What do you think?
Rate this book
Joshua: A Commentary
English, French (translation)
245 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1972
3 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
November 20, 2025
Not a big fan of this dude!
Having read the likes of Noth and Nelson (a decade later), reading Soggins is disappointing.
I came to this commentary because in his Judges commentary (compiled alongside Nelson’s Joshua) he mentions his own Joshua commentary. Having read it now, it all seems like he has trouble not being the One.
He rejects certain ideas seemingly out of hand if they don’t fit in to the understanding he’s developed. “Certainly no one in ancient Israel really believed the Hill of Foreskins was made of foreskins!” Some ideas are dismissed well and others very clearly he does not want to sit down and examine before commenting on
Despite having access to the wide acceptance that conquest narrative is ahistorical, he still seems to develop a lot around the idea of conquerors and enclaves and takes for granted the historicity of certain parts of the Bible in ways that surprise me from a critical scholar
Anyways! This book is fifty years old!
I’m not wasting any more of my time talking about it!
Later losers!
Having read the likes of Noth and Nelson (a decade later), reading Soggins is disappointing.
I came to this commentary because in his Judges commentary (compiled alongside Nelson’s Joshua) he mentions his own Joshua commentary. Having read it now, it all seems like he has trouble not being the One.
He rejects certain ideas seemingly out of hand if they don’t fit in to the understanding he’s developed. “Certainly no one in ancient Israel really believed the Hill of Foreskins was made of foreskins!” Some ideas are dismissed well and others very clearly he does not want to sit down and examine before commenting on
Despite having access to the wide acceptance that conquest narrative is ahistorical, he still seems to develop a lot around the idea of conquerors and enclaves and takes for granted the historicity of certain parts of the Bible in ways that surprise me from a critical scholar
Anyways! This book is fifty years old!
I’m not wasting any more of my time talking about it!
Later losers!
Displaying 1 of 1 review