borders in the way that modern states do (see Giddens 1985:49–53). Modern states have borders defined both on maps and on the ground and claim total authority within those borders. In the world of the Old Testament countries were defined by border towns often sited near natural boundaries such as mountain ranges. Possession of a border town by a small garrison of soldiers enabled a monarch to claim to rule the whole country. In practice, very little actual control was exercised. This fact explains why the account of the “conquest” of Palestine by Joshua is so incomplete; for even if one doubts the historicity of the account, it will have made political sense to the writers and readers/hearers. It was necessary only for border towns such as Hazor and Lachish (Joshua 10:31–32; 11:10–13) to have been captured in order to claim that the whole land had been taken into possession, even though other conquests are also claimed in Joshua. Similarly, the heated arguments about whether or not David created a small empire may be seen in a different light if it is realized that it was necessary to capture and minimally garrison only a handful of border towns in order to claim control a number of surrounding nations. It is true that the book of Joshua contains descriptions of some of the tribal boundaries of an idealized Israel, but these are literary creations obtained by imagining lines running between towns claimed to belong to different tribes. These boundaries did not exist on maps (there were no maps in the modern sense) and were not boundaries in the modern sense (see Rogerson 1999: 116–26)” (Philip R. Davies and John Rogerson, The Old Testament World [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2005], 21–2.
While I tend to agree with the suggestion concerning the reality of fluid borders in the ancient world, I am not sure that the conclusions drawn from this by the authors is necessary or persuasive. Take for example the assertion that,
“This fact explains why the account of the “conquest” of Palestine by Joshua is so incomplete; for even if one doubts the historicity of the account, it will have made political sense to the writers and readers/hearers. It was necessary only for border towns such as Hazor and Lachish (Joshua 10:31–32; 11:10–13) to have been captured in order to claim that the whole land had been taken into possession, even though other conquests are also claimed in Joshua.”
Not only does this not square with the claims in Joshua 15–19, but it also difficult to explain the explicit recognition that the conquest was incomplete (Josh 9:14–15; 16:10; 17:12–18; 19:47; 23:7, 12–13; 24:23; cf. Judg 1:19–36). Indeed, one of the important theological points in Joshua and Judges is not that Israel could claim to have completed the conquest because it held the major border towns but rather that Israel had failed to complete the conquest of the land that God had given them.
One could also critique that statement that:
“Similarly, the heated arguments about whether or not David created a small empire may be seen in a different light if it is realized that it was necessary to capture and minimally garrison only a handful of border towns in order to claim control a number of surrounding nations.”
This statement is problematic for at least three reasons. (1) This argument implies that the ancient writers weren’t honest and the ancient readers were gullible. (2) This statement does not really do justice to the biblical text. For example, 2 Samuel 8 states that David put garrisons “in” the Aramean kingdom of Damascus and “throughout” Edom. These nations didn’t pay large tribute because David had a “minimal” number of men in a border town on the periphery of their territory; they submitted because their nation was subdued. (3) I am not sure how this “different light” really addresses the core issues that create the “heated arguments.” Such arguments typically involve whether David actually had a significant kingdom as the Bible seems to suggest or not. I do not believe that resorting to a geographical fiction, even if one could make a case for it culturally, really addresses that issue.
Finally, I am puzzled by the suggestion that,
“It is true that the book of Joshua contains descriptions of some of the tribal boundaries of an idealized Israel, but these are literary creations obtained by imagining lines running between towns claimed to belong to different tribes. These boundaries did not exist on maps (there were no maps in the modern sense) and were not boundaries in the modern sense (see Rogerson 1999: 116-26).”
Why would the author of Joshua resort to literary creation if it were not necessary to do so since the audience would not require it? Why would one draw imaginary lines running between towns if such lines were not the way boundaries were perceived in the culture? It seems like the authors of The Old Testament World want their cake and eat it too. Rather, one could just as easily argue that the reason why boundaries/borders were fluid is not because they could not be defined (or because ancient people could not conduct a survey), but because tribes and nations were often disputing the border (e.g., Judg 11; 1 Kgs 15; 2 Kgs 9). The very fact that there were border disputes indicates that borders were recognized and important.
No comments:
Post a Comment