Till:
In parts One through Three of the second-round of this debate, I
focused on Turkel's
refusal to cooperate in negotiating a set of guidelines that would
have structured our debate. The result has been the farcical
results previously posted in which Turkel spent most of his time
cutting and pasting comments about "transitions,"
"introductory statements," "set ups,"
"fluff," "irrelevant distractions,"
"superfluous commentary," and so on. At the end of
Part Three of my second-round
exchanges I announced that I intended to
end the farce, take charge, and redirect this debate to make it what
it should have been from the beginning. Accordingly, I will
apply the guidelines below that I was unable to get Turkel to discuss
until an agreement had been reached.
3. Each participant agrees to publish all exchanges in their entireties on their internet sites.
4. Each participant agrees to include all links that the participants refer to in their exchanges.
5. Each participant agrees to reply to all arguments and rebuttals made by the other.
6. If a participant overlooks an opponent's argument or rebuttal, he will reply to it after receiving notification that the argument/rebuttal was not answered.
In applying number 5, I will focus just on Turkel's arguments and rebuttals, so all of his extraneous cut-and-pasted comments mentioned above will be stripped away. In doing this, I will not keep readers of the debate from seeing anything that he has written in our exchanges, because a link to his article is posted above in the title headers of this page. If I fail to respond to an argument or point he made, the oversight will be completely inadvertent, and he can call it to my attention as provided for in number 6 above. I will then reply to the oversight in my next submission. Much of what I will strip away in Turkel's cut-and-pasted comments about "fluff" and "irrelevant distractions" will be claims that he made about my insistence on his quoting everything I said, but I have discussed this claim in detail and shown it to be just another straw man that Turkel has set up to distract attention from his inability to resolve the problem of Yahweh's failed land promise.
I will use the same identifying markers that I used in Parts One through Three: Till(YFLP) to identify quotations from my original article, Turkel(1) and Turkel(2) and Till(1) and Till(2) to differentiate between first- and second-round statements. If I choose to add a comment to what I said in a Till(1) or first-round statement, I will label it Till(B).
Till(YFLP):
On
several occasions prophetic statements were made in the Pentateuch
about the land that Yahweh, the tribal god of the Israelites, had
promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
(Turkel's comments about "set up," irrelevant diversion," etc. and my retorts have been stripped away to get to the heart of the argument. From now on, I will use an ellipsis with asterisks [***] to note where Turkel's cut-and-pasted comments and my retorts have been deleted.)
YFLP continues:
These
were clearly stated promises that Yahweh would give the land of the
Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and
Jebusites to the seed of Abraham***
If thou shalt say in thy heart, These nations are more than I; how can I dispossess them? Thou shalt not be afraid of them: thou shalt well remember what Yahweh thy God did unto Pharaoh, and unto all Egypt; the great trials which thine eyes saw, and the signs, and the wonders, and the mighty hand, and the outstretched arm, whereby Yahweh thy God brought thee out: so shall Yahweh thy God do unto all the peoples of whom thou art afraid. Moreover Yahweh thy God will send the hornet among them, until they that are left, and hide themselves, perish from before thee. Thou shalt not be affrighted at them; forYahweh thy God is in the midst of thee, a great God and a terrible. And Yahweh thy God will cast out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee. But Yahweh thy God will deliver them up before thee, and will discomfit them with a great discomfiture, until they be destroyed. And he will deliver their kings unto thy hand, and thou shalt make their name to perish from under heaven: there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them (ASV with Yahweh substituted for Jehovah).
Turkel(1):
It is then
said****
Till(YFLP):
The substance
of this prophecy was repeated in such places as Exodus 23:20-33;
Deuteronomy 4:33-39, Deuteronomy 7:1-2, and Deuteronomy 31:1-8****
In some of these passages, the names of the "seven nations greater and mightier than thou" to be driven out of the land were also specified as they were above: the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, the Hittites, the Hivites, the Jebusites, and the Perizzites****
When Joshua assumed the leadership of Israel after the death of Moses, the land promise was renewed in very specific terms:
Now it came to pass after the death of Moses the servant of Yahweh that Yahweh spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying, Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel. Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, to you have I given it, as I spake unto Moses. From the wilderness, and this Lebanon, even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your border. There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life; as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee; I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee. Be strong and of good courage; for thou shalt cause this people to inherit the land which I sware unto their fathers to give them (Joshua 1:1-6, ASV, Yahweh substituted).
Just before crossing the Jordan, Joshua repeated the promise:
And Joshua said unto the children of Israel, Come hither, and hear the words of Yahweh your God. And Joshua said, Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Hivite, and the Perizzite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Jebusite. Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth passeth over before you into the Jordan (Joshua 3:9-11)****
To stress the emphatic nature of parts of the land promises that Yahweh made to Israel, I have underlined [now in bold print] certain statements**** So when all of the passages I have quoted and listed are considered, we see that the prophecies included all of the following****
Without fail, God would drive out of the land beyond the Jordan all of the people then possessing it****
No man among these people would be able to stand before the Israelites all the days of their lives.
Turkel(1):
Aspect
2. Comment will be reserved until all aspects are listed.
Till(1):
Yes,
that way readers won't be so likely to remember what he
couldn't explain away. Keep an eye out for his evasion of this
"aspect."
Turkel(2):
Our
opponent continues to insult the intelligence of readers, assuming
that their ability to remember such things is limited, without having
any knowledge of their individual memorial capabilities, or failing
that, to scroll back to referred text, or to read material a second
or third time****
Till(2):
The
asterisks indicate where Turkel tacked on another one of his
cut-and-pasted comments. I didn't cut out the comment
above, because I want readers to keep in mind the Aspect 2 that
Turkel said he would reserve comment on until later. That
aspect 2 was Yahweh's promise that "no man would be able
to stand before the Israelites all the days of their lives."
I certainly respect the intelligence of the reading audience, so I
know that open-minded readers will be able to see that the two
statements below are incompatible.
1. No man among the seven nations in Canaan [Canaanites, Girgashites, Hittites, Hivites, Amorites, Perizzites, and Jebusites] would be able to stand before the Israelites all the days of their lives.
2. The Israelites were unable to drive out Canaanites, Jebusites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hittites, and Hivites, and so they were still dwelling in the promised land as late as the reign of Solomon.
I will just ask readers to be alert to see if Turkel ever is able to give a satisfactory solution to this inconsistency.
Till(YFLP):
The Israelites would drive out the nations possessing the land and utterly destroy them and the memory of their name under heaven.
Turkel(1):
Aspect 3***
Till(1):
Watch
to see how he never comes back to "aspect 3."
Turkel(2):
Since
we repeatedly come back to "aspect 3" (and even if we did
not) this is merely a snide comment intended to pre-empt the argument
and declare victory ahead of the game****
Till(2):
The
rest of Turkel's comment was his same old cut-and-pasted
comment, "It is not necessary...." As for coming
back repeatedly to aspect #3, of course, he made references to it,
but he never once gave a satisfactory explanation for why Yahweh said
that he would drive out and utterly destroy the nations in Canaan,
yet after the Israelites were in the land, repeated statements were
made about their inability to drive out Canaanites, Jebusites,
Hivites, etc., and so they were still in the land centuries
later.
I ask readers to watch to see if Turkel ever satisfactorily resolves this problem.
Till(YFLP):
They were to make no covenants with the nations in this land or show mercy to them (Deut. 7:2)****
Every place that the sole of their feet would tread upon, God would give to them.
Turkel(1):
Aspect
5.
Till(1):
Be
alert to see how he later creeps around "aspect 5" too.
Turkel(2):
Since
we do come back to "aspect 5" (and even if we did not) this
is merely a snide comment intended to pre-empt the argument ("creeps
around") and declare victory ahead of the game****
Till(2):
The
comment after the asterisks was the same old cut-and-pasted
stuff:
"It is not necessary to...."
As for Turkel's coming back to "aspect 5," he did not give any kind of evidence to prove that "every place that the soles of Israelite feet trod upon was given to them. Watch to see if he does it this time.
Till(YFLP):
Their empire would stretch from the Red Sea unto the river Euphrates and from the great sea (Mediterranean) toward the going down of the sun.
Turkel(1):
Aspect
6 and last. Now our opponent offers a summary of what he contends is
the typical response to the problem of "Yahweh's Failed Land
Promise"****
Till(1):
Notice
that he didn't reply here to any of the "aspects."
Watch to see what he does later about these.
Turkel(2):
This
is merely a snide commentary intended to pre-empt [sic] the
argument, implying negligence on our part, and declare victory ahead
of the game****
Till(2):
I
retained the first part of Turkel's comment to show that it was
indeed just more of his cut-and-pasted whining that does nothing to
reply to any of the "aspects" listed above from my
article "Yahweh's Failed Land Promise." I
will urge readers again to be alert to see how Turkel addresses these
matters.
Till(YFLP):
To
circumvent obvious contradictions that result when Yahweh's promises
are compared to biblical history recorded later, inerrantists contend
that the land promises made to the Israelites were conditional on
their good behavior, but there is no support for that dodge in the
Bible.
Turkel(1):
Here
we find our opponent's first substantive attempt at argument (though
padded with unnecessary words), and where we deem it first necessary
to make any substantive reply. We shall return to our opponent's
words after an extended explanation.
Till(1):
"We"
shall return after an extended explanation? Uh, oh, I smelled
irrelevant fluff and distraction coming up, and I was right.
Turkel(2):
This
is merely a snide commentary intended to pre-empt the argument, and
declare victory ahead of the game****
Till(1):
As
will be seen, "we" returned to "our opponent's
words" after a long tangent that did nothing to explain why the
biblical text first said that Yahweh had given the Israelites all the
land he had promised but then backpedaled and said that they had not
been given all the land they were promised.
Turkel(2):
As
the tangent does indeed explain relevant background data, this is
merely snide commentary ("backpedaled", "nothing to
explain") intended to pre-empt the argument, and declare
victory ahead of the game****
Till(2):
The
asterisks again signal where Turkel cut and pasted his
it-is-not-necessary distraction.
I urge readers to watch carefully to see what, if anything, was explained by Turkel's tangent, which he claims was "relevant data."
Till(1):
Turkel
hopes that by the end of his tangent some readers will have forgotten
the exactness of what had been promised.
Turkel(2):
Once
again, our opponent insults the intelligence of some readers, and
also, since each of these points is conceptually addressed, this is
merely snide commentary intended to pre-empt the argument, and
declare victory ahead of the game****
Till(2):
I
will ask readers to please watch carefully to see if Turkel ever did
give any satisfactory solutions to my six "aspects" that
he promised to come back to.
Till(1):
Readers
will see that when "we" returned to "our opponent's
words," he evaded almost all of these "aspects."
Turkel(2):
Not
one aspect was evaded; every aspect was answered; all of them come
under the same rubric of contractual obligation we describe below.
All aspects were promises made conditionally (as we show below) and
receive the same answer. They do not need separate answers****
Till(2):
Excuse me?
The same answer would explain why (1) some of the Canaanite nations
were able to withstand the Israelite invasion when Yahweh's
promise was that no man would be able to stand against them,
(2) Yahweh would utterly destroy all of the nations in the
land, yet some of these people were still in the land as late as the
reign of Solomon, and (3) the land from the Red Sea to the River
Euphrates and to the Great (Mediterranean) Sea would be given to the
Israelites, yet their borders were never that extensive.
Maybe that's why I missed Turkel's explanations of some of these problems. He had just one catch-all explanation that really didn‘t catch anything.
Turkel(1):
We
begin with consideration of the original land promise, given in
Genesis 12:7 and 13:15 (cf. 28:13)****
And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.
Till(1):
And
the conditions? I don't see any.
Turkel(2):
That
"conditions" exist is demonstrated quite clearly in the
tangential material on the subject of the ancient relationship
between lands, gods, and their peoples, material which our opponent
has not yet addressed****
Till(1):
I
didn't address Turkel's "tangential material on the
subject of the ancient relationship between lands, gods, and their
peoples"? I always suspected that Turkel doesn't
really read my replies. When I come to where I did
address this issue, I'll point it out to him. Anyway, I
have a lot more material on this issue. A competent debater
will always keep something back to give his opponent plenty of
opportunity to hang himself.
Turkel(1):
For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.
Abraham and his descendants are "given" the land, but what does that mean? It does not connote any modern sense of property ownership. What it does mean for Abraham to have been "given" the land is made most clear within the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity.
Turkel(2):
Without
even beginning to address this very important paradigm of the Ancient
Near Eastern context of the relationship between a land, its people,
and their deity, our opponent attempts to pre-empt the argument by
inserting his own discussion:
Till(2):
Uh,
excuse me, but is Turkel, after saying over and over above that he
would come back to aspect 1, aspect 2, aspect 3, etc., complaining
that I didn't immediately address this issue? Well, as
I've said, consistency is not one of Turkel's virtues.
Till(1):
What
did it mean for Abraham to have been "given" the land?
Well, perhaps it meant that his descendants [seed] were to be given
the land in the sense that they would possess it, as the following
texts indicate.
Turkel(2):
We
will quote these texts, but in what follows we explain in vivid
detail the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship between a
land, its people, and their deity, which defines every one of the
verses that our opponent quotes following. We note again that this is
done by our opponent prior to and exclusive of any dealing on his
part with the Ancient Near Eastern context of the relationship
between a land, its people, and their deity, and as such, it is
merely an attempt to pre-empt the argument and distract the reader.
Till(2):
Well,
once again, I will point out that Turkel hopped, skipped, and jumped
over six "aspects" of mine above, which I contend that he
really never came back to, and now he is complaining because I
considered it appropriate to discuss first the meanings of "give"
and "possess," which he quibbled about throughout the
rest of the debate before I directly addressed his "ancient
land-deity-possession" concept. Is it any wonder that I
keep saying that consistency is not one of his virtues.
The record will show that in the first round of this debate, I argued that even if we accept Turkel's feudal-landlord argument, all the land mentioned in Yahweh's land promise was not "given" to the Israelites and certainly was not "given" to them forever or "in perpetuity" even in any "feudal-landlord" sense. As the second round progresses, I'll point out reminders of where I so argued.
Till(1):
Leviticus 20:24 But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the Yahweh your God, which have separated you from other people.
Turkel(2):
In
this verse "inherit" and "possess" are the same
word (yarash) which we discuss below.
Till(2):
So
what? This text has Yahweh saying that he would give the
Israelites the land "to possess it." Let
Turkel have his "ancient feudal-landlord" concept.
When did Yahweh ever give the Israelites all the land he
promised, whether it was giving in the sense of living on the land,
renting the land, or whatever? When were the Israelites "given"
the land in even a feudal-landlord concept? That's the
problem that Turkel has to solve, and needless to say, he hasn't
solved it yet.
Turkel(2):
We
also note that this verse comes after a spate of representative rules
and regulations in Lev. 20, and is immediately preceded by this
warning in verses 22-3: "Ye shall therefore keep all my
statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I
bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. And ye shall not walk
in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they
committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them."
Till(2):
Yes,
I addressed this point too. I showed that (1) no conditions
were attached to the original land promises in Genesis, (2) the
promise as renewed in Deuteronomy 9:3ff left absolutely no
room for conditions, because Yahweh said that he was [a] giving the
land to the Israelites of that generation even though they had been
rebellious and unrighteous from the day they came out of Egypt, [b]
giving the land to the Israelites in order to fulfill a promise to
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and (3) retrospective editing in the
Pentateuch would explain why some versions of the promise offered
obedience as a condition.
My argument in round one, which Turkel has yet to refute, was that if Yahweh felt that he had to give the land to such an undeserving generation of Israelites in order to fulfill the promise to Abraham, this would preclude the righteousness and obedience of the Israelites as a condition to keeping the land, because Yahweh's promise wasn't just that he would give the land to Abraham's seed but that he would give it to them as an everlasting possession. How could Yahweh have kept his promise to "give" Abraham's "seed" the land for an "everlasting possession" if the land were later taken away for whatever reason? I'll look forward to seeing Turkel try to solve this problem.
Till(1):
Deuteronomy 1:8 Behold, I have set the land before you: go in and possess the land which Yahweh sware unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them.
Turkel
(2):
The
word "possess" is also yarash, and we explain below
the error of extracting any passage from Deuteronomy -- by genre, a
contractual agreement -- from the whole of the book.
Till(1):
So
the word in Hebrew was yarash? The issue is what meaning
did the word convey, and I contend that it conveyed the sense of
"possess." A lot of Hebrew scholars must agree with
me, because this is how it was translated in various English
translations.
As for the "contractual agreement" that Turkel seems to think is so important to his case, I'll take a moment here to comment on the big issue that he made over "suzerainty" treaties. I will later show--and quote very reliable scholarship to support my claim--that suzerainty treaties granted unconditional possession of land to the people with whom the treaty was made. Turkel will see, to his chagrin, that wagging suzerainty treaties into this issue has backfired in his face. Thus, he will be forced to say that if Deuteronomy was indeed a "suzerainty" treaty that Yahweh made with the Israelites, Yahweh was required to give them unconditional possession of the land he promised them.
Turkel(2):
As
our opponent has yet to deal with this information, this cite and all
the others are merely attempts to pre-empt [sic] the argument
and declare victory ahead of schedule.
Till(2):
Oh,
I will "deal" with this information. Turkel need
not worry. As I said before, a competent debater will always
keep something back to give his opponent time to hang himself.
By returning so quickly to his "suzerainty" treaty
argument, Turkel has obviously committed himself to it so thoroughly
that it is now stuck to him like a tar baby.
Till(1):
Deuteronomy 1:21 Behold, Yahweh thy God hath set the land before thee: go up and possess it, as Yahweh God of thy fathers hath said unto thee; fear not, neither be discouraged.
Turkel(2):
The
word "possess" is also yarash,
Till(2):
So
what? The issue is not what the Hebrew word was but what the
Hebrew word meant, and scholars who have been competent enough in
Hebrew to be asked to serve on translation committees have agreed
that the word conveyed the sense of "possess."
How many translation committees has Turkel been invited to serve on?
Turkel(2):
and
we explain below the error of extracting any passage from Deuteronomy
-- by genre, a contractual agreement -- from the whole of the book.
Till(2):
Nope,
I have made no error by referring to passages from Deuteronomy,
especially the passage in chapter 9, because it is completely
irreconcilable with Turkel's claim that the land promise was
conditional on the obedience of the Israelites. Furthermore,
Turkel's attempt to make the land promise part of a contractual
or "suzerainty" treaty will pose serious problems for
him, since suzerainty treaties granted land unconditionally to
the people with whom the nation in power made the treaty.
Turkel(2):
As
our opponent has yet to deal with this information, this cite and all
the others are merely attempts to pre-empt [sic] the argument
and declare victory ahead of schedule.
Till(2):
This
statement has become another cut-and-pasted statement, which I will
strip away from now on and replace with ****. I'll do my
best to make Turkel debate instead of punch around on straw men to
detract attention from the point under discussion.
Till(1):
Deuteronomy 3:18-20 And I commanded you at that time, saying, Yahweh your God hath given you this land to possess it: ye shall pass over armed before your brethren the children of Israel, all that are meet for the war. But your wives, and your little ones, and your cattle, (for I know that ye have much cattle,) shall abide in your cities which I have given you; Until Yahweh have given rest unto your brethren, as well as unto you, and until they also possess the land which Yahweh your God hath given them beyond Jordan: and then shall ye return every man unto his possession, which I have given you.
Till(2):
As
his "reply" to this, Turkel cut and pasted his comment
from above, so I have deleted it. I will continue to do my best
to force him to debate the issues****
Till(1):
A
comment is in order here**** The last verse above stated
that wives and "little ones" would remain in the
conquered cities until Yahweh had given "rest" to their
brethren, which would come when they possessed the land that Yahweh
their god was giving them beyond the Jordan.
Turkel(2):
We
do not disagree with this assessment.
Till(1):
My
article noted that Joshua had taken "the whole land," and
then "the land had rest" (Josh. 11:23), so did the
Israelites "possess" all the land Yahweh had promised
them or not?
Turkel(2):
As
we explain Josh. 11:23 below,
Till(2):
Well,
I don't know if Turkel meant to say, "As we explained
Josh. 11:23 below," or if he meant that he would explain
Joshua 11:23 below. He must have meant the latter, because I
don't recall that he ever explained it the first time around.
Of course, it's hard to remember everything said in 58,000
words, so I'll keep an eye open for it this time.
Turkel(2):
and
as our opponent neither acknowledges nor deals with that explanation
here, this is merely a manipulative attempt to pre-empt the argument.
It is also, in the first of many instances to follow, either a case
our opponent lacking common sense, or being blatantly dishonest: He
knows that we are responding to his article in order of its
presentation; he also knows that he does not present Josh. 11:23, and
other passages he will cite in the same fashion hereafter, like Deut.
9, until later in his presentation. It is therefore common sense
that, if we are following his order we will not address Josh. 11:23,
Deut. 9, and other passages so cited until we reach the point in our
opponent's article where HE addresses them. Our opponent is therefore
manipulatively trying to implant bias by raising the implication that
we left such cites completely unaddressed; or else he lacks the
common sense to know in what order we will be addressing these cites.
It is not necessary to quote this sort of manipulative diatribe in a
reply****
Till(1):
I
started to snip all of this even before I came to his
it-is-not-necessary-to-quote cutting and pasting, but I retained the
statement so that everyone can see something. He complained
above because I did not immediately pounce on his "ancient
feudal-landlord" concept of ownership, but he has twice since
claimed that he has the right to postpone replying to my points until
he is good and ready. Turkel seems to think that he is a law
unto himself and that standards should apply to his opponents but not
to him.
As for his whining that he is taking my article in the order of its presentation, he is doing no such thing, because we have already noticed how he mentioned "aspect 1," "aspect 2," etc. and then said that he would return to these later. Well, if he is replying in the order of my presentation, how can he return to these later? Wouldn't replying to points in order require him to reply when I mentioned them?
This guy is so confused that I wonder if he even knows what is going on.
Till(1):
The
promised "rest" was to come when the Israelites had
possessed the land that Yahweh was giving them, and a text in Joshua
said that "the land had rest." Does Turkel know
what necessary inferences are in literary interpretation?
Turkel(2):
In
addition to what we say just above: This is not argument, but snide
commentary; it is not necessary to quote this****
Till(1):
We'll
see that Turkel was unable to resolve this inconsistency, but first
I'll quote more scriptures that indicate that "giving"
the land to the Israelites meant that they were to "possess"
it.
Turkel(2):
****
Till(1):
There
are at least 40 other passages in Deuteronomy that used the word
"possess" to denote what the Israelites'
relationship to the promised land would be after they had crossed the
Jordan, so I'll resume the quotations with the book of Joshua.
Turkel(2):
I
will quote these passages as well, noting that, as stated later in my
work, but as our opponent has yet to deal with in order, the
contractural [sic] genre of Deuteronomy makes it illicit to extract
any of those 40 passages from their context.
Till(2):
See
my comments above. I will show later that a suzerainty treaty
often granted unconditional possession to the people to whom
the nation in power ceded the land.
Well, heck, why don't I just get this out of the way now so that if Turkel keeps returning to this complain, I can answer it by saying, "See my comments above about suzerainty treaties"? First, I'll quote an e-mail message that I received from someone who read the entirety of our first round. The writer was Bruce Monson whom members of the alt.bible.errancy forum will remember was the one who used Julian Day Numbers and expert testimony from calendric experts to dismantle Sir Robert Anderson's claim that Daniel 9:25 was fulfilled to-the-very-day by the triumphal entry of Jesus. Monson's refutation of Anderson's calendric hocus-pocus sent Anderson's disciple Don Keyes into hiding after almost two years of trying to defend Anderson‘s premise.
Turkel, of course, will say, "Who is this Bruce Monson?" Notice, however, that Monson relies not on himself but on the scholarship of Frank Moore Cross, a respected scholar at Harvard University. Turkel has talked about the value of scholarly opinions expressed by those whose "lifeblood" has been biblical studies, so I think that Frank Moore Cross would qualify as such a scholar. Anyway, here are Monson's comments about Turkel's suzerainty-treaty argument.
TURKEL [Question to Farrell from "failed land promise" debate]: 3. "Do you wish to deny that the promises of Genesis were made within the context of an ancient deity-subject, feudal landlord-tenant relationship?"
BRUCE
MONSON:
Turkel had set this statement up in an earlier post
with some commentary on "suzerainty treaties," which is
what he is referring to here when he claims "context of an
ancient deity-subject, feudal landlord-tenant relationship." In
short, he's saying the land promise was "conditional"
toward good behavior, which of course Farrell has easily put down on
a purely textual basis within the Bible itself. But I think I
know why Turkel can't seem to grasp the problem--he suffers from the
same problem that Joe Carter did about a year or so ago when he
attempted to apply this same "Hittite Suzerain-vassal treaty
text" resolution to "explain away" a difficult
problem posed in Till's "Sins of the Father"
thread. Carter was very cocky in his presentation of this, saying,
"For instance in his ‘Sins of the Father' post,
does Mr. Till point out that the book of Deuteronomy is in the
form of a Hittite suzerain-vassal treaty text (that's a mouthful
there)? It's not likely that he even knows what that
means."
BRUCE:
Well,
Farrell was aware of this term, as well as its meaning and
application. I have to admit, however, that while I had seen
"suzerian-vassal treaty" used before in my reading, I was
not familiar with any of the specifics as to what all this entailed;
a problem I quickly tackled, however! I came to find out that
this was a rather complex issue, and it wasn't until I read
Frank Moore Cross's From Epic To Canon: History and
Literature in Ancient Israel (Harvard Univ. Press, 1998), and
Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Harvard Univ. Press, 1973), that I
really understood. In fact, in From Epic To Canon, in the
chapter on "Kinship and Covenant in Ancient Israel,"
Cross has a subheader titled "Elements of Confusion in
the Understanding of Israel's Ancient Covenant." And I
think what he has to say applies to the situation here because he
mentions directly the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. I'm just
going to quote, for the moment, a very interesting footnote:
Frank Moore Cross (footnote, page 14) {my emphasis added}: There are, to be sure, some interesting parallels between two types of "dynastic promise to David" and two types of dynastic clauses of suzerainty treaties of the second millennium. Certain elements are common to both types: The suzerain secures the vassal on the throne, secures the land in his possession, and lists land boundaries. Sometimes "sonship" is granted.
But two types of promise are found in regard to the future of the dynasty. The usual is to promise that a king's heirs will remain on the throne under the protection of the suzerain so long as they are obedient to the stipulations of the covenant. The treaty makes the perpetuation of the dynasty conditional. In the second type, the promise of the land and promise of the dynastic succession are unconditional. This type is found in pure form in the Treaty of Tudkhaliyas IV and Ulmi-Teshup of Dattassa. It is said that if Ulmi-Teshup is faithful to his covenant with his suzerain, it is the obligation of the suzerain to preserve his heirs on the throne of Dattassa, and to preserve the land in the heirs' possession. If a future son sins (rebels), he may be punished or removed, but kingship and land must pass to another heir of Ulmi-Teshup, in theory thereby creating an eternal dynasty. Put another way, it can be said that permanence of dynasty and possession of land rests on the "reservoir of grace" filled by the obedience of Ulmi-Teshup alone, and therefore is not dependent on the fidelity of each succeeding heir--presumably intensifying Ulmi-Teshup's motivation to obedience. The analogy with the "high" or unconditional royal ideology of the Davidids is obvious. Thanks to the piety of David, the throne is eternally promised to the house of David; thanks to the fidelity of Abraham, the land is promised perpetually to his seed. One suspects that in this unconditional promise to heirs, archaic kinship ideology is at work: the family of the faithful covenant partner is bound forever in kinship bonds with the suzerain, and his family.
BRUCE:
Cross, of course, goes into extensive detail
demonstrating the point, particularly in regard to the etymology of
the Hebrew berit (covenant), and I could cite multiple
references to that effect, but the message could hardly be expressed
more clearly--The land promise was an unconditional promise!!!
But because Turkel has yet to grasp the point that there are "two
types of dynastic clauses of suzerainty treaties," and that
they are mutually exclusive, he will continue to bang his head
against the wall here.
I will let this suffice for the moment, but I will be saying much more later in reply to Turkel's direct claims that the book of Deuteronomy was a suzerainty treaty, which therefore made the land promise conditional on the behavior of the Israelites. In a suzerainty treaty, the behavior of the rulers of Israel would have been a factor, but certainly not the disobedience of just one Israelite, as Turkel has tried to argue.
Till(1):
Notice that the first quotation indicates that what it meant to
be "given" land was that the ones to whom the land was
given would "possess" it.
Turkel(2):
The
first quotation uses yarash,
Till(2):
And
hundreds of Hebrew scholars competent enough to serve on biblical
translation committees have agreed that in the passages I have quoted
yarash conveyed the sense of possession, so Turkel‘s
constant references to the word yarash prove what?
Turkel(2):
which
we explain below, in the context of the Ancient Near Eastern context
of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity,
Turkel(2):
which
our opponent has still not addressed, making these quotes still
nothing but an attempt to pre-empt the argument and declare victory
ahead of time.
Till(2):
Well,
"our opponent" did indeed address this concept, not once
but several times. As I come to quotations from my first-round
rebuttal where I addressed this issue, I'll make it a point to
remind Turkel that this was where I addressed the concept. He,
on the other hand, has yet to point out to us when the Israelites
"possessed" all of the land within the defined boundaries
in even this feudal-landlord concept that he keeps touting.
Till(1):
Joshua 1:11 Pass through the host, and command the people, saying, Prepare you victuals; for within three days ye shall pass over this Jordan, to go in to possess the land, which Yahweh your God giveth you to possess it.
Turkel(2):
We
would only add that "give" is the same Hebrew word used in
the promise to Abraham to be "given" the land.
Till(2):
Which
proves what? When was all the land within the defined borders
"given" to the Israelites in this feudal-landlord concept
that Turkel has been hiding behind? He has yet to answer that
question.
Till(1):
Joshua 23:5 And Yahweh your God, he shall expel them from before you, and drive them from out of your sight; and ye shall possess their land, as Yahweh your God hath promised unto you.
Turkel(2):
Our
opponent interrupts with:
Till(1):
This
should be clear enough even for Turkel to understand.
Turkel(2):
This
is merely snide commentary****
Till(2):
The
**** indicates that the rest of Turkel‘s statement was his
cut-and-pasted "it is not necessary...." comment.
Needless to say, he did not attempt to explain how the promise in
this statement (1) to expel the other nations in the land and
(2) to drive them out of the sight of the Israelites could have been
true but later statements that referred to the inability of the
Israelites to drive out Canaanites, Jebusites, Hivites, etc. could
have also been true. As I pointed out before, Turkel is arguing
that X and not X could both be true. He has yet to address this
problem.
Till(1):
The
promise was that Yahweh would drive out or expel the nations in the
land of Canaan so that the Israelites could then "possess"
it.
Turkel(2):
The
promise we have explained below in the Ancient Near Eastern context
of the relationship between a land, its people, and their deity,
Till(2):
I
have repeatedly accepted for the sake of argument this "Ancient
Near Eastern" concept of land-people-deity and asked Turkel to
explain to us when the Israelites were "given" all the
land within the defined borders in even this feudal-landlord concept
that Turkel is touting. He has yet to address this.
Turkel(2):
and
our opponent has still not addressed, much less refuted, our
arguments on that subject.
Till(2):
Oh,
yes, they were addressed. As I come to quotations from round
one in which I addressed this argument, I will point it out.
Needless to say, I have addressed it in much more detail this
time--and will address it in much more detail later--in my quotation
of Monson's references to Cross's work.
Till(1):
What
it meant for "God" to give land to the Israelites, then,
was that he would drive out or expel the people living in the
land, and then the Israelites would occupy it.
Turkel(2):
One
wonders what our opponent is on about here, since we have cleraly
[sic] stated it did mean that the Israelites would occupy the
land. The issue is not whether they would occupy the land at all, but
whether or not that occupation was conditional or unconditional.
Till(2):
Turkel's
argument is that the land promise was a suzerainty treaty, so all I
need to say here is that readers can scroll upward and read Frank
Moore Cross's discussion of ancient suzerainty treaties.
The behavior of rulers was a condition in these treaties but
certainly not the behavior of just one Israelite, as Turkel
has tried to argue.
Furthermore, I have shown that Deuteronomy 9:3ff cannot be made compatible with any of Turkel's claims that the misbehavior of even one or a few Israelites was sufficient to nullify the land agreement, because at the time that Yahweh, pardon the expression, presumably made the promise in Deuteronomy 9, the entire nation of Israel at that time was disobedient and had been from the day they came out of Egypt. If there is any merit to Turkel's argument, Yahweh would not have made the promise recorded in Deuteronomy 9:3ff, because not just one or a few Israelites were unrighteous at this time, but the whole nation was and had been from the day they left Egypt.
Till(1):
We
will see that although the Bible says in places that Yahweh gave to
the Israelites all the land he promised them, other texts say that he
didn't.
Turkel(2):
This
is a non-specific [sic] referent, and while we might guess what cites
our opponent has in mind, we will not do so, and simply note that
this is merely fluff in context****
Till(2):
At
this point, Turkel retreated to his cut-and-pasted "it is not
necessary..." comment. I trust that everyone noticed that
he evaded my point stated above, i.e., the Bible says in some
places that Yahweh gave all the land he had promised to the
Israelites but says in other places that he did not give all the land
to them. Although I did not cite the specific verses in this
statement, they were put on record in several places during the first
round. Turkel evaded them then, and so it appears that he is
going to evade them this time too.
