Blessed
are the peacemakers. A proclamation made by Jesus in the Gospel according to
Matthew summarizes many Christians view regarding violence and war. Throughout
the centuries Christians have struggled to understand and realize the peace
that Jesus spoke so much of in the New Testament. For as many centuries as the
church has been established, there have been as many ways to account for the
violence commanded by God in the Old Testament. Contemporary questions
regarding the congruence of the God revealed in the Old Testament and the Jesus
revealed in the New Testament have left Christians baffled and in some ways
conflicted about how we should be approaching the issues of war and violence in
our current social environment. When it comes to this matter, many Christians
are practical Marcionites, either conflicted by, or ignoring entirely the Old
Testament witness. Our commitment to Jesus’ commands of peace are made even
more conflated by the difficult political circumstances of our times. The Arab
spring, and the western reaction to it has proven that much of the world is
still caught up in the realities of war for the sake of the divine. And yet,
many in our society are simply tired of violence and war. These actions taken
by many in the East are reminiscent of the accounts of conquest in Joshua.
Truly one of the most terrifying, and at the same time awe inspiring books of
the Old Testament. This paper will attempt to understand how we can account for
the violence of conquest within the book of Joshua.
“...thirty-one kings in all.”(NIV)
According to this list provided in Joshua 12, there were thirty-one kings and
thirty-one kingdoms put under the sword for the sake of providing for Israel
the land promised to them. I remember reading this passage when I was very
young and infatuated with the idea of war. I am not sure what my thinking was
at the time, whether I simply had thoughts of glory in my mind with the
prospect of battle. Perhaps I had recently watched Disney’s Robin Hood and the
general excitement of danger and victory clouded my mind. Whatever I was
thinking, I remember that this was the most obvious display of God’s power, why
were not more people Christians? Sure, Jesus healed a bunch of people, but what
power is that? As I grew in wisdom and age, I came to be conflicted by the
difficulties of violence presented in Scripture, particularly that in the book
of Joshua. If we are not going to adopt a heretical position that either denies
the witness of the Old Testament, or divides the trinity into the evil god of
the Old Testament and the good god of the New, we must address this tension.
One of the more obvious places in
which this contentious violence presents itself is in Joshua. The first half of
the book of Joshua, that is, Joshua 1-12 is concerned with the conquest and
domination of the inhabitants in the land of Canaan. summarized by the verse
quoted earlier in the second half of
12:24; “...thirty-one kings in all.” Although this paper is not primarily concerned
with exegesis, it is necessary to spend some time in Joshua in order to give us
a glimpse of the violence enacted by both Yahweh and Israel. For the purposes
of the paper, we will concentrate primarily on the first half of the book,
which contains the violent aggressions we are interested in.
The first four chapters in Joshua
are not immediately important to us, although it is important to be reminded
that these chapters are concerned with our topic, but in a more preparatory
way. For now it is important to know that Joshua was called to lead the people
of Israel across the Jordan. Joshua sends spies into the land who are saved in
Jericho by Rahab the harlot as the NASB so lovingly refers to her. We arrive
therefore in chapter five with Israel positioned on the eastern side of
Jericho, readying for war. In chapter five, the narrative takes time to inform
us that the kings of the Amorites and the kings of the Canaanites heard of
Israel's crossing the Jordan and they were greatly disheartened. Joshua is
commanded to circumcise the men of Israel, because the men of war who had come
out of Egypt all died in the wilderness and the offspring of those warriors
were not circumcised because they were travelling through the wilderness. Once
they are healed from their circumcision, they observed the passover by
partaking in some of the produce from the promised land. The day after they
partake of the passover, the manna ceases and they eat from the bounty of that
land henceforth. The chapter ends with Joshua being confronted by a man
standing with his sword drawn informing Joshua that he is neither for Joshua, nor against him, but the captain of the
host of the Lord. Joshua prostrates himself and asks what the Lord asks of His
servant. The captain instructs Joshua to remove his sandals, for he is standing
on holy ground and Joshua obliges.
Chapter six jumps straight to
Jericho where Joshua finds the city to be tightly shut. The LORD tells Joshua
that he and Israel are to march around the city once a day for six days, on the
seventh day they are to march around the city seven times and on the seventh
march, seven priests will blow seven horns, the people are to shout upon
hearing the horns and then the walls will come down. The priests and the people
did as they were instructed, on the seventh day, after the seventh march, the
horns were blown and Joshua instructed the people to shout. But more than
instruct the people to shout, Joshua warns the people that the city is under a ban.
Everything in the city belongs to the LORD, except for Rahab and her family.
All the silver, gold, bronze and iron is sacred. The people shouted. The walls
came down and the people went in to claim their booty, they rescued Rahab and
her family, they burned everything in the city, men, women, and children except
for the metal that was found.
Chapter seven immediately continues
after the fall of Jericho saying that the sons of Israel acted unfaithfully,
Achan took some things that were under the ban. Not knowing this, Joshua sent
men to Ai to scout the city. The scouts advise Joshua to only send a few men to
take the city. Joshua heeds their advice and sends only three thousand men, but
the men are repelled by Ai and the people of Israel become disheartened. Joshua
laments and asks the Lord why he would lead them across the Jordan only to be
defeated by the Amorites. Yahweh informs Joshua that some in Israel have taken
things that were under the ban. Through a long process involving the casting of
lots, Joshua sniffs out Achan and discovers that Achan took a mantlet, some
silver and some gold and buried them under his tent. Then Joshua took Achan,
the silver, the mantlet, the gold, his sons, daughters, oxen, donkeys, sheep,
tent, and all that belonged to him. Joshua and all of Israel stoned them, then
burned them with fire and heaped stones over them to mark the spot.
The eighth chapter sees Joshua
return to the business of Ai, the Lord comforts Joshua by saying that He will
deliver the king of Ai and the people to Israel and instructs Joshua that he is
to do the same with Ai as they did with Jericho. Joshua chooses 30,000 men this
time and devises a plan for attack. The plan works and Israel sets fire to Ai
killing everything except the cattle. Joshua hangs the king of Ai, then takes
his body and places it at the entrance of the city and raised a heap of stones
over it. Joshua then built an altar just as the book of the law of Moses
commanded. They offered burnt offering on it and sacrificed peace offerings.
Joshua writes upon the altar the law of Moses and Joshua reads before the people
that law.
Chapter nine describes the deception
of the Gibeonites where the Gibeonites dress as weary travellers to fool the
Israelites. Where the other Canaanites and Amorites gather to make war with the
Israelites, the Gibeonites deceive Joshua into making a Covenant with them.
After Joshua makes a covenant with them they bring the Israelites to their city
and reveal that they are actually inhabitants of the land. Joshua and Israel
are bound by the covenant established with Gibeon and relent in destroying
them, but set them to the task of drawing water and hewing wood for the
congregation of Israel.
After hearing of the covenant the
Gibeonites make with Israel, the Amorites set out to attack Gibeon. Gibeon
requests aid from Joshua and the Israelites, and they respond. Through the
combined action of the Lord and Israel, the Amorite kings were slaughtered at
Gibeon, although the five kings of the Amorites escape and hide themselves in a
cave. Joshua sends the Israelites after those who escaped the slaughter to kill
those retreating to their cities. Once Israel had finished defeating the
retreaters, they remove the stone from the cave in which the kings were hiding.
Joshua brings the kings out and publicly disgraces them by instructing the men
of war to put their feet on the necks of the kings and encourages the men that
the LORD will do the same to the remaining enemies of Israel. Joshua kills the
kings, hangs them from a tree until sunset then puts their bodies back in the
cave and sets stones at the mouth of the cave. The rest of the chapter recounts
the victories over the rest of the kings and kingdoms in the south. Joshua
utterly destroyed all that breathed in the land and then returned to Gilgal.
Chapter eleven portrays the kings of
the northern kingdoms gathering to defeat Joshua at Merom with horses and
chariots. Again Yahweh comforts Joshua by ensuring him that He will deliver
these enemies to Joshua. Yahweh instructs Joshua to hamstring the horses and
burn their chariots. Joshua therefore hamstrings their horses and burns their
chariots. Following this is a similar recounting as with the southern kingdoms,
Joshua kills every living thing in all the cities of the north, setting fire to
the cities and killing all the kings.
Finally, chapter twelve recounts all the kings and kingdoms
that Joshua put under the sword. All the cities in which there were living
things which Joshua killed and all the cities he set to fire, a reminder of the
destruction and devastation caused by Joshua perhaps a reason why so many
people, Christians included, have come to reject or ignore the book of Joshua.
This short summary of these seven
chapters finds a large swath of disturbing tales. The stories recount the utter
desolation of people living in the land, what some have come to identify as
genocide. More than this however, is the fact that it is by Yahweh’s command
and direct participation by which these people are defeated and slaughtered. It
is here in these tales of systematic elimination of a people that many have stumbled
in their appreciation of this God Yahweh and the seemingly inconsistent actions
presented in the Old Testament when compared to the revealed and risen Son
Jesus in the New Testament. It is towards understanding this tension that we
now turn. As such, there are a number of aspects that we need to highlight in
the narrative in order to focus our study towards those themes that will bear
fruit. First, is the confusing appearance of the ban under which the
people of these cities lie. Secondly, there are particular exceptions to this
ban, such as the Gibeonites, Rahab, and the cattle. Why, of all things, are
cattle distinguished from the other living breathing things in the cities? Why
are they spared when men, women, and children are put to the sword? Thirdly,
why the Canaanites? Is it really necessary for God to requisition the life of
every breathing thing in the cities encountered by Joshua? Finally, and most
importantly, how can we account for these actions of Yahweh? Is this even the
same God who sent His Son Jesus into the world?
The difficulty of this concept
regarding the ban placed upon these cities and all that are in them comes with
the root word used to signify this ban, herem.
There are many ways in which the word has been translated: ban, dedicated,
proscribed, devoted, and devoted to destruction.[1]
None of these translations really gets at the meaning of the word. The problem
being, all of these words either explain what herem is or the result of being under the herem, but not the context in which herem is demanded. For instance, if we use the English word ban, it
does not communicate to us exactly what is meant by under the ban, the
religious and spiritual realities caught up in herem are lost. Likewise, if we use the translation devoted to
destruction, we are still left with questions regarding why these people are
destined for destruction. These translations ultimately lead us to asking more
questions than we had before the use of the term. Thus, when we read of the
genocidal narratives in Joshua, we are left with an empty feeling in our
stomach that perhaps Yahweh is exactly the kind God many accuse Him to be.
The term herem
first appears in the book of Exodus 22:20, “He who sacrifices to any god other
than to the LORD alone, shall be utterly destroyed.”(NASB) Although this verse
seems to come out of nowhere and seems even a far stretch to be taken and
applied to the Canaanites in the land, we are given a firm basis for
understanding the context of the term. Whatever herem is, it is associated with idolatry. It then appears in
Leviticus 27 mostly being applied to land but also being applied to a person.
This does not alleviate our confusion however, for the land described in
Leviticus is set apart in the sense that it is Holy, whereas 27:29 states that
any man who has been set apart, shall be put to death. Does holiness qualify as
death? In Numbers, we see the first use of the term being applied to warfare in
which a Canaanite king is placed under herem
for standing in the way of Israel claiming the land they were on.
While these references help us to understand usages for herem, they are not quite what we are
looking for. In order to find a more directly associated usage of the term in
Joshua, we need to turn our attention to the book of Deuteronomy. As Jerome
Creach indicates in his commentary on Joshua, there have been two theories
about Joshua’s placement in the canon and both highlight the book’s importance
and significant tie to Deuteronomy.
The
leading theory is that Joshua initially was part of the Deuteronomistic
History, a literary complex stretching from Deuteronomy through Kings that
promotes Deuteronomy’s sense of religious purity as the standard by which
Israel should be judged... Another theory about Joshua’s composition is that it
began as part of a Hexateuch, which told the story of Israel’s salvation,
beginning with God’s pledge to give Israel the Land of Canaan in Genesis 12 and
concluding with the fulfillment of that promise in Joshua.[2]
In
either case, we have Joshua explicitly tied in importance to Deuteronomy. As
such, we can rely on the use of herem
in Deuteronomy to help us understand herem’s
usage in Joshua.
There are three instances in Deuteronomy where a form of herem is used and might lend some
understanding. The first reference is found in 7:1-5 and 20:16-18 in which
Yahweh instructs Israel of seven nations that Israel is not to interact with.
Once they are in the land, Yahweh will deliver them into the hands of the
Israelites and they are to utterly destroy them. Furthermore, they are not to
intermarry with them, an interesting addition considering that if they were
utterly destroyed none would be left to intermarry with. The reason for their
strict dealings with these kingdoms is so that the sons of Israel will not be
turned from worshipping Yahweh. The other two references are concerned with
those who take the idols of these other nations, worship them, and in so doing
betray the covenant established by Yahweh. All of these instances and by
association, those instances in Joshua in which herem is demanded are inextricably tied to the worshipping of a god
or gods other than Yahweh.
Herem
in the instance of Joshua then, can be considered as Yahweh’s efforts of
eradicating any possibility for Israel to be enticed into the worshipping of
any deity other than Yahweh. As Creach has already noted, Joshua’s place in the
Old Testament canon is inextricably linked to the book of Deuteronomy in that
it is the outpouring, or execution of the consequences of Mosaic law.
Aggression against Jericho, Ai, the southern and northern kingdoms are an
expulsion of idol worship. But there is more to this concept of herem. However, the utter destruction of
these kings and their kingdoms is the result of something more than Herem. For we have yet to account for
the exceptions in these circumstances.
Both Rahab and the Gibeonites recognize the supremacy of
Yahweh and the necessity of turning from their Canaanite gods to worshipping
only Yahweh. This does not however account for the exception of cattle in
Joshua 11, a point which Kenneth Younger draws out in his book, Ancient Conquest Accounts. In the book,
Younger points to some examples of conquest accounts that were used by other
ancient near-eastern societies to depict their power, might, and utter
destruction of enemy nations. Younger bases his argument on our understanding
of the genre of history. What we have in the accounts of ancient conquests are
depictions of what the writers believe to be true, thus the intermingling of
truth, myth, and ideology are all valid aspects to consider. What is written is
still true, but it is true in a specific way that our modern minds often do not
understand or conceive.
In essence, the ideologies of a culture’s perception of
itself, the enemy and the acts of war are deeply interwound, and it is
ultimately these ideologies that we are to be concerned with. The structure
presented in Joshua therefore, is quite typical of what we find in other
ancient near-eastern accounts of conquest. For instance, “The Hittite imperial
ideology was very similar to the Assyrian ideology, although it placed less
emphasis on ‘an ideology of terror’ than its Assyrian counterpart.”[3]
Whereas Egyptian ideology focuses on the power of the king to protect against
the inferior neighbouring enemies. Regardless, the accounts of conquest
represent a certain amount of figurative speech. “Like their counterparts in
Hittite and Assyrian conquest accounts, Egyptian conquest accounts are
figurative accounts.”[4]
The same figurative language is utilized in Israel’s account of conquest in
Joshua. Thus we can understand that Israel destroyed every living thing, and
yet there is cattle left to be taken as the spoils of war.
When we
come therefore, to Israel’s ideology found in Joshua, we find that their direct
contact and involvement with Yahweh is their primary motivation for conquest,
and is enough reason to do precisely what Yahweh commands them to do. Moreover,
concerning the herem or ban, Younger
says this, “The concept of total war(i.e., the destruction of the population as
well as the military) was a practice which one encounters on numerous occasions
in the ancient Near Eastern conquest accounts.”[5]
However, this explanation leaves us wanting. We believe in
the uniqueness of Israel, in the uniqueness of Yahweh, because of the
uniqueness of Jesus. Even if the conquest described in Joshua is commonplace in
the literary structures of the accounts of many surrounding cultures, we are
left with asking ourselves if Yahweh is truly unique, and in what way is Yahweh
unique? This tension is addressed by Walter Brueggemann in his book, Divine Presence Amid Violence.
Brueggemann, arguing from the perspective of social and rhetorical criticism,
is ultimately concerned with the reader’s hermeneutic and, conveniently for us,
utilizes Joshua 11 to make his point. Ultimately, he addresses the same
question we are, “What shall we do with all the violence and bloody war that is
done in the Old Testament in the name of Yahweh? The question reflects a sense
that these texts of violence are at least an embarrassment, are morally
repulsive, and are theologically problematic in the Bible, not because they are
violent, but because this is violence either in the name of or at the hand of
Yahweh.”[6]
Brueggemann focuses on the utilization of horses and
chariots by the Canaanites as they muster against the Israelites as a sign of
monopolized surplus and oppressive tendency. Thus in this instance, the
violence enacted upon the Canaanite kings is an act along the same lines as what
we see in Exodus, an act of violence for the sake of liberation from
oppression. Israel is to destroy the horses and chariots because they represent
a method of oppression. This point is echoed by Creach when he says, “What
seems to be narrated in Joshua 10-11 therefore, is a repudiation and defeat of
royal power. The problem is not monarchy itself, but a form of monarchy that is
based on oppression.”[7]
The cattle on the other hand, are a completely different matter. Whereas in
11:6 we have a harsh command, 11:14 states that the cattle are taken as spoils
of war. “It is curious that in the very text which urges that ‘nothing be left
breathing,’ cattle are exempt.”[8]
He points out that both actions, to destroy everything and that they spared the
cattle, go beyond the immediate command in verse 6 to hamstring the horses and
burn the chariots. More than this, they are both actions taken based on the
memory and command of Moses. We might then deduce, that if Israel were willing
to make distinctions between cattle and horses based on Moses’ command that
they were to destroy and leave nothing breathing because of herem, they may have made similar
distinctions in other circumstances.
However,
neither of these explanations fully address our present concerns. Whether the
violence sanctioned and commanded by Yahweh can be explained as liberating
violence based on the limitation of dominating oppression, or whether Yahweh
and Israel are simply doing what all other nations and deities did, we are
ultimately left with the same question of, how
can we account for these actions of Yahweh? It is towards this question that
the rest of this paper will be directed to.
In his commentary on Joshua with Gordon McConville, Stephen
Williams addresses this rather repulsive aspect of text by first reminding us
that life in Canaan before the conquest was not innocent. “Canaanite life for a
sizable number, as for so many in our world today, may have been so nasty and
brutish that they might have preferred it to be short.”[9]
But more than this Williams also asserts that “the book of Joshua is set in the
canonical context of testimony to God’s hatred of violence.”[10]
It is with these two concepts in mind, that we are prepared to address the
violence depicted in this book. Violence is not an invention of Yahweh. It is
evidenced by His response to Cane after the exile from the garden that Yahweh
is incredibly patient regarding His response to human sinfulness. We can only
assume that Yahweh’s actions in Joshua are therefore a response to a people’s
sinfulness so deep and intrusive, that it took the wholesale destruction of a
people to prepare the land for Israel’s inheritance. It is with this in mind
that Williams can express the reality that this is not so much a war of men
involving the genocide of other men, but a war of Yahweh against the idols
established in Canaan. It is ultimately a war waged against sinfulness. Thus,
our response to this violence is really a stance of our belief of Yahweh.
Either we believe the acts commanded and acted out by Yahweh are evil and
therefore Yahweh is evil. Or, we believe that Yahweh is Holy and thus his
requests and actions are in turn Holy. In this light, we can understand the
generous patience of Yahweh being quite congruous with the person and work of
Jesus found in the New Testament.
This transitional interest from the God who speaks in the
Old Testament to the God embodied in the New is a line of interest taken up in
the book, Show Them No Mercy. In the
book, we find a conversation being taken up by four authors in which they
discuss the continuity, or lack thereof, between the Old and New Testaments on
precisely how we can understand the transition from Old and New Testaments
regarding God’s disposition towards war and violence. There are four stances
taken and none of them completely agree on how to account for this transition.
The first author, C.S. Cowles understands the shift in presentation as a
radically discontinuous theological direction. “What Jesus was introducing was
nothing short of an entirely new rewrite of Jewish theology.”[11]
Cowles quite appropriately expresses the thoughts and opinions of many
Christians who cringe at the retelling of the violent Yahweh of the Old
Testament, and voices his frustration with Yahweh’s actions.
Eugene Merril sees a moderate disconnection between Old and
New Testaments arguing that many of the themes presented with herem or Yahweh war are present in the
New Testament within the apocalyptic texts. However, Christians are not called
to live according to what was that case(Israel in conquest), nor are we to live
in anticipation for what will be the case(Jesus’ second coming). Christians are
called to live in absolute pacifism when it comes to war being waged in the
name of Yahweh. This position is similar to yet a third position which is taken
up by Daniel Gard in which he defends an eschatological view of continuity. The
Yahweh of the Old Testament enacts the same ‘plan’ or ethos in the New through
Jesus Christ who is the eschatological fulfillment of the Davidic king expected
to reinstate Israel. Yahweh will again impose the herem but when He does this time, it will be the enemies of the
church, not of Israel, who will succumb to His wrath. It appears that the
primary distinction between the second and third perspectives is with regards
to the author’s understanding of what is continuous and what is discontinuous.
The second view understands that the people are discontinuous with regards to
their actions, Israel was called to war, we the church are not. The third view
is less concerned with the actions of the people than with the continuous
actions of Yahweh and focuses primarily on the reality that there will come a
time when He will again enact herem, only this time it will be upon
all creation, not just the Canaanites.
The fourth and final position offered is presented by
Tremper Longman III who seeks to understand the continuity of the Testaments
through their spiritual connection. Longman argues that herem should be understood as a particular aspect of Holy war, not
necessarily the Holy war itself. Herem
is understood as the offering of the spoils of war to the one who won the
battle, in the case of the book of Joshua, this would be Yahweh. The only way
for these unholy spoils to be taken into the presence of Yahweh is through
death. Thus, while the concept of herem
is discontinuous from Old to New Testaments, Yahweh is not. Furthermore,
whereas in the Old Testament, the warrior Yahweh fought against the flesh and
blood of His enemies, the New Testament Yahweh through the incarnate Jesus
fights against His Spiritual enemies.
All four of these views have something significant to offer
us and it is important to listen to our brothers and sisters of the faith,
even, and perhaps especially, when we may disagree with them. These are some of
my thoughts regarding the continuity of Old and New Testaments; What we have in
Jesus Christ of Nazareth, is indeed a contradiction. But it is a contradiction
established by God not against Him. He has shown in Joshua, the Pentateuch and
all throughout the Old Testament that He is a God of His word, He will keep the
Covenant, regardless of our, or in the case of the OT, Israel’s disobedience.
He is a jealous God, and He is a Holy God. He is a God who will do anything and
everything to provide ways for His people to respond to His love and kindness.
We have seen in the Old Testament the extent that He is willing to go, and we
see in the New Testament the exact same thing. We see a God willing to
sacrifice even Himself if needs be, so that His people may walk holy and
blameless before Him. Thus, we can read of the Yahweh in the Old Testament
claiming herem on every living thing
in the land and the Jesus who wants peace above all, for it is only through the
former that the latter can be realized. It is through obedience that we live
Holy and blameless before God, and it is through that obedience that peace is
possible. In both instances, God is not looking for blood but obedience. Not
death but life, and life in His name. As such, I think my own position is some
sort of combination of the second, third, and fourth positions presented in
this book. If there is discontinuity between the two texts, it is with regards
to Yahweh’s concern for holiness. However, this leads us to another question
that we simply do not have space for; What does holiness mean?
In conclusion, herem
is by no means a concept that is easily understood, nor is Yahweh a God who is
easily comprehended. The entire subject of violence in the Old Testament is a
rather contentious subject, one that demands thorough investigation and one
that demands to be taken seriously. What we can say in concluding remarks is
that Yahweh is not a God who relishes violence against His rebellious and
sinful creation. He is a God who prefers obedience and holiness to any
situation that leads to the requisition of human life. However, the holy Yahweh
will do whatever is necessary to ensure the holiness of His people. In some
instances this means the death of His creation, and in other circumstances it
means the death of His Son. Furthermore, herem
does not legitimate or encourage physical aggression, or aggression of any type
for that matter. What we as the church are called to is not the same
circumstance or situation that Israel was called to; Rather, whatever victories
are to be had that involve the church shall be won only through the action of
Yahweh.
Opere
Citato
Alexander, T. Desmond, and David W. Baker, eds. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch.
Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
Brueggemann, Walter. Divine
Presence Amid Violence: Contextualizing the Book of Joshua. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2009.
Cowles C.S., Eugene H. Merrill, Daniel L. Gard,
and Tremper Longman III. Show Them No Mercy:
4 Views on God and Canaanite Genocide. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.
Creach, Jerome F.D. Joshua.
Interpretation Commentaries. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1989.
McConviille, J. Gordon, and Stephen N. Williams. Joshua. The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary.
Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2010.
Younger, K. Lawson. Ancient
Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing.
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990.
Bibliography
Alexander, T. Desmond, and David W. Baker, eds. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch.
Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
Brueggemann, Walter. Divine
Presence Amid Violence: Contextualizing the Book of Joshua. Eugene: Cascade
Books, 2009.
Cowles C.S., Eugene H. Merrill, Daniel L. Gard, and Tremper
Longman III. Show Them No Mercy: 4 Views
on God and Canaanite Genocide. Counterpoints. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2003.
Craigie, Peter C. The Problem of War in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co,, 1978.
Creach, Jerome F.D. Joshua.
Interpretation Commentaries. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1989.
Hess, Richard S. Joshua: An Introduction & Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament
Commentaries. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1996.
Hobbs, T.R. A Time For War: A Study of Warfare in the Old Testament. Old
Testament Studies. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1989.
Kang, Sa-Moon. Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East. New
York: Walter de Gruyter, 1989.
Longman, Tremper, and Daniel G. Reid. God is a Warrior. Studies in Old
Testament Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
Matties, Gordon H. Joshua. Believers Church Bible Commentary. Waterloo: Herald Press,
2012.
McConville, J. Gordon, and Stephen N. Williams. Joshua. The Two Horizons Old Testament
Commentary. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2010.
McDonald, Patricia M. God & Violence: Biblical Resources for
Living in a Small World. Waterloo: Herald Press, 2004.
Rad, Gerhard von. Holy War in Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1991.
Sloane, Andrew. At Home in a Strange Land: Using the Old Testament in Christian Ethics.
Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.
Thomas, Heath A., Jeremy Evans, and Paul
Copan, eds. Holy War in the Bible:
Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem. Downers Grove: Inter
Varsity Press, 2013.
Younger, K. Lawson. Ancient
Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing.
Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990.
[1] T.
Desmond Alexander, and David W. Baker, eds, Dictionary
of the Old Testament: Pentateuch(Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press,
2003), 383-387.
[2] Jerome F.D. Creach, Joshua, Interpretation
Commentaries(Louisville: John Knox Press, 1989), 1.
[3] K. Lawson Younger, Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in
Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing(Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1990), 163.
[6] Walter Brueggemann, Divine Presence Amid Violence:
Contextualizing the Book of Joshua(Eugene: Cascade Books, 2009), 17.
[9] J. Gordon McConviille,
& Stephen N. Williams, Joshua:
The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 2010), 111.
[11] C.S. Cowles et al., Show
Them No Mercy: 4 Views on God and Canaanite Genocide(Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2003), 24.
