Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Joshua, Judges and “Claiming Land”
. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 4 page paper discusses the three models of taking the land of Canaan: conquest, infiltration and revolt, and which one makes the most sense. It also touches on why the early Israelites could not govern themselves. Bibliography lists 3 sources.
Page Count:
4 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_HVClmLnd.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
land by infiltration, revolt or conquest, which makes the most sense and why. Discussion Richard Donald Nelson argues that the book of Joshua is a "literary production designed to create
and support the identity of the people it calls all Israel" (Nelson, 1997, p. 16). They are Gods chosen people, and the book of Joshua seeks to give them the
courage to meet the challenges they face because of their special status; it also shows us how a shared story can "generate, define and defend a community" (Nelson, 1997).
The "theological importance of the land to Israels sense of identity can hardly be overestimated" (Nelson, 1997, p. 16). The land was Israels inheritance from Yahweh, which meant that they
had a divine right to it unless Yahweh changed his mind (Nelson, 1997). Further, in "deuteronomistic thought, rest ... signifies Israels unthreatened possession of the land. Promised by Deut. 12:9-10,
the achievement of rest begins with the conquest ... but culminates in Davids victories (Nelson, 1997, p. 16). While there are several ways mentioned in which Israel could have claimed
the land, "understanding Israels ownership of the land in terms of a conquest tradition became the most common pattern," and conquest stories are told throughout the Old Testament (Nelson, 1997,
p. 17). The idea of conquest was particularly important to Israel "because their hold on the land was always at risk" (Nelson, 1997, p. 17). But some scholars
have concluded that Israel did not conquer Canaan; that the Bible is simply wrong (Brantley, 1994). They point out that the archaeological record and the Biblical one are inconsistent, and
that any Israelite invasion is unlikely (Brantley, 1994). Instead, they suggest either the revolt or infiltration model as the means by which Israel subdued Canaan (Brantley, 1994). In the revolt
...