Theology / Hard Questions • Difficult Questions • Advanced
Genocide Texts as Ancient Near Eastern Rhetoric
Primary question: Do the herem ('devote to destruction') texts of Joshua describe literal, comprehensive extermination, or hyperbolic ancient Near Eastern conquest rhetoric that must be read against comparable inscriptions?
Argument map
Click any node to inspect it. Expand branches to go deeper.
Common mistakes
Don't say
Treating the ANE-hyperbole argument as if it fully dissolves the moral problem of the conquest narratives.
Instead
Recognize it as a genre-critical claim about demographic totality language, which narrows but does not eliminate remaining questions about specific narrated killings.
Don't say
Dismissing the hyperbole reading as pure modern apologetic invention with no scholarly basis.
Instead
Engage the actual comparative philological evidence (Younger, Hess) even while contesting how much moral work it can do.
Don't say
Assuming 'ancient Near Eastern rhetoric' is a single uncontested consensus reading among all Old Testament scholars.
Instead
Note that historical-critical scholars remain divided over whether Joshua's tensions reflect rhetorical convention or composite, contradictory source traditions.
What would change my mind? — Christian position
Discovery of clear extrabiblical evidence that Joshua's language was intended and understood literally by its ancient audience, with no comparable convention elsewhere, would weaken the hyperbole reading and require facing the moral difficulty more directly rather than through genre reclassification.
What would change my mind? — Skeptical position
A demonstration that the 'remaining nations' texts and explicit killing narratives (Jericho, Ai) cannot be plausibly harmonized with a garrison-focused, hyperbolic reading — for instance, strong new archaeological evidence of large civilian populations at conquest sites — would strengthen the case that Joshua intends literal, comprehensive extermination.
Why does this matter?
How one reads the conquest narratives shapes broader judgments about scriptural inerrancy, the moral character ascribed to God in the Old Testament, and whether biblical religion can be defended against the charge of endorsing genocide — making this one of the most consequential flashpoints in the New Atheist and post-New-Atheist critique of the Hebrew Bible.
For further study
Primary and secondary sources on both sides of this question. Reading the strongest opposing case is part of the work, not a concession.
Ancient Conquest Accounts — K. Lawson Younger
Foundational comparative study establishing the ANE rhetorical 'transmission code' argument.
Is God a Moral Monster? — Paul Copan
Popular-level synthesis applying the hyperbole thesis and related arguments to Old Testament ethical difficulties.
Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary — Richard S. Hess
Commentary developing the garrison/demographic reading of Joshua's conquest lists.
The Violence of Scripture — Eric A. Seibert
Critical response arguing that reinterpretive strategies understate the text's plain, disturbing claims.
'Let Nothing That Breathes Remain Alive': On the Problem of Divinely Commanded Genocide — Randal Rauser
Philosophical essay pressing the limits of the hyperbole defense.
The Biblical Herem: A Window on Israel's Religious Experience — Philip D. Stern
Study of herem's cultic-theological function in ancient Israel and Moab.