SarahB and Psalm 137:8-9

[showmeproof]

And I would argue that this is an anachronistic and misinformed reading that doesn't take into account the hyperbolic character of ANE "warfare speech". The issue is not simply the fact that God forbids them from intermarrying with the surrounding groups, there's also the issue of the suggestion that Joshua for example, is credited with carrying out God's command to "utterly destroy" the Canaanite nations, while the text at the same time acknowledges that the same groups of people still lived on in the area.

This is due to multiple sources and redactors being involved in the construction of the texts over a long period of time.

[Chrawnus]

Yeah, I get that part: but the command itself, whether hyperbolic or not, is not mitigated by what follows, but intensified.

To say, "Oh, hey, well, that's just rhetoric," is kind of a false trail. What do you think that false trail was attempting to do, if not pave the way for a divinely-sanctioned extermination of the people it targets?

It's not MORE moral to say, "KILL THEM ALL!" if your aim is to do exactly that. The biblical texts are filled with trash-talk towards their enemies: look at the daughters of Lot and the alleged genesis of the Moabites. There is a virulent hatred contained in the texts, and the rhetoric was intended to intensify it, not a cushion against it.

Well, the problem is that these commands to "Kill them all!" is exactly the commands that Copan argues are the ones who are hyperbolical in nature. I.e he, (and I agree with him) argues that these commands should not, and can not, be taken literally, because the text itself indicates that this is not the correct interpretation.

[Otter]

As far as I can tell his explanation is simply that this was a literal and rhetorical convention of the time and culture. He's more focused on showing that the texts are engaged in this sort of rhetoric rather than discussing why it does so.

Against that, I'd set the fact that urbicide WAS a reality, and a real possibility. That tends to suggest that the fact that hyperbole is a rhetorical device does not in any way obviate the moral responsibilities for that rhetoric. If you SAY "Kill him!" at a football game, you can get away with it because the odds of him being killed are pretty slender. But if you say, "Give him a headshot! Helmet to helmet! Give him a concussion!" you're advocating a very likely (and immoral or at least illegal) move.

The Israelite rhetoric is more of the second type, and given that it's canonized and sanctioned by the priesthood, it's a little more like a coach than a fan saying it.

[Chrawnus]

This is due to multiple sources and redactors being involved in the construction of the texts over a long period of time.

Let's assume this is true. I find it highely unlikely that each and every redactor would have missed the apparent contradiction between on one hand the claim that Joshua fulfilled Gods command to utterly destroy the Canaanite people, and on the other hand the clear admission that the same groups of people that Joshua had allegedly exterminated still lived on in the area. One would think that the redactors would have "fixed" this inconsistency. But instead we find that they seemed to have no issues with what we would see as a problem. Perhaps because they understood correctly, that as Copan argues, these commands were hyperbolical in nature?

[Chrawnus]

Against that, I'd set the fact that urbicide WAS a reality, and a real possibility. That tends to suggest that the fact that hyperbole is a rhetorical device does not in any way obviate the moral responsibilities for that rhetoric. If you SAY "Kill him!" at a football game, you can get away with it because the odds of him being killed are pretty slender. But if you say, "Give him a headshot! Helmet to helmet! Give him a concussion!" you're advocating a very likely (and immoral or at least illegal) move.

The Israelite rhetoric is more of the second type, and given that it's canonized and sanctioned by the priesthood, it's a little more like a coach than a fan saying it.

I don't really think that this is a problem at all. People in the ANE period were, I assume, more familiar with hyperbolic speech than we are, and so would, presumably, have recognized this sort of exaggerated rhetoric more easily than what we do. So I don't think that there really was any risk that the Israelites would have understood these commands literally, but would have understood, perhaps through clues that are not mentioned in the text itself, that these commands were not to be understood in a woodenly literal fashion.

[showmeproof]

I don't really think that this is a problem at all. People in the ANE period were, I assume, more familiar with hyperbolic speech than we are, and so would, presumably, have recognized this sort of exaggerated rhetoric more easily than what we do. So I don't think that there really was any risk that the Israelites would have understood these commands literally, but would have understood, perhaps through clues that are not mentioned in the text itself, that these commands were not to be understood in a woodenly literal fashion.

Baseless assertions.

[showmeproof]

Let's assume this is true. I find it highely unlikely that each and every redactor would have missed the apparent contradiction between on one hand the claim that Joshua fulfilled Gods command to utterly destroy the Canaanite people, and on the other hand the clear admission that the same groups of people that Joshua had allegedly exterminated still lived on in the area. One would think that the redactors would have "fixed" this inconsistency. But instead we find that they seemed to have no issues with what we would see as a problem. Perhaps because they understood correctly, that as Copan argues, these commands were hyperbolical in nature?

Put forth examples of ANE hyperbole and compare them to the commands given in the DtrH.

ANE hyperbole is after-the-fact battle rhetoric intended to vaunt the Leader of a particular nation over and against his enemies. This type is found on tomb inscriptions and Victory Steeles. What we have in the DtrH is completely different in its medium, its intended audience, and time (hundreds of years after the supposed events rather than within the lifetime of the leader).

Israel was writing a origin narrative for their nation.

The common methodology that is used is the SPEAKING model;

Setting: the location of the monument or inscription;
Participants: the senders and the receivers of the communication, as well as individuals mentioned
Ends: the objectives of the communciation;
Act sequence: the order in which images were intended to be noticed;
Key: the emotional tone or mood of the communication;
Instrumentality: the particular medium used for the communication
Norms
Genres: the established/traditional/conventional patterns and motifs used in the language and images

[Otter]

I don't really think that this is a problem at all. People in the ANE period were, I assume, more familiar with hyperbolic speech than we are, and so would, presumably, have recognized this sort of exaggerated rhetoric more easily than what we do.

I've told you a million times that we're as capable of handling hyperbolic speech as they were. ;)

So I don't think that there really was any risk that the Israelites would have understood these commands literally, but would have understood, perhaps through clues that are not mentioned in the text itself, that these commands were not to be understood in a woodenly literal fashion.

Don't miss my point: rhetorical devices have an object or aim or purpose. Theirs was not merely a "trope" or rhetorical flourish. It intended to produce emotional results: a fighting spirit capable of crushing their enemies.

You have to understand that ANE kingdoms were not well-regulated and decorous. They were like rival mobs in some ways, like European soccer teams in another. They were ruthless. When in Deuteronomy 7 YHWH says "You must show them no mercy," we can say, "Oh, hey, that's hyperbolic," but where is the evidence that it was intended to be taken with a grain of salt? There really isn't any.

[fm93]

Yeah, I'm generally a fan of his, or at least of the movement towards authenticism that he spawned.

But I think on the evidence that he's just dead wrong about this. (Note: he wrote The Syrian Christ in I think 1916 or thenabouts.)

The inscriptions, the archeology, the population studies....

They all kind of present overwhelming evidence that life in the ANE was pretty freaking violent.

We might have to degree on our sources. But if you run a Scholar Google search on war in the ANE and various related terms ("herem," "urbicide," for instance), you turn up some pretty good scholarship that paint a picture at odds with Rihbany's.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying the ANE was a peaceful Shangri La or anything like that. It's just that excessively harsh, threatening language used in non-narrative genres like poetry and prayers don't necessarily mean things happened that way. Really, what's the likelihood that those quoted statements are endorsements of such behavior?

[Otter]

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying the ANE was a peaceful Shangri La or anything like that. It's just that excessively harsh, threatening language used in non-narrative genres like poetry and prayers don't necessarily mean things happened that way. Really, what's the likelihood that those quoted statements are endorsements of such behavior?

I'd say the likelihood is pretty good, honestly.... I certainly think that they meant to urge the people on toward murderous hatred of [some of] their neighbors, enemies, and distant cousins in the Semitic clan.

[fm93]

What, so you think sayings like "May your children be orphaned and your wife widowed" are implicit endorsements meant to urge the people on towards murderous hatred?

[Kane]

Are you?

Nope.

[Otter]

What, so you think sayings like "May your children be orphaned and your wife widowed" are implicit endorsements meant to urge the people on towards murderous hatred?

I think if we give the authors the dignity of assuming they mean what they say, I would argue that they're just what they are in our culture: curses and maledictions.

Jesus certainly took them seriously, at least as traded between his followers, and I doubt that it was because he was concerned people would get their feelings hurt.

Such utterances strike me as rhetorically different than the "official," canonical, divine writ of genocide and urbicide we get in the Deuteronomistic histories. But I could be persuaded they're similar.

[showmeproof]

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying the ANE was a peaceful Shangri La or anything like that. It's just that excessively harsh, threatening language used in non-narrative genres like poetry and prayers don't necessarily mean things happened that way. Really, what's the likelihood that those quoted statements are endorsements of such behavior?

Judging by their self-reported past behavior; highly likely.

[Doug Shaver]

And I think skeptics that use arguments from outrage really are not worth debating with to start with.

As a generality, I agree. If we're trying to get at the truth, it doesn't matter much how we feel about it.