The historicity of the Biblical account of the settlement has been extensively challenged and some have sought to argue that there was a “peaceful infiltration” of the land, rather than a violent conflict as narrated in Joshua.[1] In this model, the Biblical account of the conquest is interpreted as being inwardly focussed, delineating the boundaries between the Israelites and the gentiles, thus forging a new national identity – challenging insiders who pose a threat to the group identity, rather than advocating active violence against outsiders.[2] Nevertheless, it cannot be avoided that the canonical form of the text explicitly incites violence against the “other” nations and peoples, claiming the occupation of the land to be a divine grant. The same claim of divine grant was made to justify the invasion of Latin America by Spanish and Portuguese forces following the division of the non-Christian world between the Iberian empires, made by the Pope in God’s name.[3] If the Exodus narrative can be applied analogically to the modern world, an alarming consequence is the possibility that some individuals may claim the analogical application of the conquest narrative to support violent struggle, and even colonialism itself. Thankfully, very few would support such a notion, but this does demonstrate that the Exodus narrative is at best selectively applicable in an analogical sense to the modern world.
The fact that the Canaanites are apparently deprived of justice is complicated by historical reconstructions that suggest the people of Israel emerged from the Canaanites and maintained many elements of Canaanite culture. The vast majority of Biblical scholars have sought to affirm or augment the Biblical presentation of the Canaanites as a highly immoral,[4] weak[5] and idolatrous nation,[6] despite historical evidence attesting the persistence of polytheistic Canaanite religious practices within Ancient Israel.[7] Postcolonial and liberation perspectives have emphasised the political realities of the Exodus narrative and would presumably therefore accept a political (pro-Israel) bias in the Exodus narrative’s portrayal of the Canaanites, who have potentially been unfairly represented and deprived of justice by the original conquest of the land, the writer or redactor of the Exodus narrative, and by subsequent Biblical Scholarship.
This realisation has led a number of scholars to present a Canaanite reading of the Exodus narrative, seeking to interpret the text from the position of others they regard as being victims of oppression within the narrative.[8] For these scholars, the oppression of the Canaanites and their expulsion from the land they occupied is not an appendix to the Exodus narrative, but its culmination and conclusion, intrinsic to Israel’s national formation and identity.[9]
Other scholars have sought to challenge the reading of the Exodus narrative that regards liberation as the dominant theme. For Lyle Eslinger, the central tenants of the Exodus narrative are the omnipotence of YHWH, and the election of Israel.[10] Indeed it is hard to minimise the centrality of divine election in the story and self-understanding of Ancient Israel. God’s favour to the Israelites is understood as being made manifest in the Exodus and the Sinaiatic covenant.[11] The revelation of the divine name to Moses[12] emphasises the uniqueness of God’s relationship with the Mosaic people, and it is this relationship – God’s love for Israel – that led to the Exodus, as Hosea writes: “When Israel was a youth I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.”[13] In this view, it is not the sufferings themselves that prompt God to bring Israel out of Egypt, but the fact that they are the sufferings of Israel – the scriptural texts give no indication that Pharaoh’s slaves would have been subject to God’s liberation if they were not of the chosen people.
[1] Gnuse RK. No Other Gods. (Leicester: Continuum Group Press, 1997): p7.
[2] e.g. in: Rowlet LL. Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence. (Leicester: Continuum Group, 1996): p121ff.
[3] Mignolo W. The Idea of Latin America. (Edinburgh: Blackwell, 2005): p.xiv.
[4] Barackman FH. Practical Christian Theology. (Berlin: Kregel, 2001): p97.
[5] Wright GE. ‘The Deuteronomic History of Israel in Her Land.’ In: Wright GE, Fuller RH. The Book of the Acts of God. (Garden City: Doubleday, 1957): p108.
[6] Bromiley GW. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994): p334.
[7] Smith M, Miller PD. op cit. p195.
[8] Sixteen C. ‘A Biblical paradigm for Native liberation’. In: Weaver J. Other Words. (Oklahoma: Oklahoma University Press, 2001): p242.
[9] Walzer M, Said EW. An Exchange: ‘Exodus and Revolution’. Grand Street. 5.4 (1986): 246-259.
[10] Eslinger L. Freedom or Knowledge? Perspective and purpose in the Exodus Narrative. (Exodus 1-15). Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. 16.52 (1991): 43-60.
[11] Nicholson EW. The Decalogue as the direct address of God. Vetus Testamentum. 27.4 (1977): 422-433.
[12] Exodus 6:3.
[13] Hosea 11:1.
