What do you think?
Rate this book
The Lost World Series #4
The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest: Covenant, Retribution, and the Fate of the Canaanites (Volume 4)
Biblical Foundations Award Winner Holy warfare is the festering wound on the conscience of Bible-believing Christians. Of all the problems the Old Testament poses for our modern age, this is the one we want to avoid in mixed company. But do the so-called holy war texts of the Old Testament portray a divinely inspired genocide? Did Israel slaughter Canaanites at God's command? Were they enforcing divine retribution on an unholy people? These texts shock us. And we turn the page. But have we rightly understood them? In The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest , John Walton and J. Harvey Walton take us on an archaeological dig, excavating the layers of translation and interpretation that over time have encrusted these texts and our perceptions. What happens when we take new approaches, frame new questions? When we weigh again their language and rhetoric? Were the Canaanites punished for sinning against the covenanting God? Does the Hebrew word herem mean "devote to destruction"? How are the Canaanites portrayed and why? And what happens when we backlight these texts with their ancient context? The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest keenly recalibrates our perception and reframes our questions. While not attempting to provide all the answers, it offers surprising new insights and clears the ground for further understanding. The books in the Lost World Series follow the pattern set by Bible scholar John H. Walton, bringing a fresh, close reading of the Hebrew text and knowledge of ancient Near Eastern literature to an accessible discussion of the biblical topic at hand using a series of logic-based propositions.
288 pages, Paperback
Published August 15, 2017
112 people are currently reading
952 people want to read
About the author
John H. Walton
117 books326 followersJohn H. Walton (PhD, Hebrew Union College) is professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College Graduate School. He is the author or coauthor of several books, including Chronological and Background Charts of the Old Testament; Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context; Covenant: God’s Purpose, God’s Plan; The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament; and A Survey of the Old Testament.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name. See:
John H. Walton, Agriculture
John H. Walton, ceramics.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name. See:
John H. Walton, Agriculture
John H. Walton, ceramics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews
December 6, 2018
Summary: Explores the biblical accounts of the Israelite conquest of Canaan, looking closely at the ancient Near East context and arguing that this was not a divinely commanded genocide or Holy War.
One of the more troubling parts of the Bible are the narratives of Israel's conquest of Canaan, and the apparent genocide of the Canaanite people at God's command. Often this is justified as a judgement on the wickedness of the Canaanites. It is even more disturbing when these texts are appropriated to justify other "Holy Wars" or culture wars against evil in society.
In this fourth installment to the "Lost World" series, John H. Walton is joined by his son J. Harvey Walton, in a close study of the biblical texts often understood as God's command of Holy War against Canaan as divine judgement. Similar to Walton's approach in other books in this series, the authors combine careful work on cultural backgrounds with close reading of the pertinent biblical texts. Like other books, they present their study as a series of propositions, grouped into six parts.
First, they lay groundwork in asking the question of how we interpret the Bible, emphasizing that it is an ancient document and that often our problem is what our expectations of what the Bible is, which differs from its true nature. In this case the Bible is neither defining what goodness is for us nor telling us about how to produce goodness, but rather in the context of God's covenant with Israel, how God is bringing about the goodness he purposes. Thus, we must never read these texts as warranting Holy War or a kind of jihad in our own context.
Second, the Walton's argue that the Canaanites are not depicted in scripture as guilty of sin and that the usual textual indicators for divine retribution against the Canaanites are absent. Critical to their argument is showing that Genesis 15:16 does not indicate that the Canaanites were committing sin, but that God is deferring his action against the Amorites, with whom he had allied.
Third, they argue that the Canaanites are not guilty of breaking God's law because they did not partake of the covenant and its stipulations. Their expulsion from the land is not analogous to the expulsion of Israel from the land for their unfaithfulness to the covenant.
Fourth, the Waltons look at the language and imagery of the conquest and contend that the descriptions of the Canaanites follow ancient Near East conventions for describing an enemy as "invincible barbarians" Likewise, the behaviors described as "detestable" are from the framework of God's ideals for Israel under the covenant and not indictments against the Canaanites for crimes against a covenant they are not under. And finally, the language of conquest recapitulates that of creation, in which disorder (chaos) is replaced with order (cosmos). Disorder must be cleared, not as punishment against the Canaanites, but to establish God's covenant order through Israel.
The fifth part is perhaps most significant in its discussion of herem, most often translated as "utterly destroy." They argue rather that it involves the idea of removing something from use, so that a new order or use can be established. Killing people is not inherent in herem, but rather the destroying of the identity of a community, particularly the identity markers associated with idolatrous worship. Killing may happen in the course of this, as it tragically does in all ancient wars, but this is not the focus of herem.
Finally, the authors contend that this offers a template for understanding the New Testament, not in attacking those outside the community of faith, but making herem all identities in conflict with absolute allegiance to the Lordship of Jesus. What is to be attacked and removed from use is not outsiders, but our own false allegiances, false identities or any identity that competes for paramount status with our identity in Christ.
This, along with the argument that God does not command ethnic genocide in these passages is important. Yet this argument left me troubled. The plain reality is that even if this wasn't genocide, people died to set up this new order of God. If they died, not because they were guilty of sins or crimes against God (because they were outside the covenant and its stipulations), but simply as part of a process of destroying the identity of a community, this seems a distinction without a difference. The idea of retributive action at least seems to carry the sense of a just judgment, even if it does involve bloodshed. "Removing an identity from use" driving them from the land, seems more humane, except that the same number of people die, only as "collateral damage" of the conquest. There is something about this that seems more heartless. It also seems to dance around the plain sense of texts that herem in the context of the conquest does involve the destruction of lives in city after city. I did not feel the authors dealt adequately with this problem.
What I'm left with is that these are difficult texts, similar to Genesis 22 in which God commands the sacrifice of Isaac. The last minute substitution of the ram does not make this less challenging. Likewise demonstrating that these texts offer no warrant for genocide is only marginally comforting. Perhaps our difficulty is that we expect God to be nice, a "tame lion" as it were. We would rather a God who remains above the fray than one who gets involved in wars of conquest to effect his purposes. We don't like the idea of trying to justify the ways of God when they seem unseemly. We likewise are uncomfortable with a God who takes on flesh and blood and dies for us. Many Christian heresies are efforts to sanitize this event. I don't want to say that is what the authors are doing here. They obviously care deeply about scripture. But I also don't think we can soften the shocking effect of these passages, or should. These passages remind us both of the tragedy of the human condition, and that God accommodated that human condition in not remaining aloof from war and death even as God worked out redemptive purposes for humankind, first through Israel, then for all of us.
One of the more troubling parts of the Bible are the narratives of Israel's conquest of Canaan, and the apparent genocide of the Canaanite people at God's command. Often this is justified as a judgement on the wickedness of the Canaanites. It is even more disturbing when these texts are appropriated to justify other "Holy Wars" or culture wars against evil in society.
In this fourth installment to the "Lost World" series, John H. Walton is joined by his son J. Harvey Walton, in a close study of the biblical texts often understood as God's command of Holy War against Canaan as divine judgement. Similar to Walton's approach in other books in this series, the authors combine careful work on cultural backgrounds with close reading of the pertinent biblical texts. Like other books, they present their study as a series of propositions, grouped into six parts.
First, they lay groundwork in asking the question of how we interpret the Bible, emphasizing that it is an ancient document and that often our problem is what our expectations of what the Bible is, which differs from its true nature. In this case the Bible is neither defining what goodness is for us nor telling us about how to produce goodness, but rather in the context of God's covenant with Israel, how God is bringing about the goodness he purposes. Thus, we must never read these texts as warranting Holy War or a kind of jihad in our own context.
Second, the Walton's argue that the Canaanites are not depicted in scripture as guilty of sin and that the usual textual indicators for divine retribution against the Canaanites are absent. Critical to their argument is showing that Genesis 15:16 does not indicate that the Canaanites were committing sin, but that God is deferring his action against the Amorites, with whom he had allied.
Third, they argue that the Canaanites are not guilty of breaking God's law because they did not partake of the covenant and its stipulations. Their expulsion from the land is not analogous to the expulsion of Israel from the land for their unfaithfulness to the covenant.
Fourth, the Waltons look at the language and imagery of the conquest and contend that the descriptions of the Canaanites follow ancient Near East conventions for describing an enemy as "invincible barbarians" Likewise, the behaviors described as "detestable" are from the framework of God's ideals for Israel under the covenant and not indictments against the Canaanites for crimes against a covenant they are not under. And finally, the language of conquest recapitulates that of creation, in which disorder (chaos) is replaced with order (cosmos). Disorder must be cleared, not as punishment against the Canaanites, but to establish God's covenant order through Israel.
The fifth part is perhaps most significant in its discussion of herem, most often translated as "utterly destroy." They argue rather that it involves the idea of removing something from use, so that a new order or use can be established. Killing people is not inherent in herem, but rather the destroying of the identity of a community, particularly the identity markers associated with idolatrous worship. Killing may happen in the course of this, as it tragically does in all ancient wars, but this is not the focus of herem.
Finally, the authors contend that this offers a template for understanding the New Testament, not in attacking those outside the community of faith, but making herem all identities in conflict with absolute allegiance to the Lordship of Jesus. What is to be attacked and removed from use is not outsiders, but our own false allegiances, false identities or any identity that competes for paramount status with our identity in Christ.
This, along with the argument that God does not command ethnic genocide in these passages is important. Yet this argument left me troubled. The plain reality is that even if this wasn't genocide, people died to set up this new order of God. If they died, not because they were guilty of sins or crimes against God (because they were outside the covenant and its stipulations), but simply as part of a process of destroying the identity of a community, this seems a distinction without a difference. The idea of retributive action at least seems to carry the sense of a just judgment, even if it does involve bloodshed. "Removing an identity from use" driving them from the land, seems more humane, except that the same number of people die, only as "collateral damage" of the conquest. There is something about this that seems more heartless. It also seems to dance around the plain sense of texts that herem in the context of the conquest does involve the destruction of lives in city after city. I did not feel the authors dealt adequately with this problem.
What I'm left with is that these are difficult texts, similar to Genesis 22 in which God commands the sacrifice of Isaac. The last minute substitution of the ram does not make this less challenging. Likewise demonstrating that these texts offer no warrant for genocide is only marginally comforting. Perhaps our difficulty is that we expect God to be nice, a "tame lion" as it were. We would rather a God who remains above the fray than one who gets involved in wars of conquest to effect his purposes. We don't like the idea of trying to justify the ways of God when they seem unseemly. We likewise are uncomfortable with a God who takes on flesh and blood and dies for us. Many Christian heresies are efforts to sanitize this event. I don't want to say that is what the authors are doing here. They obviously care deeply about scripture. But I also don't think we can soften the shocking effect of these passages, or should. These passages remind us both of the tragedy of the human condition, and that God accommodated that human condition in not remaining aloof from war and death even as God worked out redemptive purposes for humankind, first through Israel, then for all of us.
May 3, 2018
The book was a sheer joy to read. It was accessible yet maintained the highest rigors of scholarship. John and John Walton affirm the historicity of the conquest narrative, yet they avoid “easy” answers often given by evangelical apologists. They invite us to enter the thought-world of an ancient Hebrew. They do so by outlining 21 propositions (see below)
Walton’s propositions:
1. Reading the Bible consistently means reading it as an ancient document.
2. We should approach the problem of the conquest by adjusting our expectations about what the Bible is.
3. The Bible does not define Goodness for us or tell us how to produce goodness, but instead tells us about the goodness God is producing.
4. The bible teaches clearly and consistently that affliction by God cannot be automatically attributed to the wrongdoing of the victim.
5. None of the usual textual indicators for divine retribution occur in the case of the Canaanites.
Genesis 15:16 does not indicate that the Canaanites were committing sin.
6. Neither the Israelites nor the Canaanites are depicted as stealing each other’s rightful property.
7. The people of the land are not indicted for not following the stipulations of the covenant, and neither is Israel expected to bring them into the covenant.
8. Ancient law codes such as Lev. 18-20 are not lists of rules to be obeyed, and therefore the Canaanites cannot be guilty of violating them.
9. Holiness is a status granted by God; it is not earned through moral performance, and failing to have it does not subject one to judgment.
10. You can’t make a comparison between the Canaanites expulsion from the land and the Israelites’ exile.
11 The depiction of the Canaanites In Leviticus and Deuteronomy is a sophisticated appropriation of a common ANE literary device.
12 Behaviors that are described as detestable are to be contrasted with ideal behavior under the Israelite covenant.
13 The imagery of the conquest account recapitulates creation.
14 Herem does not mean utterly to destroy.
15 Herem against communities focuses only destroying identity, not killing people of certain ethnicities.
16 The wars of the Israelite conquest were fought in the same manner as all ancient wars.
17 Rahab and the Gideonites are not exceptions to the Herem.
18 The logic of the Herem in the event of the conquest operates in the context of Israel’s vassal treaty.
19 The OT, including the conquest account, provides a template for interpreting the NT, which in turn gives insight into God’s purposes for today.
20 The application of Herem in the New Covenant is found in putting off our former identity.
Examination of his Propositions
P(1) - (2) should be noncontroversial. The Bible is an ancient semitic document and it should read like one. It has different assumptions on “what is the worst that could happen?” For us, the worst that could happen in life is genocide or famine. For a Hebrew it was an improper burial and being forgotten (Ecclesiastes).
P(3) is problematic in how it is stated, though I know what they are getting at. The Bible isn’t a manual for ethics or law, but I do think it gives more detail about “goodness” than they allow. But they do raise a good point about justice and goodness: justice in the ancient world is tied to order, not so much about “getting what is owed me.”
P(4)-(8) In many cases, this is John 9. Walton’s argument is that the Canaanites aren’t simply being driven out of the land “because they are bad.” I think they are much worse than Walton makes out, but his point holds. The Canaanites are losing their land because God promised the land to Israel.
But what about God’s saying that he will expel/vomit Israel out like he did the Canaanites? True, Walton downplays that objection. ~8. “No nation other than Israel is ever reprimanded for serving other gods” (79). That kind of makes sense, since Yahweh had disinherited the nations in Genesis 10 and given them over to the beney elohim.
P(10) Good reflection against Pelagianism. Holiness (qds) Doesn’t mean my good behavior that I have accumulated. Objects and land in the OT are holy, yet they aren’t moral agents.
P(12) That might be true, but if the Canaanites were guilty of these actions, and if there were demonic Nephilim and Rephaim in the land, then full-scale slaughter was warranted.
P(13) His argument is that the Hebrew ra is relative to the covenant, and not an absolute standard. Nevertheless, one hopes that bestiality and child sacrifice is universally evil.
Demons and idolatry: demons were extraneous to the ANE ritual system.
Repahim:
“The etymology of the words enforcest he unworldly aspects of the enemy, similar to the monstrous bird-men of the Cuthean legend” (148).
“The Rephaim are most commonly associated with the spirits of dead kings, specifically” (149).
Emim: comes from the root word “ema” which would therefore mean “terrible ones” (cited in Eugene Carpenter, “Deuteronomy,” Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary, Old Testament, I:432.
P(14) This was a beautiful chapter. The conquest narrative is much more than a typological recapitulation of creation. In being such it shows Yahweh’s victory of chaotic cthonic forces.
P(15)-(16) Herem does involve a lot more killing than modern readers are comfortable with, but that isn’t the point of herem. It was killing an identity. And it can’t mean total destruction. While gold and metals are herem, Bronze Age technology simply couldn’t destroy and un-atomize these metals.
However, Walton failed to note that most of the cities targeted were those with a heavy presence of Anakim and Rephaim.
Walton’s propositions:
1. Reading the Bible consistently means reading it as an ancient document.
2. We should approach the problem of the conquest by adjusting our expectations about what the Bible is.
3. The Bible does not define Goodness for us or tell us how to produce goodness, but instead tells us about the goodness God is producing.
4. The bible teaches clearly and consistently that affliction by God cannot be automatically attributed to the wrongdoing of the victim.
5. None of the usual textual indicators for divine retribution occur in the case of the Canaanites.
Genesis 15:16 does not indicate that the Canaanites were committing sin.
6. Neither the Israelites nor the Canaanites are depicted as stealing each other’s rightful property.
7. The people of the land are not indicted for not following the stipulations of the covenant, and neither is Israel expected to bring them into the covenant.
8. Ancient law codes such as Lev. 18-20 are not lists of rules to be obeyed, and therefore the Canaanites cannot be guilty of violating them.
9. Holiness is a status granted by God; it is not earned through moral performance, and failing to have it does not subject one to judgment.
10. You can’t make a comparison between the Canaanites expulsion from the land and the Israelites’ exile.
11 The depiction of the Canaanites In Leviticus and Deuteronomy is a sophisticated appropriation of a common ANE literary device.
12 Behaviors that are described as detestable are to be contrasted with ideal behavior under the Israelite covenant.
13 The imagery of the conquest account recapitulates creation.
14 Herem does not mean utterly to destroy.
15 Herem against communities focuses only destroying identity, not killing people of certain ethnicities.
16 The wars of the Israelite conquest were fought in the same manner as all ancient wars.
17 Rahab and the Gideonites are not exceptions to the Herem.
18 The logic of the Herem in the event of the conquest operates in the context of Israel’s vassal treaty.
19 The OT, including the conquest account, provides a template for interpreting the NT, which in turn gives insight into God’s purposes for today.
20 The application of Herem in the New Covenant is found in putting off our former identity.
Examination of his Propositions
P(1) - (2) should be noncontroversial. The Bible is an ancient semitic document and it should read like one. It has different assumptions on “what is the worst that could happen?” For us, the worst that could happen in life is genocide or famine. For a Hebrew it was an improper burial and being forgotten (Ecclesiastes).
P(3) is problematic in how it is stated, though I know what they are getting at. The Bible isn’t a manual for ethics or law, but I do think it gives more detail about “goodness” than they allow. But they do raise a good point about justice and goodness: justice in the ancient world is tied to order, not so much about “getting what is owed me.”
P(4)-(8) In many cases, this is John 9. Walton’s argument is that the Canaanites aren’t simply being driven out of the land “because they are bad.” I think they are much worse than Walton makes out, but his point holds. The Canaanites are losing their land because God promised the land to Israel.
But what about God’s saying that he will expel/vomit Israel out like he did the Canaanites? True, Walton downplays that objection. ~8. “No nation other than Israel is ever reprimanded for serving other gods” (79). That kind of makes sense, since Yahweh had disinherited the nations in Genesis 10 and given them over to the beney elohim.
P(10) Good reflection against Pelagianism. Holiness (qds) Doesn’t mean my good behavior that I have accumulated. Objects and land in the OT are holy, yet they aren’t moral agents.
P(12) That might be true, but if the Canaanites were guilty of these actions, and if there were demonic Nephilim and Rephaim in the land, then full-scale slaughter was warranted.
P(13) His argument is that the Hebrew ra is relative to the covenant, and not an absolute standard. Nevertheless, one hopes that bestiality and child sacrifice is universally evil.
Demons and idolatry: demons were extraneous to the ANE ritual system.
Repahim:
“The etymology of the words enforcest he unworldly aspects of the enemy, similar to the monstrous bird-men of the Cuthean legend” (148).
“The Rephaim are most commonly associated with the spirits of dead kings, specifically” (149).
Emim: comes from the root word “ema” which would therefore mean “terrible ones” (cited in Eugene Carpenter, “Deuteronomy,” Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary, Old Testament, I:432.
P(14) This was a beautiful chapter. The conquest narrative is much more than a typological recapitulation of creation. In being such it shows Yahweh’s victory of chaotic cthonic forces.
P(15)-(16) Herem does involve a lot more killing than modern readers are comfortable with, but that isn’t the point of herem. It was killing an identity. And it can’t mean total destruction. While gold and metals are herem, Bronze Age technology simply couldn’t destroy and un-atomize these metals.
However, Walton failed to note that most of the cities targeted were those with a heavy presence of Anakim and Rephaim.
April 15, 2024
The Waltons have written a fantastic work here, challenging both conservative and liberal scholars on technical and semantical grounds. The book is set up as propositions, which is wonderfully humble and invites discussion rather than dogmatic argument.
One of the most interesting propositions is concerning how the Hebrew word "herem" is translated, often as "utterly destroy." Putting aside the ANE penchant for hyperbole (as liberal scholars love to focus on) or literalism (as conservatives do), the Waltons propose that the proper translation is "to put under a ban." This does not mean killing, but to remove an object or a people from public use.
It is often pointed out by liberal scholars that after the supposed literal command to destroy their enemies, there are provisions and instructions for how to live with them in the land. This is definitely a problem for more literal interpretations. The "ban" interpretation, if true, serves to show a God merciful to these people as the warrior culture would have killed or made slaves of them (which they often did anyway, though this has nothing to do with what God actually commanded, according to the Waltons.) And one thing the Waltons are definitely successful in showing is that the supposed genocide is not racially or ethnically based.
One other discussion worth mentioning in this little review is the discussion of mission and covenant in relationship to putting things or people under a ban. This work says that the ban was not a punishment for sins, as is often supposed. They could not be because they were not under the covenant. It is incredibly difficult to wrap your mind around when this has been the main interpretation taught for so long, but again, the Waltons are very persuasive that this was not the case.
For anyone who has struggled with the Canaanite "Conquest," this is definitely worth your time. As I have found with every interpretation there are still problems, but the propositions here are internally consistent and as trusted scholars, the Waltons are worth listening to.
One of the most interesting propositions is concerning how the Hebrew word "herem" is translated, often as "utterly destroy." Putting aside the ANE penchant for hyperbole (as liberal scholars love to focus on) or literalism (as conservatives do), the Waltons propose that the proper translation is "to put under a ban." This does not mean killing, but to remove an object or a people from public use.
It is often pointed out by liberal scholars that after the supposed literal command to destroy their enemies, there are provisions and instructions for how to live with them in the land. This is definitely a problem for more literal interpretations. The "ban" interpretation, if true, serves to show a God merciful to these people as the warrior culture would have killed or made slaves of them (which they often did anyway, though this has nothing to do with what God actually commanded, according to the Waltons.) And one thing the Waltons are definitely successful in showing is that the supposed genocide is not racially or ethnically based.
One other discussion worth mentioning in this little review is the discussion of mission and covenant in relationship to putting things or people under a ban. This work says that the ban was not a punishment for sins, as is often supposed. They could not be because they were not under the covenant. It is incredibly difficult to wrap your mind around when this has been the main interpretation taught for so long, but again, the Waltons are very persuasive that this was not the case.
For anyone who has struggled with the Canaanite "Conquest," this is definitely worth your time. As I have found with every interpretation there are still problems, but the propositions here are internally consistent and as trusted scholars, the Waltons are worth listening to.
February 15, 2022
Second time reading this book, this time for my class I'm teaching on "historical books." Walton begins with the premise that the conquest stories actually occurred - at least, he does not consider the different origin theories that most scholars accept, mainly that Israel arose rather peacefully with little conflict with their Canaanites neighbors. Since he does not posit other possibilities other than the account that Joshua presents, it seems as though Walton holds a more traditional view, one that I do not find particularly compelling in light of archaeological evidence (or lack thereof). Nonetheless, Walton does present a good argument about we can understand the stories presented in the biblical account. This is "apologetics" at its finest, a statement I never thought I'd find myself saying.
The points are very thorough, although often to the point of redundancy. However, the best parts of the book pertain to the literary properties of the text, such as how to interpret the word "cherem" as not destruction but "to remove from use" (brilliant!) and the hyperbolic nature in which ANE account portray battles. Less compelling was Walton's argument that the end (covenant fulfillment) seems to justify the means (slaughtering of Canaanites). Over and over again Walton warned against imposing modern ideals on the text, which is correct, but he flirted with a strange relativism while at the very same time criticizing relativism ("Our modern ideals are not God's ideals, yet neither should we assume that Israel's ideals were God's ideals either. I will now tell you that the end goal of fulfilling the covenant was the point while at the same time implying the conquests were justified while warning against declaring them to be "good." Also, relativism and progressivism are not options, but I will not provide any insight into how God's ideals can actually become known."). There is also a heavy dose of reformed thought concerning that "status" of Israel's holiness.
Nevertheless, because of many of the insightful principles Walton illuminates this book still deserves 3 stars. I'm grateful for a careful approach to this extremely challenging topic, even if I don't necessarily agree with either the premise (the conquests happened as described in Joshua) or the conclusion (the conquests were a means by which God fulfilled God's covenantal promises).
The points are very thorough, although often to the point of redundancy. However, the best parts of the book pertain to the literary properties of the text, such as how to interpret the word "cherem" as not destruction but "to remove from use" (brilliant!) and the hyperbolic nature in which ANE account portray battles. Less compelling was Walton's argument that the end (covenant fulfillment) seems to justify the means (slaughtering of Canaanites). Over and over again Walton warned against imposing modern ideals on the text, which is correct, but he flirted with a strange relativism while at the very same time criticizing relativism ("Our modern ideals are not God's ideals, yet neither should we assume that Israel's ideals were God's ideals either. I will now tell you that the end goal of fulfilling the covenant was the point while at the same time implying the conquests were justified while warning against declaring them to be "good." Also, relativism and progressivism are not options, but I will not provide any insight into how God's ideals can actually become known."). There is also a heavy dose of reformed thought concerning that "status" of Israel's holiness.
Nevertheless, because of many of the insightful principles Walton illuminates this book still deserves 3 stars. I'm grateful for a careful approach to this extremely challenging topic, even if I don't necessarily agree with either the premise (the conquests happened as described in Joshua) or the conclusion (the conquests were a means by which God fulfilled God's covenantal promises).
March 15, 2018
This book did not end up being quite what I expected, but that was not the fault of the book. Mostly it's because I was hoping it would give me answers that weren't really there. But it did give me answers to what is there, which is better. It's a difficult, complex subject, but the authors handled it well and convincingly. There was a lot more attention given than I had anticipated to correcting the idea that because their were attacks on non-Israelite people that we should attack non-Christians. I'm glad I've so rarely encountered that argument before, but if I do again I feel well equipped to answer it! There were some really thought-provoking ideas to chew on and some very important contributions to my understanding of scripture as a whole. I love their approach and appreciate the thorough context they provide.
October 21, 2024
The Waltons' take on the Canaanite conquest is challenging and thought-provoking. A reader looking for easy answers on Old Testament violence will be disappointed. The Waltons address OT violence, but in the process of answering the question: "what is the Canaanite conquest communicating to its ancient audience?" The answer to that question, according to the Waltons, is both complex and surprising.
They make the bold move of arguing that the conquest cannot be understood as divine punishment. Instead, "herem" of the land is to be understood as its removal from human use to be devoted to the Lord. This manifests itself in the NT as the devotion (herem) of believers' bodies to God's identity and purposes. One of the highlights of this book is that it actually convincingly argues for a contemporary theological application of the Canaanite conquest. Other work I've seen on the topic seems to argue "it's less bad than it sounds" but still regards it (perhaps unconsciously) as a little irrelevant to the modern Christian.
Probably the major shortcoming of this book is that the argument hinges on some very particular translation choices. If you've read John H. Walton before, you know he is very much the "I don't think that word means what you think it means" guy. And while I don't doubt that Walton's translation choices are compelling and well argued (they seem to be), I have difficulty embracing a thesis that relies on such controversial choices when I have no grasp of Hebrew myself.
All up, provocative and sophisticated, the Waltons' treatment of the Canaanite conquest is definitely worth reading.
They make the bold move of arguing that the conquest cannot be understood as divine punishment. Instead, "herem" of the land is to be understood as its removal from human use to be devoted to the Lord. This manifests itself in the NT as the devotion (herem) of believers' bodies to God's identity and purposes. One of the highlights of this book is that it actually convincingly argues for a contemporary theological application of the Canaanite conquest. Other work I've seen on the topic seems to argue "it's less bad than it sounds" but still regards it (perhaps unconsciously) as a little irrelevant to the modern Christian.
Probably the major shortcoming of this book is that the argument hinges on some very particular translation choices. If you've read John H. Walton before, you know he is very much the "I don't think that word means what you think it means" guy. And while I don't doubt that Walton's translation choices are compelling and well argued (they seem to be), I have difficulty embracing a thesis that relies on such controversial choices when I have no grasp of Hebrew myself.
All up, provocative and sophisticated, the Waltons' treatment of the Canaanite conquest is definitely worth reading.
July 1, 2018
3rd (or 4th if you count Lost World of Scripture) in the series of Lost World book, I found this addition to be fascinating and superb. I credit John Walton's series on fundamentally changing the way I think about the Old Testament texts. (And, by extension, how I read and think about New Testament texts as well) This particular book is no different, though for me, it suffers a bit in its long winded technicalities (which it does warn about in the very beginning.) Part 6, however (How to Apply This Understanding) is more than worth it. It wraps up all that has been spoken of and ties it together with the New Testament, and us.
This book is also valuable in understanding the meaning and point of the Canaanite Conquest by Israel, and clears us some of the textual and cultural misunderstandings that we have drawn from this old testament story. This is essential for the Christian to understand, as it informs our knowledge of who God is. Many have trouble reconciling the (apparently) vindictive and malicious god of the Old Testament with their understanding of the loving god of the New Testament.
I highly recommend this book for all Christians.
This book is also valuable in understanding the meaning and point of the Canaanite Conquest by Israel, and clears us some of the textual and cultural misunderstandings that we have drawn from this old testament story. This is essential for the Christian to understand, as it informs our knowledge of who God is. Many have trouble reconciling the (apparently) vindictive and malicious god of the Old Testament with their understanding of the loving god of the New Testament.
I highly recommend this book for all Christians.
October 20, 2017
It is a piece of the biblical story that has inflamed some, incensed others, embarrassed many, and baffled not a few. What does one do with the violent conquest of Canaan by Israel? John H. Walton, professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College and Graduate School, and J. Harvey Walton, researcher in biblical studies, have assembled suggestions that map out one way to read the conquest narratives in their recently published 288 page paperback “The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest: Covenant, Retribution, and the Fate of the Canaanites”. This compilation is one more installment in the multivolume “Lost World” series spearheaded by John Walton. The present work slowly moves the technical and non-technical reader through twenty-one propositions toward their final conclusion.
“The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest” moves, step-by-step, along a line that attempts to tease out what the conquest narratives would have meant “to the people to whom it was originally written” (8). To accomplish this feat, Walton and Walton address the cognitive environment of the original audience and challenge present readers not to impose modern sensitivities and sensibilities to the accounts; “what matters is not what modern Westerners think about the methods, but what ancient Near Easterners would have thought” (11). One overarching claim by the authors is the proposal “that the Bible is given to us not to provide a list of rules for behavior but to reveal God’s plans and purposes to us, which in turn will allow us to participate with him in those plans and purposes” (15-6).
To reach their aim, the authors take apart every text that comes to mind, which has normally been translated and read as moral justifications for the conquest stories. Their working assumption, woven throughout, is that when “we see the people in Canaan suffer, therefore, we dare not assume that their suffering must have been earned through evil” (37). From Genesis 15:6 to Leviticus 18-20 and on through 1 and 2 Kings, Walton and Walton tangle with the Hebrew to bring out a different understanding of every passage than it has normally been translated or understood to mean. Since the authors appear to deny a universal moral law that people of Canaan had broken (77), then their conclusion is that there was no retribution for idolatry because “idolatry is not inherently immoral” (80), nor a reprisal for social and sexual immorality. Rather, in the conquests Yahweh is depicted as “carrying out the proper function of a god in the context of the ancient Near East” (78). To validate this last assertion the authors lean heavily on Ancient Near Eastern myths and tales.
So if the conquests were not conducted for reasons of immorality, then what was their goal? Here “The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest” pursues the Hebrew word, ḥērem, which is often translated “total destruction”. To my mind, this was the most beneficial portion of the whole volume. According to Messrs. Walton and Walton, ḥērem is about “identity, not ethnicity” (186). In other words, the aim of ḥērem was for removing “the identity of a conquered people” which was “a standard procedure of ancient warfare”. And so Canaanite identity “needs to be removed so that Israel cannot make use of it (191). The objective “is to remove the various Canaanite identities from the use of every individual who remains in the land, by one way or another,” including the command to Saul to wipe out the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15 (214-29).
It is from this perspective that the authors apply the conquests, and especially ḥērem, to Christians. The Old Testament template of ḥērem “tells us, then, …that in order to serve God’s purpose we are supposed to purge ourselves – our personal allotment of “land” – of all identities other than “in Christ,” just as the Israelite tribes were supposed to purge their allotted territory of all identities other than the people of the covenant…” (244). Further, the imagery employed in the conquests is meant “to portray …God driving away the forces of chaos in a recapitulation of the biblical creation story,” and is designed to bring us to interpret the story “as the establishment of a new created order and to interpret the covenant as the manifestation of the order” (256).
Beyond the heavy dependence on Ancient Near Eastern tales to bolster their case, I found a few issues to be highly problematic. The first was the denial of a universal moral law for all peoples. This is implied in several places and stated clearly in a few others. For example, in one footnote, “…the definition of justice is relative to the context of the observers…This is why the Mosaic law cannot be understood in universal terms; it represents Near Eastern ideals, not absolute divine ideals” (121, fn4). One could add to this quotation statements made on pages 42-44, 76-78, 121, and 138, to point to a few places. This leads the authors to claim that the “cultural river or cognitive environment” in which Israel dwelt gave God’s people sufficient “moral knowledge” on how to be good (254). But it also seems to be the momentum that compels the authors to spill truck-loads of ink on stripping the moral justifications from the conquest narratives.
“The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest” is a mixed bag. It is easy to read and comprehend. Also, it makes some valuable conclusions with regard to ḥērem. But then there are areas that are deeply disappointing and unhelpful, to say the least. If you are attempting to get your mind and heart around the conquest narratives, I would cautiously recommend reading this volume.
Thanks to IVP Academic for providing, upon my request, the free copy of the book used for this review. The assessments are mine given without restrictions or requirements (as per Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255).
“The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest” moves, step-by-step, along a line that attempts to tease out what the conquest narratives would have meant “to the people to whom it was originally written” (8). To accomplish this feat, Walton and Walton address the cognitive environment of the original audience and challenge present readers not to impose modern sensitivities and sensibilities to the accounts; “what matters is not what modern Westerners think about the methods, but what ancient Near Easterners would have thought” (11). One overarching claim by the authors is the proposal “that the Bible is given to us not to provide a list of rules for behavior but to reveal God’s plans and purposes to us, which in turn will allow us to participate with him in those plans and purposes” (15-6).
To reach their aim, the authors take apart every text that comes to mind, which has normally been translated and read as moral justifications for the conquest stories. Their working assumption, woven throughout, is that when “we see the people in Canaan suffer, therefore, we dare not assume that their suffering must have been earned through evil” (37). From Genesis 15:6 to Leviticus 18-20 and on through 1 and 2 Kings, Walton and Walton tangle with the Hebrew to bring out a different understanding of every passage than it has normally been translated or understood to mean. Since the authors appear to deny a universal moral law that people of Canaan had broken (77), then their conclusion is that there was no retribution for idolatry because “idolatry is not inherently immoral” (80), nor a reprisal for social and sexual immorality. Rather, in the conquests Yahweh is depicted as “carrying out the proper function of a god in the context of the ancient Near East” (78). To validate this last assertion the authors lean heavily on Ancient Near Eastern myths and tales.
So if the conquests were not conducted for reasons of immorality, then what was their goal? Here “The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest” pursues the Hebrew word, ḥērem, which is often translated “total destruction”. To my mind, this was the most beneficial portion of the whole volume. According to Messrs. Walton and Walton, ḥērem is about “identity, not ethnicity” (186). In other words, the aim of ḥērem was for removing “the identity of a conquered people” which was “a standard procedure of ancient warfare”. And so Canaanite identity “needs to be removed so that Israel cannot make use of it (191). The objective “is to remove the various Canaanite identities from the use of every individual who remains in the land, by one way or another,” including the command to Saul to wipe out the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15 (214-29).
It is from this perspective that the authors apply the conquests, and especially ḥērem, to Christians. The Old Testament template of ḥērem “tells us, then, …that in order to serve God’s purpose we are supposed to purge ourselves – our personal allotment of “land” – of all identities other than “in Christ,” just as the Israelite tribes were supposed to purge their allotted territory of all identities other than the people of the covenant…” (244). Further, the imagery employed in the conquests is meant “to portray …God driving away the forces of chaos in a recapitulation of the biblical creation story,” and is designed to bring us to interpret the story “as the establishment of a new created order and to interpret the covenant as the manifestation of the order” (256).
Beyond the heavy dependence on Ancient Near Eastern tales to bolster their case, I found a few issues to be highly problematic. The first was the denial of a universal moral law for all peoples. This is implied in several places and stated clearly in a few others. For example, in one footnote, “…the definition of justice is relative to the context of the observers…This is why the Mosaic law cannot be understood in universal terms; it represents Near Eastern ideals, not absolute divine ideals” (121, fn4). One could add to this quotation statements made on pages 42-44, 76-78, 121, and 138, to point to a few places. This leads the authors to claim that the “cultural river or cognitive environment” in which Israel dwelt gave God’s people sufficient “moral knowledge” on how to be good (254). But it also seems to be the momentum that compels the authors to spill truck-loads of ink on stripping the moral justifications from the conquest narratives.
“The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest” is a mixed bag. It is easy to read and comprehend. Also, it makes some valuable conclusions with regard to ḥērem. But then there are areas that are deeply disappointing and unhelpful, to say the least. If you are attempting to get your mind and heart around the conquest narratives, I would cautiously recommend reading this volume.
Thanks to IVP Academic for providing, upon my request, the free copy of the book used for this review. The assessments are mine given without restrictions or requirements (as per Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255).
February 24, 2022
I don’t agree with all of this book’s assertions, but it made me think deeply. (John Walton co-wrote this book with his son, so I think the assertions I struggle with have to do with that.)
This book is nitty gritty and particular in its language. Every word matters and this isn’t the kind of book where you can pull out a quote to post on social media.
I wouldn’t recommend this to someone who’s unsure about God or the Bible. But I would recommend it to someone who’s overly confident that they have God and the Bible figured out or to someone who wants to be challenged to think deeper. And if you can stick with it and keep reading, the final two propositions are worth getting to!
This book is nitty gritty and particular in its language. Every word matters and this isn’t the kind of book where you can pull out a quote to post on social media.
I wouldn’t recommend this to someone who’s unsure about God or the Bible. But I would recommend it to someone who’s overly confident that they have God and the Bible figured out or to someone who wants to be challenged to think deeper. And if you can stick with it and keep reading, the final two propositions are worth getting to!
May 24, 2018
Enlightening! Proved quite helpful as I prepared my Sunday school lesson on the book of Joshua.
November 29, 2017
Calibrate your expectations for this book carefully, and you will probably love it.
The entire thrust of this "Lost World" book is to take a deep dive into the world/context of the Israelite conquest through Canaan. As one would expect from Walton, there are ample comparisons to other Ancient Near-East texts, as well as nitty-gritty discussions of the interpretive decisions around Hebrew words (the most space is given to 'herem'). This all makes the writing a bit more technical than other books in the series, so if you come to this straight from "Genesis 1" then be forewarned.
The result is a really helpful, if a bit academic, text on how to best understand what the Biblical account is *actually* trying to accomplish in the telling. To no surprise, our modernist interpretations need to be challenged by better exegesis, and this book provides that in spades.
A glaring omission, and one that might disappoint readers without correctly-calibrated expectations, is the lack of almost any discussion around the ethics of warfare and killing as commanded by God. On one hand, the authors take pains to assert that they explicitly are not attempting to wade into that theological discussion, but it's still a disappointment. Just know that if you enter the book with the question, "How could God command the slaughter of people?" then you will probably leave the book with that same question unanswered.
However, if you can set that moral quandary aside and enter with the (in my mind, better) question, "Why is this whole story in the Biblical text at all?" OR "What is the story really about?" then you will gain a ton from the latest outing from Walton.
The entire thrust of this "Lost World" book is to take a deep dive into the world/context of the Israelite conquest through Canaan. As one would expect from Walton, there are ample comparisons to other Ancient Near-East texts, as well as nitty-gritty discussions of the interpretive decisions around Hebrew words (the most space is given to 'herem'). This all makes the writing a bit more technical than other books in the series, so if you come to this straight from "Genesis 1" then be forewarned.
The result is a really helpful, if a bit academic, text on how to best understand what the Biblical account is *actually* trying to accomplish in the telling. To no surprise, our modernist interpretations need to be challenged by better exegesis, and this book provides that in spades.
A glaring omission, and one that might disappoint readers without correctly-calibrated expectations, is the lack of almost any discussion around the ethics of warfare and killing as commanded by God. On one hand, the authors take pains to assert that they explicitly are not attempting to wade into that theological discussion, but it's still a disappointment. Just know that if you enter the book with the question, "How could God command the slaughter of people?" then you will probably leave the book with that same question unanswered.
However, if you can set that moral quandary aside and enter with the (in my mind, better) question, "Why is this whole story in the Biblical text at all?" OR "What is the story really about?" then you will gain a ton from the latest outing from Walton.
June 13, 2019
Very academic and laborious to read. If you're into the nitty gritty then you will be into this book. The Waltons take you into the history, context, culture, language and interpretive environment of the Old Testament and Ancient Near East which is helpful for interpreting the Bible and making applications for today. Bible lovers and Bible critics alike will be challenged to read and study the Bible on its own terms instead of forcing their own paradigms on the text. For that the authors are commended. They offer a lot of information but few answers for the person wondering why God would command what looks to us in the modern world like genocide. Read it for insight but don't hold your breath for solid answers or definitive conclusions.
February 13, 2018
This one's a mixed bag. The premise is solid (understanding the conquest narrative on its own terms) and Walton's work is always fascinating. Some of this is a dry read, some of it's really good. There are some significant moments here I disagree with, partly because of my own incoming biases and partly because Walton (or, rather, the Waltons) didn't convince me.
The most useful part of the book is their work on herem, which is fascinating and relevant. This one's worth a read if the particular concerns interest you, but probably not as a general interest read.
The most useful part of the book is their work on herem, which is fascinating and relevant. This one's worth a read if the particular concerns interest you, but probably not as a general interest read.
July 20, 2018
Great insight into culture and context of the story. Left with many unanswered questions and not as settled as they made it seem like we should be. The headers of the chapters were great for organizational purposes. Read the book with a group and it gave us lots to talk about.
August 17, 2018
I appreciate what the authors are doing and even their line of thinking. However, I felt this book was more of a slog than the other books in the series; it seemed more technical and repetitive, and less accessible.
October 19, 2017
In a hopeful act of redemption from my previous (disastrous) readings on the topic of "the Canaanite conquest" (see The Crucifixion of the Warrior God review, in particular), I picked up John H. Walton's most recent addition to his acclaimed Lost World series. It did not disappoint.
As expected, given Walton's reputation as a treasure trove of ancient Near East (ANE) knowledge, The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest is full of ANE primary sources, well-read articles responding to those primary sources, and, most importantly, Walton's own mythopoetic mastery of reading the Old Testament for the sake of its genre. Those who are familiar with his engagements on Genesis 1 (see The Lost World of Genesis One) will recognize certain commonalities between that work and this one: powerful chaos monsters, Yahweh's claim as ultimate suzerain of the universe, and His inevitable warlike victory over those chaos monsters.
These themes are well-known to most readers of the Old Testament, but Walton takes a few creative interpretative steps (in-line with orthodox soteriology) that are particularly provocative to casual readers of the conquest narrative. He does an exceptional job of untying the knots of Americanist, modernist ideology that we so often bring to our reading of the Old Testament, in particular our use of the term "genocide" to describe the Israelite conquest. Walton does not refer to Charles Taylor, but does rely on the same intellectual pools of thought that Taylor does in discussing social imaginaries.
Most ingenious is how Walton takes a critical stance against our assumptions that the Canaanites are being punished. The suggestions he gives here are familiar, in the sense that they sound like echoes of Paul in the Book of Romans; and, yet, Walton brings the text to reason with itself in order to make his claims, and he does so very convincingly. Similarly, Walton brings forth the image of the invincible barbarians and other "chaos monsters" to help us understand how the Deuteronomistic writers would have understood the conquest.
Walton does take a few strange interpretative directions, but they do not injure his central thesis. For example, at one juncture he makes a very hard line against reading the Torah for moral knowledge. Maybe it is suitable to set aside the Torah as moral for the sake of asking the questions Walton asks (in that, by cordoning off the Torah in this way, it is easier for him to do his rhetorical task). But I find the notion of rejecting the Torah as providing moral knowledge to be problematic at best, and, at worst, bereft of authority. Walton's casual reference to C.S. Lewis' list of the Tao in The Abolition of Man is not helpful there.
But these kinds of errors are relatively small and do not impact his greater thesis, which, as it culminates in the final chapters, begins to piece together a powerful and provocative hermeneutic for reading the Old Testament conquest stories without reducing them and without submitting them to late modern moral concerns (both of which are grave errors in Boyd's CWG). Walton's thesis honors the Old Testament as Holy Scripture and provides a method for engaging in its most difficult topic with grace and mercy at the forefront and without sanitizing it.
One major weakness that could be observed is Walton's lack of engagement with the bigger ethical issues at stake in the conquest stories. But it could be said that Walton isn't interested in the bigger ethical issues. There is death and killing in these conquests, and the ethics of such still needs to be discussed, but Walton observes, far more importantly, Yahweh's goal in forming Israelite (covenant) identity, and that paramount theological task is extraordinarily valuable in our understanding of Church (covenant) identity today.
As expected, given Walton's reputation as a treasure trove of ancient Near East (ANE) knowledge, The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest is full of ANE primary sources, well-read articles responding to those primary sources, and, most importantly, Walton's own mythopoetic mastery of reading the Old Testament for the sake of its genre. Those who are familiar with his engagements on Genesis 1 (see The Lost World of Genesis One) will recognize certain commonalities between that work and this one: powerful chaos monsters, Yahweh's claim as ultimate suzerain of the universe, and His inevitable warlike victory over those chaos monsters.
These themes are well-known to most readers of the Old Testament, but Walton takes a few creative interpretative steps (in-line with orthodox soteriology) that are particularly provocative to casual readers of the conquest narrative. He does an exceptional job of untying the knots of Americanist, modernist ideology that we so often bring to our reading of the Old Testament, in particular our use of the term "genocide" to describe the Israelite conquest. Walton does not refer to Charles Taylor, but does rely on the same intellectual pools of thought that Taylor does in discussing social imaginaries.
Most ingenious is how Walton takes a critical stance against our assumptions that the Canaanites are being punished. The suggestions he gives here are familiar, in the sense that they sound like echoes of Paul in the Book of Romans; and, yet, Walton brings the text to reason with itself in order to make his claims, and he does so very convincingly. Similarly, Walton brings forth the image of the invincible barbarians and other "chaos monsters" to help us understand how the Deuteronomistic writers would have understood the conquest.
Walton does take a few strange interpretative directions, but they do not injure his central thesis. For example, at one juncture he makes a very hard line against reading the Torah for moral knowledge. Maybe it is suitable to set aside the Torah as moral for the sake of asking the questions Walton asks (in that, by cordoning off the Torah in this way, it is easier for him to do his rhetorical task). But I find the notion of rejecting the Torah as providing moral knowledge to be problematic at best, and, at worst, bereft of authority. Walton's casual reference to C.S. Lewis' list of the Tao in The Abolition of Man is not helpful there.
But these kinds of errors are relatively small and do not impact his greater thesis, which, as it culminates in the final chapters, begins to piece together a powerful and provocative hermeneutic for reading the Old Testament conquest stories without reducing them and without submitting them to late modern moral concerns (both of which are grave errors in Boyd's CWG). Walton's thesis honors the Old Testament as Holy Scripture and provides a method for engaging in its most difficult topic with grace and mercy at the forefront and without sanitizing it.
One major weakness that could be observed is Walton's lack of engagement with the bigger ethical issues at stake in the conquest stories. But it could be said that Walton isn't interested in the bigger ethical issues. There is death and killing in these conquests, and the ethics of such still needs to be discussed, but Walton observes, far more importantly, Yahweh's goal in forming Israelite (covenant) identity, and that paramount theological task is extraordinarily valuable in our understanding of Church (covenant) identity today.
August 24, 2017
The newest volume in The Lost World series looks to reconcile the long-felt difficulty of the Israelite conquests with the ancient Near Eastern world. The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest: Covenant, Retribution, and the Fate of the Canaanites by John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton offers readers a captivating exploration that takes the Hebrew Bible seriously in its ancient cultural context and establishes a fresh pair of interpretive lenses for investigating the many important issues involved.
The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest “helps [readers] to transcend the shackles of our modern worldview and traditional readings to recapture the text as it would have been understood by the original author and audience” (p. xi). The book contains twenty-one individual prepositions across six major parts: (1) Interpretation, (2) The Canaanites are Not Depicted as Guilty of Sin, (3) The Canaanites are Not Depicted as Guilty of Breaking God’s Law, (4) The Language and Imagery of the Conquest Account has Literary and Theological Significance, (5) What God and the Israelites are Doing is Often Misunderstood because the Hebrew Word Herem is Commonly Mistranslated, and (6) How to Apply This Understanding. Keen readers who are familiar with Walton’s work in the series will be able to determine the trajectory of the book’s claim by following the titles of each major part (above).
The entire book is fascinating. It is unlike any other (seriously) exploration of the conquest narrative that I have ever read. Moreover, the preposition-driven organization of the book makes it extremely easy to navigate knowing what I was going to be reading. Like other books in The Lost World series, there will be some (possibly a lot) therein that the reader will not appreciate concerning the case that Walton and Walton have presented. It’s not traditional by any stretch, and for most that should be fine. Walton and Walton have done a tremendous job building their case and bringing the reader to an appropriate place of application. If the reader disagrees with the conclusion here and there, I can guarantee those same readers will still appreciate the amount of detailed work put into this volume. Without giving away the ending, The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest will make you think long and hard about the conquest narrative, and possibly even do a bit of reconsideration in areas you may not even have known needed reconsideration.
The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest: Covenant, Retribution, and the Fate of the Canaanites by John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton accomplishes exactly what it set out to accomplish. It will make you think about how deeply-seated our modern worldview and traditional readings are to our understanding of the Bible. I don’t think that Walton and Walton have done much to solve the theological tension of the Israelite conquest narratives, but they have certainly offered readers a plausible explanation to an age-old conundrum. If you have read any of the books from The Lost World series, then I likely don’t need to encourage you to grab The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest. Everyone else? Do yourself a favor and start reading this book right away. It will get you thinking about the topic in ways like never before. It comes highly recommended!
The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest “helps [readers] to transcend the shackles of our modern worldview and traditional readings to recapture the text as it would have been understood by the original author and audience” (p. xi). The book contains twenty-one individual prepositions across six major parts: (1) Interpretation, (2) The Canaanites are Not Depicted as Guilty of Sin, (3) The Canaanites are Not Depicted as Guilty of Breaking God’s Law, (4) The Language and Imagery of the Conquest Account has Literary and Theological Significance, (5) What God and the Israelites are Doing is Often Misunderstood because the Hebrew Word Herem is Commonly Mistranslated, and (6) How to Apply This Understanding. Keen readers who are familiar with Walton’s work in the series will be able to determine the trajectory of the book’s claim by following the titles of each major part (above).
The entire book is fascinating. It is unlike any other (seriously) exploration of the conquest narrative that I have ever read. Moreover, the preposition-driven organization of the book makes it extremely easy to navigate knowing what I was going to be reading. Like other books in The Lost World series, there will be some (possibly a lot) therein that the reader will not appreciate concerning the case that Walton and Walton have presented. It’s not traditional by any stretch, and for most that should be fine. Walton and Walton have done a tremendous job building their case and bringing the reader to an appropriate place of application. If the reader disagrees with the conclusion here and there, I can guarantee those same readers will still appreciate the amount of detailed work put into this volume. Without giving away the ending, The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest will make you think long and hard about the conquest narrative, and possibly even do a bit of reconsideration in areas you may not even have known needed reconsideration.
The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest: Covenant, Retribution, and the Fate of the Canaanites by John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton accomplishes exactly what it set out to accomplish. It will make you think about how deeply-seated our modern worldview and traditional readings are to our understanding of the Bible. I don’t think that Walton and Walton have done much to solve the theological tension of the Israelite conquest narratives, but they have certainly offered readers a plausible explanation to an age-old conundrum. If you have read any of the books from The Lost World series, then I likely don’t need to encourage you to grab The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest. Everyone else? Do yourself a favor and start reading this book right away. It will get you thinking about the topic in ways like never before. It comes highly recommended!
December 14, 2017
How could God have commanded the Israelites to commit genocide when entering the Promised Land? Whole cities were put to the sword (Josh 6:21; 10:28; and so forth). How could anyone believe in a God like that?
In recent years these questions have been more and more pressing, especially as the new atheists have taken up an offensive against the Bible, while others have simple walked away from their faith with sadness due to the kind of God they see in the Old Testament.
John Walton and son J. Harry Walton wade into these waters not to resolve all the issues but to put in place just a few pieces of the puzzle. They make a detailed case, for example, that the Bible is not portraying or commending either holy war or genocide. But what sort of conquest there might have been under God’s direction is largely left for others to describe.
Much of their time is spent explaining that the Canaanites were not punished for their sin nor for breaking God’s laws (detailing how texts that have often been interpreted otherwise actually paint a different picture in light of Ancient Near Eastern background). The importance of or implications of this are not spelled out much, however.
The focus then moves to the Hebrew word (herem) often interpreted as “utterly destroy.” This is actually more appropriately translated as “put under the ban” or “remove from use” because such people or objects are instead devoted to God. We know this, for example, because such herem objects are in not always to be destroyed.
The Waltons also make the plea that we not superimpose our modern, individualistic, Western mindset of what is good on an ancient text, and then judge it deficient because it doesn’t meet our standards. Rather we must begin with the Old Testament’s understanding which tends to locate what is good in God’s order rather than in the most people having the most happiness.
What all this might mean for Christian ethics or social conscience is touched on in the last part but left largely unpacked. Even if we think Jesus substantially reframes such Old Testament behavior and viewpoints, we appear to have a God who seems to mandate war. It’s hard for some people to get over that, and such readers will not find a full answer in this book.
Written at a more technical level than Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One, the book will be help to scholars and apologists who want to address more fully the multifaceted questions the Israelite conquest poses.
In recent years these questions have been more and more pressing, especially as the new atheists have taken up an offensive against the Bible, while others have simple walked away from their faith with sadness due to the kind of God they see in the Old Testament.
John Walton and son J. Harry Walton wade into these waters not to resolve all the issues but to put in place just a few pieces of the puzzle. They make a detailed case, for example, that the Bible is not portraying or commending either holy war or genocide. But what sort of conquest there might have been under God’s direction is largely left for others to describe.
Much of their time is spent explaining that the Canaanites were not punished for their sin nor for breaking God’s laws (detailing how texts that have often been interpreted otherwise actually paint a different picture in light of Ancient Near Eastern background). The importance of or implications of this are not spelled out much, however.
The focus then moves to the Hebrew word (herem) often interpreted as “utterly destroy.” This is actually more appropriately translated as “put under the ban” or “remove from use” because such people or objects are instead devoted to God. We know this, for example, because such herem objects are in not always to be destroyed.
The Waltons also make the plea that we not superimpose our modern, individualistic, Western mindset of what is good on an ancient text, and then judge it deficient because it doesn’t meet our standards. Rather we must begin with the Old Testament’s understanding which tends to locate what is good in God’s order rather than in the most people having the most happiness.
What all this might mean for Christian ethics or social conscience is touched on in the last part but left largely unpacked. Even if we think Jesus substantially reframes such Old Testament behavior and viewpoints, we appear to have a God who seems to mandate war. It’s hard for some people to get over that, and such readers will not find a full answer in this book.
Written at a more technical level than Walton’s The Lost World of Genesis One, the book will be help to scholars and apologists who want to address more fully the multifaceted questions the Israelite conquest poses.
August 13, 2019
A series of propositions attempting to contextualize the narratives of the Israelite conquest of Canaan in its ancient Near Eastern world.
The work has much to commend it: it is important to understand what is going on in terms of the ancient Near Eastern world, and not our own. The authors do well at setting that groundwork, and suggesting how maintaining order is one of the primary concerns for life at the time.
The authors are most convincing in their more thorough treatment of the Hebrew word herem as not necessarily meaning "devote to destruction" as much as to "put under a ban," to have something's identity changed to be made more useful for the divinity. Sometimes things were destroyed when put under the ban, but it was not necessary to do so. The authors' application to the Christian being made devoted to God and have their identity changed is a good parallel.
The authors' arguments about the sinfulness of the Canaanites having nothing to do with their elimination from the land is a bit more of a stretch. They spend much time discussing it, attempting to reframe the language of certain verses about it, but one has to wonder why so much effort has to go into this particular idea. They at least demonstrate that the sinfulness of the Canaanites is by no means the driver of the conquest. But they go a bit too far in presuming that it had nothing to do with it.
For all of their profession of trying to understand the Conquest in terms of the ancient Near Eastern world, the authors' Protestant biases are on full display regarding works, morality, and the law. The idea that the Law, featuring situational laws, was not intended to be literally obeyed is absolutely not at all anything which makes sense according to the history of interpretation. At many points the Protestant confession of works having nothing to do with salvation is set forth, even though one would never get such an impression from the Old Testament at all, and one has to completely misread Paul to see it in the New Testament.
There's a lot of good and deep contextual forms of assistance in here, looking at how things are marked off as holy to a god in the ancient Near Eastern world, and illuminating the nature of warfare and the aspects of existence of other groups. It is disappointing that it gets muddled with much more modern ideologies and designs.
**--original galley received as part of early review program; final work was actually read.
The work has much to commend it: it is important to understand what is going on in terms of the ancient Near Eastern world, and not our own. The authors do well at setting that groundwork, and suggesting how maintaining order is one of the primary concerns for life at the time.
The authors are most convincing in their more thorough treatment of the Hebrew word herem as not necessarily meaning "devote to destruction" as much as to "put under a ban," to have something's identity changed to be made more useful for the divinity. Sometimes things were destroyed when put under the ban, but it was not necessary to do so. The authors' application to the Christian being made devoted to God and have their identity changed is a good parallel.
The authors' arguments about the sinfulness of the Canaanites having nothing to do with their elimination from the land is a bit more of a stretch. They spend much time discussing it, attempting to reframe the language of certain verses about it, but one has to wonder why so much effort has to go into this particular idea. They at least demonstrate that the sinfulness of the Canaanites is by no means the driver of the conquest. But they go a bit too far in presuming that it had nothing to do with it.
For all of their profession of trying to understand the Conquest in terms of the ancient Near Eastern world, the authors' Protestant biases are on full display regarding works, morality, and the law. The idea that the Law, featuring situational laws, was not intended to be literally obeyed is absolutely not at all anything which makes sense according to the history of interpretation. At many points the Protestant confession of works having nothing to do with salvation is set forth, even though one would never get such an impression from the Old Testament at all, and one has to completely misread Paul to see it in the New Testament.
There's a lot of good and deep contextual forms of assistance in here, looking at how things are marked off as holy to a god in the ancient Near Eastern world, and illuminating the nature of warfare and the aspects of existence of other groups. It is disappointing that it gets muddled with much more modern ideologies and designs.
**--original galley received as part of early review program; final work was actually read.
October 17, 2017
This is a challenging book. I have enjoyed all of the "Lost World" series, and I was excited to see another volume come out, particularly on the topic of the Israelite conquest. Most biblical interpreters agree that it is critical to understand the intentions of the author when trying to understand a given text. In this book, the Waltons put the reader to the test regarding just how much he or she truly believes in that approach. While we might acknowledge the importance of understanding authorial intent, it can be surprisingly dismaying when the original context is so far removed from our own and the author's thought patterns are so foreign. Discomfort notwithstanding, it's still the right approach. It can't mean to us what it didn't mean to them.
The Waltons challenge much that is familiar to anyone who has studied the Old Testament, not just in regards to the Israelite conquest, but also regarding larger, more fundamental topics such as the nature of holiness, the purpose of the covenants, creation, etc. In addition, their argument sprawls across huge swaths of the biblical text, looking backward all the way to the creation narrative and forward all the way to the New Testament version of "herem". All in all, it is an impressive piece of scholarship, which is not to say that it is an easy read. Though not necessarily overly technical, it is conceptually difficult at times, especially when some of the ideas are so different from what I currently understand to be true. I will definitely need at least a second reading to fully grasp the argument.
This is probably more of a 4.5-star book - I occasionally wanted a little more clarity around some arguments, and it can be a wee bit dry at points. But I'm rounding up to five stars because I applaud the Waltons' commitment to truly understanding the text in its original context. They are, of course, not infallible in their scholarship and conclusions. Other scholars could disagree with them. But as long as the argument revolves around what the author understood and meant to say, rather than simply how we in our world think about such topics, then we're on the right path.
The Waltons challenge much that is familiar to anyone who has studied the Old Testament, not just in regards to the Israelite conquest, but also regarding larger, more fundamental topics such as the nature of holiness, the purpose of the covenants, creation, etc. In addition, their argument sprawls across huge swaths of the biblical text, looking backward all the way to the creation narrative and forward all the way to the New Testament version of "herem". All in all, it is an impressive piece of scholarship, which is not to say that it is an easy read. Though not necessarily overly technical, it is conceptually difficult at times, especially when some of the ideas are so different from what I currently understand to be true. I will definitely need at least a second reading to fully grasp the argument.
This is probably more of a 4.5-star book - I occasionally wanted a little more clarity around some arguments, and it can be a wee bit dry at points. But I'm rounding up to five stars because I applaud the Waltons' commitment to truly understanding the text in its original context. They are, of course, not infallible in their scholarship and conclusions. Other scholars could disagree with them. But as long as the argument revolves around what the author understood and meant to say, rather than simply how we in our world think about such topics, then we're on the right path.
July 31, 2022
This book addresses many of our assumptions about scripture and the ancient world. There is a lot of discussion of Hebrew words, which I sometimes had to skim, but I do feel that I have a better understanding of what it meant when Joshua conquered the land of Canaan. I wish the book would have gone more in-depth on other seemingly violent parts of the Bible, but perhaps those will be another book in this series.
First, they discuss the justification that some people have offered that the Canaanites had sinned and needed to be punished. God’s covenant is with Israel, and therefore commands like idolatry only apply to them. It would not make sense to judge the Canaanites by those standards, since they did not make the same covenant with Yahweh. When their behavior is mentioned, it is only as examples, not as accusations. It is also meant to show that they can only be defeated with God’s help.
The other main point of the book is that “destroyed” does not mean what we think it does. The Hebrew word “herem/cherem” means to “remove from use.” So Joshua does not need to slaughter every single person in Canaan (which we know does not occur). While war does occur, as it often did in the ancient world, their main goal is to destroy the identity of those people, killing their leaders and breaking down their idols to remove their community structure. Then, the land can be used for God’s purposes. This also seems to be what Saul did wrong when he spared King Agag in 1 Kings 15.
There is a lot of discussion about what we use the Bible for. It is not meant to give us an exhaustive list of what is good and evil. It gives us examples that we can use to help us in our own judgment. In this case the Israelites were trying to create order, an identity, and a community that would be able to worship God in the land he had promised. We are not meant to imitate that violence. For our day, we can consider what identities may be keeping us from having our lives in order with God, and how we can “destroy” them.
First, they discuss the justification that some people have offered that the Canaanites had sinned and needed to be punished. God’s covenant is with Israel, and therefore commands like idolatry only apply to them. It would not make sense to judge the Canaanites by those standards, since they did not make the same covenant with Yahweh. When their behavior is mentioned, it is only as examples, not as accusations. It is also meant to show that they can only be defeated with God’s help.
The other main point of the book is that “destroyed” does not mean what we think it does. The Hebrew word “herem/cherem” means to “remove from use.” So Joshua does not need to slaughter every single person in Canaan (which we know does not occur). While war does occur, as it often did in the ancient world, their main goal is to destroy the identity of those people, killing their leaders and breaking down their idols to remove their community structure. Then, the land can be used for God’s purposes. This also seems to be what Saul did wrong when he spared King Agag in 1 Kings 15.
There is a lot of discussion about what we use the Bible for. It is not meant to give us an exhaustive list of what is good and evil. It gives us examples that we can use to help us in our own judgment. In this case the Israelites were trying to create order, an identity, and a community that would be able to worship God in the land he had promised. We are not meant to imitate that violence. For our day, we can consider what identities may be keeping us from having our lives in order with God, and how we can “destroy” them.
August 15, 2025
I can’t give this book five stars because the propositions given in parts two and three aren’t quite convincing.
For example, in Proposition Six (“Genesis 15:16 Does Not Indicate That the Canaanites Were Committing Sin”), Walton works especially hard to wordsmith the Hebrew of each part of that verse: “And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete” (Genesis 15:16 ESV). His own translation vindicates the Canaanites of sin but also flips the verse to say something essentially the opposite of what every major English translation says. Going against all translation committees who agonize over how best to render each text of Scripture builds a high bar to jump over, and Walton doesn’t successfully make the leap. This is just one of a number of verbal gymnastics Walton does in this part, pressing his conclusions too far to make them fit beyond their bounds. It can be simultaneously true that the sin of the Canaanites isn’t the primary reason to justify the Israelite conquest over them (I agree with Walton here), yet at the same time the Canaanites can indeed also be properly accused of sin and deserving just judgments.
Part Five, however, on the Hebrew word herem (often translated “devoted to destruction”) is worth the price of the whole book. Walton suggests the meaning here isn’t about annihilation and destruction alone (though it also sometimes involves that), but rather it is the “removal of something from human use.” Walton’s unpacking of this unlocked for me a much clearer understanding of the Jericho and Promised Land conquests as well as Rahab’s salvation and Achan’s destruction. This is perhaps the most helpful writing I’ve ever read on the topic. No exaggeration.
Get the book for 60ish pages of Part Five. The rest can be helpful too, even if it’s with a grain of salt.
For example, in Proposition Six (“Genesis 15:16 Does Not Indicate That the Canaanites Were Committing Sin”), Walton works especially hard to wordsmith the Hebrew of each part of that verse: “And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete” (Genesis 15:16 ESV). His own translation vindicates the Canaanites of sin but also flips the verse to say something essentially the opposite of what every major English translation says. Going against all translation committees who agonize over how best to render each text of Scripture builds a high bar to jump over, and Walton doesn’t successfully make the leap. This is just one of a number of verbal gymnastics Walton does in this part, pressing his conclusions too far to make them fit beyond their bounds. It can be simultaneously true that the sin of the Canaanites isn’t the primary reason to justify the Israelite conquest over them (I agree with Walton here), yet at the same time the Canaanites can indeed also be properly accused of sin and deserving just judgments.
Part Five, however, on the Hebrew word herem (often translated “devoted to destruction”) is worth the price of the whole book. Walton suggests the meaning here isn’t about annihilation and destruction alone (though it also sometimes involves that), but rather it is the “removal of something from human use.” Walton’s unpacking of this unlocked for me a much clearer understanding of the Jericho and Promised Land conquests as well as Rahab’s salvation and Achan’s destruction. This is perhaps the most helpful writing I’ve ever read on the topic. No exaggeration.
Get the book for 60ish pages of Part Five. The rest can be helpful too, even if it’s with a grain of salt.
September 17, 2018
A fascinating historical overview that argues Christians have seriously misunderstood two things: what the Bible is for, and what place the so-called conquest of Canaan has within the scope of the Biblical narrative. The Bible, for the Waltons, is not "for" making people good, but rather for outlining the program that the God of Israel and the Church is working out in the universe. Within this overall programme, Scripture does not present the book of Joshua as something to emulate under divine authority, nor genocide (the systematic murder of an ethnic group).
This book gives me pause for the following reason: I'm not sure the authors' insistence that their Evangelical readers must accept their interpretation of what the authority of Scripture means adds anything substantial to the book's argument. If the author's interpretation is the one we must accept as having divine authority, how does that square with differences between the authors of Scripture or the ministry of Jesus, for example?
I enjoyed this thoughtful and thorough book. For me, it must start, rather than prevent, further conversation about Christian and Evangelical hermeneutics (and not just ethics, as the Waltons seem to be suggesting.)
This book gives me pause for the following reason: I'm not sure the authors' insistence that their Evangelical readers must accept their interpretation of what the authority of Scripture means adds anything substantial to the book's argument. If the author's interpretation is the one we must accept as having divine authority, how does that square with differences between the authors of Scripture or the ministry of Jesus, for example?
I enjoyed this thoughtful and thorough book. For me, it must start, rather than prevent, further conversation about Christian and Evangelical hermeneutics (and not just ethics, as the Waltons seem to be suggesting.)
May 25, 2025
This book isn’t quite a detailed look at the Israelite conquest narratives, their content, or their historicity, but more an apologetic for modern Christians who hold to presuppositions of inerrancy and seek to defend it. The book flatly assumes that everything depicted in Joshua is factual history, but leaves a little room for numeric hyperbole and negotiation of חרם as a weaker word that doesn’t necessitate killing. I think that requires wrestling the texts a little too much. I’ll say though that the most thorough and informative part of the book is the discussion of whether the canaanites were wicked or deserving or not. It’s clear that there’s no retributive justice at play as an excuse for the violent Conquest narratives.
But as a whole, the book might be useful to some for seeking an ethical explanation for the conquest narrative (if that’s what you really want), but not for any kind of historical-critical analysis to understand descriptions of conquest or the authorial intent behind writing such narratives.
But as a whole, the book might be useful to some for seeking an ethical explanation for the conquest narrative (if that’s what you really want), but not for any kind of historical-critical analysis to understand descriptions of conquest or the authorial intent behind writing such narratives.
November 13, 2017
I really liked this book. At first, there were many issues I disagree with, but it got better. His dealing with herem and tow`ebah made this worth reading. After reading this, not all of my questions about the text are settled, but I appreciate the Ancient Near East setting of the text better, and have more settled views on the text of Joshua from my western perspective. I will probably write more on this review later, but if you have serious questions about the Book of Joshua, and you take the Bible seriously, this is a great book. I would also recommend "The Bible Tells Me So" by Peter Enns.
February 16, 2021
The Lost World Series from John H. Walton is the basic series for deep thoughts about the Old Testament, challenging us on « how to read it »
The Conquest is one of the most difficult part of the O.T., J.H.W. Proposes 21 propositions to go through the all story and context, balancing with the other nations around through the Hebrew writing itself.
A lot of things to think after reading this but definitely a win for my understanding of the conquest’s part and how applied it on my life, world, and church as leader.
John H. Walton have a good parallel with the New Testament as well.
Really worthy to read it!
Excited to continue this serie!
The Conquest is one of the most difficult part of the O.T., J.H.W. Proposes 21 propositions to go through the all story and context, balancing with the other nations around through the Hebrew writing itself.
A lot of things to think after reading this but definitely a win for my understanding of the conquest’s part and how applied it on my life, world, and church as leader.
John H. Walton have a good parallel with the New Testament as well.
Really worthy to read it!
Excited to continue this serie!
July 10, 2023
The Lost World series is helpful in understanding the cultural and linguistic context of the passages, but the commitment is spotty at times.
Walton's thesis would have been served better by a more thorough discourse on the Biblical view of violence and its relation to covenant. I.e. more digging through the OT and application of his other writings to the subject at hand.
As other reviewers have noted, the meat of the book is a meditation on the word "herem." It's also good for research and thought on the Conquest, but don't make this the first "Lost World" book you read or the first book on Biblical violence for that matter.
Walton's thesis would have been served better by a more thorough discourse on the Biblical view of violence and its relation to covenant. I.e. more digging through the OT and application of his other writings to the subject at hand.
As other reviewers have noted, the meat of the book is a meditation on the word "herem." It's also good for research and thought on the Conquest, but don't make this the first "Lost World" book you read or the first book on Biblical violence for that matter.
January 5, 2022
The book helpfully challenges the reader to think at a deeper level about approaching an ancient document and questioning contemporary notions of rights, justice, war, etc. However, it does not seem to resolve as many questions/problems as it raises about these contemporary notions. It also belabors an argument about the conquest not being an instance of divine retribution or judgment - and I am waiting to see how any scholars who served on the various translation committees respond to the proposed reinterpretation of Gen. 15:16.
May 26, 2022
This is a fantastic book that deals with how one reads the Bible. Highly recommend for consideration for someone who is interested in not only the title question, but even deeper how a Christian should read and approach the Old Testament and what the OT's relationship is to the New Testament. The discussion on Leviticus 19 was especially intriguing. I need to read more of the "Lost World of" series.
December 18, 2024
I continue to appreciate Walton’s scholarship on ancient Near Eastern historical events and texts. This book shifts paradigms that govern understanding (both Christian and non-Christian) of what the Old Testament says. It also reminds us that translations of original Hebrew is paramount to its context. This book is heavily detailed and relies on nuances of Hebrew syntax and Near Eastern ancient literature (Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Hittite). Loved it….Read it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews