Book of, judges - bible survey
Which would be very narrow and quite within the DtrH consensus (nobody believes that the josianic editors didn't use sources). I can't quite see the relevance of the second link (o'connell) - i don't have time to read him at length, but revolution he rewrite seems to accept the DtrH. Pico ( talk ) 01:56, (UTC)ok, i've found what Amit says. He says that the normal scholarly view is the Dtrh - a josianic redaction with post-Josianic revision. The view he's advancing falls outside this "widespread agreement". As such, i don't think we should mention. Pico ( talk ) 02:02, (UTC)Fair enough. ghcool ( talk ) 05:57, (UTC)you don't have to just accept what I say - i'm quite happy to have counter-arguments 06:33, (UTC)THere's also some interesting ideas put forward in the thread above this one - might be interesting to develop them. Pico ( talk ) 06:36, (UTC)That's nice that you say that, but frankly, i'm a novice when it comes to biblical studies and what you say seems pretty reasonable. Would you like to take a stab at doing something like what the thread above suggests and I'll take a look?
I intend on restoring the cited material within the next few days. ghcool ( talk ) 06:56, (UTC) If you include 722 in your search naturally you're going to come up kites with sources that support. To my mind it runs counter to the deuteronomistic History hypothesis, which is pretty much a consensus. For that reason I'd like to know where it sits in terms of the mainstream. Can you find something on that? Pico ( talk ) 01:49, (UTC)What does amit actually say? The first of those sources you link origin Myths. seems to say that Amit is just talking about Judges 17-18.
Egypt continues to wage war in the management djadi or watershed of the jordan river against the kings of Kadesh for the next five centuries. It doesn't get written into the bible till c 600 bc, but parts of it can be matched up city for city and brook for brook with the Egyptian campaign records and correspondence. The book of Judges itself actually has two major narrations one for the south where the people of Edom fill in the blanks between Exodus and the conquest of Joshuah, and the other for that juan conquest which matches up fairly well with the Armana letters. Judges iv-2 "Jabin king of Canaan, that reigned in hazor; the captain of whose host was Sisera, which dwelt in Harosheth of the gentiles." hazor was destroyed by Thutmoses iii and later by seti."The biblical account of the conquest of hazor reads, "And Joshua. And he put to the sword all who were in it, utterly destroying them; there was none left that breathed, and he burned hazor with fire" (Joshua 11:10-11). In a later verse (10:13 the narrative notes the uniqueness of these events: "None of the cities that stood on mounds did Israel burn, except hazor only; that Joshua burned." hazor ( talk ) 01:49, (UTC) Redaction edit This edit reverting cited material was not. This is not a fringe theory by a single academic. I googled "book of Judges redaction 722" and came up with the following reliable sources:. I am sure more can be found.
I think one problem with GHcool's sentence in the opening is that it is too dense (tries to pack in too much info) and should explain that there are differences between how the book represents itself (about a span of 400 years, per Amit how. G., circa 12th century ? the mismatch between these representations and the deuteronomistic chronology in Kings (and presumably Chronicles as noted by Amit, the academic skepticism (or rejection) of the historicity or chronology of events in the book. Plus, given the contested academic views, we might want to attribute statements explicitly (in the article body) to scholars like amit in this new section. In other words, ghcool is bringing up important info, amit is a great reliable source, but the issues are complicated and not ready for a summation in the opening section imo. ProfGray ( talk ) 02:13, (UTC) you have some good ideas. Would you care to start a section like this? ghcool ( talk ) 04:39, (UTC) ok, i wrote up a rough section, it'd be great if y'all could improve. ProfGray ( talk ) 12:40, (UTC)Judges iv, the story of Deborah and Barak refers to the battle of Megiddo fought c 1447 bc by Egypt against the king of Kadesh in the mountains by Thutmoses iii.
The role of, women in the, book of, judges
If it is deemed necessary to list any specific translations, there should be some basis for inclusion.- jeffro 77 ( talk ) 13:57, (UTC) history They are obviously notable to someone, just obviously not notable to you. Try pulling your head out for wider perspective. ( talk ) 13:58, (UTC) Notability to 'someone'? What kind of answer is that? Any number of topics are notable to 'someone but that doesn't make them encyclopedically notable for the article's context. No good reason has been provided for the inclusion of minor sectarian translations.- jeffro 77 ( talk ) 14:39, (UTC) Comment I note that the only person who has responded here is the anonymous complainant. It would be good if other editors could offer a viewpoint.- jeffro 77 ( talk ) 15:36, (UTC) to simply clarify these websites/translations, gospelHall.
Org is a kj translation which the wikisource link already provides. The watchtower provided does not indicate any specific translation what so ever. Therefore, i support the removal those links. Also, gospelHall seems more like advertisement rather than a supportive source for translations per WP:spam. — judeccaxiii ( talk ) 17:03, (UTC) Remove - there is no end to the translations to which we could link. Just a couple links are sufficient, after that it just becomes linkspam. Jytdog ( talk ) 17:44, (UTC) Timing and chronology edit let me suggest, esp for User:GHcool and User:Jytdog, that a new section be creation on the putative timing and Chronology.
I think it would do well as a section of this article, or maybe in "Deuteronomistic history" or "Themes and genre". What do you think? Braincricket ( talk ) 10:35, (UTC) Well the information is already contained in this article, at least as well as in the other one, in the section "Deuteronomistic history". So i would support either a merge (though I'm not sure what we'd add here) or a simple deletion, with no prejudice against the article being re-created should it be done well. Carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:27, (UTC)I agree with Carl. ghcool ( talk ) 17:53, (UTC) so.
I turned deuteronomic Cycle into a redirect. I didn't copy any information over—it's already (better) presented in the lead section here. Braincricket ( talk ) 01:50, (UTC) The article conferated Tribes of Israel gives a summary of the political situation in Israel according to judges, using it as its only source. It would serve better as a section in this article. ) 11:10, (UTC) Done. ghcool ( talk ) 20:29, (UTC) Comparison to archaeology edit "although these dates disagree with other dates noted in 1 Kings and with the archeological record" - this is the only note in the article that this is not a historically accurate work. We need a bit more on this - i know there was a mountain of work attempting to confirm everything in the Old Testament and striking out on most of it (. F., if this is any good and this is highly relevant to an encyclopedic coverage of the topic - david Gerard ( talk ) 22:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC) Translations edit Why are there arbitrary Christian translations in the External links section? The linked translations recently restored by an ip editor are not particularly notable in any way.
1 Samuel - old Testament history book about Samuel
Aristophanes 68 (talk) 01:50, (UTC) I'd be satisfied with the one listing if it also mentioned the significance of that particular judge, which has come under much moliere debate since. It seems it would be bit of a mismatch in the article without expanding on the contents a little bit of the other judges too, so, as the article currently is written, the see also section seemed like a good place. Perhaps a different sort of link would be more appropriate? When I'm learning about a lot of these books, i also like to learn the controversies and blood conflicting interpretations associated with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ( talk ) 22:37, (UTC) Proposal to merge content from deuteronomic Cycle edit hello! I came across the deuteronomic Cycle article while going through the dusty articles list. It hasn't been touched since 2007 and comprises about five sentences.
Badagnani 11:39, 9 november 2006 (UTC) Othniel? Edit since when is the account of Othniel in Judges virtually identical to the account in Joshua? I see memories nothing similar except the idea of Othniel son of Kenaz, relative of Caleb son of Jephunneh, leading an Israelite victory over non-Israelites. Nyttend 21:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC) This article is so boring, it's just all about textual criticism and which bit of the story goes where. It doesn't explore what Judges is about, that's why i looked this article up, but instead it sent me to sleep. 16:49, (UTC) What to include in the see also section edit Should any of the individual judges be listed a second time in the see also section? I think just the one listing is enough, but another editor thinks Jephthah deserves a second link.
of the article; But where's the book of Judges!? Every single piece of info someone finds and wishes to add, should be checked for in the actual book. Even commentary should be checked, to make sure what's being commented on is actually in the book, not fabricated. Updated Intro (1:1-3:6) edit hope this fleshes things out a bit. I'm going to do the rest later. This has been quite an educational experience, actually! ta bu shi da yu 19:20, (UTC) Judges 21 edit judges 21 (elders advocating the abduction of young women while they are dancing) 1 probably should be discussed, if only briefly.
This article is within the retrolisthesis scope. Wikiproject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage. High, this article has been rated. High-importance on the project's importance scale. Wikiproject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage. Judaism -related articles on wikipedia. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Contents Untitled edit This sentence in the second paragraph of the introduction seems to be missing a word or two: 'The details of this history's composition are still widely debated, but most scholars missing words the book's final form in the 6th century bce and. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwhittingham ( talk contribs ) 20:52, (UTC) do we have a timline for this info?
Resume maker, create, resume in 2 Minutes, resume
This article is writing of interest to the following. Wikiprojects : This article is within the scope. Wikiproject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. B, this article has been rated. B-class on the project's quality scale. Top, this article has been rated. Top-importance on the project's importance scale.