The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest by John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton
The Open Volume
Thoughtful Reviews in Theology and Ministry
The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest
John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton
Bibliographic Information
Authors: Walton, John H. and Walton, J. Harvey Full Title: The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest: Covenant, Retribution, and the Fate of the Canaanites Publisher: IVP Academic Year of Publication: 2017 Pages: 288 pp. (+ bibliography and indices) ISBN: 978-0-8308-5184-3 Series: The Lost World Series, Vol. 4
Author Background
John H. Walton (Ph.D., Hebrew Union College) is Professor Emeritus of Old Testament at Wheaton College and the originating architect of the Lost World series. His scholarly profile, methodological commitments, and institutional context are described fully in the companion reviews of The Lost World of Genesis One, The Lost World of Adam and Eve, The Lost World of the Flood, The Lost World of Scripture, and The Lost World of the Torah in this series, and readers are directed to those reviews for a fuller account of his background. For the purposes of this volume, the most relevant contextual observation is that the Israelite conquest presents the Lost World series with its most acute moral challenge: where earlier volumes addressed the apparent conflict between Scripture and modern science, this volume addresses the apparent conflict between Scripture and modern ethics — specifically, the divine commands to destroy the Canaanite peoples recorded in Deuteronomy 7 and 20 and carried out in the narratives of Joshua. The question is not whether the ancient world understood creation or law differently than the modern world does, but whether the God of the Old Testament commanded what appears to be genocide — and what a morally serious Christian reader is to make of that command.
J. Harvey Walton, co-author of The Lost World of the Torah (2019), contributes to this volume with the same philosophically oriented engagement that characterized that collaboration. As in the Torah volume, the two authors' contributions are not always clearly delineated, and the review treats the book as a unified argument. The co-authorship brings to this volume a somewhat more developed engagement with the ethical dimensions of the conquest question than a purely exegetical treatment would generate, and this enriches the book's engagement with the moral philosophy relevant to the divine command question.
Both authors write from within the Ecumenical/Broadly Christian category of the Theological Traditions Reference Guide in their stated intentions. The most significant potential blind spot in this volume is one that several critics have identified: the pressure exerted by the contemporary moral and cultural context — in which any narrative of ethnic extermination is recognized as paradigmatically evil — on the interpretation of the conquest narratives. Readers should assess honestly whether the book's reading of the conquest as something other than a divine command for ethnic extermination is driven primarily by exegetical and historical conviction or by the desire to resolve a moral problem that the text as traditionally read appears to create. The book's credibility depends significantly on how persuasively it demonstrates that the answer is the former. The authors are themselves aware of this pressure and address it directly — a transparency that is one of the volume's genuine virtues.
Thesis and Central Argument
The governing thesis of The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest is twofold. First, the herem — the Hebrew term translated "devoted to destruction" or "ban," which describes the command to annihilate the Canaanite peoples — is best understood within its ancient Near Eastern cognitive context as a ritual-legal concept governing the disposal of forfeited property and people within a covenant framework, rather than as a command for the ethnic extermination of a people group. Second, the conquest narratives of Joshua employ the hyperbolic literary conventions of ancient Near Eastern military accounts — conventions in which total-destruction rhetoric describes the decisive defeat of an enemy rather than the literal extermination of every man, woman, and child — and should be read accordingly. The book responds to what has become the most morally urgent problem in the contemporary evangelical engagement with the Old Testament: the apparent portrayal of God as commanding what modern readers recognize as genocide. The authors' proposed contribution is again threefold — hermeneutical, theological, and apologetic. Hermeneutically, they argue that the cognitive environment of the ancient Near East must be allowed to define both the meaning of herem and the conventions of the military narrative genre before modern moral questions are addressed to the text. Theologically, they argue that the conquest is best understood within the framework of covenant retribution — divine judgment on a people whose moral corruption had reached a divinely determined threshold — rather than as ethnic cleansing. Apologetically, they argue that Christians who have felt forced to choose between the moral authority of the New Testament God and the apparent commands of the Old Testament God are responding to a false dilemma generated by misreading ancient texts through modern eyes.
Overview of Contents
The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest is organized as eighteen propositions structured across five thematic movements: the establishment of the interpretive framework (Propositions 1–3), the nature and function of herem in its ancient context (Propositions 4–8), the literary conventions of the conquest narratives (Propositions 9–12), the theological framework of covenant retribution (Propositions 13–15), and the implications for Christian ethics and the doctrine of God (Propositions 16–18).
Propositions 1–3: Reapplying the Cognitive Environment Principle
The book opens with the now-familiar methodological restatement. Proposition 1 applies the cognitive environment principle to the conquest narratives: Joshua and the surrounding Deuteronomic material must be read within the cognitive world of the ancient Near East — specifically, within the context of ancient warfare, ancient covenant law, and ancient military narrative conventions — before modern moral and historical questions can be addressed to them. Proposition 2 establishes the specific cognitive environment most relevant to the conquest question: the ancient Near Eastern world of suzerainty covenant, in which the great king's authority over vassal peoples included the right to declare herem — the forfeiture of persons and property to the divine realm — as a form of covenant retribution against those who violated the established order. Proposition 3 draws the hermeneutical corollary: the modern reader's instinct to read the conquest narratives as accounts of ethnic extermination is a projection of modern categories onto an ancient text that understood the events within the framework of covenant retribution and divine judgment rather than within the framework of ethnic or racial identity.
Propositions 4–8: The Nature and Function of Herem
The book's most technically detailed section examines the specific meaning and function of herem in its ancient context. Proposition 4 establishes the basic meaning: herem denotes the removal of persons or property from ordinary use by their dedication or forfeiture to the divine realm — a concept closer to the modern legal notion of forfeiture than to the modern moral notion of extermination. Proposition 5 develops the specific uses of herem in the Old Testament: as divine judgment against Israel itself (Deuteronomy 13), as covenant retribution against the nations (Deuteronomy 7 and 20), and as a category of sacred offering in which what is forfeited to God cannot be reclaimed for human use. Proposition 6 addresses the most directly contested question: does herem require the literal killing of every person placed under the ban, or does the concept's primary function — the removal of the banned persons from the ordinary social and economic order — allow for other means of achieving that removal, including expulsion? The authors argue that the primary function of herem is separation and forfeiture rather than killing, and that the killing described in the conquest narratives serves the herem's function of removal rather than constituting its definition.
Proposition 7 addresses the ANE comparative material for herem-like concepts: the Moabite Mesha Stele — in which the Moabite king Mesha describes the hrm of Israelite populations in terms closely parallel to the biblical herem language — is the most important single piece of comparative evidence and the book's most significant exegetical contribution. The Mesha Stele demonstrates that herem-language was part of the broader ANE rhetorical repertoire for describing the decisive defeat of an enemy and the forfeiture of their territory to the victorious god, and that the language was understood by its ancient audience as rhetorical rather than as a precise account of literal extermination. Proposition 8 draws the hermeneutical conclusion: the herem of the Canaanites is best understood as the divine declaration of covenant forfeiture — the removal of a people from the land granted to Israel within the covenant framework — rather than as an ethnic extermination command, and the killing described in the conquest narratives serves this covenant-legal function within a specific historical-theological context rather than establishing a general principle of divinely commanded ethnic violence.
Propositions 9–12: Literary Conventions of the Conquest Narratives
The central section of the book addresses the specific literary conventions of the conquest narratives in Joshua. Proposition 9 establishes the framework: ancient Near Eastern military accounts regularly employed total-destruction rhetoric — "we left no survivors," "we utterly destroyed them," "not a single one escaped" — as a conventional way of expressing the decisive and complete character of a military victory rather than as a precise account of literal extermination. The authors demonstrate this convention from multiple ANE military accounts, including the annals of Thutmose III, Sennacherib's accounts of his campaigns, and the Mesha Stele, in each of which total-destruction language describes events that the archaeological and textual evidence demonstrates were not literal exterminations. Proposition 10 applies this framework to the specific language of Joshua: the repeated formulas — "Joshua struck all the inhabitants," "he left no one remaining," "he utterly destroyed all that breathed" — are best understood as employing the same rhetorical conventions, expressing the decisive and divinely sanctioned character of the conquest rather than providing a precise census of casualties. Proposition 11 addresses the tension most frequently pressed by critics of this reading: if the destruction language is rhetorical rather than literal, why do the later narratives of Judges describe Canaanite populations that survived the conquest? The authors argue that the later survival of Canaanite populations is precisely what the rhetorical reading of Joshua predicts — the herem declarations express the divine judgment and covenant forfeiture of the Canaanite peoples, while the actual process of removal from the land was gradual and incomplete in ways that both Joshua and Judges acknowledge. Proposition 12 addresses the specific case of the women and children — the feature of the conquest narratives that has generated the most sustained moral objection — arguing that the herem's primary function of separation and forfeiture provides a framework within which the inclusion of women and children in the ban is intelligible as covenant retribution rather than as indiscriminate ethnic violence.
Propositions 13–15: The Theological Framework of Covenant Retribution
Having established the hermeneutical and literary framework, the book turns to the theological account of why the conquest occurred. Proposition 13 develops the covenant retribution framework: the Canaanite peoples' expulsion from the land is presented in the biblical text as divine judgment on a specific pattern of moral and cultic corruption — the practices of child sacrifice, sexual immorality, and idolatry catalogued in Leviticus 18 and Deuteronomy 12 — that had reached a divinely determined threshold of corruption warranting covenant retribution. The theological category operative here is not ethnic identity but moral accountability within the created order, and the book argues that this framework applies the same principles of divine judgment that the biblical narrative applies to Israel itself when it engages in the same corrupting practices. Proposition 14 develops the theological logic of the land: the land of Canaan is understood in the biblical narrative as belonging to God and given in trust to successive peoples — including both the Canaanites and Israel — within a covenant framework that includes the possibility of forfeiture for covenant violation. The Canaanites' expulsion is therefore not an act of ethnic preference for Israel but an act of covenant retribution against a people who had forfeited their land tenure through sustained moral corruption. Proposition 15 addresses the most direct theological objection: does the conquest's theological framework — divine judgment through military violence — apply universally or was it specific to the unique historical and theological context of Israel's establishment in the land? The authors argue firmly for the latter: the conquest is a specific, unrepeatable act of divine judgment within the particular historical-theological context of Israel's covenant establishment, and the New Testament's reframing of the covenant community as transcending ethnic and national identity means that the conquest provides no warrant for any subsequent act of religiously motivated violence.
Propositions 16–18: Implications for Christian Ethics and the Doctrine of God
The final propositions address the book's most directly theological concerns. Proposition 16 engages the question of divine character: is the God who commands the conquest the same God revealed in Jesus Christ? The authors answer affirmatively, arguing that the covenant retribution framework is consistent with the New Testament's own account of divine judgment — including the judgments of Revelation, the wrath described in Romans 1–3, and Jesus's own warnings of eschatological judgment — and that the apparent discontinuity between the Old Testament conquest God and the New Testament grace God is generated by a selective reading of both testaments. Proposition 17 addresses the contemporary apologetic question most directly: Richard Dawkins's characterization of the God of the Old Testament as a "genocidal" deity — representative of the New Atheism's engagement with the conquest — is engaged with appropriate seriousness and appropriate firmness, and the authors argue that the herem/rhetorical reading dissolves the characterization without minimizing the genuine moral seriousness of the conquest narratives. Proposition 18 closes with the book's most pastorally direct statement: Christians who have struggled with the conquest narratives are not facing a conflict between the Old Testament God and the New Testament God but between a modern reading of ancient texts and the moral framework those texts actually employ — a conflict that the book's hermeneutical and theological proposal is designed to resolve.
Theological Evaluation and Critique
Exegetical and Hermeneutical Method
The exegetical method of The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest is the most morally urgent in the series and the most directly dependent on the ANE comparative material for its central claims. Walton's handling of the herem concept is the book's most technically precise section, and the engagement with the Mesha Stele as comparative evidence for herem-language as rhetorical convention is the single most important exegetical contribution in any Lost World volume. The demonstration that total-destruction language appears in multiple ANE military accounts describing events that were clearly not literal exterminations is a genuine scholarly contribution that significantly strengthens the plausibility of the rhetorical reading of Joshua.
The most significant hermeneutical tension is pressed with precision by Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan in Did God Really Command Genocide? (2014) — the most sustained evangelical engagement with the conquest question from a position adjacent to but distinct from the Waltons' — and by Iain Provan in Seriously Dangerous Religion (2014): the rhetorical reading of the conquest narratives requires establishing not merely that ANE military accounts employed total-destruction rhetoric but that the Joshua narratives are employing that rhetoric in the same way and with the same communicative intention. The Mesha Stele parallel is compelling but not conclusive, and the inference from ANE convention to Joshua application involves steps that the book does not always take with the precision the moral stakes demand. Critics who accept the ANE comparative evidence but resist the inference to Joshua are not being unreasonable, and the book would have been more persuasive for specifying more precisely what additional evidence would be required to establish the inference rather than presenting the rhetorical reading with more confidence than the evidence fully warrants.
Doctrinal Analysis
The doctrinal stakes of The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest are distributed differently across the Christian traditions than in earlier volumes, because the conquest question engages the doctrine of God — specifically, the unity of divine character across the two testaments and the compatibility of divine violence with the divine love revealed in Christ — rather than the specific confessional questions of creation, anthropology, or soteriology that earlier volumes addressed.
From a Reformed perspective, the most significant benchmark is the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), Chapter II, which affirms that God is "most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most holy will, for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his judgments." The Reformed tradition has generally accommodated the conquest within a high doctrine of divine sovereignty — God as the absolute Lord of life and death who may command the destruction of the Canaanites as an act of sovereign judgment without moral inconsistency — and this accommodation sits in some tension with the Waltons' effort to dissolve the moral problem through the herem/rhetorical reading rather than to resolve it through a doctrine of divine sovereignty. John Calvin's engagement with the conquest in his commentary on Joshua — which affirms the divine command's moral legitimacy on the basis of God's absolute sovereignty over life — represents the Reformed tradition's most direct engagement with the question, and readers from that tradition should assess whether the Waltons' dissolution of the moral problem is more or less theologically adequate than Calvin's resolution of it.
From a Wesleyan-Arminian perspective, the conquest question is more theologically acute than in the Reformed tradition, because the Wesleyan tradition's commitment to prevenient grace, universal divine love, and the moral consistency of divine character across the testaments creates less hermeneutical room for a high-sovereignty resolution of the problem. Wesley's own engagement with the conquest — developed in his sermon The More Excellent Way and in his Notes on the Old Testament — tends toward the view that the divine commands of the conquest were accommodations to Israel's moral immaturity rather than expressions of the eternal divine character, a position that shares some structural features with the Waltons' effort to situate the conquest within a specific historical-theological context. The Wesleyan tradition's account of God's moral character as universally and consistently loving — expressed most fully in Thomas Oden's Classic Christianity (1992) — will find the Waltons' covenant retribution framework more congenial than a raw sovereignty appeal, though it will press the question of whether the framework adequately accounts for the inclusion of children in the herem.
From a Roman Catholic perspective, the relevant benchmark is the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), §2258–2262, which affirms that "human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life." The Catholic tradition has engaged the conquest question through the lens of natural law and just war theory — both developed most fully by Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologiae II-II, QQ. 40–42 — and the herem/covenant retribution framework is broadly compatible with the Catholic tradition's account of divinely authorized violence as a form of punitive justice within the created order. The more significant Catholic concern is with the children: Aquinas's just war criteria require that non-combatants be protected from direct attack, and the inclusion of children in the herem's scope sits in genuine tension with this criterion regardless of whether the destruction is read literally or rhetorically. The book engages this tension but does not resolve it with the precision the Catholic natural law tradition requires.
From an Eastern Orthodox perspective, the conquest question is engaged within the framework of the typological and allegorical reading of the Old Testament that the Patristic tradition developed extensively. Origen's allegorical reading of Joshua — developed in his Homilies on Joshua — treats the conquest as a spiritual allegory of the soul's battle against sin and vice rather than as a historical account of divine violence, and this reading has exercised significant influence on the Orthodox tradition's engagement with the difficult texts of the Old Testament. The Waltons' historical-rhetorical reading is methodologically distinct from Origen's allegorical approach, but both share the instinct that the literal surface of the conquest narratives is not the primary locus of their theological significance — an instinct that Orthodox readers will recognize and partly share. The book's neglect of the patristic allegorical tradition is again conspicuous, particularly given the tradition's direct relevance to the conquest question.
From a Baptist and Free Church perspective, the conquest question has been engaged most directly in the context of the New Atheism's critique of the Old Testament God — a critique that has penetrated Baptist congregations through popular-level works including Dawkins's The God Delusion (2006) and Christopher Hitchens's God Is Not Great (2007). The book's engagement with this critique is one of its most pastorally useful features for Baptist readers navigating these objections in their congregations, and the herem/rhetorical reading provides a more historically grounded and more exegetically credible response than the raw sovereignty appeal that has sometimes characterized conservative Baptist responses to the problem. The Baptist Faith and Message (2000) affirms that God is "all powerful and all knowing; and his perfect knowledge extends to all things, past, present, and future, including the future decisions of his free creatures" — a statement about divine knowledge and sovereignty that neither constrains nor resolves the conquest question but within which the Waltons' covenant retribution framework sits comfortably.
Engagement with Secondary Literature
The secondary literature engagement in The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest is the most directly engaged with the apologetic literature of any volume in the series, reflecting the book's orientation toward the New Atheism's critique of the Old Testament God. Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan's Did God Really Command Genocide? (2014) is the most important adjacent work and the one most directly relevant to the Waltons' proposals — both books argue for a rhetorical reading of the conquest narratives, but from different angles and with different emphases, and the Waltons' engagement with Copan and Flannagan, while present, is less direct than the proximity of their proposals warrants. Nicholas Wolterstorff's engagement with the conquest in Justice: Rights and Wrongs (2008) and in his contribution to Divine Evil? The Moral Character of the God of Abraham (Oxford, 2011) represents the most philosophically rigorous engagement with the moral problem from within the evangelical tradition and deserves more sustained attention than the book provides. The archaeological literature on the conquest — including Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman's The Bible Unearthed (2001), which argues that the archaeological evidence does not support a large-scale military conquest of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age — is engaged adequately but briefly, and readers who want to engage the archaeological question fully will need to supplement the book with K. Lawson Younger's Ancient Conquest Accounts (1990), whose treatment of ANE military rhetoric is the most technically detailed engagement with the comparative evidence for the rhetorical reading.
Strengths
The Mesha Stele parallel and the herem analysis. The book's most durable and most significant scholarly contribution is its detailed analysis of herem as a covenant-legal concept and its deployment of the Mesha Stele as comparative evidence for herem-language as rhetorical convention. The Mesha Stele parallel — in which a Moabite king employs hrm-language to describe the decisive defeat of an Israelite population in terms that parallel the biblical herem accounts — is the most important piece of comparative evidence for the rhetorical reading of the conquest narratives, and the Waltons' treatment of it is the most detailed and most accessible popular-level engagement with this material available in evangelical scholarship. Even readers who resist the full rhetorical reading of Joshua will find the herem analysis a genuine enrichment of their engagement with the conquest texts, and it provides pastors and teachers with historically grounded resources for engaging the conquest question that neither the raw sovereignty appeal nor the allegorical evasion has previously supplied.
The covenant retribution framework. The theological proposal that the Canaanite expulsion is best understood as divine judgment on a specific pattern of moral corruption — rather than as ethnic preference for Israel or as an act of divine violence against an innocent people — is the book's most theologically generative contribution and the one with the greatest reach across the Christian traditions. The framework situates the conquest within the biblical theology of divine judgment in a way that connects it coherently to the New Testament's account of divine wrath and eschatological judgment, and it provides a principled basis for the claim that the conquest establishes no warrant for subsequent religiously motivated violence. This is theologically serious work that advances the evangelical engagement with the conquest question beyond the binary choice between raw sovereignty and moral embarrassment.
The engagement with the New Atheism. The book's direct and substantive engagement with Dawkins's "genocidal God" characterization is one of its most pastorally useful features. The authors engage the New Atheism's critique with appropriate seriousness — neither dismissing it as philosophically naive nor capitulating to its framing — and the herem/rhetorical reading provides a historically grounded, exegetically credible response that is more adequate to the actual evidence than most evangelical apologetic treatments of the conquest have achieved. For pastors whose congregants have encountered the New Atheism's critique of the Old Testament God, this is among the most practically useful sections of any Lost World volume.
Weaknesses and Limitations
The moral problem of the children is not fully resolved. The book's most consequential unresolved tension is the inclusion of children — and specifically infants — in the herem's scope. The covenant retribution framework explains the judgment on a morally corrupt adult population with considerable theological coherence, but the extension of the herem to children who cannot meaningfully be held responsible for the cultic and moral corruptions that warranted divine judgment is a genuine moral problem that the herem/rhetorical reading does not fully dissolve. If the herem's primary function is separation and forfeiture rather than killing, then the question of what happened to Canaanite children — whether they were killed, expelled, or absorbed into Israel — remains open, and the book does not address it with the specificity the moral stakes require. Critics including David Lamb (God Behaving Badly, 2011) and Heath Thomas (Holy War in the Bible, 2013) have pressed this point with legitimate force, and the book's engagement with it is less developed than the seriousness of the objection warrants.
The inference from ANE rhetoric to Joshua is underargued. As noted in the exegetical analysis, the rhetorical reading of the conquest narratives requires establishing not merely that ANE military accounts employed total-destruction rhetoric but that Joshua employs it in the same way and with the same communicative intention. The Mesha Stele parallel is the book's strongest piece of evidence for this inference, but the inference itself — from the existence of a rhetorical convention in the ANE context to its application in a specific biblical text — requires additional argumentative steps that the book does not always take with sufficient precision. The book presents the rhetorical reading with more confidence than the evidence fully sustains at several points, and a more careful account of the inferential steps — and a more direct acknowledgment of where the evidence is suggestive rather than conclusive — would have significantly strengthened the book's long-term credibility.
The theological unity of the testaments deserves fuller development. Proposition 16's engagement with the unity of divine character across the two testaments — the claim that the God who commands the conquest is the same God revealed in Jesus Christ — is the book's most important theological proposal and its most briefly argued. The tradition's most careful engagements with this question — including Christopher Wright's The God I Don't Understand (2008), Tremper Longman III's Confronting Old Testament Controversies (2019), and the essays in Holy War in the Bible (Thomas, Hoyt, and Copan, eds., 2013) — develop the canonical and theological dimensions of the problem with greater depth than this volume achieves, and readers who want a complete theological account of the testaments' unity on the question of divine violence will need to supplement the Waltons' proposals with these more fully developed treatments.
Engagement with the Broader Scholarly Conversation
The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest enters a field that has been shaped, within evangelical scholarship, by Paul Copan's Is God a Moral Monster? (2011) and the subsequent collaboration with Flannagan in Did God Really Command Genocide? (2014) — both of which represent the most sustained evangelical engagement with the conquest question before this volume and both of which argue for positions significantly adjacent to the Waltons' rhetorical reading. Christopher Wright's The God I Don't Understand (2008) represents the most theologically comprehensive evangelical treatment of the problem and should be read alongside this volume. Within the academic biblical studies literature, K. Lawson Younger's Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing (1990) provides the most technically detailed comparative engagement with the ANE military rhetoric that underlies the Waltons' rhetorical reading, and serious readers should engage Younger before assessing the book's central claims. Eryl Davies's The Immoral Bible (2010) and the essays in Divine Evil? The Moral Character of the God of Abraham (Bergmann, Murray, and Rea, eds., Oxford, 2011) represent the most philosophically rigorous engagement with the moral problem from outside the evangelical tradition and provide essential conversation partners for readers who want to engage the full range of serious philosophical responses to the conquest question.
Conclusion and Recommendation
The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest addresses the most morally urgent question in the Lost World series with genuine scholarly seriousness and genuine pastoral concern. Its genuine contributions — the herem analysis and Mesha Stele parallel, the covenant retribution framework, and the substantive engagement with the New Atheism's critique — represent the ANE-contextual method at its most practically urgent and its most theologically consequential. Its weaknesses — the unresolved moral problem of the children, the underargued inference from ANE rhetoric to Joshua, and the insufficiently developed account of the testaments' theological unity — are real enough to mean that the book's most contested proposals require significant supplementary engagement before they can be responsibly integrated into a complete theological account of the conquest. Read alongside Copan and Flannagan's Did God Really Command Genocide?, Christopher Wright's The God I Don't Understand, and Younger's Ancient Conquest Accounts, The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest is an essential point of engagement for anyone who takes the moral problem of the conquest seriously — not because it settles the question but because it has identified the most historically grounded and most exegetically credible path toward a resolution that neither evades the evidence nor abandons the conviction that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are one and the same.
Recommended for: M.Div. and Th.M. students in Old Testament, biblical theology, and Christian ethics courses; pastors whose congregants have encountered the New Atheism's critique of the Old Testament God; readers who have worked through The Lost World of Genesis One and want the series' treatment of the conquest narratives; apologists and theologically engaged lay readers navigating the moral problem of divine violence in the Old Testament.
Not recommended for: Readers seeking a comprehensive philosophical engagement with the moral problem of divine command — this book's philosophical engagement is less rigorous than the question warrants and should be supplemented with the Divine Evil? volume and with Wolterstorff; those from traditions with strong natural law commitments who require a more developed engagement with just war criteria and the moral status of non-combatants before accepting the herem/rhetorical reading; readers who have not yet engaged the hermeneutical framework of The Lost World of Genesis One and therefore lack the methodological foundation needed to evaluate this volume's most contested claims; those seeking a complete archaeological account of the conquest — the book's archaeological engagement is adequate but brief, and Younger's Ancient Conquest Accounts is essential supplementary reading for anyone wanting to evaluate the rhetorical reading on its historical merits.
Overall Assessment: ☐ Highly Recommended | ☑ Recommended | ☐ Recommended with Reservations | ☐ Not Recommended
Comments
Post a Comment