Did God command a genocide upon the Canaanites?

Numerous theories have emerged throughout the years, seeking to shed light on the Joshua conquest narratives. The portrayal of the God of the Old Testament has at times faced harsh criticism, with some labeling Him as genocidal and the like. However, a surface-level interpretation of the text can lend itself to various conclusions. It is essential to explore the cultural context and historical background surrounding these narratives to grasp their true significance and meaning.

Several theories have been proposed to explain the appearance of the Israelites in the land of Canaan. These theories stem from various sources including a plain and literary reading of the text, archaeological evidence, and assumptions made by a few Biblical scholars. According to Hess’ The Old Testament: A Historical, Theological, and Critical Introduction, “[these theories] may be divided into five views: conquest, peaceful infiltration, peasant revolt, sedentarization, and ecological/economic factors.”¹

The first view, known as the conquest view, is the traditionally held perspective asserting that “the Israelites came into the land from outside, attacking and destroying town after town.”¹ This view raises the contentious question of whether God commanded a genocide. It is essential to consider the concept of herem, a term occurring frequently in the conquest stories of Joshua. In the book “The Joshua Delusion?,” herem is defined as “the utter destruction of people, animals, houses, and other objects.”⁴ However, the term’s usage extends beyond Joshua to other parts of the Old Testament, appearing in both militaristic and non-militaristic contexts, including prophetic contexts related to future judgment. In fact, according to Hess, the term in the Deuteronomistic sense is related to “the complete dedication to God of what is already his creation but has turned against him.”² This is a theme in Joshua that is a matter of huge controversy and for some a reason to paint the Old Testament God, as genocidal and cruel. But, from a study of the archaeological evidences, do we find that a genocidal war was waged against the tribes living in Canaan? No! The archaeological evidence shows that, “Joshua and the Israelites were actually attacking forts rather than population centers”², in their conquests of Jericho and Ai. The term Ai, meaning “the ruin,” the interpretation of the Hebrew term melek, which does not denote “an independent sovereign,” the fact that Jericho and Ai were not “major population centers,” and the absence of any mention of noncombatants, all provide compelling evidence that the Joshua conquests were not inherently genocidal.³ We also encounter Canaanites in the later chapters of Joshua and Judges inhabiting the same land, indicating that they were not completely exterminated. Therefore, herem was not a genocidal endeavor against the Canaanites, but rather a defensive conflict against their combatants, aimed at dedicating to God what is rightfully His.  In fact, by God ordering a herem, it is “to keep [them] holy, undefiled, and the land itself to be undefiled.”⁶

However, several arguments have been presented to challenge the conquest view, such as “the absence of evidence of occupation during the Late Bronze Age and the early Iron Age”¹ at sites like Jericho and Ai. The lack of archaeological findings supporting Israelite inhabitation has led some to critique the conquest narratives in the Book of Joshua. Another theory was formulated by Albrecht Alt in the early twentieth century, suggesting “that the Israelites were originally and always nomadic peoples from east of the Jordan River.”¹ This model interprets the narratives of Joshua as a peaceful infiltration through migration from the East to the West across the Jordan River in search of “pastures for their flocks.”¹ However, this perspective has been critiqued due to archaeological findings indicating destruction at Hazor.

A third viewpoint, developed by an American scholar, argues that “the Israelites originated not from outside Canaan but from within the land.”¹ This perspective appears to overlook the Biblical narrative of God leading his people out of Egypt and into the promised land through the wilderness.

The fourth perspective, discussed by Richard Hess, originates from an Israeli scholar named Israel Finkelstein. After conducting site surveys in the West Bank, Finkelstein concluded that “the Israelites had been pastoral peoples who migrated across the hill country in the Late Bronze Age, [and later], shifted to permanent settlements in the form of villages.”¹ However, this view has also faced criticism for lacking sufficient evidence to support the claim.

The fifth perspective attempts to explain the narratives in terms of “political, economic, and ecological factors.”¹ According to Hess, this view interprets the settlement of individuals in hill-country villages as stemming from the migration of populations from declining urban centers in Canaan, the re-establishment of pastoralists into settled communities, and potential influxes from regions beyond Palestine. 

Based on the Joshua narratives, it seems evident that the conquest model, the first view presented, is predominant. Despite various attempts to defend the reputation of Israel’s God, it is essential to maintain honesty to the text, particularly if we uphold the Scriptures’ infallibility and inerrancy. It’s crucial to note that nowhere in the book of Joshua does God command a genocide. As stated in the Book of Joshua, “warfare is theological,” indicating that it involves God, making the conquest of the land of Canaan religious rather than purely militaristic.⁵ It is very crucial to understand the ancient near eastern context before jumping into conclusions that can have detrimental effect in our view of the God of the Bible. From the Joshua conquest narratives, we can infer that Yahweh is depicted as a warrior who fights for his people.

Footnotes