Joshua 17:18: “But the mountain country shall be yours. Although it is wooded, you shall cut it down, and its farthest extent shall be yours; for you shall drive out the Canaanites, though they have iron chariots and are strong.”
Judges 1:19: “So the Lord was with Judah. And they drove out the mountaineers, but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the lowland, because they had chariots of iron.”
25 comments:
As with everything else, your answer will be determined by what sources of information those you ask find most credible.
If you know what sources a person holds near and dear to themselves, and how highly they regard those sources, you can forecast their answers.
BB
Joshua never completed settling the tribes - it looks like the Bible records what actually happened in the settling process - or at least the history that was handed down to the author(s).
It is interesting to see when miracles were recorded and when they were not.
In answer to your question, sometimes the enemies were miraculously routed and sometimes the enemies won.
Is the an all powerful YHVH?
Why not? Maybe humans are not the first intelligent being on this planet.
The universe has existed about 14 billion years and the Earth about 4 billion years.
That is a lot of time for things to happen before Man was around.
I believe the answer is Presentism. Presentism is the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past. When the Tanakh was written, it wasn't done so as pure history, but as a present-day explanation for why things were the way they were. Since it was believed that Yahweh was Judah's god, and since Yahweh was also the Lord of Hosts (heavenly armies), then Judah should have won the battle. Since they did not win, Yahweh and the heavenly hosts must have been overpowered on that day by more advanced technology.
Everything that can be considered historical in the Tanakh is similarly written with presentism - if the armies of Israel and Judah win a battle, Yahweh was on their side instructing them to savagely kill anything and everything that moved...just keep the young virgins for your own pleasure...for it is god's will (Numbers 31:17-18). If the armies of Israel and Judah lose the battle, Yahweh must be having an off-day, or Israel and Judah need a bout of heavenly spanking.
The Chariots of Iron were recalled by the manufacturer due to faulty wheel bearings.
What would be your answer BB?
942...and faulty airbags
901...like it!
Dennis @ 11:38:
If you continue reading Judges in context, you are soon encountered with the answer in Judges 2:1-3
"The angel of the Lord went up from Gilgal to Bokim, and said 'I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land I swore to give to your ancestors. I said I will never break my covenant with you and you shall not make a covenant with the people of this land, but you shall break down their altars. Yet you have disobeyed me. Why have you done this? And I have also said I will not drive them out before you; they will become traps for you, and their gods will become snares to you.'"
Belief or nonbelief completely aside, if this were Shakespeare or the Iliad and the Odyssey that we were discussing, the correct answer to your quiz would be based on what else was stated in the author's work.
BB
But it says that the Lord could not drive the people of the valley out because they had chariots of iron, not because I could but you disobeyed so I won't. The later comment by the author may be an apologetic for why they lost the battle as another poster defined as "Presentism". Makes more sense to reality. If they won, God did it. If they lose, God must have retracted the promise for some reason...how about "disobedience"? Yeah that's it!
At any rate, the original reason for YHVH being unable to win is not because he changed his mind and withdrew his promise of victory over chariots of iron because of the people's disobedience, but because they simply had chariots of iron which YHVH had problems with evidently.
There is nothing to prevent Judges 2 being a redaction of the story to explain the obvious defeat. That's what authors did when what they thought would happened and was previously written down, did not happen as planned. Solution, add a bit more to the tale so folk don't really think YHVH could not defeat chariots of iron.
Great stuff! :) And too, this is not MY question, but a question that theologians and higher critics have asked since the book was written.
What occurs to me, Dennis, is if your hypothetical is the reality, why would anyone who intended the story to be believed even bother to write it down and let it stand? Because if what you see in it was the intent, the writer was not subtle in any way with his excuse. How could something have survived for thousands of years that even a novice reader would have serious questions regarding, let alone theologians or higher critics? The explanation is beneath their level!
There were many nuances to the ancient languages and literary methodology which were not fully understood even by the Bible’s translators. Hebrew is the last surviving Canaanite language, and the only example of a dead language which has ever been successfully revived. Originally, Hebrew ceased to be used as a spoken language somewhere between 200 and 400 CE. Aramaic and Greek were favored in the early Christian era. As COGlodytes, we did not understand that “all” or “forever” did not mean to the ancient Hebrews what they mean to us today. And those are some of the simpler examples. It goes much deeper than that.
Still, I actually obtain encouragement from an ancient tale in which God rewards partial obedience with only partial victory. That leads me to some really interesting conclusions as to why nothing turned out as we expected in Armstrongism. Whatever ingredients would have kicked in God’s blessings of validation and fulfillment were totally missing. God’s truth? Based on the results, how could it have been? I suspect that if the truth had ever been there in the 1930s, it most certainly became lost the first time HWA snuck into Dorothy’s bedroom. Personally, though, I don’t believe that God ever had anything to do with HWA, a man who parsed and imbibed of all of the Old Testament legalism to the exclusion of the love which identifies Christians.
BB
“Can YHVH defeat Chariots of Iron or Not?” Yes he can - 900 hundred - probably 90 (hyperbole factor of ten) - in one conflict.
Jdg 4:13 And Sisera gathered together all his chariots, even nine hundred chariots of iron, and all the people that were with him, from Harosheth of the Gentiles unto the river of Kishon.
Jdg 4:15 And the LORD discomfited [hamam - “routed”] Sisera, and all his chariots, and all his host, with the edge of the sword before Barak; so that Sisera lighted down off his chariot, and fled away on his feet.
Jdg 4:16 But Barak pursued after the chariots, and after the host, unto Harosheth of the Gentiles: and all the host of Sisera fell upon the edge of the sword; and there was not a man left.
Jdg 5:19 The kings came and fought, then fought the kings of Canaan in Taanach by the waters of Megiddo; they took no gain of money.
Ex 14:24 And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled [hamam - “routed”] the host of the Egyptians,
Ex 14:25 And took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily: so that the Egyptians said, Let us flee from the face of Israel; for the LORD fighteth for them against the Egyptians.
“river of Koshon” above and below.
Songs of Deborah and Moses
Jdg 5:20 They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera.
Jdg 5:21 The river of Kishon swept them away, that ancient river, the river Kishon. O my soul, thou hast trodden down strength.
Ex 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
Ex 15:4 Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea.
“The Lord’s control of the forces of nature showed his superiority over Baal, the Canaanite storm god. Sisera would not have tried to depend on chariots during the rainy season; so this storm probably struck some time after the spring rains that normally end in May. In Palestine rain is almost unheard of from June through September... the swelling river turned the ground to mud that clogged the wheels” (Herbert Wolf, Judges, EBC, Vol.3, p.406).
“... there came down from heaven a great storm, with a vast quantity of rain and hail, and the wind blew the rain in the face of the Canaanites, and so darkened their eyes, that their arrows and slings were of no advantage to them, nor would the coldness of the air permit to make use of their swords” (Josephus, Antiquites, Book 5, 205).
“20-22 ... these three verses elaborated on the matter-of-fact statement of 4:15 that Yahweh “threw Sisera and all his chariotry all his troops into disarray” before Barak. The means, as these verses disclose, was by suddenly turning the Kishron into a raging torrent that swept them all away. In verse 20 Yahweh (given 4:15 there is no need to mention him explicitly) deploys the stars against Sisera. The Canaanites thought of the stars as heavenly powers that controlled the weather... Here they are pictured as a heavenly army which fights against Sisera by a flash flood, presumably by means of a huge downpour in the mountain catchment area of the Kishon. As the water rushes down from the hills through the mountain passes, it is concentrated into a powerful torrent that catches Sisera’s men by surprise and instantly nullifies their technical advantage by rendering their impressive chariots useless. It is equivalent of the avalanche of water that did the same thing to Pharaoh’s horses and riders in the Red Sea. There is no need to assume that a miraculous kind of selectivity was involved (the water “picking out” only Sisera’s men and harmlessly bypassing Barak’s). Since Yahweh “went out before” Barak (4:14), the water had probably already done its work before Barak and his men reached the valley floor; all they had to do was complete the rout...” (Barry G. Webb, The Book of Judges, NICOT, pp.214-15).
It's a matter of strategy of taking the promised land "step by step".
First you take the High Ground. (That's why the Golan Heights are still disputed. From the Golan Height one controls Damascus and the Syrian plain with artillery fire.)
After you settle in the High Lands you take the Low lands.
Did any of you ever try as a bunch of mountain rabble family men, to fight an experienced fighting machine rolling 80 chariots at your lines at high speed? You are minced meat before you know it. Real wariors speeding, crushing your lines, firing arrows at rapid speed, trampling horses, then the auxiliary moves in throws some spears and the cavalry finishes you off.
No YHWH can help such a bunch of inexperienced greenhorns and maverick army against the city dwellers of the plains.
The lesson. First settle in mountain fortresses, establish command and control centers, breed and raise some young soldiers, then capture the low land.
Oh yes and I guess many spiritual lessons aswell.
nck
Chariots were eventually abandoned as a military weapon. It was found that by having a long row of long spears facing a chariot, and leaving an opening in the middle, the horse would instinctively go through the opening. It was then encircled and destroyed. Chariots were thus made obsolete.
What occurs to me, Dennis, is if your hypothetical is the reality, why would anyone who intended the story to be believed even bother to write it down and let it stand?
Because, although this is almost impossible for modern Protestant Christians to believe or even to comprehend, it has only been in the last couple hundred years or so that anyone has tried to read the Bible as a book of inerrant history. Remember, for most of the Bible's existence it was not a book for the masses to read. "Contradictions" weren't a problem. The Tanakh — Torah, Writings, and Prophets — was Israel's holy book, not its history book. Christianity muddled this with its need for Jesus' actions and teachings to be situated in historical context, but even Martin Luther didn't take the Bible to be a history text from Genesis to Revelation, and even as a holy book he was perfectly content to emphasize some parts while de-emphasizing others.
"The lesson. First settle in mountain fortresses, establish command and control centers, breed and raise some young soldiers, then capture the low land."
Oops I forgot........
In order to take the mountains, drop spies with suitcases with millions of sistertetia and bribe the local tribal leaders. Buy the more powerful ones and promise them positions of power once the new government is established.
Establish clear lines of demarcation and start raining arrows on the plain.
Move in the bought local tribes and follow with the elite infantry of ones own race (101 airborne).
The Promised Land according to the Afghanistan scenario as bought by the CIA.
nck
Dennis. I will answer your question if you can answer mine. What is the proof there is no God?
The point is.
101 prayed to God. The Taliban to Allah. The dollars won the game.
Since contrary to Dennis I feel the bible is inerrant my explanation is that some force of a political nature was not able to deliver the Israelites and win the plain, putting the blame elsewhere as a decoy, plainly "hidden' in the ancient text.
We must not forget that the entire Israelite invasion of palestine happened during a political vaccuum when the Egyptian and Hittite and Babylonian empire for several reasons diverted their attention elsewhere instead of the "costly Vietnam" of the Hill area along the Mediterenean. The Amarna letters show heavy correspondence between the leaders of the original hill tribes and the Egyptian court. But Egypt had problems of their own and could not fight "Labayu" or come to the assistance of their allies let alone defend their own border stations. I guess the other empires felt the same at the time, so several tribes moved into a political vaccuum giving birth to Kingdom of Israel.
Of course later centralized temple scribes edited out the entire older decentralized Edomite religion (chief tribe of the Hebrews) in order to be able to destroy all the "old time" religion with "High Places" and "snake worship". At least some traces are left in the text that the old religion lived on but was demonized as pagan and devilworship while it was in fact the original religion of cannaan.
Traces are female leadership roles like Deborah, who clearly must have been a daughter of the "Host of the Lord" whose authority had been the keeper of the original "Mountain God" at Seir. And Josuah grovelled before this military leader before entering the promised land.
Later of course the scribes made it so that this spiritual military leader with the authority to declare land Holy was some sort of divine being, but the "Host of the Lord" is just a designation like, 1st Army Corps.
nck
NCK we agree on the concept of upgrading realities as opposed to what was hoped would happen. I don't see however how "decoys plainly hidden" promotes inerrancy. It seems to promote "oops, better correct that"
The author of 2 Peter does the same thing when the second coming went long, apostles and Christians who were supposed to be alive and remain...were dead. A reboot was in order. First to notice it got you called a scoffed then new truth of a day with the lord is as a thousand years stupid etc gets brought up. No one thought this until the concept was needed she a simple "oops, we were wrong" would do. God is giving us more time" and all that. Also a lie.
10:43 Dennis
Yes, I understand.
I use inerrancy as a "concept".
Just like the pope is "infallible".
It just means "the case is closed, the final authority has investigated and decided", not that the decisions of this man are beyond error.
I believe the "truth" is in the bible as Paul saw it. Then we interpret that he was psychotic or deoressed on the road to Damascus or might have received divine calling.
We can also see Paul quoting Greek poets if one has the knowledge. It is thus open en plain while hidden forca modern audience.
We also see people opine on wether a god would be unable to fight chariots.
I believe there is a hidden political and military reality hidden for the modern reader. I speculated on several possibilities to emphasize that point and drewca comparison with another powerfull army fighting insurgents and terrorists who could not win war through sheer power bit rather hidden for the general public bribed their way through Cia agents dropped with stacks of dollars.
Cannot the "in god we trust" god of the indisoensible nation defeat a bunch of ill armed goat herders in afghanistan?
About the same question you raised in an ancient context while I opined with a modern example.
I'm not into providing answers but rather provoke more questions.
Perhaps the writers of the bible understood that concept also.
Nck
It has always been a game of rock-paper-scissors. The scissors (steel) won over the paper (wood) but it was no match for rock (Catapults).
If the Israelites sent the artillery division up front with their wooden arrows, the chariot drivers raised their shields and protected against the raining arrows and then the steel chariots rolled over the fallen arrows easily.
However if they sent the catapult division first, the chariots advance paths was littered with rocks and they lost due to the confusion: chariots have no reverse gear; turning around was confusing and exposed the bare backs of the chariot drivers as no one thought to protect the back. A flimsy shield doesn't offer much protection from hundreds of pounds of rocks raining over you.
If you depended on "guidance from god and the high priest" as to your battle strategy rather from learning from your experience, you never noticed that you always won with the catapults.
5.14 AM
Martin Luther didn't even disagree with government lording it over peoples faith. He ignored the parts of the Bible that he didn't like.
Ah yes, another lesson. It requires faith to confront iron battle chariots (goliath) with slings and bronze (david).
In the end the slings would win since the chariots require flat surface (persians vs alexander at gaugamelah) the great.
But without the faith, a rational aproach would deliver the outcome in the hands of the more disciplined and experienced army. Whereas a tribe like judah was and still is known for its agressive posture, unity and discipline through faith and common cause and destiny and individual creative use of the possibilities as the smaller army (lion).
Indeed US vs Taliban. (rational thinking would have that war wage 5 minutes, not 20 years.
Nck
Matt: 13:58 may provide additional insights re: original question (while raising more questions)
BB
Following along from BB’s comment:
Ac 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Sometimes God needs to give His people a helping hand to carry out His will:
Ac 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
Ac 8:4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.
“The scattering of the Christians led to the most significant step forward in the mission of the church. One might say that it required persecution to make them fulfil the implicit command in 1:8” (I. Howard Marshall, Acts, TNTC, p.152).
BB and I seem to agree on the faith aspect here.
People may differ on the extra terrestrial aspect of the story or tge aspect of morale, that every commander knows can be decisive.
Roman lines depended on sheer discipline, where each neighbor shielded the next one, hacking away right handed with short swords.
Nck
Post a Comment