1. God's purpose was not annihilation but dispossession.
Miller tries to lessen the horror by saying that what God really wanted was for the Canaanites to migrate out of the land and allow the Israelites to have it. The Canaanites should have taken the warnings that were given to them and abandoned their land. He maintains that most did and the few die-hards that remained behind were the ones killed.
He writes:
There is a strong possibility that most of the 'innocent' people left the country before the actual battles began in each local turf. Those that stayed behind were the die-hards, the "carriers" of Canaanite culture, the ruling, decadent, exploitative elite. We also saw that only a very tiny minority of people were actually killed in this campaign, relative to most military conquests in the ANE.
He argues this based on how many times certain words appear. He says:
"Dispossession" would include the words like "drive out," "dispossess," "take over possession of," "thrust out," "send away" (33 occurrences). "Destruction" words would include "annihilate," "destroy," "perish," and "eliminate" (11 occurrences). The Dispossession words would indicate that the population "ran away"--migrated out of the Land prior to any encounter with the Israelites; Destruction words would indicate the consequences for those who stayed behind.
What then is the mix of these two sets of words? The "Dispossession" words outnumber the "Destruction" words by 3-to-1! This would indicate that the dominant "intended effect" was for the peoples in the Land to migrate somewhere else.
Is there no limit to how far evangelicals will go in an attempt to defend the indefensible? I guess not. The fact that the so-called dispossess words outnumber the destruction words three to one is immaterial. The destruction words are still there and according to the Scriptures, the destruction or massacre took place. See the passages below:
Joshua 6:21--They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it--men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys. (NIV)
Joshua 8:24-25--When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. Twelve thousand men and women fell that day--all the people of Ai. (NIV)
Joshua 10:28-39--That day Joshua took Makkedah. He put the city and its king to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it. He left no survivors. And he did to the king of Makkedah as he had done to the king of Jericho. Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Makkedah to Libnah and attacked it. The Lord also gave that city and its king into Israel's hand. The city and everyone in it Joshua put to the sword. He left no survivors there. And he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho. Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Libnah to Lachish; he took up positions against it and attacked it. The Lord handed Lachish over to Israel, and Joshua took it on the second day. The city and everyone in it he put to the sword, just as he had done to Libnah. Meanwhile, Horam king of Gezer had come up to help Lachish, but Joshua defeated him and his army--until no survivors were left. Then Joshua and all Israel with him moved on from Lachish to Eglon; they took up positions against it and attacked it. They captured it that same day and put it to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it, just as they had done to Lachish. Then Joshua and all Israel with him went up from Eglon to Hebron and attacked it. They took the city and put it to the sword, together with its king, its villages and everyone in it. They left no survivors. Just as at Eglon, they totally destroyed it and everyone in it. Then Joshua and all Israel with him turned around and attacked Debir. They took the city, its king and its villages, and put them to the sword. Everyone in it they totally destroyed. They left no survivors. They did to Debir and its king as they had done to Libnah and its king and to Hebron.
The fact is that the dispossession was accomplished through the massacre. Once the people were killed, they were in effect dispossed of the land. How does Miller know that most of the people left first and only a few were killed? He doesn't. He is just hoping that is the case because it seems to lessen the impact of his God killing innocent women and children. However, even if only one infant were deliberately killed in the entire campaign ordered by Yahweh, the moral problem still exists. If a person goes on trial for murder, is it any excuse for him to say, "Well I only killed one person." That is ludicrous.
2. It was more humane for the children to be killed than to be left alive.
He writes:
. . .children living in the households of their evil parents apparently died swiftly in the one-day event (instead of being killed--as homeless orphans--by a combination of starvation, wild beasts, exposure, and disease; or instead of being captured and sold as slaves by neighboring tribes, for the older ones perhaps?)
Well, I guess I have heard it all now. It was better to kill these children and infants than to allow them to live. After all, they would have starved or been killed by wild beasts, etc. Did Miller not stop to think that perhaps the Israelites could have taken these children and cared for them? If he were to argue that it was not feasible for them to do so, I would remind him that his God supposedly caused the sun to stand still (Joshua 10:12-13)during one of these battles. If his God could have accomplished that, why couldn't he do something to save the infants and children? The only conclusion is that he just didn't care (assuming this really happened as Miller thinks it did).
"Did Miller not stop to think that perhaps the Israelites could have taken these children and cared for them? If he were to argue that it was not feasible for them to do so, I would remind him that his God supposedly caused the sun to stand still (Joshua 10:12-13)during one of these battles. If his God could have accomplished that, why couldn't he do something to save the infants and children? The only conclusion is that he just didn't care (assuming this really happened as Miller thinks it did)."
ReplyDeleteDeuteronomy 20 is relevant here. According to Deuteronomy 20, the Israelites are to offer the cities outside of Canaan terms of peace, and, if the cities refuse, they are to kill all the males and keep the women and children as booty. The cities inside of Canaan, however, are under the cherem, in which everything is destroyed---men, women, and children.
I once used Glenn Miller's argument while teaching a church Bible study. It made sense to me at the time. I think one area where it's valuable is that it highlights the existence of different traditions on the Conquest in the Hebrew Bible (although that probably wasn't his intention). In one tradition, the Canaanites are slowly and gradually dispossessed (Exodus 23:28ff.). In other traditions, such as Deuteronomy 20 and the passages you quote, the Israelites slaughter the Canaanites in one fell swoop. Some scholars have even argued that the Israelites offered the Canaanites terms of peace (which is one way some of the rabbis handled the issue), as Deuteronomy prescribes for the cities outside of Canaan, since Joshua 11:19 stresses that there was not a Canaanite city that made peace with the Israelites, except for the Hivites of Gideon. Then there's the tradition that the Israelites didn't even slaughter all of the Canaanites, and this crops up in Judges.
I've been wanting to read how MandyM's blog handles the Conquest, since it seems to be sensitive to historical-critical issues surrounding it. But I haven't gotten around to it.
James,
ReplyDeleteI am not familiar with MandyM. What is the URL?
Yes, I agree with you that there are different traditions in the Pentateuch relative to the Conquest. However, evangelicals such as Miller, Craig, and Copan, insist that the Pentateuch was all written by Moses around 1400 BCE. Its that contention that I argue against.
It's http://www.mandm.org.nz/
ReplyDeleteI know she and Loftus have butted heads more than once. But I haven't gotten around to reading the site---at least not in any depth. But you may find good material to respond to---though it's not always the typical conservative spiel.
Dear Dr. Pulliam,
ReplyDeleteDo I correctly understand your position that the Almighty did not dictate the Pentateuch to Moses - not around 1400 BCE nor at any time and the Pentateuch is a story made up and compiled by human beings?
I might be able to agree with you except for this point. Deuteronomy 4:25-35 contains the prophesy that the Children of Israel will enter the land of Israel and eventually will worship idols and abandon the Torah. This happens. The Almighty says He will scatter them among the nations and they will remain few in number. This happens. Deuteronomy 30 says that when the long list of blessings and curses happen to the Children of Israel, they will return to the Torah and the Almighty will gather them and return them to the land of Israel. I can’t think of another group of people throughout history that have remained a nation even though they didn’t have a land nor sometimes a common language. They have certainly been scattered all over the world. If I had been born in the early 1900's I would not have believed the prophesy that the Almighty would return the Children of Israel to the land. After all it had been over 3000 years since the Jewish people say this took place. Then the curse of the holocaust occurred and immediately afterward the Land of Israel was given back to the Jewish people. And then the Iron Curtain came down allowing thousands of Russian Jews to leave and return to the land of Israel.
Deuteronomy 4:35 says to the Children that they have experienced the exodus from Egypt and hearing the Almighty speak so that THEY will know there is “none beside Him”. Ezekiel 37:21-28 says that the Almighty will return them to their land, they will keep His decrees, they will live in peace so that THE NATIONS will know the Almighty. This seems to be the entire purpose of the Torah.
I checked MandM's blog, and the posts on the Conquest are on January 3 and 10, 2010. I haven't read them thoroughly yet, but they seem to go the "it's hyperbole" route, and you mentioned that perspective in a post. Whether that works or not, I'm not sure. I admit that this kind of hyperbole exists in Ancient Near Eastern writing, but I'm not sure if it can apply to the Conquest, especially when Deuteronomy 20 distinguishes between slaughtering only males and slaughtering everyone. It seems too specific to be hyperbole.
ReplyDeleteP.S. One reason you may want to engage their posts, Ken, is that they bring up Plantinga and Kitchen, who are evangelicals.
ReplyDeleteEmet,
ReplyDeleteSince I don't believe in the God of the Hebrew Bible, then of course I don't believe that he dictated anything to anyone.
As for your arguments about the restoration of Israel. I think the "prophecies" you mention refer to the Babylonian captivity and subsequent return. This is the consensus of academic Biblical scholarship.
James,
ReplyDeleteThanks. I have just read both posts and will interact with them in a future post. My initial reaction is that they are failing to take into account the nature of cherem but I will study their arguments in more detail.
Emet L:Do I correctly understand your position that the Almighty did not dictate the Pentateuch to Moses - not around 1400 BCE nor at any time and the Pentateuch is a story made up and compiled by human beings?
ReplyDeleteI can't speak for Dr. Pulliam, but the historical consensus is that no, the Torah was not dictated to Moses in 1400 BCE. It was compiled some time during and after the Babylonian Captivity and was a combination of national epic and legend.
I might be able to agree with you except for this point. Deuteronomy 4:25-35 contains the prophesy that the Children of Israel will enter the land of Israel and eventually will worship idols and abandon the Torah. This happens.
Deuteronomy probably did not get written at the same time as the rest of the Torah. The 2 Kings account of King Josiah tells of the cleansing of the Temple and the "discovery" of a heretofore unknown book that was subsequently read to the people. Scholarly consensus is that the book in question was Deuteronomy and it was written specifically to be discovered. The writing style is quite different from the rest of the Torah and consistent with the prophecies being written at the time, specifically Isaiah.
As such, Deuteronomy did not so much predict the events following the Torah as confirm them.
Ken: I think the "prophecies" you mention refer to the Babylonian captivity and subsequent return. This is the consensus of academic Biblical scholarship.
On the chance you're interested, there are severe historical issues with the Biblical account of the Babylonian Captivity. I started with an off-hand comment in this post, then developed the thought in this post and, finally, this post.
The nickel tour, though, is this: the timeline of the return from the Babylonian Captivity doesn't make any sense at all. And it certainly doesn't fulfill that 70 years of exile prophecy in Jeremiah thing.
Emet is saying the same disgusting thing that most dispensational evangelicals make: that the holocaust was God's cursing on the Jewish people.
ReplyDeleteThe sad thing is that when I was an evangelical, I used to believe that could be true. When I think about the garbage I believed.....
The sad thing is that when I was an evangelical, I used to believe that could be true. When I think about the garbage I believed.....
ReplyDeleteWe've all been there. It's okay.
Mike and everyone who reads my above post,
ReplyDeleteI am horrified as I reread my post. As I read the word "curse" I see how you could think I was saying that the holocaust was the Almighty's curse on the Jewish people. I had just been reading the Book of Esther and attended a Purim party when I wrote my comment. When the name of the evil Haman is read everyone makes noise to drown out his name. People say, Blessed be Mordechai and cursed be Haman. Hitler (may his memory be erased) is often compared to Haman. I can only think that my thoughts were about cursing Hitler. I apologize to all who will read my poor writing and I ask your forgiveness. I am not nor have ever been an evangelical Christian. I was raised Catholic and rejected all religion very early in my life. I considered it a made up story. In the past years I have been studying Judaism. My point was that I am reconsidering the authenticity of the Torah which was written thousands of years ago, based on the return of the Jewish people to the land of Israel after several thousand years.