Joshua 10: 28 - That day Joshua took Mekkedah. He put the city and its king to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it. He left no survivors.
Joshua 10: 40 - So Joshua subdued the whole region... He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel had commanded.
Joshua 11: 20 - So it was the Lord himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the Lord had commanded Moses.
Joshua 23: 12 - But if you turn away and ally yourselves with the survivors of these nations that remain among you and if you intermarry with them and associate with them, then you may be sure that the Lord your God will no longer drive out these nations before you.
(from the TNIV)
I heard Paul Copan, who is a really good philosophy professor at Palm Beach Atlantic, give a lecture-response to the New Atheist Club on God commanding acts in the Old Testament that seem unethical. The most popular example of this is when God tells Joshua to completely wipe out all the Canaanites in the book of Joshua.
First, Copan suggested that the O.T. texts be handled with more care than the New Atheists (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, etc) have done in their recent books. Then he gave several suggestions on how to better read and understand the texts, some of which I thought were really helpful. Here are his suggestions:
-Israel would not have been justified to attack the Canaanites without YHWH's command
-Wiping out the Canaanite's religion was the goal
-The language of Joshua was hyperbolic (compare Joshua 23 with 9-12, where 9-12 utilize Ancient Near Eastern terms of warfare)
-The crux of the issue is that if God exists, he has prerogative over human life, whereas the New Atheists seem to think he should have no special place)
I really liked his third point the most, where when the two texts mentioned are compared, you can come away with a sense of hyperbole within the text. He spoke more on other issues involving the O.T. (law of Moses, slavery, sex, etc.), that I might put up later because I really learned from all of the lecture.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I am just about done with Ravi Zacharias' "The End of Reason" and I think that the last point you posted there sums up his whole arguement as well:
"The crux of the issue is that if God exists, he has prerogative over human life, whereas the New Atheists seem to think he should have no special place)"
another thought that i am struck with is...are the actions of the Divine always right (in terms of right being an abstract state of being) or are the Divine's actions right merely because they are performed by the Divine...i.e. the actions of the OT, etc.
i think the problem with our interpretations of this as Christians (not Jews) is our fear of "hyperbole/inerrancy/figurative" readings of the OT (which has a different sense of canonicity than that of the NT) and that we come from a different perspective of "right of just" than that of Dawkins et al.
matt, i do think that is the important distinguishing factor. the obvious problem is communicating that to a person who has an ideal for what God would be like if he existed, and then tears down the Biblical God for not being that God.
Eric, have you ever read Plato's Euthyphro? He argues (through Socrates) that there is an objective moral law which God follows. I think he sets up a false dichotomy to get there (divine whims or law over God) but it is worth thinking about. I would be interested in hearing more about the idea of 'different senses of canonicity' between OT and NT. It seems like it would be a hard case to make since the early church fathers were trying to put the NT on the same level of inspiration as they already regarded the OT as being on.
chet- lawrence kushner has some thoughts on the differences between the Jewish understanding of torah (their interpretation) and our understanding as Christians of an "inerrant or literal" text. When i made the comment that it has a different "sense" of canonicity what i would argue is that Jews don't necessarily read or regard the text as an inerrant or even infallible document...largely based on the fact that Jewish "belief" arises not out of a series of propositional truths or "doctrines" but rather through the performance of sacred deeds. The Torah is a guidepost and a symbol of God's communication with humanity and a people...rather than a historical textbook (at least that's what Kushner would argue)
Thanks eric. I need to check out that book because I've had a different understanding of how Jewish people regard the Hebrew scriptures and their literal/historical accuracy.
Chet - I need your thoughts!
http://mattmwright.blogspot.com/2008/08/but-seek-first-his-kingdom.html
Post a Comment