I caught a large chunk of a show on the History Channel yesterday. They were reviewing the battles fought by the Children of Isreal during the conquest. They'd mapped out the battlefields and had computer-generated graphics to display how they think the battles were conducted.

Time after time Joshua, Gideon, and others employed superb tactics and overcame their enemies. The narrators took potshots at the Bible, making unsubstantiated claims throughout the show which dispute the accuracy of our record. For example they claimed that one battle against Canaanites was actually fought against Philistines. My point is that they are indeed hostile witnesses.

But my main point is that the testimony of these hostile witnesses is contrary to another set of hostile witnesses: the ones who claim these books were written by priests in the later times of the captivity. Such priests would surely be hard-pressed to gain familiarity with the terrain. They'd likewise be unlikely to devise sound (let alone superior) military strategy and tactics for any fiction they might attempt to create.

But if the history we have is not fiction written at a later time, what kind of basis can there be for claiming the Hebrews thought they were fighting Canaanites when they were really fighting Philistines? The scoffers just can't keep their stories straight.