Nevertheless, there were likely only a few small battles in a few places (like Hazor). The stories of mass extermination of Canaanites that God ordered (Deuteronomy 7:1-5 and 20:10-20) do not depict brute historical events, but Israel’s culturally influenced way of making an important theological statement (see #5). If that is true, it complicates Piper’s assumption that one can point to the book of Joshua and say “God is like this.”
5. It is not at all clear that these biblical stories were even written to depict “what God did.” Recent work has made the case that the book of Joshua is not a “conquest narrative.” Rather, using conquest as a narrative setting, Joshua is a statement about what it means to be an insider or an outsider to their community. The conquest stories are symbolic narratives that point to a theological truth.
i) Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the OT conquest accounts are hyperbolic. Even so, that wouldn’t make them symbolic.
For instance, suppose that Egyptian, Assyrian, and Neo-Babylonian court historians exaggerate the military exploits of their respective empires. But even if we make allowance for inflated claims, does that mean the Egyptians, Assyrian, and Neo-Babylonian empires never actually conquered anyone? Never subjugated surrounding nations?
ii) I’m sure we can expect an increasing number of monographs that “rethink” OT conquest accounts. That labor to take the sting out of the offending narratives.
But whether or not you believe in the inspiration of the OT, that’s hardly plausible. Rather, that’s a politically correct attempt to domesticate these intractable “texts of terror.” That reflects the ethical sensibilities of the modern churchmen or academics who write them. But there’s no evidence that the OT narrators share their embarrassment. Rather, that’s projecting modern scruples on ancient conquest accounts.
Imagine applying that hermeneutic to Egyptians, Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, or Roman conquest accounts or royal reliefs. Is there any reason to think court historians felt moral compunction about the military exploits of they celebrating in their public art and conquest accounts?
It is not at all clear that these biblical stories were even written to depict “what God did.” [...] The conquest stories are symbolic narratives that point to a theological truth.
ReplyDeleteInteresting. Same approach so many take on Genesis. Argue from the fact that the text has a theological claim in mind to the conclusion that the events probably never happened or at least probably never happened the way described. Apparently, we are to assume God is incapable or uninterested in actually creating history with theological significance.