Talk:Book of Judges/Archive 1

Judges 21
Judges 21 (elders advocating the abduction of young women while they are dancing) probably should be discussed, if only briefly. Badagnani 11:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Othniel?
Since when is the account of Othniel in Judges virtually identical to the account in Joshua? I see 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. Matt H.218.171.249.154 16:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

What to include in the See Also section
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. Thoughts? Aristophanes 68  (talk)  01:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd be satisfied with the one listing if it also mentioned the significance of that particular judge, which has come under much 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 conflicting interpretations associated with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.75.223 (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to merge content from Deuteronomic Cycle
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. 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, 5 January 2012 (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, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Carl. --GHcool (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

So do I. I turned Deuteronomic Cycle into a redirect. I didn't copy any information over—it's already (better) presented in the lead section here. Cheers. Braincricket (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Confederated Tribes of Israel
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. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 11:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. --GHcool (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Comparison to archaeology
"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 (c.f.)(c.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
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. If it is deemed necessary to list any specific translations, there should be some basis for inclusion.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * They are obviously notable to someone, just obviously not notable to you. Try pulling your head out for wider perspective. 71.127.139.233 (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2015 (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, 2 January 2015 (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, 3 January 2015 (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, 3 January 2015 (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, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Timing and chronology
Let me suggest, esp for User:GHcool and User:Jytdog, that a new section be creation on the putative Timing and Chronology. 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 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. Thanks. ProfGray (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) how the Book represents itself (about a span of 400 years, per Amit),
 * 2) how the Book implicitly represents when that span occurred within our modern understanding of chronology, e.g., circa 12th century (?),
 * 3) the mismatch between these representations and the Deuteronomistic chronology in Kings (and presumably Chronicles), as noted by Amit,
 * 4) the academic skepticism (or rejection) of the historicity or chronology of events in the book.
 * You have some good ideas. Would you care to start a section like this? --GHcool (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I wrote up a rough section, it'd be great if y'all could improve it. Thanks. ProfGray (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2015 (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. Egypt continues to wage war in the 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 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 1.


 * "The biblical account of the conquest of Hazor reads, "And Joshua turned back at that time and took Hazor and smote its king with the sword, for Hazor formerly was the head of all those kingdoms. 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." hazor142.0.102.30 (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)