One of the most disturbing texts of the Bible used to displace native peoples and commit justified genocide is Joshua's conquest narrative. The difficulty of the text is not whether 'biblical' genocide was a reality, but the theological depiction of God as One who demands herem (holy war/genocide). During the colonial era--also known as the Age of Discovery or properly the Age of Sorrow--I am convinced the justification of the violence would have proceeded without the book of Joshua. But, the difficult part is the book of Joshua does exist as a part of the canon and cites the utter destruction of peoples in the name of a conquering God who is setting up a chosen ethnic group above others. Now there are two socio-political issues to deal with on top of the theological language of God: ethnicity and violence.
In the narrative, two ethnic outsiders are addressed: Rahab and Gibeonites. Rahab is the Canaanite zonah who cunningly deceives the male leadership of Jericho to assist Israelite spies. She secures an oath to preserve her family's life and is allowed to live with the Israelites. Rahab is remembered as a heroic foreigner who acknowledges the power of YHWH and is accepted into the community because of her faith. The Gibeonites, also fearing the power of YHWH, deceive Israel's leadership to secure the survival of their people. Violation of the herem is emphasized in the Gibeonite story and when Gibeon is unmasked they are cursed. The Gibeonites are said in the text to become an enslaved people among Israel.
In between these two stories is the story of Achen. Achen, a member of the tribe of Judah, is almost responsible for bringing the herem on the Israelites when he takes booty from a Canaanite city. Achen and his family are destroyed and expelled from the community. Achen's ethnic identity or faith does not protect him or his family. His action is seen as the ultimate betrayal of the community and the only way to redeem the community is to remove his influence. What then are we to make of the association of violence and maintaining an ethnic group? (there isn't room here to talk about the social creation of ethnicity...) Contextualizing the book of Joshua in whatever period you might propose it was composed solves some of the tension for modern readers as a 'back then' way of thinking. But, it is not a back then way of thinking. It is still very much alive and humanity still practices violence against itself. Groups then justify violence in various ways such as the political, economic, and/or religious.
If you and your larger community rely on a sacred text like the Bible, then you have three different choices in dealing with a text like Joshua: ignore it; read it redemptively (draw some allegory or metaphor from it) or historically; or struggle with it and let the pain/difficulty in the text function as a commentary on our current world. It seems to me the honest way to deal with Joshua or other difficult texts is to struggle with it allowing the grisly nature of texts to let us see the world differently. When I read Joshua, I am theologically challenged to rethink my God-talk and politically-economically-socially challenged to critique my own engagement with the rest of creation. I let the horrible violence of Joshua stand and every time I open my Bible I let the text challenge not only my identity, but my global neighborhood.
No comments:
Post a Comment