Pages

Wednesday, February 26, 2020

Weeding evil

Here's a thoughtful response to facile charges of OT "genocide" by Iain Provan:

Dear RJS:

I've been following with great interest your posts on Seriously Dangerous Religion for the last several months, and all the comments they have generated. I want to thank you very much for your thorough and accurate reporting on the content of the book – I feel very well represented!

Now that your posts are concluded, I wonder if I could enter the discussion on the point that is the focus of the final one? In this post, you say that "a valid case can be made that The Old Story is intrinsically dangerous if it actively teaches and encourages violence and warfare." I do agree with this sentiment. So the question is: does the Old Testament do such things? It certainly describes violence and warfare in the ancient world – but does it actively teach and encourage us to engage in these activities? After all, there are many actions described in the Old Testament that cannot reasonably be taken by the alert reader of Scripture as intended for our imitation (e.g. David's adulterous actions with respect to Bathsheba). This includes many actions commanded by God – since the alert Scripture reader knows that God commanded ancient Israelites to do many things that are not required of the Church (e.g. to engage in animal sacrifice). So we need to be discriminating in our judgments when it comes to questions of "teaching" and "encouragement." My own judgment with respect to herem warfare very much agrees with your own: "We are not called to purify the land or to establish a holy kingdom by force." That is absolutely correct, in my opinion.

The question of whether ancient Israel was ever called by God to do such a thing is another matter, and I think that it will help with clarity if we consider it separately. My conviction here is that our biblical authors certainly thought that ancient Israel was called to do such a thing at one point in its history. But here it is very important to read carefully and to note what these authors do say about this, and what they do not. In spite of what modern readers quite often claim (and this includes some of your respondents), the biblical authors evidently do not think that Israel was called to conquer and settle Canaan because of the race or ethnicity of the previous inhabitants, or because Israel had some kind of right to the land and the previous inhabitants were simply and inconveniently "there," in the wrong place and at the wrong time. Our authors explicitly tell us, to the contrary, that in the events of the conquest and settlement, the Canaanite peoples were experiencing the justice of God, on account of their longstanding wickedness (Genesis 15:16; Leviticus 18:24-26; Deuteronomy 9:4-5) – just as the Israelites themselves in the period of the later monarchy are also driven out of the land on account of their longstanding wickedness. For the biblical authors, the war in Canaan was God's (and not the Israelites') war. The Israelites are only God's vassals, summoned to help him fight against wickedness (e.g. Amos 2:9; Psalm 78:53-55).

Perhaps we should like to argue with our biblical authors about these claims; but at least we should recognize that this, and not something else, is indeed what they propose. It will not help the conversation if we begin by misunderstanding them. If we then advance to the argument itself, it interests me to know how we shall establish that, in fact, these claims are false – that, in fact, God was not bringing justice on the Canaanites for their long-term wickedness, but that something else was happening instead. What is the argument to be, on this point? That God cannot bring justice on wicked cultures in the here-and-now, but must wait until the eschaton? Or what? We need to be clear on this point. It will not do just to say that "this idea is dangerous because it has, in the past, and might in the future, encourage some people-groups to attack others." The biblical authors do not tell us about these events in order that we can generalize from them about how we can recruit God to our own bloodthirsty schemes. Indeed, Scripture as a whole never does generalize from them, as it does from the Exodus, about the ways of God in the world. They are understood, within Scripture itself, as highly unusual events (which is indeed why I did not spend much time discussing them in my book – they are not considered in Scripture to be "normative"). Yet the question remains: did God (unusually) once bring these people-groups to justice in this way or not? The biblical authors claim that God did. What are the grounds for dismissing this claim?

And then, thirdly, there is the question of what, exactly, ancient Israel was called by God to do with respect to the Canaanites – not the "whether" question, but the "what" question. This is an important question that has not received as much consideration as it deserves and needs. Modern readerly attention tends to be drawn quickly to the herem language in answering this question, and to passages like Joshua 10:40-42 that give the impression that the conquest of the land of Canaan was complete, and that all the original inhabitants were wiped out. Yet the predominant way of referring to the conquest of Canaan in the Old Testament is in terms of expulsion, not killing (e.g. Leviticus 18:24-28; Numbers 33:51-56; 2 Kings 16:3)— just as the Israelites, later, are said to have been expelled from the land because they sinned in the same way as the Canaanites (2 Kings 17:7-23). Further, there are clearly many Canaanites still living in the land in the aftermath of Joshua's victories – people who are not ultimately even expelled from the land, much less killed (e.g. Judges 1:1-3:6; 2 Samuel 24:7; 1 Kings 9:15-23). Clearly, then, there is something very strange about the language of Joshua 10 (and associated passages). Indeed, as Lawson Younger has helped us to see (Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing, 1990), we are likely dealing here with the kind of hyperbolic language that is fairly typical of ancient Near Eastern conquest accounts in general – with ancient literary conventions governing descriptions of conquest and battle that should not be pressed in a literalistic manner. To press them in such a manner is immediately, in fact, to create enormous tension between what they apparently say, and what other Old Testament passages say about such important matters as distinguishing combatants from non-combatants in warfare (e.g., Exodus 22:24; Numbers 14:3), and not holding children, in particular, morally accountable for wrongdoing, or allowing them to be caught up in the consequences of their parents' wrongdoing (Deuteronomy 1:39; 24:16—in the very book of Deuteronomy that speaks about the Canaanite wars). A particular absurdity that arises from such a literalistic approach is that Deuteronomy 7:1-3 must then be read as speaking of God "driving out" the current inhabitants of the land, then urging the Israelites to "destroy them totally" (herem), and then prohibiting intermarriage with them!

We are dealing with very important matters here. I hope that this short response has at least clarified what I think about them, and what it is that I read the biblical authors as thinking about them. I am very grateful to have had the chance to write. I shall also be grateful, however, if readers of both the Old Testament and my own humble attempt to explicate it in Seriously Dangerous Religion do not so dwell on these things that they neglect the many matters that our biblical authors consider to be much more centrally important. People like Richard Dawkins display a purpose in such a focused neglect. Perhaps the only thing worse than this is neglect with no purpose at all. There are many other aspects of the OT tradition that deserve our attention, and which RJS herself has done an admirable job of articulating over the last few months.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2015/04/16/more-on-seriously-dangerous-religion-rjs

HT: Hawk

In general a good response. A potential weakness of this explanation is that because humans are social creatures, the innocent are sometime caught in the dragnet of collective punishment, so a separation between innocent and guilty isn 't always feasible in this life.

2 comments:

  1. https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2020/02/weeding-evil.html#comment-form

    Michael Heiser makes the proposal that the commands by God to totally destroy (cherem, devote to destruction as an offering to God) are focused on the giant clans (i.e. descended from the Nephilim and other offspring resultant from Watchers mating with human women).

    My amateur own delving with the aid of an interlinear as follows (I would blog it but I haven't updated my blog in years):

    -------

    Strong's 2763 charam (noun) and 2764 cherem (verb) - here are the passages where God commands it against the inhabitants of the Promised Land. I am excluding other situations such as the much later command to Saul to wipe out the Amalekites.

    Numbers 21:1-3, king of Arad. He attacks Israel first and takes captives. NB: Israel makes the proposal of cherem to God here.

    Deut 2:34, Sihon the Amorite. Amos 2:9 states that Amorites are tall & strong like cedars & oaks, implying large size. Earlier in the chapter it's stated that the Israelites are passing thru territory that was formerly held by Emim who are as tall as Anakim, and both are counted as Rephaim (v10-11); as well as Zamzummim who are also Rephaim, also as tall as Anakim (v20-21). So this entire area was 'giant turf'. [See end of post for notes on Rephaim and giants.] NB: Rephaim (same word as in Deut 2), Emim (same word) and Hazzuzim (doesn't seem to be same root) also appear in the Genesis 14:5 battle..

    Deut 3:6, Og of Bashan. v11 states he is the last of the Rephaim and has a huge bed (NB:the measurements are the exact same as the cultic ritual bed of Mesopotamian chief deity Marduk, which means that the bed's ridiculous oversize shouldn't be taken as Og's literal size). v13 states that all that area of Bashan is called the land of Rephaim - Bashan was held by the locals to be where the entrance to the underworld is, indeed it's the area of Caesaerea Phillipi with its pagan-idol cliff, Gates of Hades underground river cavern and Mount Hermon (Strong's 2768, same root word as charam).

    Deut 7:2, the 'Seven -ites'. This is the passage usually cited as the command to 'genocide all the locals in the Promised Land'. Of these seven tribes, Numbers 13 has the spies report back on four tribes by name living there, with Num 13:32-33 stating that all the people in the land are tall and the Sons of Anak, descendants of the Nephilim are there. Heiser proposes that this indicates that the command to cherem in Deut 7:2 implies it is the Anakim found in these areas which makes them subject to cleansing.

    Deut 13:15, actually a punishment for religiously treacherous Israelite cities.

    Deut 20:16-18, the six tribes (missing the unmentioned Girgashites). With the reasoning so they won't teach the abominable practices of their gods.

    >>>CONT

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joshua 2:10, both Sihon and Og are specified to be Amorites.

      Joshua 6:17,18,21 all the city of Jericho.

      Joshua 8:26, Joshua 10:1 all the inhabitants of Ai.

      Joshua 10, all the inhabitants of Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, maybe Gezer, Eglon, Hebron, Debir and 'the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes' from Kadesh-barnea as far as Gaza, Goshen as far as Gibeon. v5&16 notes that the five kings of the Amorites led the attack on Israel and hid in the cave at Makkedah when they lost. The chapter doesn't mention cherem-ing Jerusalem and Jarmuth whose kings were part of the five.

      Joshua 11, v3 has a list of countries that includes the six -ites (again, missing the Girgashites) all teaming up against Israel. v11-12 states that they all get cherem. v21-22 states that Joshua kills all the Anakim in the hill country across all the lands, with some left in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod (Philistine territories). That last bit will be cleaned up by David (who kills Goliath in 1 Sam 17) and his men (who kill the descendants of the Gath 'giants' in 2 Sam 21:15-22 parallel 1 Chron 20:4-8, but see immediately below for clarification). Heiser's proposal is that this closing summary v21-23 (And the land had rest from war) indicates God's purpose of cherem across the land - wiping out the giant clans, which Joshua fulfilled. Joshua did not actually manage to actually conquer the entire territory promised to Abraham (ref Joshua 23, Judges 1) which seems to go against Joshua 11:23 - unless there's something else being indicated.

      -------

      CONCLUSION:

      It seems quite conceivable that the implicit purpose behind the cherem commands are to ensure that all remnants of the giants are wiped out - any possible descendants, and all across the Promised Land, sorry about the collateral damage to non-giants living around them. However the available Bible-only data feels insufficient to conclusively prove this thesis.

      -------

      ON REPHAIM:

      Strong's 7496 rapha (noun) and 7497 Rapha (proper name) - these words seem almost identical, with the former (only 8 occurrences total) referring to dead spirits and the latter mainly linked to giants. I can see why Jewish readers of the Biblical text could speculate that dead giants become the unclean spirits that haunt the earth.

      2 Sam 21:15-22 (parallel 1 Chron 20:4-8) actually states 'descendant of Rephaim' each time, not 'descendant of giants' - but since the other details in these passages indicate great size, it stands to reason that Rephaim are understood to have great size. See also Deut 2 & 3 where Rephaim are alluded to be tall.

      Delete