The consequences of this violent catastrophe were many. A cessation of wars and a sudden slump in trade immediately followed but were only of short duration. A more lasting and serious consequence was the drastic reduction of the amount of land under cultivation, due to the deaths of so many labourers. This proved to be the ruin of many landowners. The shortage of labour compelled them to substitute wages or money rents in place of labour services in an effort to keep their tenants. There was also a general rise in wages for artisans and peasants. These changes brought a new fluidity to the hitherto rigid stratification of society.
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
Do you consider Bishop Eusebius’s account to be reliable?
No, really not.
The reason why because his account had created many controversies.
Eusebius has been known as the official historian of the church. He participated in the Council of Nice in 314, organized by Roman Emperor Constantine to revise the religious or historic documents that would end up being in the Bible.
So Eusebius based most of his comments on personal opinions and other historic document's interpretations. It is difficult to say that he did the proper research and had reliable sources. During the Nicea Council, a group of Bishops decided what documents had to be part of the Bible and which not, based on their own criteria. That is not a good indicator of the validity of the documents included, even less we can consider those as sacred.
Answer:
hey there the answer is D
1. inheritance was divided - Manasseh
2. no inheritance was received - Levites
3. inheritance was received first (person) - Caleb
4. inheritance lay west of the Jordan - Ephraim
5. tabernacle set up - Shiloh
6. inheritance was received last (person) - Joshua
7. inheritance lay east of the Jordan - Reuben
8. inheritances in Canaan were distributed first there - Gilgal
