Does this look like the show you were talking about?

http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&showId=180013

I mean there is no evidence of a million people traveling anywhere in the Sinai peninsula, so some people consider the Exodus story as invented (or myth). Where do you stand? Is the million people merely a mistranslation?

That should be checkable rather quickly (how much water do a million human beings consume in the Sinai per day? Where does the water come from away from the Nile? For that matter, how does the city of Jericho hold off a million troops for even seven days?

After reading through all the comments I can say that I fall on Tara’s side of the debate. There are many things I do not understand and upset me but I am weary of disqualifying a prophets actions from (about) 4000 years later. The context of the day must be taken into account and using modern words with loaded connotations such as “genocide” makes it needlessly harder to discuss. (Thats why I would also disagree with the History channel calling Joshua’s campaign one of “terror”- its just baiting for ratings that over simplifies a complicated issue as it really detracts from a detailed study of the time) From my limited reading and understanding of the social and political and contexts Joshua acted within the accepted boundaries of warfare and contemporary conventions in issuing his/God’s orders. God often deals with the understanding of the people serving him, and I feel its rather arrogant to disqualify those commandments based on our modern sensibilities. I’m not trying to rehash the whole debate, but when asked for my opinion I feel I should give you the most comprehensive answer possible.

Firtags comments is great. The pro Joshua argument sounds very similar to the argument used in defending the dropping of the Atom Bomb. It saved lives, was actually the best choice, in context was not all that revolutionary or evil etc. A good book on the subject is Richard Gabriel’s Miltary History of Ancient Israel. Although he does not spend much time defending the morality of Joshua’s actions, he does spend a great deal of time describing Joshua’s strategic and tactical choices within context.

I’ll try to check on this again, but my school has a million activities planned and my new job just sent me a ream of paperwork that they want done ASAP. Plus there is the all important networking time that I can’t ignore. Thanks again for the email, and I appreciate all your posts. I think you and Mormon matters do a far better job of including and respecting diverse opinions than many of the Mormon sites that claim to.

Just saw a show that runs on Sunday nights on the History Channel that analyzes Biblical military campaigns from an entirely military (i.e., not theological) point of view. I think it’s called “Exodus Explained” or something pretty close. Then I saw the reference to this thread on your Bushman thread on Mormon Matters and popped over here.

I don’t know whether God commanded it or not, but the military analysts were positing that Joshua’s terror campaign — and that’s what it was — against Canaan may actually have been the cheapest way in cost of human lives for the Israelites to take Canaan.

For example, the Israelites entered Canaan with an army of only about 8000 actives, and it took a generation to build that population base after fleeing Egypt. There was no way militarily to garrison those first cities they took to even hold and feed the women and children captives and still retain sufficient fighting power to move further into the land. They couldn’t even take Ai, which was a ruined, depopulated city at the time, from the field army of the Bethelites when they tried splitting their own army at first.

The massacres committed in the early stages of the conquest led directly to the alliances with the hill tribes to guard logistical supply lines and swell the Israelite ranks to the point that Gibeon surrendered without a fight, and allied itself with Israel. The Amorite kings coming out to battle at that point was in direct response so they would not be overwhelmed one by one.

If you’ll concede for the sake of argument, that it was best for humanity that the Israelites, not the Amorites, take root in Canaan, then these military analysts are suggesting the possibility that the terror campaign may have shed less blood than any other method. And they don’t have a pro-Bible ax to grind in the argument.

My point is that something can be called an atrocity only in comparison to the other available alternatives, not in comparison to ideal alternatives not available. Sometimes the best option is still a terrible one.

http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/04/02/jewish-muslim-and-academic-perspectives-on-abraham/