The Canaanite Genocide

[Cormacnl]

Please don’t presume to speak to me if you’re going to misrepresent what I write.

“All life belongs to God. He can do with it what He wills.”

i.e., life is God’s, not man’s. Therefore God alone can dispose of it as he sees fit, not man.

If God tells you to commit genocide, you are morally obligated to commit genocide.

Nothing short of direct, personal divine revelation can join such a command with the force of moral obligation.

But this is really, really frightening for me.

Can I take it that should you become convinced it was God’s will you would take part in a genocide tomorrow?

 

[promethius]

But this is really, really frightening for me.

Can I take it that should you become convinced it was God’s will you would take part in a genocide tomorrow?

I’m a bit confused as to why you think there is any difference between death by an israeli sword and death by a volcano… Do you not understand what is meant when we say that ALL life belongs to God? You do realize that you have no right over God to your own life, and that one day God will recall that life… right?

So what difference does it make by what means God sees fit to take back what He has given?

And besides, the bar would obviously be set pretty high for establishing that a genocide was the will of God, just as it was for the Israelites. We’re not talking about a people who where merely told that they needed to kill by some guy with a swastika, we’re talking about a people who, just a single generation before, had been exodused from Egypt with a fiery column to guide them, with Tornados acting as Moses predicted to destroy an army, with the red sea parting before them, with the Nile turned to blood, and with the passover having swept through the land, who, when they asked God to let them wander the desert for 40 years, did so aimlessly… these people had all the proof in the world that they needed that God was there and guiding them.

 

[Cormacnl]

I’m a bit confused as to why you think there is any difference between death by an israeli sword and death by a volcano…

Now I am very confused: you can’t see any difference between a person stabbing or chopping another person to death with a sword and a natural disaster like a volcano?

And besides, the bar would obviously be set pretty high for establishing that a genocide was the will of God, just as it was for the Israelites. We’re not talking about a people who where merely told that they needed to kill by some guy with a swastika, we’re talking about a people who, just a single generation before, had been exodused from Egypt with a fiery column to guide them, with Tornados acting as Moses predicted to destroy an army, with the red sea parting before them, with the Nile turned to blood, and with the passover having swept through the land, who, when they asked God to let them wander the desert for 40 years, did so aimlessly… these people had all the proof in the world that they needed that God was there and guiding them.

All I can say is I hope in such a situation I would refuse to carry out the genocide. If God wants to slaughter people he can use the volcano.

 

[promethius]

Now I am very confused: you can’t see any difference between a person stabbing or chopping another person to death with a sword and a natural disaster like a volcano?

In externals there is certainly a difference… but fundamentally they’re no different. Dead is dead. In both cases God allowed and ordained such action to occur.

All I can say is I hope in such a situation I would refuse to carry out the genocide. If God wants to slaughter people he can use the volcano.

Your call. I’d be hesitant to deny God after He had so plainly revealed Himself.

 

[Cormacnl]

In externals there is certainly a difference… but fundamentally they’re no different. Dead is dead. In both cases God allowed and ordained such action to occur.

Your call. I’d be hesitant to deny God after He had so plainly revealed Himself.

Your faith leads you to justify genocide. I find that sad, but its your call.

peace

 

[promethius]

Your faith leads you to justify genocide. I find that sad, but its your call.

peace

chuckle What a hyperbolic means of debate!

If the story is true, then God proved Himself as real and present, and was within His rights to allow or even command that the Canaanites be killed.

If the story is false, then all the miracles are false, sure, but so is the genocide.

You want to have your cake and eat it too… you want there to be no God, and hence no authority capable of determining the disposition of human life, but then you want for there to be a genocide that you can rail against… now*** THAT*** is a silly proposition, and a straw man not worth discussing.

 

[nemmark]

I don’t think anyone could expect present day followers of Jesus Christ to be commanded by God to kill anyone. I know, somewhere in your mind, if this throught distrubs you, then you are also thinking about the acts of present day Islamic extremists as well. Some how, this act is compared to present day acts of conquering other people and killing them in the name of religion.

I think it is unreasonable to think of it this way, because there are so many differences between the conquering of the Canaanites and present day religious conquests. I will not list them all, but the major one is that the Israelites never intended to spread their religion through bloody conquest. They were more so taking back land that was promised to Abraham by God. Keep in mind that they didn’t have a place to settle and after taking over Canaan, they never developed plans to enact some widespread conquering of other nations or people so that they may convert to Judaism.

Today, any religious extremist, not only Islamic ones, we just hear a lot about Islamic extremists, will claim that they are conquering parts of the world in the name of their God. They claim that God has chosen them to spread the truth through conquest. I don’t think the Israelites were trying to spread their religion by conquering Canaan.

Also, one must take into account why God needed them to conquer the Canaanites, and not leave any alive in the land. He required this so that Judaism may take root, and so that the life, death, and ressurection of Jesus Christ could take place for the salvation of man-kind. This was not done to propagate the truth like modern day religious extremist claim to be doing.

Next, what similarities do we have as modern day Catholics with the Israelites before the time that Canaan was conquered? We don’t have the same problems and conditions as the Israelites did, so it would not be unecessary for God to command us to take over a land and kill all of its inhabitants. Nor would it make sense for God to command us to kill any single person. This is due to the fact that our faith has taken firm root, it will never be uprooted because of the establishment of the sacraments, and we can never lead people to love God if they have this terrible image of Him through forceful conversion.

If someone today claimed to be killing others in the name of God, I’d definitely question why God has justified this. Also, I’d not belief it was God commanding it if they were conquering and killing in order to spread truth and glorify God. The canaanites weren’t doing this, but instead, were obeying a command from God so that the truth would eventually enter into this world through the person of Jesus Christ.

Finally, we are never going to be Emotionally satisfied until we understand the true love of God, and then we will understand why He did as He did. If you have doubts about Christianity or Catholicism because of this issue, then try to explore the love of God. Talk to Him in prayer, and touch Him in the Eucharist. Once you know the love of God, even something emotionally upsetting will not break your faith.

 

[Frankk]

In externals there is certainly a difference… but fundamentally they’re no different. Dead is dead. In both cases God allowed and ordained such action to occur.

Fundamentally they are very different. One is a result of geological activity. The other is an action by a man or men.
Humans have the gift of free will and killing someone else involves the exercise of free will.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

God, according to the story, did not kill the Canaanites directly. His chosen people said they had been directed by him to do so.

Is this an acceptable excuse any group can use to justify destroying a rival group?

We are told the Canaanites had despicable beliefs that caused them to do terrible things. Okay, but were they alone in this? And don’t we also have to be careful when accepting what could be propaganda of the winning side?

Just a thought.

It should be noted that archaeological and textual evidence that is independent of the OT texts provide ample evidence that the Canaanite culture was despicable in the extreme, even by the standards of the ancient world. This is a viewpoint supported by the Canaanites’ own surviving texts describing their culture and the mass gravesites of the children they murdered. (Almost as bad as the Gosnell site…) It was a psychopathic culture. This was not “propaganda” from the winning side, although ample evidence from both the OT and Roman historians, documenting their own later battles against the Carthaginians (to whom the Canaanites belonged) corroborate what we know from these sources.

Per the OT, the Jewish people had repeatedly strayed into compromising their beliefs by adulteration with the pagan cultures into which they came in contact before the war against the Canaanites, and they did so again later (as the Canaanites were NOT, in fact, completely destroyed.)

While modern sensibilities, which are not those of an ancient culture that had survived enslavement and a nomadic lifestyle for decades, may decry the actions which are described in the OT, those same modern (and secular) sensibilities consented in the firestorms created by the fire-bombing of Dresden in World War II and the nuclear immolation of the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, including their women and children, out of our desire to destroy those psychopathic cultures. The Canaanites were at least given the opportunity to flee.

 

[promethius]

Fundamentally they are very different. One is a result of geological activity. The other is an action by a man or men.
Humans have the gift of free will and killing someone else involves the exercise of free will.

Yes, the externals (method of death) are different… but the end result is the same: dead is dead, and the justice of it is the same (God, who is within His rights to end any life, willed it)

 

[Frankk]

Yes, the externals (method of death) are different… but the end result is the same: dead is dead, and the justice of it is the same (God, who is within His rights to end any life, willed it)

But that isn’t what you said - which was that they are fundamentally the same.

It is the end which is the same. The means of death are what is fundamentally different.

 

[promethius]

But that isn’t what you said - which was that they are fundamentally the same.

It is the end which is the same. The means of death are what is fundamentally different.

The means of death are only an external, Frank, not a fundamental. If you don’t think so, then please presume to tell me how the someone who dies in an earth quake is any more, less, or differently dead than someone killed by an Israeli sword… The idea that there are different levels of physical death is… well… preposterous… better left to zombie and vampire movies than real life…

 

[Frankk]

You are completely (preposterously?) missing the point. The issue is not that people end up dead. The issue is precisely HOW they died.

And it really is preposterous to suggest that dying because of the result of geological activity is funadamentally the same as death because of the action of another person. Yes, the result is the same but there is no moral equivalence between a natural disaster and human action as the cause of death.

It is the cause of death which is the focus of the discussion - not the difference between being dead and being alive.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

It should be noted that archaeological and textual evidence that is independent of the OT texts provide ample evidence that the Canaanite culture was despicable in the extreme, even by the standards of the ancient world.

I’ve studied these texts extensively and have never run across such evidence. I would love to have a citation of where you’re getting your information.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I’ve studied these texts extensively and have never run across such evidence. I would love to have a citation of where you’re getting your information.

If you’ve studied the texts that discuss such matters, how would you not be able to read about such matters?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

If you’ve studied the texts that discuss such matters, how would you not be able to read about such matters?

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.

 

[Geist]

Weren’t prophecies warning the various “other” people (the Moabites, Egyptians, etc.) about the coming Babylonian onslaught (who put everyone they could to the sword, both Jew and Gentile) given in the end of the book of Jeremiah?

Sounds like they got a warning too. I would take this as meaning their lives were valued too.

Just my (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[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.

The Canaanite textual and archaeological evidence supports the argument that the Canaanites condoned and practiced child sacrifice, temple prostitution, child sexual abuse, incest, bestiality, and homosexuality. Furthermore, these were not isolated, antisocial practices, but were condoned and supported by their idolatrous religious practices, and were themselves modeled on the acts supposedly conducted by their gods.

Incestuous acts were condoned by the actions of the Canaanite elder god El, who had 70 children by Asherah, including Baal and his sister Anat, with whom Baal had sex. Asherah tried to seduce Baal, and Baal told El, who encouraged him to have sex with his mother Asherah to humiliate her. Baal also had sex with his daughter Pidray. These actions are not presented by the Canaanites in a negative manner. (For Canaanite texts relating these tales, see W.F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1968, and “El, Ashteru and the Storm-god,” translated by Albrecht Goetze, in The Ancient Near East: Supplementary Texts and Pictures Relating to the Old Testament, edited by James B. Pritchard, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969)) Incest was initially punished by the Canaanites by death or banishment, but after the 14th century B.C., the punishment for incest had been decriminalized and reduced to a simple fine. Harry A. Hoffner Jr. (in “Incest, Sodomy and Bestiality in the Ancient Near East” in Orient and Occident: Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of his Sixty-Fifth Birthday(1), edited by Hoffner [Germany: Neukirchen Vluyn, 1973)), in describing the gradual decriminalization of the incest taboo, describes relevant Hittite tablets which contain rituals to remove the impurity of incest and bestiality from a man, which would allow a man to remain in his city despite being incestuous, indicating that such practices were common enough to generate recorded rituals to remove the societal onus.

The use of temples to practice prostitution, both heterosexual and homosexual (and to benefit the religious priests monetarily) was common among the Canaanites (For textual cites, see Jonathan N. Tubb, *The Canaanites (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998) who cites texts from Ugarit which describes Anana’s cult as involving members of the aristocratic priestly sect and both male and female temple prostitutes. John Gray, in The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra Texts and Their Relevance to the Old Testament (Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1965) cites a Canaanite liturgical text which seems to indicate that after the story of El having sex with two goddesses was told, the incident was reenacted as a fertility rite: “To be repeated five times by the company and the singers of the assembly.”

(1) Folks, I know festschrift books like that are a common way to honor scholars, but please don’t write an essay with a title like that to give me as a birthday gift at my 65th birthday party.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Child Sacrifice: The Canaanites sacrificed children to their underworld deity, Moloch, as discussed at length in John Day, Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Godesses of Canaan (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992) and Shelby Brown, Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice and Sacrificial Monuments in Their Mediterranean Context (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991). Plutarch (De Superstitione) and Kleitarchos (in his scholia on Plato’s Republic), Eusebius (Evangelica Praeparatio, quoting some (admittedly disputed) information purportedly from the writings of Sanchuniathon a Phoenician who lived in Beirut circa 1000 B.C.); and Diodorus Siculus, all provide non-Old Testament descriptions of Phoenician (Canaanite/Carthaginan) sacrifices. Although infanticide was accepted and even legally required in some contexts in Greek and Roman law, even they were offended by the murder of children old enough to be have been incorporated into the family by Greek and Roman standards, and that such sacrifices were done in a religious context in the hopes of receiving divine favor (as Brown points out). In the words of the previously cited Oxford professor John Day (1992), “In fact, we have independent evidence that child sacrifice was practiced in the Canaanite (Carthaginian and Phoenician) world from many classical sources, Punic inscriptions and archaeological evidence, as well as Egyptian depictions of the ritual occurring in Syria-Palestine, and from a recently discovered Phoenician inscription in Turkey. There is therefore no reason to doubt the biblical testimony to Canaanite child sacrifice.”

The many inscriptions on the tophets (child sacrifice sites) make the nature of the sacrifices quite clear, such as “It was to the Lady Tanit Face of Baal and to Baal Hamon that Bomilcar son of Hanno, grandson of Milkiathon, vowed this son of his own flesh. Bless him you” (cited in Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. Pars Prima Inscriptiones Phoenicias Continens, Paris 1881)

Bestiality: Again, the Canaanites patterned their sexual mores on that of their gods. The Canaanite epic Baal cycle describes Baal’s enthusiastic love-making with a heiffer (I’d quote it but this is a family forum), translated by Mark S. Smith in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, edited by Simon B. Parker (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1997). Bestiality was apparently so common among the Canaanites that the Hittite Laws state that the fault must lie with the animals: “If an ox spring upon a man for intercourse, the ox shall die but the man shall not die…If a pig spring upon a man for intercourse, there is no punishment." Richard Dawkins claims to be upset that the unfortunate Canaanite beasts were to be killed by God as well as humans, but the Canaanites apparently felt the same way. (The case can also be made that animals with whom humans had had intercourse would be considered ritually unclean and could not be consumed, as well as the likelihood that - I apologize, but there’s no other way to say this - an animal who had unfortunately been trained by depraved humans to have sex with a human could never again be trusted around women or children.)

 

[Frankk]

But it still leaves open the question as to why young children and babies were also killed by the Israelites.