Is the Genocide in the Bible Really What it Seems?
In Genocide In The Bible Part 1, we discussed the Israeli conquest of Canaan as a one-time, unique, unrepeatable event and a bit on God’s prerogative to take life if He deems it best for His plan for His creation. Not a popular idea, but one that goes hand in hand with the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, creator God.
Today we will discuss what the actual archaeological evidence and the biblical record shows. A link to a more detailed article at the end gives references for the material.
Canaanite ‘Cities’
The Old Testament describes cities like Jericho and Ai that were destroyed by the Israelites during their conquest of Canaan. Archaeology suggests that these were not civilian cities, but military garrisons or forts that protected civilians in the surrounding country. They were not cities where women and children lived. Some women, such as Rahab, a tavern-keeper, were found in these garrisons.
Paul Copan also says that the terms for “city” (ir) and “King” (melek) were used in Canaan during this period to refer to a fortress or military garrison and to a military leader. Also, that Jericho probably had only about 100 or fewer soldiers at this outpost, Rahab and her family being an exception as non-combatants, and the bible says they were spared.
Attacking and killing everyone in a military base may still be objectionable to some, but it is not the same as God sanctioned genocide in the Bible.
Stereotypical Language of Conquest
Scripture is believed by Christians to be inspired by God and most believe in inerrancy of scripture, though there are many ways in which people understand what inerrancy means. It is important to understand that the writers of the Old Testament, even if inspired by God, were not inspired to write exactly as modern Western writers would write today.
There were literary traditions of the time, and one of those included stereotypical language when it came to military conquest. When an ancient near eastern writer said a military leader “left no survivor” or “destroyed everything that breathed” it was a stock way of saying that they were victorious…not necessarily that they actually obliterated everything.
If our team ‘got killed’ on the softball field, it doesn’t mean you’ll be reading the entire team’s obituary in tomorrow’s paper. We might even say “The whole team played like crap!” even though one of our players had his best game of the season.
This kind of language occurs in the Old Testament books of Joshua, Judges and Deuteronomy. Later in Joshua 23, and Deuteronomy 7, even though this kind of conventional conquest language had been used referring to the Canaanites, the authors admonished the Israelites not to make political alliances or to intermarry with the people they had just annihilated . Obviously they assumed that a number of the Canaanites still inhabited the land.
Eradication of the Canaanite religion and making sure that they did not adopt their religious practices was more important than destroying the people themselves.
Driving Out The Canaanites
There are numerous references to ‘driving out the Canaanites’ in the Old Testament, or ‘dispossessing’ them of their land. These references can be found in Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Joshua. Driving out and dispossessing does not require killing and genocide. Civilians like women and children would be among the first to flee when their military strongholds were destroyed.
This simple article doesn’t answer every passage regarding genocide in the Bible, but certainly gives a basis for further study of the issue. You can find more information and references for this info in the article: Are Old Testament Laws Evil? – found here.
I hope this gave a bit of food for thought. I’m afraid it may have opened up a can of worms re: Biblical Inerrancy…so I might as well fan the flame a bit. This next statement may be a controversial to some, and I will eventually write a bit about it, but for now lets see if it makes you think a bit:
Christianity doesn’t stand or fall on whether or not the Bible is inerrant. If the Bible contains errors (though I don’t believe it does, at least how I understand inerrancy) Christianity could still stand as the truth that’s needed in our fallen world.
Next time I’ll be getting back to a couple more ideas surrounding the compatibility of an omnibenevolent (all-loving), omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipotent (all-powerful) God who still allows evil to exist.
Hope to see you then!
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
