Introduction
In the Bible, there are a number of
theological issues that demand attention. One of these issues concerns the
genocide recorded in Joshua. How could God, who claims to be loving demand the
eradication of entire people groups? A failure to properly understand the
hermeneutical and theological aspects of this passage will leave a reader
misguided and have a misunderstanding of God’s nature, will, and desires. The
purpose of this study is to show that God's justice demands this of Israel, not
because it pleases Him or because He is jealous, but because the national sin
of Canaan required such a punishment (Gen. 15:16). God, in His protective
foreknowledge, had warned Israel that if they did not cleanse the land, then
Israel itself would soon begin worshipping the Canaanite gods instead of YHWH
(Ex. 23:33; Deut. 20:16–18; cf. Ex. 34:15–16). It demonstrated God’s
continual fulfillment of His covenants to the patriarchs in that they would
receive a land flowing with milk and honey (Joshua 1:2-4; cf. Gen. 15:18; 35:12).
In three
sections, this paper will seek to understand the whole picture. The first section will deal with the internal
evidence concerning the Canaanite genocide from the Old Testament. It will
answer the question: what was the actual command given since certain passages
merely speak of expulsing the inhabitants (Num. 33:53). ). It will also seek to
answer what was actually recorded during the conquest, was there total genocide
or was it incomplete genocide? The second section will deal with archaeology.
It will seek to answer the question of whether or not there are any extra-biblical
evidences of a Canaanite genocide around the time of the exodus. The third
section will deal with the theological implication of the genocide. How should
God be viewed based on the hermeneutical understanding gained from the grammatical
section of the paper? The conclusion will surmise what has been studied and how
one should approach the subject from a biblically based point of view: while
many see the Canaanite genocide as either fictitious or the actions of an angry
God, the genocide should be seen as God’s justice on Canaan and God’s
protective love towards Israel.
Grammatical
Analysis
Numbers 33:50-56 records the command
from God to Israel concerning the inhabitants of the Promised Land, "
Then
ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy
all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down
all their high places: and ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and
dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it" (vs. 52-53). The term, vry, (hiphil,
yāraŝ) translated “dispossess” means
to acquire possession of something, especially land by conquest.[1]
While not all scholars agree on the original meaning in reference to violent
undertones, the context leans towards a violent form of occupation in this
context.[2]
They were commanded to go in and utterly
overthrow the inhabitants of the land (Ex. 23:24). Even if the above verbiage
may be questionable, the term, srh, (piel, hāraṣ) translated “utterly overthrow” literally meant that Israel
had to completely destroy the Canaanite population.[3]
In the previous verse, God promised that if Israel obeyed His commands that He
would "cut them off" (Ex. 23:23). The term, dhK,
(hiphil, kāḥad) is translated,
“‘annihilate’ (II Chron. 32:21), or ‘destroy’/‘obliterate’ (Ps. 83:5)”.[4]
Furthermore, God states that these inhabitants would be driven out in stages,
not in one year of warfare (Ex. 23:29). Was Israel commanded to merely push the
inhabitants out of the land, or were they commanded to slay the inhabitants of
the land?
God’s foreknowledge is found in Deuteronomy
20. This chapter contains the Israelite doctrine of warfare, which specifically
includes a section describing their action during the Canaanite conquest.
"But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee
for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt
utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites,
and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath
commanded thee" (vv. 16-17). The first verse contains an interesting
phrase, “save alive nothing that breathes” (hmvn-lK hyxt al).
The structure here seems similar to the Decalogue of Ex. 20:3.[5]
The Hebrew term, ~rx, (hophel, ḥāram) translated “destroy” means, "the punishment in its
entirety, namely, capital punishment in its most extreme form".[6]
A few things must be pointed out. Unanimously,
the commands to destroy mention people groups whether they are generalized as
Canaanite or specific subgroups. Several destruction orders include specific
objects; however, nothing points to a general scorched earth policy. These limited
lists include the religious places and icons (Num. 33:52); trees that do not
produce food were to be used to assist in destroying the inhabitants (Deut.
20:20) Third, the conquest would not be over quickly. The LORD stated that it
would be a slow-moving campaign to ensure the greatest benefit and protection
to Israel (Ex. 23:29). Conclusively, Israel was commanded to utterly destroy
the inhabitants of the Promised Land as well as that which would have been set
aside for idol worship. This includes the numerous “springs, mountains, hills,
cities, and other places which were consecrated in the worship of the Amorite
and Canaanite ba῾als.”[7]
These were the commands that Joshua and
all of Israel were given as they set out to conquer the Promised Land, but is
this what the Israelites actually did? Following the chapters discussing the
assaults on Jericho and Ai (6-8), there are three passages in Joshua containing
a record of campaign summaries: Joshua 10:40-43; 11:16-23; and 21:43-45. These
passages were written to give the reader a clear understanding of what occurred
during the conquest and how it was accomplished without being overly technical
in the details bringing all glory to God.[8]
The first passage describes boundaries
of the conquered lands in the first campaign based out of Gilgal: “And Joshua
smote them from Kadeshbarnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen,
even unto Gibeon” (vs. 41). This is not a complete conquest of southern Canaan,
but a subsection.[9]
Verse 40 states, “he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that
breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.” Yet, in Judges 1:1, we see that
the Canaanites still exist in the land after Joshua’s death. Did Joshua
literally destroy everyone in Southern Canaan at this time, or is this a
generalization, or is this specific to those mentioned in Joshua 10?
Textually speaking, it aligns best with
the third option. For example, Joshua 10:20 records this summary of the battle
of Israel verses the five Amorite kings, “And it came to pass, when Joshua and
the children of Israel had made an end of slaying them with a very great
slaughter, till they were consumed, that the
rest which remained of them entered into fenced cities.” Clearly, not every
individual has been slain; however, their armies have been destroyed as
promised by God (Josh. 1:5; 10:8). Following this section, Joshua slays the
five kings trapped in the cave, and then moves on to conquer six specific
city-states: Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, and Debir. The king of
Gezer and his army came to assist Lachish; however, Joshua destroyed both the
king and the army (10:33). Two things stand out in this passage: (1) the king
of Jarmuth with his army was destroyed, but no record of his town being taken
is recorded, and (2) the city-state of Gezer is defenseless, but the town is
not taken either (Judges 1:29). What is recorded is that all the inhabitants of
the city-states conquered were slain. Clarke points out that the record states
that these cities were conquered but not settled, allowing those that fled
before the army to move in and resettle the city creating future work that
needed to be readdressed (cf. Josh. 13:2-5 and Joshua 10:40-43).[10]
The second passage is a summary of both
the southern campaign (Joshua 6-10), as well as two key sections of the
northern campaign (11:1-9; 11:10-11). This list includes an appositional
section following the phrase “all that land” (#rah-lK-ta)
describing all that was conquered: the hills, the south country, the land of
Goshen, the valley, the plain, the mountain of Israel, the valley below the
mountain, from Mount Halak toward Seir, up to Baal-gad, resulting in the death
of all the kings and their armies (16b-20). Furthermore, Joshua methodically
destroyed the Anakim race with the exception of three cities: Gaza, Gath, and
Ashdod (21-22). Another statement of apparent complete conquest follows in
verse 23, “So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD said
unto Moses […].” This is intriguing since the YHWH promised Moses the land all
the way to the sea; however, clearly some Philistine cities remained that
should have been conquered. How does this seeming contradiction become
explained then? Exodus 23:30 is the answer, “By little and little I will drive
them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land.” YHWH
has given to Israel all the lands that they were to conquer at this time. Therefore,
verse 23 is a concluding summary of chapter 11. There were still to be future
battles; however, YHWH is showing them that He has kept His promise that the
land will be theirs in due time.
Following this chapter, Joshua devotes a
chapter to a specific list of kings who perished under the combined conquest of
Moses (east of the Jordan; 12:1-6) and Joshua (west of the Jordan; 12:7-24) totaling
thirty-one kings in all. Interestingly, while Joshua slew these kings, some of
the areas they ruled had yet to be conquered (cf. Josh. 13:1-13). Furthermore,
this list contains people groups that the Israelites failed to destroy (cf.
13:13). Clarke points out, “Neither Joshua 11:16-18 nor Joshua 10:40 imply a
complete conquest. Rather Israel took all the lands listed in both passages. At
this point in the story, the text clearly indicates that Israel had not taken
the Promised Land or the smaller but included parcel called Canaan.”[11]
The final section referencing the
conquest is found in Joshua 21:43-45. This section contains some key phrases
that must be clarified. The first phrase occurs in vs. 44, “And the LORD gave
them rest round about, according to all that he swear unto their fathers [.]”
The term xWn (hiphil; nûaḥ) rest does not mean that they have
cleansed the area; it is meant to be a period of recuperation and refitting.[12]
The second phrase that deserves attention is, “there stood not a man of all
their enemies before them […].” This phrase does not indicate that every person
within Canaan had been put to death, but rather that those who marched against
Israel in order to thwart their advance met certain doom. This is clearly
evident from the first part of Joshua’s farewell speech in Josh. 23:4-5, “[…] I
have divided unto you by lot these nations that remain […], and the LORD your
God, He shall expel them from before you, and drive [vry]
them from out of your sight; and ye shall possess their land […].” The term @Dh
(Qal; hādaph) translated “expel”
means to thrust or drive out by force.[13]
They have been given a period of rest, but their job is not complete.
Archaeological
Evidence
Ulrich points out that archaeologically speaking
there are some apparent discrepancies between the Canaanite account and what
was recorded in Joshua.[14]
What then are these discrepancies? Drinkard states, "A major concern in
both archaeological and historical studies has been and continues to be how
well and accurately textual or literary remains record the past events they
describe."[15]
This is especially critical when dealing with the Canaanite conquest. The
question must be asked, is there any archaeological evidence that would lend
credence toward the Canaanite conquest?
Joshua 1:10-18 records the command from
Joshua to Israel, "Three days from now you will cross the Jordan here to
go in and take possession of the land the LORD your God is giving you for your
own." (v.11b). The land in question is from the Nile River to the Lebanese
forests, east to the Euphrates River, north to the lands of the Hittites, and
west to the Mediterranean Sea (Gen. 12:4-9; 15:18-21; cf. Josh. 1:3-4). From the
previous section, Israel was directed to kill all of the inhabitants, as well
as destroy all of the sacred places. Interestingly, out of all the conquered
city-states, only three are burned: Jericho, Ai, and Hazor. All the rest were
put to the sword, yet none were recorded as being destroyed by fire, except
these three. Furthermore, the tactics described in Joshua were meant to draw
the inhabitants away from the protected walls of the city and slay them in the
field.[16]
The biggest issue revolves around the
date of the Exodus in regards to the archaeological data known at this time. For
example, Kenyon’s research of Jericho places the destruction data outside the
realm of the conquest; furthermore, the supposed site of Ai has also produced
some challenges in similar fashion.[17]
On top of this, several cities show a concurrent destruction layer that dates a
supposedly two hundred years after the supposed Exodus date of 1440BC.[18]
Merneptah’s Stele, dated to 1210 BC, mentions several city-states in the region
of Canaan, as well as one people group, Israel.[19]
How does one explain these differences in light of the biblical text?
First, the archaeological data
concerning Jericho seems to be misleading. Kenyon reviewed Garstang’s data
concerning the date of Jericho’s destruction; however, Kenyon saw nothing
drawing the conclusion that the biblical story was accurate. However, Kenyon could not explain the
presence of six full bags of grain discovered during one season on the site.
Garstang had similar discoveries as well; even more so, Egyptian scarabs dating
from the thirteenth to eighteenth dynasty were discovered in the tombs of
Jericho. This would be insignificant, except for two reasons. First, grain was
a high commodity in the Ancient Near East. This would coincide with Joshua 2,
since Rahab was drying flax upon her roof. This means that Jericho was not
destroyed after a long siege. The destruction layer also coincides with the
biblical story. The walls around Jericho had fallen away from the city not into
the city. Second, some of the scarabs contained the cartouche of Hatshepsut,
who was maligned after her death. Ultimately, based on stratigraphy, ceramic
typology, radiocarbon dating, and artifact dating (such as the scarabs), a destruction
timeline of around 1400 BC is quite plausible.[20]
The second city, Ai, also deserves
special mention. Kitchen and others rightly question the location of Ai today.
The only hint in the Bible is that it was located near Bethel (Josh. 12:9).
“Where Ai is concerned, archaeology proved that [Khirbet] et-Tell was
uninhabited during the period of Joshua. No one doubts this archaeological
fact. We must here carefully distinguish between the archaeological facts
connected with [Khirbet] et-Tel and the problems of Ai, since there is no proof
that Ai is identical with [Khirbet] et-Tel.”[21]
Kaiser agrees with this argument, pointing out that scholars have falsely
identified the nearby town of Beitin as the biblical site of Bethel based on
Eusebius’s Onomasticon and convincingly presents an alternative that better
complements the biblical story, Bireh as ancient Bethel and Khirbet Nisya as Ai.[22]
Furthermore, the destruction layer that
is concurrent throughout the area convincingly argues for a systematic method
of destruction that occurred over a number of years, as was prescribed in Ex.
23:29.This is magnified by the fact that cities which were not recorded in
Joshua as having been taking demonstrate a constant state of population;
whereas Hazor shows a sudden stop in population for a number of centuries due
to a fire that destroyed the town. Other towns show a population change based
on stratigraphy and other analyses without destruction coincides with the
biblical account as well.[23]
In the context of warning the tribes not to
forget YHWH’s goodness, Moses had said that they would live in houses which
they did not build, enjoy furnishings which they did not buy, drink water from
cisterns which they did not dig, and eat the produce from vines and olive trees
which they did not plant (Deut. 6:10-12). Later in his farewell address, Joshua
similarly reminded the tribes that YHWH had given them cities which they had
not built and vineyards which they had not planted (Josh. 24:13). Given the
Bible’s own statements, one should not be too surprised that archaeology has
found little evidence for a violent conquest in the fifteenth century.[24]
This
falls in line with the command to put everyone to death, including the high
places, and as stated previously, there was no command given for a general form
of scorched earth where everything is destroyed.
Archaeologically speaking, around
the mid-thirteenth century BC, a distinctively new type of house architecture
along with a unique pottery make has been discovered in several locations.[25]
King points out that several early Iron Age I [1200 – 1000 BC] settlements have
provided recent evidence demonstrating that during the premonarchic period a
sophisticated technology came onto the scene in Canaan which can only be
explained by Israelite settlement patterns.[26]
In conclusion, several factors point
to an Israelite invasion between 1407 and 1220 BC. Numerous oddities, such as
the discovery of multiple sacks of grain that were not taken, or similar
destruction patterns in several Canaanite cities also point to a consistent
timeline concurrent with the Joshua record. The fact that there were other
cities and regions (Philistia) that were not attacked is also biblical based on
the book of Judges. At this time, there is no reason to doubt an Israelite
conquest of Canaan.
Theological
Analysis
“The conquest of Canaan to occupy
the land is one of the most important events in OT history. Much of the
legislation in Exodus – Deuteronomy is addressed to the nation Israel settled
in the land of Canaan. Occupation of the land is the central theme in the book
of Joshua.”[27]
If that is the case, then why could the Israelites not just expel the
Canaanites? Why was there the demand to put everyone to the sword and leave
none alive? This is answered in two parts. First, the national sin of Canaan
demanded it, and second, God was faithful to His covenant.
Genesis 15:16 records the first
condemnation of the national sin of Canaan, “But in the fourth generation they
shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.” Archer explains this
implication, “When the wickedness of Canaan had reached a predetermined
accumulation of guilt, then God would have them removed from the Land of
Promise intended for Abraham and his seed.”[28]
This condemnation bears an altruistic agenda, the protection of Israel. This is
seen in numerous passages; for example, “That they teach you not to do after
all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin
against the LORD your God.” (Deut. 20:18; cf. Deut. 6:14; 7:4). God was not
only protecting this current generation of Israel, but future generations as
well (Deut. 7:3-4). The susceptibility of Israel to serve other gods was
demonstrated with the golden calf incident while Moses received the Decalogue
on Mt. Sinai.
The list of national sins includes
adultery, temple prostitution and ritual sexual intercourse, bestiality,
homosexuality, and child sacrifice.[29]
The Bible identifies several of these sins as “abominations” which comes from
two Hebrew words, #WQv and hb[At respectively. Erickson
states, “The term abomination
indicates these sins are not simply something that God peevishly objects to,
but that produces revulsion in him.”[30]
This is why the explicit command to destroy the high places was so clearly
stated. If Israel were to fall into similar sins, than similar punishments
would be meted out as well; thus the demand to eradicate all forms of
abomination. “In every case the baneful infection of degenerate idolatry and
moral depravity had to be removed before Israel could safely settle down in
these regions and set up a monotheistic, law-governed commonwealth as a
testimony for the one true God.”[31]
While the protection of Israel was
paramount, how could a loving God condemn entire populations to death? This question
is actually misguided. This situation does not concern God’s love so much as
God’s justice. The justice of God is closely related to the act of sin by man;
this command is a specific instance of God’s retributive justice which is an
expression of divine wrath and punishment upon the wicked.[32]
God did not condemn the Canaanites until their sin had reached an irreversibly
low point because of their addiction to sin had fully infected their society.[33]
Some have stated that God is merely
acting as a jealous human, oftentimes misquoting passages such as Ex. 34:14, “For
thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” However, this is not a sinful human act of
selfishness. “The eradication of idolatry is almost a sine qua non of its
successful prosecution. Idolatry is in its essence the proclamation of the
existence of supernatural powers that coexist with the God of creation and that
demand for worship should be tendered also to them.”[34]
Furthermore, God’s holiness and justice demanded that Israel follow a set of
rules, hence Deut. 20. Enns concludes his section on God’s justice with this
statement, “Since God is just and righteous, the punishment of evildoers is
fair because they receive the just penalty due them for their sin.”[35]
Conclusion
This paper has sought to understand the
whole picture through a grammatical analysis, an archaeological analysis, and a
theological analysis. The command given was to put to death the Canaanites, the
Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites (Ex.
3:17). They were to destroy the high places and those items used in the
Canaanite religious practice. God, through this command, was fulfilling His
covenant with Israel; however, Israel had to act upon this by trusting God to
give them the battle. This explains the archaeological evidence concerning the
Canaanite conquest that has been discovered today; however, Israel failed to
complete this conquest, which led to the constant cycle of idol worship
portrayed in both the Prophets and the Writings of the Old Testament (e.g. Judg.
3:6-7).
Israel was expected to be holy.[36]
God’s command was directed to provide Israel with a land that was free from the
sins of Canaan for which they were being judged. Interestingly, Canaan’s sin
was recognized by other nations. The Egyptian record contained in the Merneptah
Stele describes it this way, “Plundered is the Canaan with every evil.”[37]
The command was not given out of selfish reaction, but out of a holy, just God
who demands true worship. Therefore, while many see the Canaanite genocide as
either fictitious or the actions of an angry God, the genocide should be seen
as God’s justice on Canaan and God’s protective love and provision towards
Israel His chosen people.
Bibliography
Archer, Gleason L. Encyclopedia
of Bible Difficulties. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982.
Brown, F., S. Driver, C Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. 1906. Reprint.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008.
Clarke, T. A. “Complete
vs. Incomplete Conquest: A Re-examination of Three Passages in Joshua.” Tyndale Bulletin 61, no. 1 (Jan. 2012),
89-104.
Copan,
Paul. Is God a Moral Monster? Making
Sense of the Old Testament God. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011.
Drinkard, Jr., Joel F. "The History and Archaeology
of the Book of Joshua and the Conquest/Settlement Period." Review and Expositor 95 (1998), 171-188.
Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Rev. ed.
Chicago: Moody Press, 2008.
Erickson, Millard
J. Christian Theology. 2nd ed. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1998.
Gundry,
Stanley M., ed. Show Them no Mercy: 4
Views on God and Canaanite Genocide. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003.
Kaiser,
Jr. Walter C. The Old Testament
Documents: Are They Reliable? Downers Grove: IVP, 2001; specifically pp.
109-118.
Kitchen, Kenneth A. On
the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006;
specifically pp. 159-239.
King, Philip J. “The
Contribution of Archaeology to Biblical Studies.” Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 45 (1983), 6.
Merrill, Eugene H., Mark F. Rooker, and Michael A. Grisanti. The
World and the Word. Nashville: B & H, 2011.
Pritchard, James B. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old
Testament, 3rd ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton, 1969),
Swindoll, Charles R., and Roy B. Zuck,
eds. Understanding Christian Theology.
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2003.
Ulrich,
Dean R. “Does the Bible Sufficiently
Describe the Conquest?” Trinity Journal
20NS (1999), 53-68.
VanGemeren,
Willem A. z-a, vol. 1 of New International Dictionary of Old
Testament Theology and Exegesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997.
_________.
x-m.
Vol. 2 of New International Dictionary of
Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997.
Wood,
W. Carleton. “The Religion of Canaan from the Earliest Times to the Hebrew
Conquest.” Journal of Biblical Literature 35, no. 1-2 (1916), 163-279.
[1] Willem A. VanGemeren, x-m, vol. 2 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 547; hereafter known as NDOTTE 2.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Willem A. VanGemeren, z-a, vol. 1 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 1061; hereafter known as NDOTTE 1.
[4] Ibid., NDOTTE 2, 631-32; this
term in the hiphil can also be translated as hide or conceal, but this is only
found in Job 20:12 (Ibid., 632).
[5] This is the author’s opinion and
demands further study. Furthermore, it does not include animals since these are
listed as part of the spoils gained from the conquest (cf. Josh. 11:14-15).
[6] Ibid., NDOTTE 2, 276-77; cf. Exodus 22:20
concerning an idol worshipper.
[7] W. Carlton Wood, “The Religion
of Canaan from the Earliest Times to the Hebrew Conquest” in Journal of Biblical Literature 35 (no.
1-2: 1916), 170.
[8] Eugene H. Merrill, Mark F. Rooker, and Michael
A. Grisanti, The World and the Word (Nashville: B & H, 2011), 279;
hereafter known as, The World.
[9] T. A. Clarke, “Complete vs.
Incomplete Conquest: A Re-examination of Three Passages in Joshua” in Tyndale Bulletin 61, no. 1 (Jan. 2012),
92.
[10] Clarke, 96.
[11] Clarke, 98.
[12] Cf. Deut. 25:19; Josh. 1:13-15;
F. Brown, S. Driver, C Briggs, The
Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, (1906; repr., Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 2008), 628.
[13] Cf. Deut. 6:19; 9:4; BDB, 213.
[14]Dean R. Ulrich, “Does the Bible
Sufficiently Describe the Conquest” in Trinity
Journal 20NS (1999), 54.
[15] Joel F. Drinkard, Jr. "The
History and Archaeology of the Book of Joshua and the Conquest/Settlement
Period" in Review and Expositor
95 (1998), 175.
[16] Yigael Yadin, “Military and
Archaeological Aspects of the Conquest of Canaan in the Book of Joshua,” in Jewish Biblical Quarterly 32, no. 1
(Jan.-Mar. 2005), 13.
[17] Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. The Old Testament Documents: Are They
Reliable? (Downers Grove: IVP, 2001), 110.
[18] Ibid., 114; cf. Drinkard, 177.
[19] Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), p. 224-25. This is understood by two different
determinatives identifying the conquered Canaanite city-states with a specific
symbol indicating a land; however, the determinative symbol for Israel is one
used for a people (Drinkard, 184).
[20] This paragraph is indebted to
Kaiser’s work, Old Testament Documents, pp.
108-113, from which the vast majority comes from. The citation was saved to the
end in order give credence while minimalizing the usage of “Ibid.”
[21] Yadin, 12.
[22] Kaiser, Old Testament Documents, 116.
[23] Ibid., 118; this list includes:
Taanach, Megiddo, Gezer, and Beth-Shean (cf. Judg. 1:27-36).
23
Ulrich, 55.
[25] Drinkard, 177.
[26] Philip J. King, “The
Contribution of Archaeology to Biblical Studies,” in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45 (1983), 6. These sites include:
Masos, Esdar, Izbet Sartah, Giloh, Ai, and Raddana (6).
[27] Merrill, Rooker, Grisanti, The World, 285.
[28] Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 158.
[29] Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God.(Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2011), 159.
[30] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed., (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1998) 593.
[31] Archer, 158.
[32] Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press,
2008) 200-01.
[33] Charles R. Swindoll, and Roy B. Zuck,
eds., Understanding Christian Theology
(Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2003) 96.
[34] Eugene H. Merrill, “The Case for
Moderate Discontinuity,” in Show Them no
Mercy: 4 Views on God and Canaanite Genocide, ed. By Stanley M. Gundry (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 82.
[35] Enns, 201.
[36] Erickson, 1046.
[37] Italics added; James B.
Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton, 1969), 378.
No comments:
Post a Comment