Introduction:
The conquest of the Land of
Canaan from the seven nations and the apparent decimation of all its
inhabitants, followed by its appropriation by the Israelites, raises some
interesting questions. Why did Israel’s history in the land have to begin with
a violent conquest? Could not the epic tradition surrounding the founding of a
just and moral nation under the guidance of a just and moral G-d, be something
other than a conquest that is so typical of the founding traditions of other
less moral nations?
In this article, we shall explore
some of the primary texts of the Tanach, and try to establish what the
biblical verses themselves have to say about this conquest.
Our premise for this analysis is that biblical texts, particularly those of the Prophets and Writings (Nach) do not always speak with one voice and that they may, instead, reflect different ideologies and perspectives. One just has to compare the often violent and evocative imagery of Ezekiel as compared to the softer and more hopeful message of Isaiah to understand their different theological viewpoints. These differences pervade much of biblical literature and should not be overlooked in favour of creating a construct based on one harmonious biblical voice. On this view, these theological nuances should be anticipated and expected by the astute reader as part of his or her basic study methodology, rather than be taken by surprise when these scriptural streams become evident.
Let us look at some of these
varying ideologies which are to be found within the biblical texts surrounding
the matter of the conquest of the land.
1) The first Rashi on
Bereishit
This is the very first commentary
of Rashi explaining the first verse of the Genesis: “In the beginning G-d
created the heavens and the earth”.
בראשית.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק לֹֹֹֹֹא הָיָה צָרִיךְ לְהַתְחִיל אֶת הַתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא
מֵהַחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה לָכֶם, שֶׁהִיא מִצְוָה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁנִּצְטַוּוּ בָּהּ
יִשׂרָאֵל, וּמַה טַּעַם פָּתַח בִּבְרֵאשִׁית? מִשׁוּם כֹּחַ מַעֲשָׂיו הִגִּיד
לְעַמּוֹ לָתֵת לָהֶם נַחֲלַת גּוֹיִם (תהילים קי"א), שֶׁאִם יֹאמְרוּ
אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם לְיִשְׁרָאֵל לִסְטִים אַתֶּם, שֶׁכְּבַשְׁתֶּם אַרְצוֹת
שִׁבְעָה גוֹיִם, הֵם אוֹמְרִים לָהֶם כָּל הָאָרֶץ שֶׁל הַקָּבָּ"ה הִיא,
הוּא בְרָאָהּ וּנְתָנָהּ לַאֲשֶׁר יָשַׁר בְּעֵינָיו, בִּרְצוֹנוֹ נְתָנָהּ לָהֶם,
וּבִרְצוֹנוֹ נְטָלָהּ מֵהֶם וּנְתָנָהּ לָנוּ
Rashi, quoting from Yalkut Shimoni, wonders why the Torah didn’t
rather simply start at a later verse (Exodus 12:2) which deals with the first
commandment given to Israel, instead of beginning with the universal story of
the creation. He answers that the Torah had to begin with the creation story so
that if, at some later point in Jewish history, people point fingers at Israel
saying that they unjustly conquered the land of the Canaanites and took it for
themselves – then Israel could answer that G-d created the world and all its
land, and He deemed it necessary for one people to be conquered, and their land
be given to Israel instead!
This way, according to Rashi, there is biblical justification for the
conquest of the land and its source is the opening verse of the Torah. G-d can give
the land to whomever He wants and then take it and give it to another because
all land was created by, and therefore belongs to, Him.
This Rashi is in keeping with the biblical texts which depict a total
destruction[1]
of the Canaanite nations:
1a) Total destruction of the
Canaanite nations
Certain, but not all biblical
texts depict an image of the total annihilation of the Canaanite nations.
·
Deuteronomy 7:1-2
anticipates the total annihilation of the inhabitants of Canaan whom the
Israelites are about to conquer. The Canaanites will be “dislodged” from
their land and “you must doom them to destruction: grant them no terms and
show them no mercy”:
כִּ֤י יְבִֽיאֲךָ֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ
אֶל־הָאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּ֥ה בָא־שָׁ֖מָּה לְרִשְׁתָּ֑הּ וְנָשַׁ֣ל גּֽוֹיִם־רַבִּ֣ים ׀ מִפָּנֶ֡יךָ
הַֽחִתִּי֩ וְהַגִּרְגָּשִׁ֨י וְהָאֱמֹרִ֜י וְהַכְּנַעֲנִ֣י וְהַפְּרִזִּ֗י
וְהַֽחִוִּי֙ וְהַיְבוּסִ֔י שִׁבְעָ֣ה גוֹיִ֔ם רַבִּ֥ים וַעֲצוּמִ֖ים מִמֶּֽךָּ׃
וּנְתָנָ֞ם יְהֹוָ֧ה אֱלֹהֶ֛יךָ לְפָנֶ֖יךָ וְהִכִּיתָ֑ם הַחֲרֵ֤ם תַּחֲרִים֙
אֹתָ֔ם לֹא־תִכְרֹ֥ת לָהֶ֛ם בְּרִ֖ית וְלֹ֥א תְחׇנֵּֽם׃
·
Joshua 6:21 describes the total annihilation of every person, young and
old as well as all the animals:
וַֽיַּחֲרִ֙ימוּ֙
אֶת־כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר בָּעִ֔יר מֵאִישׁ֙
וְעַד־אִשָּׁ֔ה מִנַּ֖עַר וְעַד־זָקֵ֑ן וְעַ֨ד שׁ֥וֹר וָשֶׂ֛ה וַחֲמ֖וֹר
לְפִי־חָֽרֶב׃
·
Joshua 8:26 speaks of not drawing back the hand with which he held out
his javelin when he destroyed the city of Ai:
וִיהוֹשֻׁ֙עַ֙
לֹֽא־הֵשִׁ֣יב יָד֔וֹ
אֲשֶׁ֥ר נָטָ֖ה בַּכִּיד֑וֹן עַ֚ד אֲשֶׁ֣ר הֶחֱרִ֔ים אֵ֖ת כָּל־יֹשְׁבֵ֥י הָעָֽי׃
·
And in Joshua 8:28 the city is burned to a mound of ruins:
וַיִּשְׂרֹ֥ף יְהוֹשֻׁ֖עַ אֶת־הָעָ֑י וַיְשִׂימֶ֤הָ תֵּל־עוֹלָם֙ שְׁמָמָ֔ה עַ֖ד הַיּ֥וֹם
הַזֶּֽה׃
·
Joshua 10:28 depicts not a single survivor from the city of Makedah:
וְאֶת־מַקֵּדָה֩
לָכַ֨ד יְהוֹשֻׁ֜עַ בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֗וּא וַיַּכֶּ֣הָ לְפִי־חֶרֶב֮ וְאֶת־מַלְכָּהּ֒ הֶחֱרִ֣ם אוֹתָ֗ם וְאֶת־כָּל־הַנֶּ֙פֶשׁ֙
אֲשֶׁר־בָּ֔הּ לֹ֥א הִשְׁאִ֖יר שָׂרִ֑יד וַיַּ֙עַשׂ֙ לְמֶ֣לֶךְ מַקֵּדָ֔ה
כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשָׂ֖ה לְמֶ֥לֶךְ יְרִיחֽוֹ׃
·
In Joshua 19:35, the inhabitants of Eglon are completely annihilated
without a sole survivor as is the fate of Lachish:
וַֽיִּלְכְּד֜וּהָ
בַּיּ֤וֹם הַהוּא֙ וַיַּכּ֣וּהָ
לְפִי־חֶ֔רֶב וְאֵת֙ כָּל־הַנֶּ֣פֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר־בָּ֔הּ בַּיּ֥וֹם הַה֖וּא
הֶחֱרִ֑ים כְּכֹ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂ֖ה לְלָכִֽישׁ׃
There are many other such
examples of a total and ruthless conquest of the land.
But there are also other accounts
which paint a slightly different picture:
2) Incomplete destruction
of the Canaanite nations
The books of Joshua and Judges contain
descriptions of a different type of conquest which did not involve total
destruction. In these depictions, large sections of the Canaanite population
remained in place and were not destroyed.
·
Joshua 17:12-13 describe
how the Canaanites “stubbornly remained” in certain regions and could
not be dispossessed of their land:
וְלֹ֤א יָכְלוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י מְנַשֶּׁ֔ה לְהוֹרִ֖ישׁ אֶת־הֶֽעָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֑לֶּה וַיּ֙וֹאֶל֙ הַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֔י
לָשֶׁ֖בֶת בָּאָ֥רֶץ הַזֹּֽאת׃
וַֽיְהִ֗י
כִּ֤י חָֽזְקוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וַיִּתְּנ֥וּ אֶת־הַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֖י לָמַ֑ס וְהוֹרֵ֖שׁ לֹ֥א הוֹרִישֽׁוֹ׃
·
The book of Judges also shows how many areas of Canaan were not able to
be subdued by the Israelites and the Canaanites “persisted in dwelling in
the land”:
וְלֹֽא־הוֹרִ֣ישׁ מְנַשֶּׁ֗ה אֶת־בֵּית־שְׁאָ֣ן וְאֶת־בְּנוֹתֶ֘יהָ֮
וְאֶת־תַּעְנַ֣ךְ וְאֶת־בְּנֹתֶ֒יהָ֒ וְאֶת־[יוֹשְׁבֵ֨י] (יושב) ד֜וֹר
וְאֶת־בְּנוֹתֶ֗יהָ וְאֶת־יוֹשְׁבֵ֤י יִבְלְעָם֙ וְאֶת־בְּנֹתֶ֔יהָ
וְאֶת־יוֹשְׁבֵ֥י מְגִדּ֖וֹ וְאֶת־בְּנוֹתֶ֑יהָ וַיּ֙וֹאֶל֙ הַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֔י לָשֶׁ֖בֶת בָּאָ֥רֶץ הַזֹּֽאת׃
·
2 Samuel 5:6-7 recounts how
Jerusalem remained a Canaanite stronghold right up to the time of King David
who was told that “even the blind and the lame will turn you back”. Eventually
David was able to subdue Jerusalem:
וַיֵּ֨לֶךְ
הַמֶּ֤לֶךְ וַֽאֲנָשָׁיו֙ יְר֣וּשָׁלַ֔͏ִם אֶל־הַיְבֻסִ֖י יוֹשֵׁ֣ב הָאָ֑רֶץ
וַיֹּ֨אמֶר לְדָוִ֤ד לֵאמֹר֙ לֹא־תָב֣וֹא
הֵ֔נָּה כִּ֣י אִם־הֱסִֽירְךָ֗ הַעִוְרִ֤ים וְהַפִּסְחִים֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר
לֹא־יָב֥וֹא דָוִ֖ד הֵֽנָּה׃
וַיִּלְכֹּ֣ד
דָּוִ֔ד אֵ֖ת מְצֻדַ֣ת צִיּ֑וֹן הִ֖יא עִ֥יר דָּוִֽד׃
The reasons for the Israelites not being able to subdue the Canaanites
are various depending on the sources. Sometimes, as we have seen, the
Israelites are just unable to conquer certain areas – and other times the
Canaanites are just not driven out at all.
·
Joshua 16:10 tells how “they did not dispossess the Canaanites who
dwelt in Gezer” so they remained living amongst the Israelites although
they had to do forced labour:
וְלֹ֣א הוֹרִ֔ישׁוּ
אֶת־הַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֖י הַיּוֹשֵׁ֣ב בְּגָ֑זֶר וַיֵּ֨שֶׁב הַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֜י בְּקֶ֤רֶב
אֶפְרַ֙יִם֙ עַד־הַיּ֣וֹם הַזֶּ֔ה וַיְהִ֖י
לְמַס־עֹבֵֽד׃
·
Judges 2:23 describes how some Canaanites were left in the land and
remained there and were not driven out:
וַיַּנַּ֤ח יְהֹוָה֙ אֶת־הַגּוֹיִ֣ם
הָאֵ֔לֶּה לְבִלְתִּ֥י הוֹרִישָׁ֖ם מַהֵ֑ר וְלֹ֥א נְתָנָ֖ם
בְּיַד־יְהוֹשֻֽׁעַ׃
·
And the Israelites
continued living side by side with six Canaanite nations (and then eventually
intermarried with them):
וּבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל יָשְׁב֖וּ
בְּקֶ֣רֶב הַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֑י הַחִתִּ֤י וְהָאֱמֹרִי֙ וְהַפְּרִזִּ֔י
וְהַחִוִּ֖י וְהַיְבוּסִֽי׃
3) Canaanite inclusion
·
Some texts emphasise that the Canaanites were occasionally assimilated
within the Israelite community as we see with Rahab and her family (Joshua 2).
וְהָיְתָ֨ה הָעִ֥יר חֵ֛רֶם הִ֥יא
וְכָל־אֲשֶׁר־בָּ֖הּ לַֽיהוָ֑ה רַק֩ רָחָ֨ב הַזּוֹנָ֜ה תִּֽחְיֶ֗ה הִ֚יא וְכָל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר אִתָּ֣הּ
בַּבַּ֔יִת כִּ֣י הֶחְבְּאַ֔תָה אֶת־הַמַּלְאָכִ֖ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר שָׁלָֽחְנוּ׃
·
Joshua 9:15 describes how the people of Givon (Gibeonites) pretended
they had come from a far-off land and wanted to be assimilated amongst the people
of Israel. Joshua made a covenant with them and they were thus incorporated
within Am Yisrael:
וַיַּ֨עַשׂ
לָהֶ֤ם יְהוֹשֻׁ֙עַ֙ שָׁל֔וֹם וַיִּכְרֹ֥ת
לָהֶ֛ם בְּרִ֖ית לְחַיּוֹתָ֑ם וַיִּשָּׁבְע֣וּ לָהֶ֔ם נְשִׂיאֵ֖י הָעֵדָֽה׃
According to Sara Japhet[2]
(1979:207) the relationship between the Canaanites and the Israelites ranges “from
full subordination to independence and domination”.
4) Driving out and expulsion instead of conquest
·
Many texts (mainly from Exodus) adopt a different approach and speak of
the Canaanite population being driven out instead of being conquered
and it is not intended for there to be any loss of life. Exodus 23:28-30 tells
of the nations of Canaan being “driven out”:
וְשָׁלַחְתִּ֥י
אֶת־הַצִּרְעָ֖ה לְפָנֶ֑יךָ וְגֵרְשָׁ֗ה
אֶת־הַחִוִּ֧י אֶת־הַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֛י וְאֶת־הַחִתִּ֖י מִלְּפָנֶֽיךָ׃
לֹ֧א
אֲגָרְשֶׁ֛נּוּ
מִפָּנֶ֖יךָ בְּשָׁנָ֣ה אֶחָ֑ת פֶּן־תִּהְיֶ֤ה הָאָ֙רֶץ֙ שְׁמָמָ֔ה וְרַבָּ֥ה
עָלֶ֖יךָ חַיַּ֥ת הַשָּׂדֶֽה׃
מְעַ֥ט
מְעַ֛ט אֲגָרְשֶׁ֖נּוּ
מִפָּנֶ֑יךָ עַ֚ד אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּפְרֶ֔ה וְנָחַלְתָּ֖ אֶת־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
Here the reference seems to be a passive driving out by some form of
pestilence, often described as “hornets”, but there is no mention of military conquest
or loss of life.
·
Judges 6:9 also describes a very different picture of G-d himself
driving out the population with no military conquest:
וָאַצִּ֤ל
אֶתְכֶם֙ מִיַּ֣ד מִצְרַ֔יִם וּמִיַּ֖ד כׇּל־לֹחֲצֵיכֶ֑ם וָאֲגָרֵ֤שׁ אוֹתָם֙ מִפְּנֵיכֶ֔ם
וָאֶתְּנָ֥ה לָכֶ֖ם אֶת־אַרְצָֽם׃
·
And Joshua 24:12 speaks of hornets driving out two Amorites kingdoms and
it is “not by your sword or by your bow”:
וָאֶשְׁלַ֤ח
לִפְנֵיכֶם֙ אֶת־הַצִּרְעָ֔ה וַתְּגָ֤רֶשׁ
אוֹתָם֙ מִפְּנֵיכֶ֔ם שְׁנֵ֖י מַלְכֵ֣י הָאֱמֹרִ֑י לֹ֥א בְחַרְבְּךָ֖ וְלֹ֥א בְקַשְׁתֶּֽךָ׃
5) The land disgorging its inhabitants
·
The text from Leviticus 18:27-28 anticipates and describes a different
form of expulsion which involves neither military conquest nor G-d driving out
the inhabitants. Here the subject is the land itself which “disgorges” its
inhabitants. This text depicts the land being unable to tolerate those who “pollute”
it and it is sickened by evil behaviour that it “disgorges” and “spews
out” its inhabitants:
כִּ֚י
אֶת־כׇּל־הַתּוֹעֵבֹ֣ת הָאֵ֔ל עָשׂ֥וּ אַנְשֵֽׁי־הָאָ֖רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לִפְנֵיכֶ֑ם וַתִּטְמָ֖א הָאָֽרֶץ׃
וְלֹֽא־תָקִ֤יא
הָאָ֙רֶץ֙ אֶתְכֶ֔ם בְּטַֽמַּאֲכֶ֖ם אֹתָ֑הּ כַּאֲשֶׁ֥ר קָאָ֛ה אֶת־הַגּ֖וֹי אֲשֶׁ֥ר לִפְנֵיכֶֽם׃
Whatever this text may mean theologically, it describes a very different
form of ridding the Canaanites from the land and in fact, the implication seems
to be that the land will be evacuated even before the Israelites arrive in the
land!
6) Conquest by G-d
The majority of the texts we have seen do indicate that there was some
ongoing Canaanite presence in the land and that there was no complete or total
annihilation of the local population. The texts that do suggest some violent
form of destruction are from Deuteronomy and Joshua which are often noted for
their use of hyperbolic and exaggerated language. Yet even these texts downplay
Israel’s military might and depict much of conquering as being performed by
G-d’s own hand:
·
G-d is seen as being implicated for some of the destruction through
events like a seven-day ritual at Jericho, hailstones and prolonged daylight at
Givon (Gibeon) where, as Joshua 10:11 records “more perished from the
hailstones than were killed by the Israelite weapons”:
וַיְהִ֞י
בְּנֻסָ֣ם ׀ מִפְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל הֵ֞ם בְּמוֹרַ֤ד בֵּית־חוֹרֹן֙ וַיהֹוָ֡ה
הִשְׁלִ֣יךְ עֲלֵיהֶם֩ אֲבָנִ֨ים גְּדֹל֧וֹת מִן־הַשָּׁמַ֛יִם עַד־עֲזֵקָ֖ה וַיָּמֻ֑תוּ רַבִּ֗ים
אֲשֶׁר־מֵ֙תוּ֙ בְּאַבְנֵ֣י הַבָּרָ֔ד מֵאֲשֶׁ֥ר הָרְג֛וּ בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל
בֶּחָֽרֶב׃
·
And in verse 13, the passage of the sun is described as being halted in
the sky:
וַיִּדֹּ֨ם הַשֶּׁ֜מֶשׁ וְיָרֵ֣חַ עָמָ֗ד עַד־יִקֹּ֥ם גּוֹי֙
אֹֽיְבָ֔יו הֲלֹא־הִ֥יא כְתוּבָ֖ה עַל־סֵ֣פֶר הַיָּשָׁ֑ר וַיַּעֲמֹ֤ד הַשֶּׁ֙מֶשׁ֙
בַּחֲצִ֣י הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וְלֹא־אָ֥ץ לָב֖וֹא כְּי֥וֹם תָּמִֽים׃
These texts indicate that much of the apparent destruction of these
violent accounts is described as emanating from G-d’s own agency more than from
the independent military force of an occupying army.
7) Texts which remain silent on the conquest
Perhaps most interesting are the texts which make no reference
whatsoever to: 1) the total destruction of the indigenous population; 2) nor to
partial annihilation; 3) nor to inclusion of some sort within the Israelite
population; 4) nor to driving out the inhabitants; 5) nor to disgorging them;
6) nor to a conquest through G-d’s agency – but instead; 7) remain entirely
silent on the matter of the conquest.
The book of Divrei haYamim, or Chronicles, which is known as a “parallel
historiography”, retells the already known story of the history of Israel.
It starts with Adam and ends with the destruction of the First Temple. But it leaves
out the intermediate history from Exodus through 1 Samuel. There is no Exodus
and no revelation at Sinai. There is no settlement (in whatever form) in the
land and the periods of Joshua, the judges and Saul are not described.
Japhet (1979:205) argues that the Chronicler presents an “alternate
version” of Israel’s history which minimises the importance of the exodus
and the conquest and subtly suggests that Israel was always in the land.
Perhaps, given that the Chronicler wrote during the Persian period when Judah
was subjected to Persian authority and when Egypt too was incorporated into the
Persian Empire, it was felt politically expedient to stress Israel’s
long-standing claim to the land as if they had never left it since the time of
Abraham.
·
1 Chronicles 13:2 refers unusually to those “who remain in all the
land of Israel”:
אַחֵ֣ינוּ הַנִּשְׁאָרִ֗ים בְּכֹל֙
אַרְצ֣וֹת יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל
·
To emphasise its very nationalistic approach, Chronicles almost always
refers to Jacob by the name Israel;
“even in stereotyped phrases such as ‘the God
of Abraham, Isaac and Israel (Japhet 1979:217).”
Chronicles, in general, paints a far more positive picture of Israelite
nationalism and its flawless leadership compared to the books of Samuel and
Kings. Samuel and Kings mention David’s incident with Batsheva, the murder of
Uriah, Solomon’s many wives and the accommodation of foreign gods. Chronicles
does not. (See footnote[3]
to explore this matter further.)
This also ties in with the notion that:
“The Chronicler’s formulation of the
Israelite borders presents the most extreme concept of the Israelite territory
to be found in the Bible, and its historical likelihood at any point in
Israel’s history is highly questionable (Japhet 1979:209).”
Thus, according to the historiography of Chronicles, Israel was always
in the land in an autochthonic (indigenous and aboriginal) manner and there was no need for a conquest to acquire the land.
Conclusion
The question begs: Was there, or was there not, a conquest of the land according
to the various biblical texts themselves (read in their ‘final form’ and
in their senses literalis)?
Having examined some of the biblical accounts of the settlement in, or
conquest of, the land, it is clear that the range of interpretative
possibilities is very vast. All in all, we have identified seven broad
categories of possibilities.
Some texts hold a prospect with no need to conquer the land as it always
had an Israelite presence. Simultaneously, other texts allow for the violent and
total destruction of the indigenous Canaanite population. And other texts permit
various combinations somewhere between those two extremes.
Amazingly, as we have seen, there is no single, conclusive or comprehensive biblical
version of the epic conquest of the land that is so often referred to.
Analysis
Perhaps the best solution is to adopt an approach where one considers
all the views and holds them all together – not in an attempt at harmonising
them, but rather to allow the tensions to remain as counterpoints. In other
words, far from a comfortable and romantic synthesis, one needs to consider all
the perspectives as being representative parts of a realistic whole. Perhaps
the paradoxes within the texts were canonised intentionally to reflect these
tensions and allow them to exist side by side rather than portray a singular approach.
John Kessler[4]
writes that theological truth is rarely an unqualified categorical affirmation
but rather a series of different perspectives held in tension:
“[This is so] even when the ultimate
resolution of that tension eludes us (Kessler 2013:90)”.
Depicting reality, even biblical reality is often messy. It's messy
because of the inclusiveness of differing perspectives. It must be so for it to
remain authentic.
This is but one example which shows that far from the common and fundamentalist
perception, there really can be no tyranny on a biblical basis. The
multifaceted framing of the different perspectives always allows for a natural
counterpoint to attenuate a dogmatic response.
The Kotzker Rebbe was a great advocate of living authentically with
theological venture and risk. Conflicting ideas were always to be held together
in paradoxical tension. In his theology,
questions are more important than answers. Resolution is only for the
spiritually faint of heart. Faith is not a cheap allegiance to some
incontestable certainty, rather it demands a constant grappling with
contestable uncertainties. In Kotzk,
theology does not offer solutions, but instead its purpose was to engender new
predicaments and possibilities.
[1]
This can be seen in the language Rashi uses, כֹּחַ מַעֲשָׂיו, לִסְטִים and כְּבַשְׁתֶּם.
[2]
Japhet, S., 1979, ‘Conquest and Settlement in Chronicles’, in the Journal of
Biblical Literature
Vol. 98, no. 2, The Society
of Biblical Literature, 205-218.
[3]
Some try to explain the difference between Samuel/Kings and Chronicles as
follows:
·
The purpose of Chronicles
was to rebuild the nation after the destruction of the Temple.
·
The purpose of Samuel/Kings,
however, was to explain the destruction.
While 2 Samuel (7:12-16)
agrees there will be an everlasting Davidic dynasty even after the twentieth
and last Davidic King, Tzidkiyahu was taken captive and the Temple was
destroyed – nevertheless, although the nation could be punished, the
Davidic line would not be destroyed.
Chronicles, on the other hand
does not discuss disobedience and, thus, develops the messianic hope even after
the Davidic line had been removed from Judah.
Other texts saw the line as
being broken, discontinued or even conditional:
·
Psalm 89 starts off very
similar to Samuel where the Davidic line is said to endure although the people
may be punished temporarily for wrongdoing – but the same Psalm also refers to
the line being discontinued (with reference to the covenant being renounced and
Davidic sceptre removed). Some suggest that the second section of this Psalm
may have been written after the destruction of 587 BCE.
·
Yet in Psalm 132, it seems
that the Davidic line is conditional (“… if our sons keep the
covenant…their sons will forevermore sit on the throne”).
But Chronicles refers to no
disobedience and the line continues regardless, expressing a messianic hope for
the future.
Again, we see how the same
events are viewed and depicted differently in the various biblical sources
themselves.
[4]
Kessler, J., 2013, Old Testament Theology. Divine Call and Human Response,
Baylor University Press, Waco. Texas.
No comments:
Post a Comment