Summary
Highlights
The speaker explains that ancient Near Eastern texts, including the biblical ones, used a literary device known as hagiographic hyperbole. This involved using exaggerated language of complete annihilation to boast about conquests and intimidate enemies, similar to how modern sports fans might say their team 'massacred' the opponent without literal violence. This device accounts for the reappearance of 'destroyed' groups.
While these texts describe violence, invasions, and fighting, they do not depict literal genocide. The repeated reappearance of these groups in later texts confirms that the language of complete destruction was a rhetorical flourish, not a literal description of events.
The speaker addresses an issue with interpreting Old Testament texts that seem to call for genocide. While a surface reading might suggest complete destruction, a deeper understanding of the surrounding text reveals a different meaning. The texts often present contradictory commands, such as 'wipe everyone out' and 'drive them out before you'.
An example from Exodus 23:23 is presented where God promises to 'completely destroy' certain groups, but then clarifies in later verses that he will drive them out 'little by little'. This suggests that 'destroy' doesn't mean literal annihilation, as these groups continue to appear later in the narrative.
A significant problem with the literal interpretation is that all the groups supposedly 'destroyed' or 'wiped out' appear later in the biblical text. For instance, after Joshua supposedly wiped out the Canaanites, the very next book asks who will fight against the Canaanites. This indicates a non-literal use of language.
The command to King Saul to 'utterly destroy all that he has' against the Amalekites, including men, women, and children, is examined. Despite Saul reportedly carrying out this command, the Amalekites reappear centuries later in the books of First Samuel, Chronicles, and Esther, directly contradicting a literal interpretation of their destruction.