(17 votes, average: 4.76 out of 5)
Loading...
In this thread I have been discussing the wrath of God as manifest in the writings of the Old Testament, in preparation for a later discussion of the divine judgments meted out in the New Testament book of Revelation.
In a number of Old Testament narratives God asserts his raw divine power not because he is angry at the disobedience of his people but because he does not want them to be corrupted by outsiders, the “Others” who will lead them astray. In one sense I suppose God could be said to be angry with these outsiders, but it is a little difficult to see why, since he has not revealed himself to them and they are simply worshiping the gods they and their ancestors have worshiped from time immemorial.
But in any event, the outsiders need to be destroyed to prevent them from badly affecting the Israelites. Nowhere is this theme played out more consistently and graphically than in the book of Joshua, the sixth book of the Hebrew Bible (right after the Pentateuch). Joshua is about the conquest and distribution of the Promised Land. The context: God has delivered his people Israel from their slavery in Egypt through the Exodus, given them his Law, forced them to stay in the wilderness for forty years for disobedience, and is not prepared to give the land promised to the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
The land is already inhabited, so the Israelites have to take it by force; in the book of Joshua they do so under Moses’ military successor (from whom the book derives its name) and then divvy it up among the twelve tribes.
Here is how…
This post gets to some of the key issues of the entire Bible, about how God is to be understood. Is he kind and benevolent? A ruthless tyrant? Both? Something else? To keep reading, join the blog! Click here for membership options
I take comfort in the likelihood that the ancient Israelites just had their ethnogenesis peacefully evolve in the highlands of Canaan, while these accounts of Joshua are fictional chest beating power fantasies of how their descendants were proud warlike conquerors.
Fancying one’s people in this way did seem to be fashionable at the time, whether historically accurate or not.
Mr. Ehrman, how do modern apologists account for the slaughter in Jericho?
I”m not sure. When I was a committed evangelical, our view was that these people knew that there was only one God (based on Romans 1:18-32), and they knew he was teh Creator, but the rejected that knowledge to pursue their sinful ways, so God was just to order their destruction in order to preserve teh purity of his people.
Thanks for the answer, but, to me at least, that doesn’t make any sense! Why would someone *know* there’s a certain creator who asks for specific things in order for you to prosper and be saved (? – I’m not sure about the latter, if it stood as a concept in that time), and you willingly repudiate him, knowing (I assume) that you could very well be annihilated for that?!
It doesn’t to me either. But the logic Paul uses is that anyone who looks around at the creation realizes there had to be a single creator.
So many problems with these stories. E.g., similar to the Flood narrative when God repents afterwards, seeing that it wouldn’t change things, so the Israelites go on to be just as bad as the people they displaced, according to the prophets, so what was the point of all this killing? But to me the worst aspect is that it is bad enough that people would kill because they believe God told them to, but it is even worse to know that people will kill if some authority figure tells them that God wants them to kill. I hope that if I was in that position I would question the orders to kill women and children, but given group mentality, I probably would not have.
I’m curious to know whether other first millennium BCE nations/cultures depicted their gods similarly in their writings: jealous, wrathful, fearful that their people will stray, ruthless and blood-thirsty.
That’s exactly the problem with Joshua. When Augustine (following Ambrose) was developing his theory of just war, which must be defensive and with mercy for the defeated, he made an exception – if God commanded it, a war of annihilation didn’t need to follow the “just war” limitation. He cited Joshua as his authority.
When the Crusaders massacred Jerusalem in 1099, some of the near-contemporary chroniclers tried to justify it by citing to Joshua. Around 1630, New England preachers tried to reassure people uneasy about slaughtering the local tribes that they were in a war like Joshua’s.
Dankoh,
This is why the Bible is dangerous. Some books just should not be read. And I love the Bible. No one seems to realize that this isn’t about WAR ON EARTH. It is about WAR INSIDE YOURSELF. Great storytelling became actual fact, and that’s DANGEROUS. A little knowledge is worse than none, sometimes. The whole story is needed to understand any of it. Every itsy bitsy detail is representative of something else. The five kings in Joshua 10 slain without mercy, for example, represent the five ills of man slain by the overcomer: lust, anger, greed, attachment and vanity.
These are also mentioned in the Gospel of Judas, BART. The five COMBATANTS consorting with the six stars, page 55, are lust anger, greed, attachment, and vanity. The stars are probably chakras. The warriors, or combatants will persish “along with their creation [offspring]” — desire.
I’m telling all of you. That is what this is all about! Masters have written entire books on mystic interpretation. The best is by a recent American disciple of Great Master, Maharaj Sawan Singh:
https://www.amazon.com/Mystic-Bible-Randolph-Stone/dp/0907544118
It’s $254 used, but worth every penny. Buy it! I have three copies now, I believe. 454 pages. Blow anyone’s mind, guaranteed.
Just had a little search and found that you can buy it here for around $51AUD which is around $40USD I believe:)
https://www.bookdepository.com/Mystic-Bible-Dr-Randolph-Stone/9781941489611?redirected=true&selectCurrency=AUD&w=AF45AU960KJ24VA8V9F5&gclid=Cj0KCQjwvaeJBhCvARIsABgTDM6nowjlKoOrXop4Anpekg6Z5ACunso8ce7Txkra8evl29hYwq__XdsaAqH-EALw_wcB
Voltaire also comes to mind, words to the effect of : “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”. Think of suicide bombers & the like . . . And I am once again inclined to accept Einstein’s observation that “Three great Forces rule the world : Stupidity, Fear & Greed”. It seems few like to admit the primal psychology which is simply in our DNA and can never be left behind, only tamed if we choose to.
From this, Prof Ehrman, I have a question. For all the words we see in the Christian canon of support, defence & eventual justice for the weak & disadvantaged I know of no example where this charitable view is extended to those who are lazy in body or mind – who display stupidity. Is this right? Have I missed something?
I have certainly seen purported Christian teachers, most often with fundamentalist leanings, take offence when intellectual discipline, analysis & reasoning are applied to their truth claims. Hence why you are so unpopular with them?! They dismiss it, Biblically they claim, as “the wisdom of men”. But that is certainly preferable to the nonsense of the stupid.
I don’t think this was unusually cruel by the standards of the time (except for killing the animals). But is this really the God you want to worship?
I know that William Lane Craig says that Christians should always assume the God has a “morally sufficient reason” for his orders. I heard him say that it was okay to kill the babies because if they were killed before the “Age of Reason” they’ll go straight to Heaven, and if they were killed after they were sinners and deserved what they got. I would point out that the “straight to Heaven” argument applies to abortion as well.
“Herem” can mean destruction, but more generally it means a ban. The Jewish equivalent of excommunication is to put someone in herem, like Spinoza. The “herem of Rabbenu Gershom” was (and still is) Gershom’s prohibition of polygamy.
In the case of Joshua (and Mesha), the herem meant that the people were banned from making any use of the booty; it all had to be destroyed, or given to the god in some way.
What interests me is that the authors/editors of the Hebrew Bible felt they needed to imagine such a god. Powerful yes, but also, when viewed objectively, kind of woeful: jealous, fearful (though not consistently) that his people will stray, narcissistic. I wonder whether there were those among them who argued against such a portrayal. There must have been, right?
Job certainly didn’t appreciate him….
Is it the same word as Arabic “haram”?
There is probably some overlap, but I think there are different nuances. Also, the meaning of each word seems to have shifted over time – when Spinoza was placed in herem, he was shunned but not slaughtered.
The religious claims of preventing contamination or “polluting” are the same as used through history, justified by extremists even today. It was in Christian Europe from time to time, Nazis against the Jews and others (though not religious reasons). Even in the news today with the Taliban and Isis.
Isn’t is amazing how history repeats itself. The promised land was bequeathed to the chosen people at the expense of the local inhabitants. Fast forward to 1948. Was that God’s will as well?
Chokum,
We will all be lucky if the three groups over there don’t actually bring on Armageddon. They seem hell-bent on doing it. But it won’t bring back any ‘Jesus.’ This stuff is all fairy tales, like my dad said. It was never any more than *literature.* People are so needy they can’t see the spiritual lessons within.
Not a single killing chronicled ever happened. People were killed, that’s the source, sure, but not the point. It is ALL SYMBOLIC.
Circling Jericho, seven shouts. Rahob, it is all inner spirituality. Read ‘Mystic Bible.’ Randolphe Stone.
Frightening. Frightening, shocking, criminal that you can believe yourself a good person; then read something; then go and slaughter a child. And then justify it.
Dr. Ehrman, As you have done in the past with other guest scholars, you really ought to invite Dr. Randal Rauser of Taylor Seminary to engage this topic! I’ve yet to discover anyone else who deals with this topic more honestly and thoughtfully and he does an excellent job at critiquing out the failed attempts of conservative apologists to explain divine violence and genocide. Here’s a sampler: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uJcU8c5OAc
I find it difficult to understand that the majority of historical scholars will give historical support to the fact that this Israeli attack happened as written, just like several other of the stories in OT. I think the understanding must be sought in and as to be of having a deeper theological message.
In my mind, just like my interpretation of the Book of Revelation, this is a spiritual development, using some of the patterns and symbols, which is the that are also found in Revelation. It is in my mind not to be taken literally.
The realization that the “Conquest” as described is not historical is some relief I suppose in that these specific examples of horrific genocidal violence did not take place. What is disturbing is that the composers of these epics or sagas thought that this kind of behavior was expected and justified. What is even more disturbing is hearing contemporary Christian apologists justifying this behavior. The only conclusion I can reach is that if someone believes they are doing God’s will they are capable of anything.
Bart do you think Evangelical Americans justify the genocide of modern palestinians by jewish colonial settlers, as a reenactment of Joshua’s (most likely exaggerated) enterprise?
I don’t know if some do or not. I”ve never heard of them doing that, but there are a lot of them out there and some have non-centrist views.
The late Meir Kahane said that Joshua was one of his two favorite books of the Bible (the other was Ezekiel).
Hi Dr Ehrman!
How reliable is Peter Enns’ scholarship? Thank you!!
I don’t really know. I”m afraid I haven’t read his scholarship.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
How reliable is Rosemary Reuther’s scholarship? Particularly in “Sexism and God-talk” if you’ve read it.
Furthermore, are there any feminist and pro-lgbt texts that you can recommend?
Thank you!
THe book with which I”m most familiar is Faith and Fratricide, which I think is *terrific*.
God’s instructions to kill innocents, animals were untrue, a fabrication.
God Most Merciful Commanded “… We Ordained for the Children of Israel: that whoever kills a person—unless it is for murder or corruption on earth—it is as if he killed the whole of mankind; and whoever saves it, it is as if he saved the whole of mankind.”
We have been taught “whoever kills a person—unless it is for murder or corruption on earth—it is as if he killed the whole of mankind; and whoever saves it, it is as if he saved the whole of mankind.”
Saving a DOG.”A man suffered from thirst while he was walking on a journey. When he found a well, he climbed down into it and drank from it. Then he came out and saw a dog lolling its tongue from thirst and licking the ground. The man said: This dog has suffered thirst just as I have suffered from it. He climbed down into the well, filled his shoe with water, and caught it in his mouth as he climbed up. Then he gave the dog a drink. God appreciated his deed, so He forgave the man.”
Do you believe the killings in(Joshua)?
I don’t believe it’s a historical narrative, no.
Presentism
Wikipedia:
“In literary and historical analysis, presentism is the anachronistic introduction of present-day ideas and perspectives into depictions or interpretations of the past. Some modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they consider it a form of cultural bias, and believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter. The practice of presentism is regarded by some as a common fallacy when writing about the past.”
Merriam-Webster:
“an attitude toward the past dominated by present-day attitudes and experiences”
Regardless if the Joshua account is historical or not, the honest question should be: Did the other nations existing at that time war similarly?
We cannot, should not, judge peoples in the past according to our 21st century morality. That is not history, it is an ahistorical effort to destroy faith.
Linda
Over-the-top language describing warfare was typical for that time, whether or not it actually happened that way. Look at the famous Merenptah (or Merneptah) stele, c. 1200 BCE: “Israel is laid waste, his seed is not.” This is often cited as early extra-Biblical evidence for Israel’s existence, but to me the point is that the Pharaoh claimed to have wiped out the Israelites when he obviously didn’t.
Certainly, holy war was waged under the aegis of Yahweh. Battles were won not by might of human arms, but by divine action. Yahweh even “harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle” as to have a dandy excuse to kill them. The question (albeit rhetorical) is how can anyone justify the slaughter? Where they given a chance to flee? dubious. Did they engage in morally reprehensible actions? no more than the Israelites did. And more importantly, how could Jesus not renounce his namesake Joshua? I mean there is a reason the surname Hitler fell out of favor in post-war Germany. IMO, it shows that Jesus (via the Gospel writers) uncritically accepted the morally flawed culture in which he was raised and although he came to reinterpret (smooth-over) the Torah, we hear nothing about the condemnation of the slaughter. There is not even a hint of criticism of Moses, where Joshua earned his thuggish street-cred. I think we can safely indict the moral character of Jesus – his silence on so many issue was deafening. Perhaps early Christianity was as morally bankrupt as future cultures that used the same texts to justify their atrocities.
i have a question.
I notice that the the nt does not talk about taking safety measures when evangelising in city with disease. you would expect that had jesus known about the future, disease and spreading of it would be major concern which needed addressing.
mark says that washing dishes = “tradition of men”
jesus says that eating food with dirty hands does not defile a person.
both of them seem to be concerned with an internal issue in a time where germs were major killer.
one of the messages of nt is to “endure suffering till the end,” which is making me think that jesus really did believe that the end of neigh.
why you wanna save your life when God is going to change everything ?
i dont think new testament was meant for modern day christians.
definately germs and disease would be a hot topic had the authours known about germs, right?
jesus most likely thought that disease and illness were either punishment or something having nothing to do
You would think so, but of course germs were not “discovered” until modern times.
thats one of the things i can’t get my head around.
“when you are evangelising, keep the pharisee practice of washing hands cause it will save your life…”
unless jesus really thought that future christians could do miracles, which they clearly can’t
do you see my point ?
I”m not sure that I do.
My question is just where was the “sanctuary of Yahweh” where all the booty was to be placed? Was it a tent the Israelites were carrying with them? Or, was it a place to be built within Jericho after the siege and destruction were complete? Just curious.
Yes, it was the Tabernacle.
I feel that when people kill, they need a particular reason to do so.
Even if it was just for fun later they need to justify it, under some peculiar moral law.
Yet, the serial killer would say: I did it because I could! Bridging the world of ideas and their potential with the factual emanation of it.
What’s the difference between the Holocaust and the “herem”?
Hitler drew his ideas from Darwinism and catholic apologetics, the Jews justified their action with a “personal” God who would favor them.
“Gott mit uns” was uttered at the very beginning of our history, and will be the last words spoken at the end of time.
>> Hitler drew his ideas from Darwinism and catholic apologetics …
Did he?
I don’t know what you want me to say.
To start, why did you reply?
The statement is instrumental to the text and lives only in it. It is “relatively” truthful in the context, and if you don’t agree with it, so what?
Dr. Ehrman is an academic and renowned author, and he needs to be consistent throughout his work, while I -on the other hand- could care less.
Non omnia, quae vera sunt, recte dixeris.
Didn’t the OT material undergo a lot of editing before it reached its final form? As hideous as this material is, it’s equally hideous that later editors didn’t substantially soften or cut out this material. Of course maybe it was even worse to start with and this is the version adapted for children.
is there a consensus among scholars about when this material was first written and when it reached its final form? And what was going on in Israel at the time it was being written and edited? I assume its not at all historical since Moses isn’t historical.
I imagine there are various strains of Jewish thought about outsiders in the OT. Was the strain expressed in Joshua among the more influential in the development of the OT? Was its viciousness perhaps closely related to the ultimate purpose of the wars, ie, to obtain land for the Israelites.
YEs it did. ANd no, there is no firm consensus. But Joshua is part of the Deuteronomic history — which goes from Joshua to 2 Kings — and so was almost certainly produced after the fall of the southern kingdom, that is, it is almost certainly exilic at the earliest.
So, if exilic was it perhaps slanted to emphasize the unique closed society of the Hebrews in an attempt to preserve that uniqueness and cultural isolation from assimilation with their Babylonian or Persian captors?
Seems likely. And the need for complete obedience (given how the story ends in 1 and 2 Kings).
Given the fact that victory comes so readily and even amazingly to those who follow this simple guideline, it is a marvel that anyone had any reason to do otherwise (that is: why did Israelites become disobedient? Seems like an obviously bad move).
This is something I have pondered. Did Yahweh ever wonder why those other gods were so attractive to the Israelites, despite his shows of power? Apparently, his presentation was lacking.
Perhaps forcing his people to drink powdered gold, sending venomous snakes to kill them, and sending plagues and famines for minor transgressions was not the winning strategy he thought it was.
Or, maybe those foreign women were just really hot.
So in the desert God inscribes in stone the command “Thou shalt not kill” but as soon as the promised land is reached, “Kill every living thing”. How do Biblical literalists deal with this contradiction?
Some resolve it by saying that “kill” in the commandment means “murder” and in the second it means “engage in a military operation.”
Was this kind of genocide prevalent in the ancient world? Even if the battle of Jericho is not historical, the authors of Joshua seemed to have viewed the destruction of life as an acceptable practice. Wasn’t it more likely back then that the conquered people would be enslaved rather than utterly destroyed?
YEs, the wholesale destruction of cities did happen, and yes, it often led to many enslavements as well as slaughter.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
Is Psalm 53:3 where God deems no one righteous, in line with the idea that Jewish people were saved via the covenant and not through doing good deeds?
Thank you!
YOu were saved by the grace of God who chose you, not by earning it. If you seriously messed it up afterward, that was your choice and doing.
the idea of being saved by grace of god is not found in the hebrew bible. its not that the diety comes down and does works you are supposed to do, you do the works he designed you to do.
“if you do not do good, sin crouches at the entrance. Its desire is for you, but you can rule over it.”
where is the grace here ?
why would david ask god to pay heed to his words (speaking to god is an act) and his thoughts (another internal act) if “no one is good” ?
how you loving god if your heart has nothing but unrighteouness?
I would disagree. The grace of God to his people is very much an emphasis of the Hebrew Bible. He doesn’t choose Israel because they deserve it, and they don’t “earn” his favor. He graciously grants it and then graciously csows them how to worship and live.
“He doesn’t choose Israel because they deserve it, and they don’t “earn” his favor. He graciously grants it and then graciously csows them how to worship and live.”
but the idea that “you cant do my laws and instructions, i have to come down and do them for you” is not found in the hebrew bible, thats a christian reading.
Yes, that’s right. The Hebrew Bible assumes taht it was possible to keep the law. And of course, it was and is.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
1. Did Jesus believe that gentiles would also be saved through repentance, turning toward God and helping others?
2. If- by works- Paul was referring specifically to Jewish practices and not good deeds, how did he view the role of good deeds in salvation?
Thank you!!
1. Apparently. I think the parable of the sheep and the goats shows that gentiles would be saved by doing good deeds and helping those in need. 2. Paul thought that if you believed in CHrist and were baptized you had the Spirit within you that enabled you to do good. And that you would want and work to do so.
The account of Jericho in _God: The Ultimate Autobiography_ by Jeremy Pascall . . . in which the Israelites are such terrible trumpeters that the Jerichoans throw rotten vegetables at them, and when these run out, they throw whatever they can get their hands on including the bricks in their own city . . . is historically accurate. I will be very disappointed if you tell us otherwise.
Ha! That MUST be it. They tore the entire walls down from the inside. Idiots…
does the book of revealations imagine the 2nd coming of jesus to be a violent one or is it metaphorical for gods judgement in the sense of magically turning people to dust?
does the authour of revealation imagine that jesus will do physical violence ?
It certainly seems to. Most of the human race is destroyed.
Dear Dr. Ehrman
Would you consider herem a sacrifice? It certainly seems to be religious judgment played out by YHWH’s people, but is considered ritualized sacrifice of humans? Clearly, the precious items and even animals were to be taken to the Tabernacle in such a cultic way, but do you think humans were?
Interesting question. I don’t think sacrificioal language is used for the slaughter of the outsiders in Joshua, but I need to think about it. The interest is less in making them an offering pleasing to God than to get rid of them so as not to be bad influences on the Israelites. On the other hand, they and all their stuff are “dedicated to God,” so maybe it is a kind of sacrifice. Interesting.
Dear Dr. Ehrman,
Thank you for your honesty.
My limited exegesis is that the people were “dedicated to destruction” as an act of socio-religious “quarantine” (Dt. 20:16-18) – like you said; since the Levitical laws about sacrifice (ch. 1-7) and “herem” section (Lv. 27:28-29) differ in language usage – as stated above, and the rest of Lv. 27 offer exceptions about redemptions, where was people/things under “the ban” were irredeemable. Theologically, it seems that “herem” was a religiously-sanctioned judgment killing, not in cultic way like at the Tabernacle.
Although, I look forward to your expanded thoughts on this; or at least pointing out good resources on it.
Thank you for your time! 😀
– Rob
That sounds right to me.
In Reading The Old Testament, An Introduction, author Lawrence Boadt discusses the practice on pp. 197-198 of the paperback edition, my emphasis:
The people responsible for carrying on the ancient traditions of the conquest emphasized that the victories came from God and that Joshua and the tribes followed God’s direction carefully and always dedicated their military victories as a sacrifice to God in thanksgiving for his aid. This is the terrible custom of the “ban,” called in Hebrew a herem, in which the Israelites were to slay everyone in the defeated towns. It was practiced to show that Israel put all its trust in God alone during the war and sought nothing for itself.
Israel makes a vow, the real thrust of which is obscured by the NRSV. Compare the NRSV and then our translation: “Then Israel made a vow to the Lord and said, ‘If you will indeed give this people into our hands, then we will utterly destroy their towns.'” Why should such a vow of wanton destruction please the deity? Rather Israel promises something for something, a deal that the deity presumably cannot resist–not wanton, meaningless destruction but an offering for his use and devotion…Israel is promising a sacrifice to God,
In my view, the answer was given 46 years ago by Professor Josephine M. Ford, who dates the Book of Revelation (or at least chapters 4 through 17) as the very first book of the NT. We might also call it the very final book of the OT.
In her detailed commentary of the Book of Revelation (Anchor Bible Commentary, 1975) the vocal style of the Book of Revelation is the vocal style of John the Baptist given in the early chapters of all the Gospels.
Thus, the Book of Revelation remained sacred just as baptism remained sacred — because it holds forth memories of the Baptist and his early religious community — from which Jesus of Nazareth emerged as the Christ.
The mood and tone of the rest of the NT does change remarkably compared with the OT. But the Book of Revelation is evidently the connecting thread between the two millennial periods and their spiritual visions.
Joshua’s conquest of the land of Canaan is human greed justified by invoking god’s approval and worse command. The book Deuteronomy is a prime example of human proclivity to extreme violence.