The Joshua Delusion? Rethinking Genocide in the Bible

by Douglas Earl, Christopher J.H. Wright (Contributor)

Many Christians wrestle with biblical passages in which God commands the slaughter of the Canaanites-men, women, and children. The issue of the morality of the biblical God is one of the major challenges for faith today. How can such texts be Holy Scripture? In this bold and innovative book Douglas Earl grasps the bull by the horns and guides readers to new and unexpected ways of looking at the book of Joshua. Drawing on insights from the early church and from modern scholarship, Earl argues that we have mistakenly read Joshua as a straightforward historical account and have ended up with a genocidal God. In contrast, Earl offers a theological interpretation in which the mass killing of Canaanites is a deliberate use of myth to make important theological points that are still valid today. Christopher J. H. Wright then offers a thoughtful response to Earl's provocative views. The book closes with Earl's reply to Wright and readers are encouraged to continue the debate.

Genres: Theology, Christianity

174 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2010

Reviews

[Emanuel]

Douglas Earl gör en sofistikerad kristen läsning av Josua bok som undviker två vanliga fällor:

* Att argumentera för att det som Josua bok beskriver har hänt på riktigt (arkeologiskt tveksamt)
* Att argumentera för att Josuas gudagivna folkmordsuppdrag är etiskt försvarbart (tvek på den också va?)

Men han begränsar inte heller sin idé om vad som är helig skrift till det som är historiskt korrekt och etiskt lättsmält. Istället väljer han att läsa Josua bok som en myt vars ursprungliga ärende är att omförhandla vilka som egentligen tillhör folket. Den kananeeiska sexarbetaren Rahab blir en del av folket trots att hon är "den ultimata outsidern" för att hon tror på Gud och visar vänlighet/kärlek (chesed). Soldaten Achav (vars hundraprocentigt israeliska stamtavla vi får läsa) utesluts däremot för att han inte lyder Gud utan handlar själviskt. Genom att Josuas invasion framställs som framgångsrik - och helt i linje med femte moseboks påbud - så framstår den här omförhandlingen som okejad av Gud. Folkmordet är alltså inte poängen utan bara ett grepp för att få resten av berättelsen att funka.

Det är ett sympatiskt sätt att tolka historien. Men jag är osäker om Josua verkligen går att rädda.

Earl säger sig vilja läsa Josua i dess ursprungliga kontext, men ger förvånansvärt nog nästan ingen bild av vilken den kontexten skulle vara. Många forskare tror att den här boken, åtminstone någonstans i dess tillkomstprocess, fungerat som propaganda för kung Jos*i*a och hans religiösa centraliseringsprojekt kring slutet av 600-talet f.kr. (Josia ville att bara Jahve skulle dykas och bara i templet i Jerusalem). I den kontexten är det lätt att se att våldet i boken fyller en annan funktion - det fungerar som en varning för den som funderar på att sätta sig emot Josias agenda.

Med det sagt - detta är en smart och intressant läsning av Josua och jag tyckte mycket om att läsa den. Mycket smartare än den Dawkins-doftande titeln får en att tro.

[Mike Bright · Rating 4 out of 5]

Old Testament passages in Deuteronomy and Joshua (and a few others) are problematic for Christians because God commands killing and destruction of Israel's enemies (often cited as genocide). Dr. Earl presents and interesting approach to reconciling these passages with the God that Christians are used to. He basically hearkens back to church fathers such as Origen and Irenaeus in taking an allegorical approach and basically explaining those hard passages away. This is an outgrowth of Dr. Earl's Ph.D. research, so may be challenging for non-academics.

I appreciate Dr. Earl's approach, and his careful use of the word 'myth'. He presents his case carefully and clearly. I really appreciated the response included from Dr. Christopher J. H. Wright.

I learned a lot from this book. However, in the end, I do not believe the extreme allegorical reading is the correct one. Dr. Earl is much softer on the historicity of these events than I am. I also agree with Dr. Wright that Dr. Earl glosses over the depravity of the Canaanites in question. I'm glad I read the book, even if I wasn't completely persuaded.

[Rachel Turner-Poteet · Rating 5 out of 5]

Definitely not for the faint of heart, but it hits hard and heavy and defends its points well. Earl raises the same point Marcus Borg does but applies it in a more appropriate way: it’s entirely possible that these things were written down as symbols, and now we’re dumb enough to take them literally. He does the important work of asking what these stories meant historically rather than if they did or did not happen.

[Josh Fisher]

This book surprised me on multiple levels. For one, I assumed Earl would be providing his conservative evangelical audience with an overview of the evidence concerning the Canaanite conquest, namely that it did not take place—at least, certainly not how it is depicted in the Bible. Yet despite nods to this evidence, his approach is to merely ask "so what?" Does the historical accuracy of the text have anything to do with our ability to engage well with it and to understand its rhetorical goals? No, it doesn't! To this end, he provides a brilliant reading of Joshua that manages to side-step a lot of the issues I have with explicitly "Christian" readings of Hebrew texts. For example, we sometimes see the conquest narrative appropriated by Christians to make points about spiritual warfare, which is a fairly superficial reading of the text that doesn't actually engage with the author's intent in any meaningful sense. On the flip side, Earl does something here that you don't see many Christian authors do: asking how the Hebrew Bible (or "Old Testament") can inform and enrich one's understanding of the New Testament, rather than just pasting the New over the Old and in a sense doing violence to the original text. This is a difficult line to walk, and Earl's reading will be quite challenging for some. But as he points out, reading a text well *is* difficult! He writes, "This is perhaps why teaching is regarded as a special gift in the New Testament and that few should presume the role (Eph. 4:11 and Jas. 3:1). We have come to assume, rather too readily perhaps, that Scripture is easy to interpret and teach." I also really liked his whole thing about "crucifying" our modernist assumptions about the biblical text, or saying that our perception of Scripture needs "conversion," which is not the way I would put it but is a striking metaphor regardless. Overall really liked this despite his repeated use of the world "whilst." And woe to the publisher for sticking that awful conservative "response" in the back, which is just the usual hand wringing about slippery slopes and finger wagging about the need to be more literal. Grow up!

[Lyf · Rating 3 out of 5]

Liked aspects of it and really appreciated the short dialogue at the end between Wright and Earl, but felt a little rushed to me.

[Zee · Rating 3 out of 5]

“So perhaps the problem now in the twenty-first century is the opposite is that which Ramsey posed in 1982. In other words for us the question is, ‘If Jericho was razed, is our faith in vain?’”

“Might one initially say then that the historical and ethical difficulties point us not necessarily to an allegorical or spiritual sense of a text, but rather to a symbolic sense that has theological and spiritual implications?"

The book benefits quite a bit from Wright's brief response, which thankfully addresses head-on what most readers no doubt will. I couldn't help but feel nearly throughout that much phrasing could've been more effective and at times direct. His point is not lost on the reader, but it often feels as though his lack of directness is intentional, academically roundabout, or shy. Perhaps some is intentional as his perspective on Joshua could be characterized as willful misreading for the sake of image, but one finishes with a clear sense of his respect for the text, potential ideology or inclination aside.

[Rev Bill S · Rating 5 out of 5]

An interesting read. A bit of a trawl at times but well worth the read.