<idle musing>
OK, this is making sense. Not that I don't still have problems with ḥerem, but I'm starting to think that they are onto something here. Am I repeating myself? If I am it is because I'm still processing all this. Probably always will be...
</idle musing>
Wednesday, October 04, 2023
Drive them out!
The most common word throughout Genesis–Joshua for what God intends to do to the Canaanites is grš, NIV “drive out.” Like ḥerem, the emphasis of this word concerns everyone around the object, not the object itself. It doesn’t matter where they go or what happens to them as long as they are gone. Killing them is one way to make them go away, of course, but it is not the only way and probably not the preferred way (especially if they are fighting back). The terror that goes before the Israelite army (e.g., Ex 23:27; also Deut 2:25; 11:25) is probably intended to encourage them to flee rather than fight, or at least run away earlier than they otherwise might. Nowhere in the conquest account does the army systematically hunt down fleeing refugees; nowhere are urban citizens trapped in protracted sieges. Words like šmd (“annihilated”) are rhetorical; this kind of language is ubiquitous in ancient conquest accounts and serves to indicate decisive victory (compare to modern sports, where one team is said to annihilate their opponents even though nobody actually dies), but regardless of the exact method, the emptying of the city is literal.— The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest, 176–77
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Having extensively studied the rhetoric of ancient Near Eastern war language, as well as the archaeological realities of ancient Near Eastern warfare, it seems to me that Walton and Walton are attempting to conduct some linguistic gymnastics to make the accounts in Joshua more palatable. It's an apologetic attempt to justify a difficult reality of Scripture.
Thanks for the comment. I suspect you are correct. A couple of the reviewers said essentially the same thing. I still think that Joel Lohr's comment in Chosen and Unchosen says it best: It is difficult for us to understand ḥerem.
Basically, I'm discovering more nuance to the concept than I had before. But, as I said in this and other posts, I still have problems with it. The reason I'm reading this book a second time within a month of the first reading is because so much of it was unpalatable to me and I wanted to give them a fair chance. That may or may not be coming through in my musings…
James
Let’s connect offline and I’ll send you a copy of my dissertation on children and ANE warfare. Hard to accept Walton’s arguments based on what I researched.
Sure. Sounds like an interesting dissertation. Email me at jspinti [at] lockwoodpress [dot] com
I sent you a link.
Thanks. Got it. I appreciate it.
James
Post a Comment