The Canaanite Genocide

[examining_life]

For me, the Canaanite genocide is really just a special case of the wider problem of evil. We have to remember that this was at a time when what we call ‘genocide’ was the order of the day, so it doesn’t stretch the imagination too much for God to have used it as a vehicle for the establishment of Israel. States and tribes were committing genocide all the time back then, and God works through the historical process. Commands to “turn the other cheek” and “love your enemy” at that time, for example, would probably have just turned everybody straight to Baal.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Meaning that I’ve read the extra-biblical Canaanite material and don’t see how these texts support your assertion that they “provide ample evidence that the Canaanite culture was despicable in the extreme, even by the standards of the ancient world.”

So, maybe you could give me some references to the specific texts to which you are referring. I’m open to being convinced, but you’ll have to provide some support for your assertion.

Dave, after I took the time to look up the cites and write all that out, can you tell me if that at least gives you some of the information for which you asked?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Dave, after I took the time to look up the cites and write all that out, can you tell me if that at least gives you some of the information for which you asked?

Well there’s a lot of information there, so it would take a ton of time to sift through that I don’t really have right now. So the best I can give you now are some general observations and it will take me a long time to look through these sources:

1. I don’t know how one could know that “the Canaanites patterned their sexual mores on that of their gods” without some direct evidence—and in general there seems to be a lot of conflating of myth with cultural activity in your comments. For example, just because Zeus had sex with a cow in Greek mythology, I can’t conclude that ALL (and we are talking ALL in this case to make the claim that the Canaanites deserved destruction) Greeks practiced bestiality. I don’t think anyone would say or assume that.
2. Some of the sources you’ve cited seem good in terms of likely credibility, others would be much less credible (Albright, e.g. or stuff published in the 19th century).
3. Molech was actually an Ammonite, not Canaanite god (at least according to the Bible) and the Ammonites as close relatives to the Israelites were not subject to the herem.
4. Any connection between Canaanite culture and Punic culture (just as one example) would be extremely difficult if not impossible to prove. In general there seems to be a lot of information about non-Canaanites here that purports to give us evidence about Canaanites.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Well there’s a lot of information there, so it would take a ton of time to sift through that I don’t really have right now. So the best I can give you now are some general observations and it will take me a long time to look through these sources:

1. I don’t know how one could know that “the Canaanites patterned their sexual mores on that of their gods” without some direct evidence—and in general there seems to be a lot of conflating of myth with cultural activity in your comments. For example, just because Zeus had sex with a cow in Greek mythology, I can’t conclude that ALL (and we are talking ALL in this case to make the claim that the Canaanites deserved destruction) Greeks practiced bestiality. I don’t think anyone would say or assume that.

Well, religion is a primary marker of culture. The actions of one’s gods would seem to give us a sense of what actions were considered proper or improper, or taboo, in that society. There was an obsession with bestiality in the religions of the ancient middle east, it was certainly practiced an obsessive interest of the Babylonian religions from which the Canaanite religious practices seem to have descended, and other cultures with whom the Canaanites were in intimate contact (such as the Hittites, whom the Canaanites conquered ) Military conquest is a primary source of cultural transmission, as the Israelites found after their military conquest of the Canaanites, and the assumption of their practicesand the adulteration of their faith in defiance of God. The source I cited for the Hittite Laws show that bestiality was a common practice. These were written on cuneiform tablets whose use of Old, Middle, and Late Hittite date these laws as probably in force from 1650 to 1100 B.C. Clauses 187 to 200 concern the laws on sexual morailty. A version that was in use from 1650 to 1500 B.C. (The Code of the Nesilim (the Nesilim was the Hittite name for themselves) provides that:

199. If anyone have intercourse with a pig or a dog, he shall die. If a man have intercourse with a horse or a mule, there is no punishment. But he shall not approach the king, and shall not become a priest. If an ox spring upon a man for intercourse, the ox shall die but the man shall not die. One sheep shall be fetched as a substitute for the man, and they shall kill it. If a pig spring upon a man for intercourse, there is no punishment. If any man have intercourse with a foreign woman and pick up this one, now that one, there is no punishment.

fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/1650nesilim.asp

The Hittites were not Canaanites, but had close connections.

1. Some of the sources you’ve cited seem good in terms of likely credibility, others would be much less credible (Albright, e.g. or stuff published in the 19th century).

I certainly wouldn’t discredit the work of all 19th century researchers, especially those who had primary access to sites. Albright’s work has been questioned by the biblical minimalist school, such as Dever and Thomas Thompson, but their perspective is that archaeological evidence does not support any of the historicity of the Bible. Albright felt that archaeology supported the historicity of the Bible but was not, apparently, a biblical literalist himself. Much of his work was groundbreaking, from what I know about it, although it is out of favor with much of academia outside the Protestant Bible colleges that support biblical archaeology research. Personally, I feel much of the archaeological finds of the last few decades tends to support the historical accounts in the Bible.

1. Molech was actually an Ammonite, not Canaanite god (at least according to the Bible) and the Ammonites as close relatives to the Israelites were not subject to the herem.

As you know, civilizations of the ancient middle east borrowed each other’s gods (even as Mithras was worshipped by both Persians and Romans). Moloch was also worshipped by the Canaanites, which I think is generally agreed-upon by scholars.

1. Any connection between Canaanite culture and Punic culture (just as one example) would be extremely difficult if not impossible to prove. In general there seems to be a lot of information about non-Canaanites here that purports to give us evidence about Canaanites.

When does a Canaanite cease to be a Canaanite and become a Punic Carthaginian? The terms Canaanite, Carthaginian, Punic, Phoenician, Sidonian and Ugarit are used variously to refer to a people linked by religious belief, cultural practice, and ethnicity at various times and in various settlements, and as all ethnic identifications, can mean different things to different cultures. Here is a not-too-bad summary of information about the various cultural identifications:

factsanddetails.com/world.php?itemid=1986&catid=56&subcatid=371

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Well, religion is a primary marker of culture. The actions of one’s gods would seem to give us a sense of what actions were considered proper or improper, or taboo, in that society.

Actually, religious myths usually mark the actions of deities as being above, beyond or different than what mortals are capable of doing or would do. That’s why they are gods and not humans. Of course anything is possible, but assuming people mimic the behavior of the gods in their myths is pretty speculative, as I already pointed out via the example of Greek mythology.

The Hittites were not Canaanites, but had close connections.

And we know this how? Just wanting to see the specific evidence.

I certainly wouldn’t discredit the work of all 19th century researchers, especially those who had primary access to sites. Albright’s work has been questioned by the biblical minimalist school, such as Dever and Thomas Thompson, but their perspective is that archaeological evidence does not support any of the historicity of the Bible. Albright felt that archaeology supported the historicity of the Bible but was not, apparently, a biblical literalist himself. Much of his work was groundbreaking, from what I know about it, although it is out of favor with much of academia outside the Protestant Bible colleges that support biblical archaeology research. Personally, I feel much of the archaeological finds of the last few decades tends to support the historical accounts in the Bible.

The problem with relying on old info in this one particular case is that the finds at Ugarit of the early to mid 20th century have revolutionized the field.

It’s not just the minimalists who reject Albright’s work. While it may have been ground breaking for his time, his scholarship was so biased by his efforts to “prove the Bible” that it’s difficult to say what’s reality and what’s fantasy. But you’re right, I’m sure his work is still very popular in Protestant Bible colleges.

Moloch was also worshipped by the Canaanites, which I think is generally agreed-upon by scholars.

Again, what’s the evidence? I simply don’t recall Molech showing up in any Ugaritic texts and he’s not connected with the Canaanites in the Bible as far as I know. Also, if Molech worship is part of the justification of being subject to herem, then why were the Ammonites not included (1Kings 11:7)?

When does a Canaanite cease to be a Canaanite and become a Punic Carthaginian? The terms Canaanite, Carthaginian, Punic, Phoenician, Sidonian and Ugarit are used variously to refer to a people linked by religious belief, cultural practice, and ethnicity at various times and in various settlements, and as all ethnic identifications, can mean different things to different cultures. Here is a not-too-bad summary of information about the various cultural identifications:

factsanddetails.com/world.php?itemid=1986&catid=56&subcatid=371

I didn’t see anything on this webpage that shows what the cultural connections actually are between these various groups. How are they “linked” other than by the fact that this person chooses to list them on the same webpage? How would we know anything at all about their ethnicities (sans a DNA test) or other parts of their shared culture? You’re assuming a connection that may have existed (again, anything is possible) but would be extremely difficult to prove, or even support via archaeological evidence. Also, the sources for this webpage do not seem to be particularly scholarly in any respect (Lonely Planet Guides?).

 

[MrSylvester]

I prefer the Blessed Virgin’s approach: appear to sinful ‘races’ and convert them with love and affection, the same way She did to the Aztecs when She appeared to Juan Diego. If I had to choose ebtween God’s way and Mary’s way, I’d choose Mary’s way each and every time even if God’s way somehow ended up saving the entire human race.