Did Joshua commit genocide?

[tonychanyt]

That depends on your definition of genocide. No, he did not kill all the Canaanites, but yes, he did kill all the inhabitants of some Canaanite cities.

Dr Dan McClellan said:

If you look in Numbers, you look in Joshua where it is saying, "Kill everyone, everything that breathes those texts were written centuries after the fact and so they are looking back on history and trying to paint themselves as the victors and the champions, and those things never happened … they did not commit genocide.

For some cities, Joshua killed everyone or just about everyone:

Joshua 6:17-21: In the conquest of Jericho, the Israelites were commanded to destroy the city completely, sparing only Rahab and her family because she had helped the Israelite spies.

Joshua 8:24-26: At the battle of Ai, after the Israelites defeated the city, they killed all its inhabitants and left no survivors.

Joshua 10:28-40: In the campaign against the southern cities (e.g., Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, and Debir), the text repeatedly states that Joshua "left no survivors" and "totally destroyed all who breathed, as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded."

These are propagandistic fantasies from much later generations who are under the boot of larger states, fantasizing about a golden age when they were the ones who had the boots on. You can see the contradictions in the texts themselves in the Book of Joshua. You got these statements so these are all the cities where they killed every man, woman, child, every last thing that breathed, nothing was left alive and then three chapters later some of those cities, so there were these Canaanite cities that were still around and there were full of Canaanites.

Did Joshua conquer all the Canaanite cities and kill all Canaanites?

No.

Joshua 9: The Gibeonites deceived Joshua into making a treaty with them, and they were spared from destruction.

Joshua 11:23 is a summary statement: "So Joshua took the entire land, just as the Lord had directed Moses, and he gave it as an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal divisions. Then the land had rest from war." I would not interpret this verse literally without the broader context.

Joshua 15:63: "Judah could not dislodge the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the people of Judah."

Judges 1:27–36: This chapter explicitly lists numerous tribes and cities where the Canaanites remained, often paying tribute but continuing to inhabit the land.

So even when you look at the text itself, it is entirely inconsistent

Bold added.

Dr McCllellan needed to quote the entirely inconsistent verses precisely. Making such a claim without precise quotations is not scholarly. I would agree that the passages are somewhat inconsistent.

because the ones who are talking about this genocide are these propagandistic fantasies that reflect things that never happened. … The notion that the Israelites came into the territory and committed genocide to the Canaanite peoples that were there. That's total fiction.

The Book of Joshua is total fiction? I wonder who is fabricating the total fiction As a Christian, I would not assume such an extreme position.

 

[okay]

Regardless of whether it ‘counts’ as genocide, God ordering the mass slaughter of perhaps hundreds of thousands of children is pretty hard to handle.

I am not familiar with the fellow you are refuting, and I agree that he overstates things and seems sloppy, but I suspect I mostly agree with his views at the end of the day.

The Bible did not claim that Joshua conquered all the Canaanite cities

You don’t think Joshua 11:23 is claiming this?

So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the Lord had spoken to Moses, and Joshua gave it for an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal allotments. And the land had rest from war.

Of course chapter 13 contradicts this by mentioning a bunch of cities that were not captured.

I think this is probably just another case where the biblical writers and editors included views of different traditions even though they didn’t agree. So I agree with the Dr McClellan that the text is inconsistent, although his addition of the word ‘entirely’ might be problematic.

One very interesting thing about the conquest of the land of Canaan as presented in Joshua is that it very often contradicts the archeological evidence. At least that is what you hear from mainstream biblical scholars.

Pete Enns writes a few dozen pages on this in The Bible Tells Me So. But some folks aren’t fond of him because he is a ‘progressive’ Christian. In The Jewish Study Bible they also write about this. From the intro to Joshua:

The story of the conquest in Joshua does not accord, either in its general outlook or in its specific details, with the archeological data.
…
Archeology also contradicts the detailed stories of the conquest of the two cities, Jericho and Ai, which were apparently not inhabited during the late Bronze Age.

They actually write more about it (and also have a 10+ page essay on archeology and the Bible), but I think that gives the general idea.

How could the writers/editors claim to conquer a city that was uninhabited? One option is that it was written much later, like biblical scholars seem to think. Even the text itself seems to imply it was written a fairly long time after the events were supposed to have taken place, otherwise the multiple statements about things (like the stones placed in the Jordan in ch 4) that are ‘there to this day’ would not really mean anything.

So again I probably agree with Dr McClellan in that many of the events did not occur, and that they were written a long time after they would have occured. Whether or not they were written to be propaganda might be harder to say, though.

Getting back to how I started this post, in light of the archeological evidence I highly doubt that God ordered the mass slaughter of all of the Canaanites to include all of the children. It also goes against what Ezekiel writes (ch 18) about children not being punished for the sins of their fathers. Finally, I also cannot see Jesus ordering such a slaughter of children. But this is just my own opinion of course.

 

[tonychanyt]

Regardless of whether it ‘counts’ as genocide, God ordering the mass slaughter of perhaps hundreds of thousands of children is pretty hard to handle.

Right.

I am not familiar with the fellow you are refuting, and I agree that he overstates things and seems sloppy, but I suspect I mostly agree with his views at the end of the day.

He has a PhD and has a large following in TikTok.

You don’t think Joshua 11:23 is claiming this?

So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the Lord had spoken to Moses, and Joshua gave it for an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal allotments. And the land had rest from war.

Of course chapter 13 contradicts this by mentioning a bunch of cities that were not captured.

OK. Now I can see McClellan's point slightly better

So I agree with the Dr McClellan that the text is inconsistent, although his addition of the word ‘entirely’ might be problematic.

Right. My point in the OP is this: he made a claim without quoting any precise verses as you did

One very interesting thing about the conquest of the land of Canaan as presented in Joshua is that it very often contradicts the archeological evidence. At least that is what you hear from mainstream biblical scholars.

That's what McClellan pointed out as well. I had no problem with that.

So again I probably agree with Dr McClellan in that the events did not occur.

Do you put more weight on the currently known archaeological evidence or in the Book of Joshua?

Whether or not they were written to be propaganda might be harder to say, though.

That's just his speculation.

Getting back to how I started this post, in light of the archeological evidence I highly doubt that God ordered the mass slaughter of all of the Canaanites to include all of the children.

I don't doubt what was written in the Book of Joshua.

It also goes against what Ezekiel writes (ch 18) about children not being punished for the sins of their fathers.

See Being judged for the sins of your father? and follow up there.

Finally, I also cannot see Jesus ordering such a slaughter of children.

In the first coming of Jesus didn't. For the second coming of Jesus, he might; I don't know. However, I know this: After the resurrection, God's judgment will be just and righteous to everyone, including those slaughtered children.

Good post, brother I have made some modifications to my OP based on your input here. Feel free to follow up. Thanks.

 

[Maori Aussie]

I might note that the archaeology of the latest candidate for Ai is a large, fortified village, and that Judges Ch3 opens with a list of tribes not expelled from Israel.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I might note that the archaeology of the latest candidate for Ai is a large, fortified village, and that Judges Ch3 opens with a list of tribes not expelled from Israel.

Even if "genocide" isn't implied in various Old Testament passages, or if we find conclusive evidence that many texts were later edits in exilic/post-exilic Israel, I don't think certain folks will somehow be happier about the fact that God may have harshly judged certain people groups and used Israel to undertake herem warfare................ ................. it just doesn't jive with modern sentiments of human rights.

 

[Maori Aussie]

Even if "genocide" isn't implied in various Old Testament passages, or if we find conclusive evidence that many texts were later edits in exilic/post-exilic Israel, I don't think certain folks will somehow be happier about the fact that God may have harshly judged certain people groups and used Israel to undertake harem warfare................ ................. it just doesn't jive with modern sentiments of human rights.

Agreed. The biblical answer that the other nations all sacrificed their children to their gods, just doesn't jive with modern sentiments of human rights.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Regardless of whether it ‘counts’ as genocide, God ordering the mass slaughter of perhaps hundreds of thousands of children is pretty hard to handle.

I am not familiar with the fellow you are refuting, and I agree that he overstates things and seems sloppy, but I suspect I mostly agree with his views at the end of the day.


You don’t think Joshua 11:23 is claiming this?

So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the Lord had spoken to Moses, and Joshua gave it for an inheritance to Israel according to their tribal allotments. And the land had rest from war.

Of course chapter 13 contradicts this by mentioning a bunch of cities that were not captured.

I think this is probably just another case where the biblical writers and editors included views of different traditions even though they didn’t agree. So I agree with the Dr McClellan that the text is inconsistent, although his addition of the word ‘entirely’ might be problematic.

One very interesting thing about the conquest of the land of Canaan as presented in Joshua is that it very often contradicts the archeological evidence. At least that is what you hear from mainstream biblical scholars.

Pete Enns writes a few dozen pages on this in The Bible Tells Me So. But some folks aren’t fond of him because he is a ‘progressive’ Christian. In The Jewish Study Bible they also write about this. From the intro to Joshua:

The story of the conquest in Joshua does not accord, either in its general outlook or in its specific details, with the archeological data.
…
Archeology also contradicts the detailed stories of the conquest of the two cities, Jericho and Ai, which were apparently not inhabited during the late Bronze Age.

They actually write more about it (and also have a 10+ page essay on archeology and the Bible), but I think that gives the general idea.

How could the writers/editors claim to conquer a city that was uninhabited? One option is that it was written much later, like biblical scholars seem to think. Even the text itself seems to imply it was written a fairly long time after the events were supposed to have taken place, otherwise the multiple statements about things (like the stones placed in the Jordan in ch 4) that are ‘there to this day’ would not really mean anything.

So again I probably agree with Dr McClellan in that many of the events did not occur, and that they were written a long time after they would have occured. Whether or not they were written to be propaganda might be harder to say, though.

Getting back to how I started this post, in light of the archeological evidence I highly doubt that God ordered the mass slaughter of all of the Canaanites to include all of the children. It also goes against what Ezekiel writes (ch 18) about children not being punished for the sins of their fathers. Finally, I also cannot see Jesus ordering such a slaughter of children. But this is just my own opinion of course.

Even if "genocide" isn't implied in various Old Testament passages, or if we find conclusive evidence that many texts were later edits in exilic/post-exilic Israel, I don't think certain folks will somehow be happier about the fact that God may have harshly judged certain people groups and used Israel to undertake herem warfare................ ................. it just doesn't jive with modern sentiments of human rights.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Agreed. The biblical answer that they sacrificed their children to their gods, just doesn't jive with modern sentiments of human rights.

My apologies. That previous response of mine was meant to go toward OKAY, but I appreciate your input here.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

** cough ** ........... I meant to say, herem warfare, not harem warfare [sic]. I'm not sure what 'harem warfare' would look like, and frankly I don't want to know.

 

[okay]

Sorry for the late reply - the last few weeks have been nutty for our family!

Do you put more weight on the currently known archaeological evidence or in the Book of Joshua?

I am not an archeologist, but if my understanding is correct then it seems like there is a large amount of archeological evidence that goes against the biblical account. So yes, in this case I put more weight on the currently known archeological evidence regarding the historicity of the Canaanite conquest than our ability to try and get inside the heads of the writers/editors of Joshua and understand what they were trying to do and what information they were basing their writing on. From the inconsistencies in the text it seems clear to me that they weren't even attempting to assemble what a modern person would consider a 'historically accurate' account of what happened, so with my current understanding I don't find it surprising when we find extra-biblical evidence that isn't consistent with what we read in scripture.

There was a time when I felt like I must accept the biblical account of almost everything in order to be a faithful Christian, but for me personally it was a view of scripture that did not hold up and lead to a kind of crisis of faith. After some discussions with a pastor, he pointed me towards the work of scholars like Pete Enns, and to be honest when I started reading that kind of scholarship it was a little shocking to me. I felt disoriented for a day or two, but then it felt like my soul gave a sigh of relief. The pastor was very wise - he knew that I was just a couple of baby steps from walking away from faith altogether. Shifting my view of scripture allowed me to keep my faith and the bible, even though it meant that I no longer fit very well in that pastor's church.

These days I find it fascinating when archeological evidence agrees with parts of scripture (and the Jewish Study Bible I quoted in the OP shares some wonderful examples of this as well), but I personally feel like I am being intellectually dishonest if I am only willing to accept the evidence that agrees with scripture but not that which disagrees.

Finally, I also try to hold most of my beliefs about God and scripture somewhat loosely, so I wouldn't be surprised if my views are different 5 or 10 years from now.

 

[tonychanyt]

I am not an archeologist, but if my understanding is correct then it seems like there is a large amount of archeological evidence that goes against the biblical account.

Give me your best archeological evidence.

 

[okay]

Even if "genocide" isn't implied in various Old Testament passages, or if we find conclusive evidence that many texts were later edits in exilic/post-exilic Israel, I don't think certain folks will somehow be happier about the fact that God may have harshly judged certain people groups and used Israel to undertake herem warfare................ ................. it just doesn't jive with modern sentiments of human rights.

Agreed. And I used to think it was just modern sentiments until I recently read The Life of Moses by Gregory of Nyssa, who apparently had the same response to the killing of the Egyptian firstborn. I believe I mentioned this in some other thread already, but he asked the same questions I do (how is this just or holy?) and then states that we should not be at all surprised if the killing of the firstborn never happened. So even in the late 4th century there were folks who seemed to have problems with some of the portrayals of God in scripture and were skeptical that they were historically accurate accounts. But that is the only document by an early church father that I have ever read (besides what we have in the NT of course!), so I don't know how much of an outlier it is.

 

[okay]

Give me your best archeological evidence.

Here I am just going to lift stuff from The Bible Tells Me So. He does not present the evidence itself, but gives the conclusions that archeologists seems to have some consensus about. Before this he makes it clear that while archeologist are trained and experienced scholars, they of course are not always right, don't agree with each other, and can have their own blind spots. Anyway, here it goes:

Remember those thirty-on Canaanite towns listed in the book of Joshua (plus four other town on the other side of the Jordan River)? Sixteen towns were destroyed according to the stories in the books of Numbers, Joshua and Judges. Of those sixteen, two or three, maybe four, cities show signs of violent destruction at or around the time when Joshua and his army would have been plowing through Canaan (thirteenth century BCE, about two hundred years before the time of King David). That's it.

The towns on the other side of the Jordan River, in Moab, don't look like they were even occupied at the time

We also read in the Bible that twelve towns were taken over without a fight. But of those twelve, only seven were even occupied at the time, according to archeological findings. And of those same twelve towns that the Bible says weren't destroyed, three actually do show signs of destruction.

Jericho, the first of the towns to be razed in the book of Joshua, is the most famous example. Not only was Jericho minimally inhabited at best at the time, but it had no massive protective walls, which means the biblical story of the 'walls of jericho' tumbling down is a problem - at least that's what a hundred years of digging there has shown us

The two cities that fit best with what we read in Joshua are Bethel and Hazor, and perhaps a third, Debir. Another city, Lachish was also destroyed, but probably about a hundred years later - long after the swift victory tour described in the book of Joshua. Archeologically speaking, there is no sure way of knowing who was responsible, but nothing says "outsiders were here".

Enns does include a bibliography, and details can probably be found in the references.

I suspect this is the kind of stuff that was being referred to by the scholar who wrote the intro to Joshua in The Jewish Study Bible.

You can rightly criticize that I am not looking at the direct evidence. That is fair, although as a person with only a few areas where I am an actual 'expert', I am willing to accept the testimony of experts to a fair degree. In most areas of science, engineering, mathematics, etc., I also have not looked at the direct evidence, yet I give some benefit of the doubt to folks with actual expertise and credentials in the relevant field.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think this whole discussion amounts to the fallacy of presentism, reading modern concepts back into the past.

 

[tonychanyt]

Here I am just going to lift stuff from The Bible Tells Me So. He does not present the evidence itself, but gives the conclusions that archeologists seems to have some consensus about.

Are you now telling me that you don't know of any physical archaeological evidence against the Bible?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Agreed. And I used to think it was just modern sentiments until I recently read The Life of Moses by Gregory of Nyssa, who apparently had the same response to the killing of the Egyptian firstborn. I believe I mentioned this in some other thread already, but he asked the same questions I do (how is this just or holy?) and then states that we should not be at all surprised if the killing of the firstborn never happened. So even in the late 4th century there were folks who seemed to have problems with some of the portrayals of God in scripture and were skeptical that they were historically accurate accounts. But that is the only document by an early church father that I have ever read (besides what we have in the NT of course!), so I don't know how much of an outlier it is.

Believe it or not I empathize with your and Gregory of Nyssa's general feeling of revulsion and cringe against what appears as wanton or unjust killing, especially of children. From what I can tell from Christian Church History, Gregory of Nyssa was only perhaps an outlier in his sensitivity to what he read in the Old Testament, but not in his position in insisting that Christians refrain from the application of capital punishment or assuming that what we read in the Bible in all cases was really 'divine wrath.'

But, from all I've studied in the social sciences along with World History, the apprehensions people have to today when reading something like the death of Egypt's firstborn is an unfortunate symptom of a newer, but also heightened revulsion at anything that doesn't fit with the modern Human Rights sensibility that has come out of World War 2 and into our Post-Holocaust world.

If anything, this newer development in social sensibilities is just one more world development to add to what came with the Copernican Revolution, the Darwinian paradigm change, and the onset of the various other sciences---which disturbs people today and moves them emotionally to distance themselves from Christianity (or Judaism) and the Bible (or to shun even biblical prophecy like that we find in the book of Revelation-------folks like Bart Ehrman distances himself for just this very reason).

My advice in engaging and thinking this through so as to not be tempted to lose faith is to engage and study the historical and philosophical development of the topic of Human Rights, fairly evaluating its central, core values, its strengths and its weaknesses.

I have to say that the modern Human Rights social sensibility also has weaknesses because, honestly, so many people think it has none and that to criticize it in any way, shape or form is nearly tantamount to a thought crime. This tendency toward absolutizing modern Human Rights without question and via complete dismissal of any critical analysis is a form of begging the question, a fallacy that seems to emerge along with the discomfort people feel to the point that they wish to distance themselves from any religion which poses a countervailing social ideology.

And yes, I have plenty of academic, NON-extremist sources by which to back my statements here. If you would like, I'll be glad to offer a brief bibliography for reading if you wish to study this other angle.

 

[FireDragon76]

The accounts of the conquest of Canaan are not histories in the modern sense.

The story of Moses and Joshua represents a legendary narrative from the northern kingdom of Israel, the Jahwist tradition, probably written down around the time of the Babylonian Exile. The social and political significance of such stories should be nearly obvious in that context, since Babylon represented another kind of captivity. The theological meaning of such a legendary tale is that Jews had been in captivity before (as a vasal state of the Egyptians), and God delivered them, and would do so again in the future.

The later Hebrew prophets and the story of Jonah, on the other hand, represent a contrasting theological response to the Babylonian captivity, one that ultimately shaped the Christian self-understanding alot more than looking for a military messiah.

 

[okay]

Are you now telling me that you don't know of any physical archaeological evidence against the Bible?

I have not read any of the countless volumes of dig reports from various sites, nor have I read any of the peer-reviewed literature. So no, I don't. I suspect I wouldn't even know how to properly read and interpret archaeological evidence. For example, to me a broken piece of pottery is nothing helpful, but the expert is skilled at using pieces of pottery to help date the layers at a site. And much of the issue here is when certain cities were inhabited and when they were destroyed. And this can be complicated by the fact that many of these cities were destroyed multiple times throughout history.

What I have done is read a few summaries written for lay people, listened to multiple academic archaeologists and biblical scholars talk about the subject, and had a long one-on-one discussion with a trusted pastor who had learned about this from a course he took in graduate school.

None of the lay-audience oriented stuff I have consumed from scholars has directly addressed the physical evidence in any detail, as far as I recall. This is not at all surprising to me. In the distant past I published peer-reviewed articles based on analyzing voltages measured by scientific payloads in space, yet when I was asked to write a general-audience piece for the nasa web site I did not even use the word 'voltage' or present any of the direct evidence. Instead, I provided my interpretation and cartoons to help people understand what was going on.

 

[tonychanyt]

In the distant past I published peer-reviewed articles

Can you cite some? I'll be interested

 

[FireDragon76]

Getting back to how I started this post, in light of the archeological evidence I highly doubt that God ordered the mass slaughter of all of the Canaanites to include all of the children. It also goes against what Ezekiel writes (ch 18) about children not being punished for the sins of their fathers. Finally, I also cannot see Jesus ordering such a slaughter of children. But this is just my own opinion of course.

I don't know. Jesus was obviously a person of his time as well as being a divine figure, to say otherwise is to deny his essential humanity. He had to work within the assumptions he was given through his religious upbringing. I think it's less important to try to get inside Jesus' head, than it is to emulate what Jesus said and did, and try to think about how that impacts our own discipleship.

The Judaism Jesus inherited was complicated- I think many immature or intellectually naive Christians underestimate that. Even many Jews since Jesus time have struggled with the meaning of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), which is why there is a rich history of interpretation that is in itself a discipline to study. I think Jesus takes the whole of his tradition and reduces it to a few touchstones: Love God, love your neighbor as yourself, defend the cause of the most vulnerable, etc., which open up the tradition to different interpretations in different situations, and don't present the kind of formulaic, legalistic practice that alot of more conservative Christians would like to see.

On the subject of genocide, it's important to remember where the touchstone of the notion of genocide being a great crime comes from in the first place. It comes from the common Abrahamic tradition that says that humans are particular creatures with a unique dignity owing to their creation in the image of God.