r and Votow 1984: frontispiece). Arther Ferrill chastises his colleagues and corroborates my analysis of this problem when he states that although mos

n archaeological fact. After some analysis and consultation with "scholars," he arrives at his conclusion that the conquest of Canaan as a unified military campaign led by a single, divinely directed leader, while undoubtedly a powerful narrative, may have little basis in historical fact (1992: 2). Even the existence of the Bible's greatest king, David, and his military exploits have not been accepted by mainline scholars in major universities, as was reported after the recent discovery of a fragment of stone, widely believed by many to be the first known reference outside the Bible to King David. Although the stone does refer to the "House of David," even this evidence is not enough for Dr. Jack Sasson, professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, who states that the reference to the House of David did not necessarily prove the man existed (Wilford 1993: A1, B2) [emphasis mine!]. Such intellectual arrogance and unwillingness to accept the Bible's accounts of history by those who are closest to the study of the era has led military scholars to overlook a valuable source of information about the origins of the elusive principles of military science. It should be clear to any reader of the Old Testament that its pages detail many military activities. The Bible's accounts are considerably more ancient than those most military analysts use. Archaeologists categorize the Old Testament periods as the Late Bronze Age to Iron Age II (1550-586 BC), times that pre-date the Greco-Roman period by centuries. Therefore, it seems to me that the books of the Old Testament are a primary source, written over 3,000 years ago by many authors. Thus, they should be used by military theorists.I have often wondered why Bible scholars have not pointed out the Bible's historical cohesiveness and accuracy to military historians and theorists. I suspect one reason is that Bible commentators are not trained in military affairs. As a result, they study the Bible to learn moral or spiritual lessons, not principles of war. In the same way, military scholars overlook



The Bible because they perceive it as a book of moral and spiritual lessons,
Not a book of military history or theory.The tendency for military scholars to ignore the importance of the Bible is unfortunate, for, as Abraham Malamat has pointed out, many Biblical sources, when stripped of their theological varnish, do present a candid record of military lessons... (1979: 38).1 Recently, a military affairs analyst has written several books that do take pre-Classical history into account. Richard Gabriel argues that except for a handful of scholars, the field of ancient military history has been only rudimentarily explored, no doubt due somewhat to the lack of an attentive audience. He points to the fact that ancient Near Eastern armies deployed forces of modern size and conducted sophisticated military operations approaching the complexity of the United States' recent Persian Gulf campaign (Gabriel and Getz 1991: xiv)! I would argue that there is an "attentive audience" of many Bible scholars and interested lay people who would welcome cogent and accurate analyses and insights of military operations and activities in the Old Testament if they were written by scholars of military affairs.Importance of GeographyAt this point the reader may be asking, "What kinds of lessons and insights could be learned if military scholars and historians would examine the pages of the Old Testament with a view toward accepting its accuracy and reliability?" A complete discussion of the subject is not within the scope of this short article, but a few examples should serve to illustrate the point.Military operations are fought over terrain, and therefore one of the most important determinants of military operations has to do with geography. In ancient times, as well as modern, terrain dictates the tactics and strategies of military leaders. From Joshua's conquering of the backbone of the "Promised Land" to General Schwartzkopf's use of the vastness of the Arabian desert to conceal preparations for one of the greatest tank battles in history, successful military tacticians have taken advantage of landforms to accomplish their objectives. Military leaders who do not, will probably fail. In Israel, the mountainous backbone has been an obstacle to invading armies for millennia and a place of refuge for its inhabitants. In spite of the ruggedness of the high hills, God directed Joshua to occupy that precise piece of real estate as recorded in the early chapters of the Book of Joshua. In so doing, Joshua secured the Israelites' presence in Canaan. History confirms that no sovereign state has been able to exist in Palestine without occupying the central ridge, and countless ruins of fortifications on its heights and approaches silently attest to the highland's importance. Invaders have avoided the mountains. Napoleon, when asked if he was going to occupy Palestine's mountains, is supposed to have said: I should not wish to share the fate of Cestius; I will not be bogged down in the mountains (Gichon 1985: 182). Instead, conquerors have occupied the coastal plains and the impoEnglish Rosetta Stone