QUESTION:

How do scholars explain bloodthirsty Bible passages?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

Skeptics seeking to disparage the Bible and, with it, Judaism and Christianity, cite certain passages in the Bible that depict all-out warfare as mandated by God. Consider Israel’s “conquest” of Canaan under Joshua, and a notably bloodthirsty passage like Deuteronomy 20:16-17, which says “you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them … as the LORD your God has commanded.”

Readers can see how that issue might, to say the least, be relevant to debates about some events in recent decades.

There’s been intriguing recent discussions of this complex issue. Even conservative evangelicals, who defend the Bible’s historical accuracy, are reinterpreting such passages, as we’ll see.

“Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary,” issued by Judaism’s Conservative branch, freely admits a modern reader “recoils” from a demand to wipe out a population group. It says the context is the Canaanites’ “abhorrent” deeds. Verse 18 goes on to explain combat is necessary so “they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices which they have done in the service of their gods.”

Scholarly commentaries think ritual sacrifice of children was a major part of this. The context of such verses is said to be “the Torah’s abiding fear that these pagan nations will lead Israel astray.”

Here’s another part of the context. Risking any military advantage from surprise, Joshua informed Canaanites in advance about the invasion plan so they could flee from bloodshed, and he first offered a peace settlement before resorting to combat. (That was relatively humane for the cruel culture 3,000 years ago.) The same point is underscored by a classic source in Orthodox Judaism, the “Pentateuch & Haftorahs” compiled by Britain’s longtime chief rabbi, J.H. Hertz.

This Orthodox Jewish commentary also observes that the Israelites’ need for a homeland is part of all human history, including for most western nations. Israel added to that the “ethical justification” of countering Canaan’s “depravity” as with human sacrifice. Moreover, “the whole moral and spiritual future of mankind was involved.”

Reform Judaism’s official commentary says Joshua’s forces did not in fact annihilate the Canaanite population even though that “would not have offended against the usual practice of the times.” Instead, it thinks the Bible’s words were a “retrospective command,” written long after the fact, to say if Israel had done this “you would not have lapsed into idolatry.” Ancient military events were always interpreted “as manifestations of God’s will,” and — notably — the Bible assailed not just other nations but Israel itself.

Also, according to the Jewish Bible (Christians’ Old Testament), God’s will on warfare is complex. The great King David was forbidden to build God’s Temple because his wars shed too much blood (1 Chronicles 22:8) and nearly lost his realm for conducting a military census (2 Samuel 24). God rebuked Simon and Levi for slaughtering Canaanites (Genesis 49:5-7). And so forth.

In Christian interpretations, minority pacifists say Jesus’ preaching of love forbids all war-making by believers. Meanwhile, liberals and skeptics may dismiss the narratives as nationalistic propaganda not to be taken literally. Catholic exegete Tommy Lane of Mount St. Mary’s Seminary thinks “Israel misunderstood and misjudged God” in these Scriptures!

Well, what about Bible-defending conservative Protestants? Books that ponder these difficult passages include “Did God Really Command Genocide?” (Baker, 2014) by ethicists Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan, and “Holy War in the Bible” (InterVarsity, 2013), an anthology edited by Copan, philosopher Jeremy Evans, and Old Testament scholar Heath Thomas. An article by Thomas, formerly director of doctoral studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and now theology dean at Oklahoma Baptist University, summarized major points as follows.

First, the few verses about wiping out populations use the “exaggerated” rhetoric that occur in all war stories from ancient times. Second, the Bible put far more emphasis on dispossessing Canaanites from the land than on killing. Third (as above), God’s primary concern was not obliteration but “resolute” moral opposition to Canaan’s idolatry and sin. Fourth, God waited patiently 400 years before the conquest re-established the inheritance of the Holy Land dating from Abraham’s time.

CONTINUE READING: “Question: How do scholars explain bloodthirsty Bible passages?”, by Richard Ostling.

FIRST IMAGE: Unattributed art with a feature — “Did the Old Testament Conquest of Canaan Really Happen?” — at TheNotSoInnocentsAbroad.com website.