(OS 071) Versluis - The Command To Exterminate The Canaanites - Deuteronomy 7 PDF

The Command to Exterminate the Canaanites: Deuteronomy 7
Oudtestamentische Studien
old testament studies published on behalf of the societies
for old testament studies in the netherlands and
belgium, south africa, the united kingdom and ireland
Editor
H. Ausloos (Louvain-la-Neuve)
Editorial Board
M. Popovi (Groningen)
H.F. Van Rooy (Potchefstroom)
H.G.M. Williamson (Oxford)
volume 71
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ots

The Command to Exterminate the
Canaanites: Deuteronomy 7
By
Arie Versluis
leiden | boston
The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at http://catalog.loc.gov
LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2016057408
Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: Brill. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface.
issn 0169-7226
isbn 978-90-04-33798-5 (hardback)
isbn 978-90-04-34131-9 (e-book)
Copyright 2017 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and
Hotei Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided
that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,
Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change.
This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents
Preface ix
Abbreviations x
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Object of the Present Study 1
1.2 Previous Research 7
1.2.1 Research of the Command to Exterminate the Canaanites 7
1.2.2 Research of Deuteronomy 12
1.3 Aim and Method 14
2 Exegesis of Deuteronomy 7 17
2.1 Text and Translation 17
2.2 Text-Critical Annotations 21
2.3 Delimitation and Structure 30
2.4 Exegesis 35
2.4.1 Deut. 7:16 36
Excursus: Lists of the Nations 38
Excursus: Meaning and Function of 45
2.4.2 Deut. 7:711 84
2.4.3 Deut. 7:1216 95
2.4.4 Deut. 7:1726 107
2.5 Unity of Deuteronomy 7 123
2.5.1 Deut. 7:16 123
Excursus: The Numeruswechsel as a Literary-Critical
Criterion 127
2.5.2 Deut. 7:711 130
2.5.3 Deut. 7:1216 133
2.5.4 Deut. 7:1726 134
2.5.5 Conclusion 136
2.6 Conclusions 136
3 Literary Context 139

3.1 The Place of Chapter 7 in the Structure of Deuteronomy 139
3.1.1 The Structure of Deuteronomy 139
3.1.2 Deut. 7 in Its Direct Context 142
3.1.3 The Structure of Deuteronomy and Ancient Near Eastern
Treaty Texts 146
vi contents
3.2 The Nations of Canaan in the Book of Deuteronomy 152

3.2.1 Yhwh, the Nations and Israel 152
3.2.2 Israel and the Non-Canaanite Peoples 161
3.2.3 Israel and the Canaanite Peoples 168
3.2.4 Motives for the Command 186
3.2.5 Summary and Conclusion 195
3.3 Comparison of Deut. 7 with Parallel Texts 196
3.3.1 Comparison with Exod. 23:2033 199
3.3.2 Comparison with Exod. 34:1116 211
3.3.3 Development in the Attitude toward the Nations of
Canaan 219
3.4 The Command of Deut. 7 in the Context of the Old Testament 222
3.4.1 The Command to Defeat the Nations of Canaan 225
3.4.2 Reports of the Treatment of the Nations of Canaan 230
3.4.3 The End of the Extermination of the Nations of Canaan 238
3.4.4 Motives for Israels Attitude toward the Nations of
Canaan 252
3.4.5 The Nations of Canaan in Genesis 262
3.4.6 The Curse of Canaan (Gen. 9:25) 267
3.4.7 Summary and Conclusion 282
3.5 Conclusions 284
4 Historical Setting 286

4.1 The Seven Nations of Canaan in the Ancient Near East 286
4.1.1 Hittites 287
4.1.2 Amorites 290
4.1.3 Canaanites 291
4.1.4 Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, and Girgashites 292
4.2 Child Sacrifice and Sexual Practices of the Nations of Canaan 299
4.2.1 Child Sacrifice 299
4.2.2 Sexual Practices 305
4.3 Dating of the Command to Exterminate the Canaanites 308
4.3.1 Ways of Interpretation 308
4.3.2 Evaluation 312
4.3.3 Metaphorical Interpretation 317
4.4 Conclusions 320
contents vii
5 Theological Evaluation 321

5.1 Introduction 321
5.2 Framework of a Theological Evaluation 322
5.2.1 Importance 322
5.2.2 Problems 327
5.2.3 Perspective 327
5.3 Models of Interpretation 330
5.3.1 Model 1: Denial 331
5.3.2 Model 2: Justification 336
5.3.3 Model 3: Correction 341
5.4 Biblical-Theological Evaluation 346
5.4.1 The Context of the Command 346
5.4.2 The Nations of Canaan and Israel 350
5.4.3 Motivation of the Command 354
5.4.4 The Command and the Old Testament View of God 362
5.4.5 The Command and the New Testament 369
5.5 Conclusions 375
5.5.1 Conclusion Concerning the View of God 375
5.5.2 Conclusion Concerning the Potential of Violence 377
5.5.3 Evaluation of the Command 379
6 Conclusions 383
Bibliography 387
Index of Textual References 430
Index of Authors 436
Preface
The theme of religiously inspired violence continues to be a topic of interest.

The attacks of 9/11/2001, symbolical as they have become, have by no means
been the final attacks in the name of a religion. The present-day intuitive asso-
ciation of religion and violence also poses significant and probing questions to
biblical scholars and to believers.
The subject of the present study, Gods command to exterminate the nations
of Canaan, is a very controversial issue for modern readers. During the process
of research and writing, I have wrestled with the questions it evokes, especially
since they concern Gods character as He reveals himself in the Old and New
Testament, and question what it means to love and serve this God. The publi-
cation of this study does not mean that all questions have received their final
answers; but this study does hope to contribute to a better understanding of
relevant texts, and to a responsible way of dealing with these texts.
The present monograph is a translation and revision of my PhD Thesis, Geen

verbond, geen genade: Analyse en evaluatie van het gebod om de Kananieten
uit te roeien (Deuteronomium 7) (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum Academic, 2012).
I wish to thank my supervisor, prof.dr. H.G.L. Peels, for his kind, thorough
and stimulating way of supervising my studies. I also thank my co-supervisor,
prof.dr. C. Houtman. The present book has greatly benefited from the critical
comments of Henk de Waard ma and dr. Christopher B. Ansberry, who was
willing to proofread my translation and to correct my English. Of course, I
remain responsible for the text.
Finally, my thanks are due to God, who gave me the strength, health and
wisdom to do this work. Most of all, I hope to have spoken of Him what is right.
Ouderkerk aan de Amstel

Advent 2016
Abbreviations
See Siegfried M. Schwertner, Abkrzungsverzeichnis. 2nd ed. tre. Berlin: De

Gruyter, 1994. The following additions and modifications apply.
AbOTC Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries

ACSo Archaeology, Culture, and Society
alasp Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palstinas und Mesopota-
miens
anes.s Ancient Near Eastern Studies. Supplement
AntS Antiquits smitiques
aotc Apollos Old Testament Commentary
ArB The Aramaic Bible
asords American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series
asorsv American Schools of Oriental Research Special Volume Series
bbr Bulletin for Biblical Research
bbr.s Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplements
be Boekencentrum Essay
bhq Schenker et al., eds., Biblia Hebraica quinta editione
bibds bibal Dissertation Series
bisnelc Bar-Ilan Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Culture
bku Beitrge zur Kultur- und Universalgeschichte
bmw The Bible in the Modern World
BSh Beer-Sheva
BTeoC Biblioteca de teologa comillas
bzabr Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr Altorientalische und Biblische Rechts-
geschichte
cbr Currents in Biblical Research
chane Culture and History of the Ancient Near East
co Calvin, Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia
dch Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew
ddd Van der Toorn et al., eds., Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible
dl DavarLogos
ej F. Skolnik, ed., Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2nd ed. Detroit: Thomson Gale,
2007.
fbh The Foundations of Bible History
GDis Gorgias Dissertations
gkc Gesenius Hebrew Grammar (ed. Kautzsch/Cowley)
HBibS Herders biblische Studien
abbreviations xi
Hen Henoch
HThKAT Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament
Interpretation Interpretation: Resources for the Use of Scripture in the Church
jac Journal of Ancient Civilizations
jcps Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series
jds Judean Desert Studies
jm Joon & Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew
jsj.s Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism
jsot.m jsot/asor Monograph Series
jti Journal of Theological Interpretation
jti.s Journal of Theological Interpretation Supplements
ktu Dietrich et al., Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit
lcbi Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation
lhbots Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies
lnts Library of New Testament Studies
mot Mastering the Old Testament
nac New American Commentary
neb.e Die Neue Echter Bibel. Altes Testament. Ergnzungsband
nhms Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies
nibc New International Biblical Commentary
nidotte VanGemeren, ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament
Theology & Exegesis
nivac niv Application Commentary
nsbt New Studies in Biblical Theology
NumBS Numen Book Series. Studies in the History of Religions
OrCl Orientalia et Classica
paaft.sb Pontificium Athenaeum Antonianum, Facultas TheologicaSectio
Biblica
pbm Paternoster Biblical Monographs
PhChr Philosophia Christi
ppfbr Publications of the Perry Foundation for Biblical Research in the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Presb. Presbyterion
pot Prediking van het Oude Testament
qfsg Quellen und Forschungen zur schsischen Geschichte
ReNS Recherches, nouvelle srie
rht Reformed Historical Theology
rsct Rutherford Studies in Contemporary Theology
saa State Archives of Assyria
sac Studies in Antiquity and Christianity
xii abbreviations
sasrh St. Andrews Studies in Reformation History

sblabs Society of Biblical Literature, Archaeology and Biblical Studies
sblail sbl, Ancient Israel and Its Literature
sblss sbl, Semeia Studies
sbltcs sbl, Text-Critical Studies
sblwaw sbl, Writings from the Ancient World
shar Studies in the History and Anthropology of Religion
shcane Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East
Siphrut Siphrut. Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures
sotbt Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology
SRTh Studies in Reformed Theology
star Studies in Theology and Religion
StJud Studies in Judaism
StPho Studia Phoenicia
tljs The Taubman Lectures in Jewish Studies
Trans Transeuphratne
tshl Texts and Studies in the Hebrew Language and Related Subjects
ubshs ubs Handbook Series
vhb Verklaring van de Hebreeuwse Bijbel
vwgt Verffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft fr Theo-
logie
wbc Word Biblical Commentary
wo Waltke & OConnor, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax
WOr Die Welt des Orients
zabr Zeitschrift fr altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte
chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Object of the Present Study
Violence in its many forms is part of human life. Therefore, it is not surprising
that this phenomenon also occurs in the Hebrew Bibleit only confirms the
sense of reality of this book. However, theological and moral questions multiply
when violence is ascribed to or commanded by God himself. According to the
sense of many readers, such texts are at odds with the message of Gods grace
and mercy, and with the call to love and forgiveness.1
This problem especially comes to the fore when one reads Deut. 7. In this
chapter, it appears that the people of Israel receive the command of Yhwh to
exterminate the resident peoples when entering the land of Canaan. In light
of this command, it is no wonder that Deut. 7 is one of the most controver-
sial texts concerning the relationship between God and violence in the Old
Testament.2 In fact, the ethical questions raised by the command are height-
ened when one recognizes that this chapter differs from many other texts on
violence in the Old Testament. These differences concern the initiator, the
motivation, and the radical nature of the command to destroy the nations of
Canaan.
1. Initiator. In Deut. 7, the command to exterminate the nations of Canaan
is presented as a command of Yhwh himself. Accordingly, it is not an action
on Israels own initiative, but there is a direct link between this violence and
God.
2. Motivation. Israel receives the command to destroy the Canaanites, while
these nations have not done any injustice to Israel. This differs significantly
from the punishment due to a criminal or defensive tactics against an aggressor.
From the point of view of the book of Deuteronomy, Israel is at the border of the
1 Walter Brueggemann, Revelation and Violence: A Study in Contextualization; The 1986 Pre Mar-
quette Theology Lecture (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1986), 7: [T]hese texts of
violence are at least an embarrassment, are morally repulsive, and are theologically problem-
atic in the Bible, not because they are violent, but because this is violence either in the name
of or at the hand of Yahweh.
2 Cf. J.G. McConville, Deuteronomy, aotc (Leicester: Apollos, 2002), 162; Eric A. Seibert, The
Violence of Scripture: Overcoming the Old Testaments Troubling Legacy (Minneapolis: Fortress,
2012), 3435.
koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004341319_002

2 chapter 1
land of Canaan, and there has not been any direct contact with these nations
for centuries. The only explicit motivation mentioned for the command in
Deut. 7 concerns the (threatened) identity of Israel, not the behaviour of the
nations of Canaan.
3. Radical nature. According to Deut. 7, Israel has to totally destroy the
nations of Canaan. They are explicitly forbidden from sparing them and from
showing them any mercy (Deut. 7:2,16). Any distinction within these nations
or a possibility of salvation seems to be absent. When compared with other
texts in the Old Testament in which Israel receives a command concerning
the nations of Canaan, the radical nature of the Deuteronomic prescription is
shocking. In those other texts, only expulsion seems to be intended ( ;Exod.
23:2033; 34:1116); extermination is mentioned only in Deuteronomy (;
Deut. 7:2; 20:17). According to the books of Judges to Kings, the pre-Israelite
population of Canaan was only partially destroyed, contrary to the apparent
intention of Deut. 7.
Moreover, there is a certain tension between Deut. 7 and its direct context.
When Deuteronomy is compared with other legal texts from the Ancient Near
East, the ethics of Deuteronomy can be characterized as humane.3 Israel should
not have a negative or hostile attitude toward other, surrounding nations; it
is called to leave these nations in peace (Deut. 2:45,9,19). As regards the
Canaanites, however, total extermination is demanded. This striking difference
demands an explanation.
Accordingly, Deut. 7 is a text that evokes significant theological and moral

questions. In the first place, there is the question concerning the view of
God that emerges from this text. Did God really command the Israelites to
destroy these nations, without distinction? If so, what is the rationale for the
command? If God did not issue the command, then why is this text, in this
form, included in the Old Testament? And what are the consequences for the
Old Testaments view of God? Is the God who commands his people to destroy
nations without any mercy, the same as the God who revealed Himself in Jesus
Christ as a God of love?
In addition to these issues, the question arises whether such a text may evoke
violence in the present time. Modern readers will associate Deut. 7 with ethnic
cleansing or genocide, as it has been called since the twentieth century. If a
3 Cf. J. Gary Millar, Now Choose Life: Theology and Ethics in Deuteronomy, nsbt 6 (Leicester:
Apollos, 1998), 133; Christopher J.H. Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God (Down-
ers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 2004), 472.
introduction 3
text that is authoritative in Judaism and Christianity calls for genocide, couldnt
people appeal to this text to justify violence in the present time?4
In the history of exegesis of Deut. 7, various interpretations have been
defended that seem to (partially) mitigate the moral and theological problems
of the command to exterminate the Canaanites. Among these interpretations,
three deserve brief attention.
1. The command of Deut. 7 did not concern a literal destruction, but a ban on
social intercourse. This interpretation is defended on the basis of the semantic
value of the verb , which would be much broader than extermination. The
warnings that follow in Deut. 7:2, prohibiting Israel to make a covenant or to
intermarry, would indicate that these nations do not have to be destroyed. The
parallel texts in Exod. 23 and Exod. 34 would also argue for this interpretation,
as well as the fact that the extermination of the nations of Canaan was never
fully executed.5
2. This command applied only under certain conditions. This interpreta-
tion is already found among the rabbis. According to various rabbinic texts,
the nations of Canaan were called several times to depart voluntarily or to sur-
render to Israel. Only the nations refusing to do so, and waging war with Israel,
were actually destroyed.6 The view that the command to destroy the Canaan-
ites was conditional, is based on the assumption that Deut. 20:1012 (in a war, a
4 So, e.g., Paul B. Cliteur, Religion and Violence, in Freedom of Religion, ed. A. van de Beek,
Eddy A.J.G. van der Borght, and B.P. Vermeulen, SRTh 19 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 235249; Regina
M. Schwartz, The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1997). See 5.2.1.
5 E.g., Christa Schfer-Lichtenberger, Bedeutung und Funktion von erem in biblisch-hebr-
ischen Texten, bz 38 (1994): 272275; Christa Schfer-Lichtenberger, jhwh, Israel und die
Vlker aus der Perspektive von Dtn 7, bz 40 (1996): 202. See also 2.4 (pp. 6972) and 4.3.
6 y. eb. 6:1, 36c (ed. Yehuda Feliks, Talmud Yerushalmi: Tractate Sheviit Critically Edited: A
Study of the Halachic Topics and Their Botanical and Agricultural Background [Jerusalem:
Rubin Mass, 1986], 2:5658; Peter Schfer and Hans-Jrgen Becker, eds., Synopse zum Talmud
Yerushalmi: Band i/35 Ordnung Zeraim: Demai, Kilayim und Sheviit, tsaj 33 [Tbingen:
Mohr, 1992], 262263); Lev. Rab. 17:6 (ed. Mordecai Margulies, Midrash Wayyikra Rabbah:
A Critical Edition Based on Manuscripts and Genizah Fragments with Variants and Notes,
3rd ed. [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1993], 2:386387); Deut. Rab. 5:14 (ed. Saul
Lieberman, Midrash Debarim Rabbah: Edited for the First Time from the Oxford Ms. No. 147
with an Introduction and Notes, 3rd ed. [Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1974], 101). See also Katell
Berthelot, The Canaanites Who Trusted in God: An Original Interpretation of the Fate of the
Canaanites in Rabbinic Literature, jjs 62 (2011): 233261; Arie Versluis, The Early Reception
History of the Command to Exterminate the Canaanites, Biblical Reception 3 (2014 [2015]):
308329.
4 chapter 1
city should first be offered peace; only if this is rejected, a battle follows) applies
not only to non-Canaanite cities, but also to Canaanite cities Israel will fight
against.7
3. Since Deut. 7 dates from a time when the nations of Canaan no longer
existed, an actual eradication never took place, nor was it intended. In modern
research, the book of Deuteronomy is almost universally dated in the seventh
century b.c. or later. If the tradition concerning the command to exterminate
the Canaanites is also dated to that time, the consequence is that the physi-
cal destruction of these nations cannot be intended in Deut. 7, because these
nations no longer existed (independently) at that time. In this case, the com-
mand should be considered as a retrospective evaluation of Israels past. This
tradition would offer an explanation for the Babylonian exile: Israel should
have destroyed the nations of Canaan; because it mingled with these nations,
Israel has forsaken Yhwh, and was finally taken into exile. After the exile, Israel
should live otherwise, and should preserve its own religious identity.8
Similar to this interpretation is the view that Deut. 7 does not call for bat-
tle; rather, it seeks to cultivate pacification and curb anti-nationalist senti-
ments. Because the command to exterminate applies to the seven nations,
and because these nations no longer existed, consequently the extermination
of other nations would not be allowed. In that case, the actual message of
Deut. 7 would be that the command to exterminate exclusively applies to the
nations of Canaan, and not to any other nations.9
These interpretations will be seriously considered in the present study. How-

ever, it can be asked whether these views provide an adequate answer to the
theological and moral questions evoked by the text.10 After all, which view of
God is reflected in Deut. 7? What are the moral consequences of such a divine
command, irrespective of its actual intentions?
7 See 3.2.3.1.
8 So, e.g., Georg Braulik, Die Vlkervernichtung und die Rckkehr Israels ins Verheissungs-
land: Hermeneutische Bemerkungen zum Buch Deuteronomium, in Deuteronomy and
Deuteronomic Literature, ed. Marc Vervenne and Johan Lust, BEThL 133 (Leuven: Univer-
sity Press, 1997), 47; Gtz Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden schlieen mit den Bewohnern
des Landes: Die Weisungen gegen die Kanaaner in Israels Geschichte und Geschichtsschrei-
bung, bwant 91 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970), 8. See 4.3.
9 So, e.g., Norbert Lohfink, , in ThWAT 3:211; Philip D. Stern, The Biblical erem: A Win-
dow on Israels Religious Experience, BJSt 211 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991), 102. See 4.3.
10 Cf. Cees Houtman, Zwei Sichtweisen von Israel als Minderheit inmitten der Bewohner
Kanaans: Ein Diskussionsbeitrag zum Verhltnis von J und Dtr(G), in Deuteronomy and
Deuteronomic Literature, ed. Marc Vervenne and Johan Lust, BEThL 133 (Leuven: Univer-
introduction 5
These theological and moral questions have been answered in various ways.
First, according to some authors, the command to exterminate the Canaan-
ites was not a command of God, but only the result of projection and mis-
interpretation by human beings.11 According to others, the command is to be
regarded as Gods will. Some authors even believe that it can be explained
why this command was necessary or justified, for example because a divine
command is just by definition, or because of the grave sins of the nations of
Canaan.12
Second, it has been stated that the Deuteronomic command is nuanced or
corrected by other texts in the Old Testament. Some authors believe that a spir-
itualization of the command is identifiable already in the book of Deuteron-
omy.13 According to others, the book of Joshua shows a mitigation and a limita-
tion of the command.14 Others again think that the Old Testament as a whole
advocates another relationship between Israel and the nations, and thus crit-
icizes a text like Deut. 7.15 And still others content that the Deuteronomic
command is corrected by the New Testament. A radical example of this inter-
pretation is the view of Marcion (second century a.d.). He contrasted the God
of the Old Testament with the God of the New Testament, partly due to the
violence that God permits and commands in the Old Testament.16
When one investigates the questions the command to exterminate the Canaan-
ites evokes, it is important to realize the context within which we read these
texts, namely the Western cultural context of the beginning of the twenty-
first century. The history of the twentieth century shows an eruption of vio-
lence and many instances of genocide, in which millions of people lost their
sity Press, 1997), 220221 n. 24; Todd L. Lake, Did God Command Genocide? Christian
Theology and the rem (Ann Arbor: umi, 1997), 910. See 5.3.1.
11 So, e.g., C.H.W. Brekelmans, De erem in het Oude Testament (Nijmegen: Centrale drukkerij,
1959), 176179; Helen C. ONeill, Biblical Truth and the Morality of rem (Providence: Pon-
tificia Universitas S. Thoma, 1984), 260. See 5.3.1.
12 So already Augustine. See 5.3.2.
13 Braulik, Die Vlkervernichtung, 3538.
14 Lawson G. Stone, Ethical and Apologetic Tendencies in the Redaction of the Book of
Joshua, cbq 53 (1991): 2536.
15 Rolf P. Knierim, The Task of Old Testament Theology: Method and Cases (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1995), 309321. See 5.3.3.
16 See Irenaeus, Haer. i 27,2 (Irenaeus of Lyon, Epideixis: Adversus haereses i, ed. N. Brox,
fc 8/1 [Freiburg: Herder, 1993], 318320); Origen, Hom. Jes. Nav. xii (Origen, Homlies sur
Josu [Homiliae in Jesu Nave], ed. Annie Jaubert, sc 71 [Paris: ditions du Cerf, 1960], 294
303). See 5.3.3.
6 chapter 1
lives.17 At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the attacks of September 11,
2001 took place. Partly as a result of this, religion as a motivation for violence
has become a highly controversial and sensitive issue. This context indicates
that it is necessary to honestly face the questions evoked by Deut. 7. At the
same time, it is important to be aware of our own sensitivity to the theme of
violence, in order to prevent this from having disruptive effects on the study of
a text from a very different cultural context.18
Further investigation is needed of the exegetical, historical, and theological

questions evoked by the command to exterminate the Canaanites. This study
aims to contribute to this by providing an exegesis and a theological interpre-
tation of the command concerning the nations of Canaan in Deut. 7. In the
remainder of this chapter, there is first a brief overview of previous research
on the command concerning the Canaanites ( 1.2.1). Then, the chapter iden-
tifies the issues within recent research on Deuteronomy that are of interest
for this study (1.2.2). Finally, the aim and method of this study are defined
(1.3).
17 The familiar designation genocide was invented in this century. The word was intro-
duced in 1944 by the Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin as a term for the deliberate
attempt to destroy nations or groups. For the significance of Lemkin for the creation
of the word genocide and for his efforts to put it on the political agenda, see Adam
Jones, Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction, 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 2011), 812;
Samantha Power, A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide (New York: Basic
Books, 2002), 42. For the different definitions of genocide, see Jones, Genocide, 1315, 30
33. The extermination of the nations of Canaan is often characterized as genocide; see,
e.g., Ibid., 45, and titles like Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan, Did God Really Com-
mand Genocide? Coming to Terms with the Justice of God (Grand Rapids: Baker Books,
2014); C.S. Cowles et al., Show Them No Mercy: 4 Views on God and Canaanite Genocide,
Counterpoints (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003); Douglas S. Earl, The Joshua Delusion?
Rethinking Genocide in the Bible (Eugene: Cascade Books, 2010); Lake, Did God Command
Genocide. Indeed, the extermination of the Canaanites falls within the common defini-
tions of genocide. For this study, the terminological discussion is less relevant; since in
common parlance, genocide primarily has a moral dimension, I will use this designation
sparingly.
18 See 5.2.3.
introduction 7
1.2 Previous Research
1.2.1 Research of the Command to Exterminate the Canaanites

Several studies have been published on the relationship between Israel and
other nations, in particular on their relationship with Amalek, Edom, Moab,
and Ammon.19 The relationship between Israel and the Canaanites has been
investigated from an archaeological perspective.20 However, an exegetical
study on the place of these nations in the Old Testament and on their relation-
ship with Israel is lacking. During the last decades, a large number of studies
appeared on the theme of violence in the Old Testament.21 However, these
studies do not provide a detailed examination of the command to exterminate
the nations of Canaan.
The only monograph on the command to destroy the Canaanites is the
Habilitationsschrift of Gtz Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden schlieen mit den
Bewohnern des Landes: Die Weisungen gegen die Kanaaner in Israels Geschichte
und Geschichtsschreibung, dating from 1970. Schmitt argues that the command
concerning the nations of Canaan was originally a Vertreibungsgebot from the
time just after the conquest of Canaan; since the time of David, it was no
longer applied in practice.22 According to Schmitt, Deut. 7 is a reworking of
19 For Amalek, see Egbert A. Rooze, Amalek geweldig verslagen: Een bijbels-theologisch onder-
zoek naar de vijandschap Isral-Amalek als bijdrage tot de discussie over Geweld in het Oude
Testament (Brussel: Universitaire Faculteit voor Protestantse Godgeleerdheid, 1995);
A. Schuil, Amalek: Onderzoek naar oorsprong en ontwikkeling van Amaleks rol in het Oude
Testament (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 1997); Hans Andreas Tanner, Amalek: Der Feind
Israels und der Feind Jahwes; Eine Studie zu den Amalektexten im Alten Testament (Zrich:
Theologischer Verlag Zrich, 2005). For Edom, see John R. Bartlett, Edom and the Edomites,
jsot.s 77 (Sheffield: jsot, 1989); Bert Dicou, Edom, Israels Brother and Antagonist: The
Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy and Story, jsot.s 169 (Sheffield: jsot Press, 1994); Diana
Vikander Edelman, You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for He Is Your Brother: Edom and Seir in
History and Tradition, ABSt 3 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995); Gerda Hoekveld-Meijer, Esau:
Salvation in Disguise (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996). For Moab and Ammon, see Thomas
Scheiber, Lots Enkel: Israels Verhltnis zu Moab und Ammon im Alten Testament (Norder-
stedt: Books on Demand, 2007).
20 See, e.g., Ann E. Killebrew, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyp-
tians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel, 13001100b.c.e., sblabs 9 (Leiden: Brill,
2005), 93148.
21 See Gerlinde Baumann, Gottesbilder der Gewalt im Alten Testament verstehen (Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2006), 3779; Norbert Lohfink, Gewalt als Thema
alttestamentlicher Forschung, in Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit im Alten Testament, ed. Nor-
bert Lohfink, qd 96 (Freiburg: Herder, 1983), 1550.
22 Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden, 1324, 109112, 129.
8 chapter 1
Exod. 23:2033, and so is part of the Nachgeschichte of the original command.

However, according to Schmitt, Deut. 7 was not constructed in retrospect; it
still had a certain degree of actuality at the time of its origin. It would best fit
in the time of Manasseh or at the beginning of the reign of Josiah.23 Schmitt
identifies a tension between the humane approach that characterizes the book
of Deuteronomy, and the radical nature of the command in Deut. 7 (and 13).
He explains this tension by the fact that Deut. 7 was inserted at a later time.
However, he does not deal with the question of how this radicalization of the
Vertreibungsgebot could take place. The function of Deut. 7 in the context of
the book of Deuteronomy, and the place of the nations of Canaan in the Old
Testament as a whole, are left aside. Only in passing, Schmitt mentions the
theological and moral questions Deut. 7 evokes.24
There is only one study specifically devoted to Deut. 7: the dissertation of
Ansgar Koschel, Volk Gottes in der deuteronomischen Parnese: Untersuchun-
gen zum Begriffsfeld von Volk Gottes in Dt 7,111 (1969).25 However, he only
focuses on the Volk-Gottes-Begriff in Deut. 7:611. He hardly addresses the
command to destroy the Canaanites.
Some articles deal with the Deuteronomic command. First, Moshe Weinfeld
published an important article on the historical development of the command
concerning the nations of Canaan and its relationship to the commands exe-
cution (The Ban on the Canaanites in the Biblical Codes and its Historical
Development, 1993). According to Weinfeld, there is a development from the
call to expel the nations (Exod. 23; 34), via a more rigid interpretation (Num.
33), to the call for total destruction (Deut. 7; 20).26 Second, Christa Schfer-
Lichtenberger (jhwh, Israel und die Vlker aus der Perspektive von Dtn 7,
1996) has examined the relationship between Yhwh, Israel and the nations
in Deut. 7. She argues that in Deut. 7:15, Israel is not called to exterminate
nations, because the verb hif. should be interpreted as a ban on social inter-
course. Later on in Deut. 7, where extermination is clearly mentioned, other
nations are meant, according to Schfer-Lichtenberger. Despite the valuable
23 Ibid., 131144. However, Schmitt also states that Deut. 7 would fit well in the time of
the conquest or the judges, if Deuteronomy as a whole could be dated earlier (Ibid.,
134).
24 Cf. Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden, 154163.
25 Ansgar Koschel, Volk Gottes in der deuteronomischen Parnese: Untersuchungen zum
Begriffsfeld von Volk Gottes in Dt 7,111 (Westflische Wilhelms-Universitt, 1969).
26 Moshe Weinfeld, The Ban on the Canaanites in the Biblical Codes and Its Historical
Development, in History and Traditions of Early Israel, ed. Andr Lemaire and Benedikt
Otzen, vt.s 50 (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 142160.
introduction 9
elements, the significance of both articles is limited, since Deut. 7 is not exam-
ined in the context of the book of Deuteronomy, the place of the Canaanites
in the Old Testament as a whole is not dealt with, nor are the theological and
moral questions of the command addressed.
Several studies deal with the nations of Canaan. First, the monograph of Edwin
C. Hostetter, Nations Mightier and More Numerous: The Biblical View of Pales-
tines Pre-Israelite Peoples (1995), describes the Old Testaments view of the pre-
Israelite population of Canaan. He focuses on the lists of nations in the Old
Testament and their structure, usage, and development. Moreover, he describes
the information on these nations, as this can be derived from the Old Testa-
ment and the literature and archaeology of the Ancient Near East.27 Hostetter
offers valuable information on the pre-Israelite population of Canaan and on
the lists of nations, but he does not deal with the destruction of the Canaan-
ites.
Second, Otto Bchli devoted a monograph to Deuteronomys view of the
nations (Israel und die Vlker: Eine Studie zum Deuteronomium, 1962). He deals
with the dangers of the nations and Israels defense against this.28 However, he
pays little attention to the special place of the Canaanites in Deuteronomy, and
he fails to address the relationship between Deuteronomy and the rest of the
Old Testament regarding the nations of Canaan.29
Third, Cees Houtman examines the view of the original inhabitants of the
land of Canaan in the book of Deuteronomy (Die ursprnglichen Bewohner
des Landes Kanaan im Deuteronomium: Sinn und Absicht der Beschreibung
27 Edwin C. Hostetter, Nations Mightier and More Numerous: The Biblical View of Palestines
Pre-Israelite Peoples, bibds 3 (Berkeley: bibal, 1995).
28 Otto Bchli, Israel und die Vlker: Eine Studie zum Deuteronomium, AThANT 41 (Zrich:
Zwingli Verlag, 1962).
29 The Habilitationsschrift of Dominik Markl, Gottes Volk im Deuteronomium, bzabr 18
(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012), deals with the formation of Israel as the people of
Yhwh. Markl does not comment on the relationship between Israel and the Canaanites
however. This is also true for some articles devoted to this theme: Braulik, Die Vlkerver-
nichtung; Paul-Eugne Dion, Isral et ltranger dans le Deutronome, in L altrit vivre
ensemble diffrents: Approches pluridisciplinaires; Actes du Colloque pluridisciplinaire tenu
loccasion du 75e anniversaire du Collge dominicain de philosophie et de thologie, ed.
Michel Gourgues and Gilles-D. Mailhiot, ReNS 7 (Paris: Cerf, 1986), 211233; Georg Fohrer,
Israels Haltung gegenber den Kanaanern und anderen Vlkern, JSSt 12 (1968): 6475;
Norbert Lohfink, Opferzentralisation, Skularisierungsthese und mimetische Theorie, in
Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur 3, sbab 20 (Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995), 219260.
10 chapter 1
ihrer Identitt und ihres Charakters, 2002). He focuses on the former popula-
tion of the areas around Canaan (see Deut. 2:1012,2023), but not on the seven
nations mentioned in Deut. 7.30
Fourth, the study of Helene Neis, Vernichtet werdet ihr, vernichtet! Narrative
und parnetische Entfaltung des Gewaltmotivs in der ersten Moserede Dtn 1,1
4,40 (2011), is an investigation of the theme of violence in Deut. 14, in which
the conquest of Transjordan is described. Neis states that the violence in these
texts is to be regarded as a literary form, not as the representation of historical
events. By means of this literary form, the power and sovereignty of Yhwh were
described. The description would have been inspired by the practices of the
world powers from the writers times. Neis gives a historical (and psychological)
rather than a theological explanation of the questions evoked by these texts.
She signals tensions in God, but she does not address the significance of these
tensions for the Old Testaments view of God.31
Several authors specifically address the theological and moral questions evoked
by the command to destroy the Canaanites. An older example of this is the
detailed essay of L. Reinke, Ueber das Recht der Israeliten an Canaan und ber
die Ursache seiner Eroberung und der Vertilgung seiner Einwohner durch die
Israeliten und die verschiedenen Erklrungsversuche darber (1851). His arti-
cle is primarily a (apologetic) refutation of moral objections to the command
to destroy the nations of Canaan. According to Reinke, the view of Augustine,
that the command is justified because it is Gods command, is the only satisfy-
ing interpretation.32
30 Cees Houtman, Die ursprnglichen Bewohner des Landes Kanaan im Deuteronomium:

Sinn und Absicht der Beschreibung ihrer Identitt und ihres Charakters, vt 52 (2002):
5165. Some older studies on the nations in the Old Testament and on Israels attitude
toward them also pay little attention to Deuteronomys view of the nations of Canaan:
Alfred Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den Fremden (Freiburg:
Akademische Verlagsbuchhandlung von J.C.B. Mohr, 1896); Martin Peisker, Die Beziehun-
gen der Nichtisraeliten zu Jahve nach der Anschauung der altisraelitischen Quellenschriften,
bzaw 12 (Gieen: Tpelmann, 1907).
31 Neis offers only a short comparison with Deut. 7 and 20; Helene Neis, Vernichtet werdet ihr,
vernichtet! Narrative und parnetische Entfaltung des Gewaltmotivs in der ersten Moserede
Dtn 1,14,40, ehs.t 923 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2011), 194196.
32 L. Reinke, Ueber das Recht der Israeliten an Canaan und ber die Ursache seiner Erobe-
rung und der Vertilgung seiner Einwohner durch die Israeliten und die verschiedenen
Erklrungsversuche darber, in Beitrge zur Erklrung des alten Testamentes (Mnster:
Coppenrath, 1851), 269418.
introduction 11
The monographs of Helen C. ONeill, Biblical Truth and the Morality of rem
(1984), and Todd L. Lake, Did God Command Genocide? Christian Theology and
the rem (1997), explicitly deal with the moral questions of the command to
destroy the Canaanites. Lake offers an overview of the interpretation of the
rem in the history of exegesis, and then advocates the view that the rem
should not be read as an indication of actual eradication, but as a hyperbole.
ONeill elaborates on the rem in the Old Testament and its moral problems,
but he does not deal with the place of Canaanites in the Old Testament as a
whole. ONeill believes that God gave the land to Israel; however, the way the
Israelites conquered it, would be the result of their human, fallible interpreta-
tion of Gods will.
In the book by C.S. Cowles et al., Show Them No Mercy: 4 Views on God
and Canaanite Genocide (2003), four authors give their views on the theolog-
ical questions at issue, and they respond to the views of the other authors.
They specifically address the question of how the Deuteronomic command
relates to the love of God, which He has revealed in Jesus Christ. Their views
are characterized as radical discontinuity (C.S. Cowles), moderate discon-
tinuity (Eugene H. Merrill), eschatological continuity (Daniel L. Gard) and
spiritual continuity (Tremper Longman iii). These views are important and
will be considered in this studys theological evaluation (see chap. 5); however,
throughout the essays within this volume little attention is paid to an exami-
nation of the relevant texts of the Old Testament itself.33
This overview of previous research makes clear that a thorough study of the
command to destroy the nations of Canaan in Deut. 7 is lacking. On the one
hand, there are exegetical and historical analyses of the command, which pay
little attention to the theological questions it evokes. On the other hand, schol-
ars have focused on these latter questions, but without a detailed examination
of the relevant Old Testament texts. Moreover, an investigation of the place of
the Canaanites in the Old Testament and their relationship to Israel is lack-
ing. In this study, I will combine the exegetical-historical and the theological
approach; moreover, I will examine the place of the Canaanites in the Old Testa-
ment as a whole; this way, I hope to move the discussion of this theme forward.
Moreover, because of the theological and socio-moral relevance of the ques-
tions at issue (see 1.1), there is sufficient reason for an investigation of the
command concerning the Canaanites in Deut. 7.
33 See also the different perspectives on the Holy War theme in Heath A. Thomas, Jeremy
Evans, and Paul Copan, eds., Holy War in the Bible: Christian Morality and an Old Testament
Problem (Downers Grove: ivp Academic, 2013).
12 chapter 1
1.2.2 Research of Deuteronomy

Prior to an exegesis of Deut. 7, a brief overview of research on the book of
Deuteronomy, mainly with regard to its dating, is necessary. After all, this dating
has direct consequences for the interpretation of the command to exterminate
the Canaanites. Other discussions on the research of Deuteronomy will be dealt
with later (see in particular 3.1).
Studies on the genesis of Deuteronomy are so numerous that this research
has been characterized as a Hypothesenlabyrinth.34 There is even no con-
sensus on the criteria of literary criticism and redaction criticism.35 Since the
dissertation of W.M.L. de Wette (1805) and in particular since the work of
Julius Wellhausen (1878), the origin of (the oldest part of) Deuteronomy has
been connected with the reformation of king Josiah in 622 b.c. (2 Kgs 2223).36
Deuteronomy would have received its final form in the exilic period. Although
earlier and later datings of Deuteronomy have been proposed, the connection
between Deuteronomy and Josiah was considered an indisputable fact for a
long time. For that reason, Eckart Otto has characterized the period of 1930
2000 as the siebzigjhrige Friedhofsruhe der Deuteronomiumsforschung.37
In recent research, the connection between Deuteronomy and 2 Kings 22
23 is loosened. This is the result of a more critical approach to the story of the
reformation of Josiah, on the one hand, and of the difficulty with delimiting
the Urdeuteronomium from the time of Josiah, on the other.38 Eckart Otto,
34 Sigrid Loersch, Das Deuteronomium und seine Deutungen: Ein forschungsgeschichtlicher

berblick, sbs 22 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967), 34. For the history of earlier
research, see Loersch, Deuteronomium und seine Deutungen; M.J. Paul, Het Archimedisch
Punt van de Pentateuchkritiek: Een historisch en exegetisch onderzoek naar de verhou-
ding van Deuteronomium en de reformatie van koning Josia (2 Kon 2223) (s-Gravenhage:
Boekencentrum, 1988), 11213; Horst Dietrich Preu, Deuteronomium, EdF 164 (Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1982). For recent research, see Eckart Otto, Perspek-
tiven der neueren Deuteronomiumsforschung, zaw 119 (2007): 319340; Timo Veijola,
Deuteronomismusforschung zwischen Tradition und Innovation (i), ThR 67 (2002): 273
327. See also the overview in Eckart Otto, Deuteronomium 111, HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder,
2012), 62230.
35 Georg Braulik, Das Buch Deuteronomium, in Einleitung in das Alte Testament, by Erich
Zenger et al., 5th ed., KStTh 1,1 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004), 140141.
36 This idea was not completely new, but since De Wette, it gained great influence; see Paul,
Archimedisch punt van de Pentateuchkritiek, 7980.
37 Otto, Perspektiven der neueren Deuteronomiumsforschung, 319.
38 See C. Houtman, Der Pentateuch: Die Geschichte seiner Erforschung neben einer Auswer-
tung, cbet 9 (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994), 329332; Norbert Lohfink, Deuteronomium
und Pentateuch: Zum Stand der Forschung, in Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur
introduction 13
for example, identifies two other observations as his point of departure for
the dating of the oldest part of Deuteronomy, namely its connection with the
Covenant Code (Exod. 20:2323:33) and with neo-Assyrian texts. Many regard
Deuteronomy as either a replacement or a complement and actualization of
the Covenant Code. Deuteronomy is connected with the neo-Assyrian texts by
the reception of the vassal treaty of Esarhaddon of 672 b.c. in Deuteronomy
(Deut. 13:110*; 28:2044*).39 Others, however, have criticized this view on the
reception of neo-Assyrian texts.40
Since the connection between Deuteronomy and Josiah is loosened, a longer
period is taken into account for the genesis of Deuteronomy. In the Mnster
model for the genesis of the Pentateuch, the oldest form of Deuteronomy is
dated in the time of king Hezekiah, circa 700 b.c.41 The books final redaction
is usually dated in post-exilic times.42
In addition to the prevalent view that the oldest part of Deuteronomy orig-
inates from the seventh century b.c. or shortly before, and the final redaction
took place in post-exilic times, other datings have been proposed. In recent
research, for example, Niels Peter Lemche dates the whole of Genesis to Kings
to the Persian or Hellenistic period. This dating is related to his revisionist
view on the history of Israel.43 On the other side of the spectrum, J. Gor-
don McConville regards Deuteronomy as a document from the pre-monarchic
period that offers a political and religious programme for Israel. His dating is
based on the differences between the programme of Deuteronomy and that of
2 Kings 2223, and on the thesis that the laws of Deuteronomy are consistent
with the constellation of the pre-monarchic period.44
deuteronomistischen Literatur 3, sbab 20 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995), 1619.

Cf. Preu, Deuteronomium, 43.
39 Otto, Perspektiven der neueren Deuteronomiumsforschung, 326330.
40 Veijola, Deuteronomismusforschung zwischen Tradition und Innovation, 292298. Cf.
Markus Philipp Zehnder, Building on Stone? Deuteronomy and Esarhaddons Loyalty
Oaths (Pts. 1 and 2), bbr 19 (2009): 341374, 511535.
41 Braulik, Das Buch Deuteronomium, 143144.
42 See Otto, Perspektiven der neueren Deuteronomiumsforschung, 326340. For Deut.
7, Otto, Deuteronomium 111, 846855 assumes a deuteronomistic core (vv. 13a,1724),
which he dates in exilic times, with a post-deuteronomistic Fortschreibung (vv. 3b16,25
26) from post-exilic times; cf. Eckart Otto, Deuteronomiumstudien ii: Deuteronomisti-
sche und postdeuteronomistische Perspektiven in der Literaturgeschichte von Deutero-
nomium 511, zabr 15 (2009): 190201.
43 Niels Peter Lemche, The Old Testament between Theology and History: A Critical Survey
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 186211.
44 McConville, Deuteronomy, 3338; J.G. McConville, Law and Theology in Deuteronomy,
jsot.s 33 (Sheffield: jsot, 1984), 154159.
14 chapter 1
As noted above, the dating of Deuteronomy or its underlying traditions has

direct consequences for the interpretation of the command to exterminate the
nations of Canaan. In the period between the seventh century b.c. and the
return from the Babylonian exile, the nations of Canaan no longer existed inde-
pendently alongside Israel, but were already incorporated into Israel. With a
later dating of the material, the command to exterminate these nations would
be a retrospective construction, and it could not be executed any more. Accord-
ing to various authors, this implies that the Deuteronomic command was never
executed, or even that the actual destruction of people was never intended.
This interpretation seems to mitigate the command (see 1.1). However, if the
command was delivered at a time when the Canaanites were not yet incorpo-
rated into Israel, Deut. 7 (or an older, underlying tradition) would call for the
actual extermination of people.
In this study, it is not possible to discuss in depth the genesis and dating
of the book of Deuteronomy. Because the dating has direct consequences
for the intention of the author(s) of the Deuteronomic command, I will first
give a synchronic analysis of Deut. 7, without choosing between the different
models and datings. Whenever the chapter is dated, the possibility exists that
its contents go back to older traditions. Therefore, in the exegesis we should
take into account both the possibility that the command does not call for the
actual destruction of the pre-Israelite population of Canaan, and the possibility
that it does call for this. After the synchronic analysis and after situating Deut. 7
in the context of the Old Testament as a whole, it should be determined
whether the results of this investigation justify further conclusions regarding
the interpretation and dating of the command (see 4.3).
1.3 Aim and Method
The aim of the present study is to give an analysis and evaluation of the
command regarding the nations of Canaan in Deut. 7. To achieve this goal,
four topics will be investigated in the following four chapters: 1. an exegesis
of Deut. 7, including the intention of the command (extermination, or just
expulsion); 2. an investigation of the place of the nations of Canaan in the book
of Deuteronomy and in the rest of the Old Testament; 3. an investigation of the
historical background and dating of the command; 4. a theological evaluation
of the command.
The exegesis of Deuteronomy 7, which forms the starting point of the pres-
ent study, is offered in chapter 2. A thorough analysis of this passage is necessary
before it can be compared with other texts from the Old Testament. The text
introduction 15
and structure of Deut. 7 are examined. Afterwards, an exegesis of the chapter is

given, together with an investigation of whether or not the chapter can be con-
sidered a literary unity. Possible parallels with the Umwelt are also examined,
as well as the suggested connection between the Deuteronomic command and
the so-called holy war.
In chapter 3, Deut. 7 is analyzed in the context of the Old Testament. First, the
place of the chapter in the structure of the book of Deuteronomy is examined,
as well as the significance of this place for the interpretation. Second, the place
of the nations of Canaan in Deuteronomy is discussed, as well as the motives
for the distinction between Israels conduct toward the nations of Canaan
and toward other nations. Third, Deut. 7 is compared with two passages that
show great similarity with this chapter, namely Exod. 23:2033 and 34:1116.
Fourth, the command to exterminate the nations of Canaan is analyzed in
the context of the Old Testament as a whole. Attention is paid to texts that
refer to this command or to its execution, and to motives that are mentioned
for Israels attitude toward these nations. Fifth, the place of the nations of
Canaan in the book of Genesis and the significance of the curse on Canaan
(Gen. 9:25) are examined. Thus, chapter 3 aims to clarify how the command
of Deut. 7 relates to the view of the Canaanites in the Old Testament as a
whole.
In chapter 4, the historical background and dating of the command are
investigated. First, it is examined whether extra-biblical sources contain fur-
ther information about the seven nations of Canaan that are mentioned
in Deut. 7. Second, the historical evidence for the alleged practices of these
nations (child sacrifice and certain sexual practices) is investigated. Finally, the
dating of the command is discussed, as well as the consequences for its inter-
pretation.
Chapter 5 offers a theological interpretation and evaluation of the Deutero-
nomic command. After all, the exegesis asks for a theological analysis of the
literary and historical results.45 First, I will indicate the importance of a theo-
logical evaluation and the perspective from which I will give this interpretation.
Next, I discuss some modern interpretations of the command to exterminate
the nations of Canaan. Finally, I attempt to formulate a biblical-theological
position regarding the command. In this context, the question is also raised
45 Cf. Eep Talstra, Identity and Loyalty, Faith and Violence: The Case of Deuteronomy, in
Christian Faith and Violence, ed. Dirk van Keulen and Martien E. Brinkman, SRTh 10
11 (Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2005), 1:76: [O]ne cannot deal with these difficult passages
without trying to formulate a theological hermeneutics for Bible reading. Cf. Ibid., 74
76.
16 chapter 1
how the command relates to the New Testament. This question is justified,
since in Western academic and ecclesial contexts the Old Testament was read
together with the New Testament for centuries.
In chapter 6, the conclusions of this study are summarized.
chapter 2
Exegesis of Deuteronomy 7
This chapter offers an exegesis of Deut. 7, which forms the starting point
of the present study. It will begin with a translation ( 2.1) and text-critical
annotations (2.2) of the Hebrew text. Then, it will discuss the delimitation and
structure of Deut. 7 (2.3) and provide a detailed exegesis of the chapter ( 2.4).
Finally, it will investigate whether or not this chapter can be considered a
literary unity (2.5), before it closes with a summary of the conclusions ( 2.6).
2.1 Text and Translation
In this section, the Masoretic text of Deut. 7 is displayed, together with a

translation.1 Letters in superscript refer to text-critical annotations (see 2.2).
Each verse is subdivided on two levels, based on the Masoretic accentuation.2
By means of indentation of the Hebrew text, the text hierarchy is indicated: the
syntactic main line is right-aligned (from verse 2b), while a subordinate clause
or an apposition is indented to the left.
1a 1When Yhwh your God brings you

1a to the land you are going over to occupy,

1 Masoretic text according to the edition of Carmel McCarthy, Deuteronomy, bhq 5 (Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007). In verse 8, , which is obviously an error in Codex
Leningradensis, is corrected; cf. the text-critical apparatus of bhq. In verse 9, the Qere of
is followed. All translations in this study are my own, unless otherwise indicated.
2 I follow the theory of James D. Price, The Syntax of Masoretic Accents in the Hebrew Bible,
sbec 27 (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1990). For an overview, see E.J. Revell, The Accents: Hier-
archy and Meaning, in Method in Unit Delimitation, ed. Marjo C.A. Korpel, Josef M. Oesch,
and Stanley E. Porter, Pericope 6 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 6191. Accordingly, on the first level, the
main division (a, b) is marked by atna, the remote disjunctive accent of sof pasuq (except
in verse 11, where the highest remote disjunctive accent is rvia). On the second level, the divi-
sion within the a- or b-part (, , ) is marked by the remote disjunctive accent of silluq or
atna, namely zaqef (or, if this is missing, the near disjunctive accent, ifa, or an accent of
the next level, rvia or tvir). A more detailed subdivision has not been made.

18 chapter 2
1b and He drives out greata nations before

youbthe Hittites, the Girgashites, the
Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the
Hivites, and the Jebusites,b
1b seven nations
1b more numerous and mightier than youc
2a 2and Yhwh your God gives them over to
youa
2a and you defeat them,
2b you must utterly destroy them.3
2b Make no covenant with them
and show them no mercy.
3a 3Do not intermarrya with them:
3b do not give your daughter to his son
3b and do not take his daughter for your son.
4a 4For he would turn away your son from
behind Me,
4a so that they would servea other gods,b
4b and the anger of Yhwhd would be kindledc
against you,
4b and He would quickly destroy you.
5a 5But thus you shall deala with them:
5a
break down their altars,
5a smash their sacred pillars,
5b cut down their Asherahs,
5b and burn their idolsb with fire.
6a 6For you are a people holy to Yhwh your
God;
6b it is you Yhwh your God has chosen

6b out of all the nations who are on the face of
the earth, to be for Him a people of his
treasured possession.
7a 7It was not because you are more numerous
than all the nations,
7a that Yhwh took delight in you
and chosea you,
3 For an explanation of the beginning of the apodosis, see below pp. 4345.
exegesis of deuteronomy 7 19
7b for you are the smallest of all the nations.

8a 8But because Yhwh loveda you
and kept the oath
that He swore to your fathers,
8a Yhwhb brought you out
with a mighty handc
8b and redeemed youd from the house of
slavery,
8b from the hand of Pharaoh, the king of
Egypt.
9a 9Know therefore
9a that Yhwh your God is indeed God,
9b the faithful God,
9b who keeps the covenant and the faithful

love with those who love Him and keep
his commandments,a to a thousand
generations,
10a 10and who repays those personally who hate
Him,a by destroying him.b
10b He will not delay it with the one who hates
Him;c
10b He will repay him personally.d
11a 11And keep therefore the commandment,a
the statutes and the ordinances
11b that I am commanding youb today,c
to do them.
12a 12It will happen,
if you listen to these ordinances,a
12a and keep
and do them,
12b then Yhwh your God will keep with you the
covenant and the faithful love
12b that He swore to your fathers.
13a 13He will love you,
13a He will bless you,
and He will multiply you.
13b He will bless athe fruit of your womb and
the fruit of your ground,a your grainb and
your wine and your oil, the increase of your
herds and the young of your flock,
20 chapter 2
13b in the land

13b that He sworec to your fathers
to give you.d
14a 14You will be blessed above all nations;
14b there shall not be male or female barren
among youa or among your livestock.
15a 15Yhwh will take away from you all sickness,
15b and all the evil diseasesa of Egypt,b
which you know,c
He will not inflict on you,
15b but He will give them to all who hate you.
16a 16You shall devour all the nationsa
that Yhwh your God will give you.
16a Your eye shall not pity them,
16b and you shall not serve their gods,
16b for that would be a snare to you.
17a 17If you say in your heart:
17a These nationsa are more numerous than I;
17b how can I dispossess them?
18a 18Do not be afraid of them;
18b remember very well
awhat Yhwh your God dida
18b to Pharaoh and all Egypt:b
19a 19the greata trials
that your eyes saw,
and the signs, the wonders,b
the mighty hand and the outstretched arm,
19a by which Yhwh your God brought you out.
19b So Yhwh your Godc will do to all the
nations
19b of which you are afraid.
20a 20Moreover, Yhwh your God will send
hornets among them,
20b until those who are left or hide themselves
are destroyed before you.
21a 21You shall not be in dread of them,
21b for Yhwh your God is in your midst,
21b a great and awesome God.
22a 22Yhwh your God will drive out thesea
nations before you
22a little by little.

22b You will not be able to make an end of them
quickly,
22b otherwiseb the beasts of the field might
become too numerous for you.
23a 23Yhwh your God will give them over to
you,a
23b and He will throw them into great
confusion,b
23b until they are destroyed.c
24a 24He will give their kings into your hands,a
24a and you shall blot outb their name
24a from under heaven.c
24b No man will be able to stand against you,d
24b until you have destroyed them.e
25a 25The idols of their gods you shall burn with
fire.
25b
You shall not coveta the silver and the gold
that is on them and take it for yourself,
25b lest you be ensnared by it,
25b for it is abhorrent to Yhwh your God.
26a 26And you shall not bring an abhorrent
thing into your house,
26a and become rem like it.
26b You shall utterly detest it,
you shall utterly abhor it,
26b for it is rem.
2.2 Text-Critical Annotations
In this section, the textual differences are discussed between the Masoretic
text on the one hand and other Hebrew manuscripts and (the Vorlage of) the
ancient versions on the other hand.4 According to many scholars, the Masoretic
text of the Old Testament is an old and reliable text, both from a historic and
4 The following abbreviations are used: mtMasoretic text; lxxSeptuagint; spSamaritan

Pentateuch; sPeshita; vVulgate; vlVetus Latina; toTargum Onkelos; tjTargum Pseudo-
Jonathan; tnTargum Neofiti; TFrFragment-Targums.
22 chapter 2
from a linguistic perspective.5 Therefore, this text can be used as the starting
point of the exegesis. A discussion of the differences with the other textual
witnesses will have to make clear if there are reasons to deviate from mt.6 The
discussion is limited to differences that are relevant for exegesis.7
1. a can mean both great and many nations (cf. the enumeration of
seven nations). lxx8 uses a double translation: .9 At the
end of the verse, the meaning great is clear because of the comparison
with Israel ( ;cf. verses 7,17). Here, lxx reads only , although
some manuscripts read or (cf. vl). v translates
5 See, e.g., Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress,
2012), 2737; Adam S. van der Woude, Pluriformity and Uniformity: Reflections on the
Transmission of the Text of the Old Testament, in Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early
Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of A.S. van der Woude, ed. J.N. Bremmer and F. Garca
Martnez, cbet 5 (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1992), 151169. For arguments in favour of the
antiquity and reliability of the vocalization, see James Barr, Comparative Philology and the
Text of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1987), 188222; Tov, Textual
Criticism, 4042.
6 In the manuscripts from Qumran, fragments of the following verses of Deut. 7 are ex-
tant: 4QpaleoDeutr (verses 25,67,1621,2125), 4QDeutc (verses 34), 4QDeute (verses 12
16,2126), 4QDeutf (verses 2225), 4QDeutm (verses 1822), 5QDeut (verses 1524). In the
non-biblical texts from Qumran, the following quotations or allusions are found: Deut. 7:9:
4q393 (djd 29:53); Deut. 7:2122: 1qm x, 12 (1q33; Eleazar Lipa Sukenik, ed., The Dead Sea
Scrolls of the Hebrew University [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1955], pl. 25); Deut. 7:26: 4qmmt c 6
(4q397; djd 10:58). None of these texts contains variants that are text-critically relevant. See
David L. Washburn, A Catalog of Biblical Passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls, sbltcs 2 (Leiden:
Brill, 2003), 6061. For a variant which is relevant, see verse 25 (not mentioned in Wash-
burn).
7 Accordingly, I will not discuss orthographic variants or the presence or absence of a copula in
enumerations. This is also the case for differences in number between mt and the Targumim.
In Deut. 7, the Targumim (to, tj, tn, TFr) almost always use the plural when referring to the
people of Israel; cf. McCarthy, Deuteronomy, 9*. See also 2.5, Excursus: The Numeruswechsel
as a literary-critical criterion. As a rule, variants that can be traced back to the theology of the
translators are also left aside; this applies particularly to the Targumim. If necessary, such
variants are discussed in the exegesis of the text (2.4).
8 lxx refers to the text of the Gttingen edition. For further information on editions of the
ancient translations, see the bibliography.
9 In view of the ambiguity of the Hebrew text and the repetition in verse 1b, this seems to
be the most plausible explanation of the reading of lxx. Otherwise McCarthy, Deuteronomy,
24, 72* (assimilation); John William Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy, SCSt 39
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 127 (expansion).
the first time gentes multas (many), the second time multo maioris
numeri quam tu es (great).10 Both s and the Targumim confirm the
interpretation great or more numerous; they use instead of ,
indicating a quantitative interpretation.11
b-bseven nations: see the exegesis of verse 1 ( 2.4, Excursus: Lists of the
nations). Some manuscripts of lxx and vl have a different sequence.
c: suffix 2nd sg. to, tj | 2nd pl. lxx, tn (lxxMss 2nd sg. / 1st pl.).
2. a: lxx . Cf. Deut. 7:23,24. Given the unanimity of

the other textual witnesses, this rendering may be explained as a free
translation or as an assimilation to the expression , which is also
used in Deuteronomy (e.g., Deut. 2:24,30; 3:2; 7:24, where lxx has the same
rendering).
3. a: pl. lxx, s.12
4. a: pl. mt, s, to | sg. mt2 Mss, 4QpaleoDeutr, sp, lxx, v. The singular
may be explained as a harmonization to the preceding singular ().
b: to and tj consequently translate the idols ( )][of the na-
tions, probably to avoid the possible misunderstanding of polytheism.13
c: spMss , apparently based on the root . However, in Samaritan
Hebrew an interchange between verbal classes frequently occurs with
weak verbs.14
d: 4QDeutc [] []. lxxv: .
10 So already some textual witnesses of vl (CAn co 3,19,2; ibid., 5,16,1); Vetus Latina Database
a.l. This translation also in Carl Steuernagel, Das Deuteronomium, 2nd ed., hk (Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1923), 78; Otto, Deuteronomium 111, 837; cf. 855.
11 Only tn uses as a translation at the end of verse 1.
12 In Deut. 7:2b5, s always uses the plural when referring to Israel. Since this is not the case
throughout Deut. 7, the plural is noticeable here; but in the text-critical evaluation, the
context in s should be taken into account.
13 Israel Drazin, Targum Onkelos to Deuteronomy: An English Translation of the Text With
Analysis and Commentary (Based on A. Sperbers Edition) ([New York]: Ktav, 1982), 14.
14 Cf. Deut. 6:15 ( mt | sp); 11:17 ( mt, sp); 29:26 ( mt, sp); 31:17 ( mt,
sp | spMs). See Rudolf Macuch, Grammatik des samaritanischen Hebrisch, StSam 1
(Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969), 257; Zeev Ben-ayyim, A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew, Based
on the Recitation of the Law in Comparison with the Tiberian and Other Jewish Traditions
(Jerusalem: Magnes, 2000), 218222 (with possible explanations).
24 chapter 2
5. a: sg. mtMs, sp, vl.

b: lxx: ; cf. toDi: . This trans-
lation may be explained as an assimilation to Deut. 7:25; 12:3, where, in a
similar context, mt reads , and lxx has the same rendering.
7. a: at this point, the manuscript of tn has a lacuna. According to

B.B. Levy, the verb disappeared because of homoioteleuton.15 However, it
cannot be excluded that there was a verb in the lacuna, partly because of
the word following the lacuna, .16 Therefore, it is uncertain whether
tn can be regarded as a textual variant.
8. a: spMss -. Apparently, this form was interpreted as a noun by

(part of) sp, and has become plural sometimes. With other infinitives of
, this is not the case in sp-Deut. Infinitives with a feminine form do
occur in Samaritan Hebrew, but infinitives are often replaced by finite
verbs or by substantives.17
b : > tj, tn.
c : lxx + . The addition in lxx may be
explained as an assimilation to the usual combination
(see verse 19). This assimilation also occurs in lxx-Deut. 3:24; 6:21; 9:26.18
d: suffix pl. s, vl.
9. a: mtk (cf. Deut. 5:10) | -: mtq, mlt Mss, Cairo Geniza,19 sp, lxx, s, v, to,
tj, tn.
15 B. Barry Levy, Targum Neophyti 1: A Textual Study, StJud (Lanham: University Press of
America, 19861987), 2:229.
16 So also the edition of A. Dez Macho.
17 Macuch, Grammatik des samaritanischen Hebrisch, 270271, 516. Ben-ayyim, Grammar
of Samaritan Hebrew, 209 does not mention the feminine form of the infinitive.
18 In Deut. 9:29 (where mt only mentions the outstretched arm) and 34:12, there is no
harmonization in lxx.
19 Israel Yeivin, ed., Geniza Bible Fragments with Babylonian Massorah and Vocalization i:
Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Makor, 1973), fragment Ka 19. In the edition of this text by Elisha
Qimron, the text is transcribed as ; Qimron suggests to read ;Qimron in Magen
Broshi, ed., The Damascus Document Reconsidered (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society,
1992), 4243; col. xix (Msb). On the photo, however, there seems to be yodyod or yodwaw
at the end of this word ( / ). Therefore, Yeivins reading is to be preferred. This
is the only fragment of Deut. 7 in Yeivin. For other fragments from the Cairo Geniza, see
Malcolm C. Davis, ed., Hebrew Bible Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections, 4
vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19782003). Davis only gives the location in
10. a: mtMs -. Carmel McCarthy seems to follow this reading in bhq,

despite the almost unanimous textual evidence against this variant.20 A
singular noun would be consistent with the rest of verse 10; a plural noun
would be consistent with the plural of verse 9 () . Since
the rest of verse 10 always uses the singular, the plural may be considered
the lectio difficilior.
b: suffix sg. mt, sp | pl. lxx, s, v, to.
c: suffix pl. mt2 Mss, sp, lxx, s, v, to. In this verse, mt is not consistent
in its use of the number. The plural may be explained as an assimilation
to verse 10a, in line with the plural in verse 9. The singular in verse 10b
better fits the direct context ( and , which are in the singular in
both mt and sp). lxx, s, to also use a plural in the remainder of the verse
(mt ).
d( twice): sp . v statim and quod merentur, respectively;
statim apparently owing to the following He will not delay it. s in their
lives; this rendering probably reflects influence from Jewish exegetical
traditions.21 Cf. the Targumim, which interpret: to those who hate Him,
God repays the reward of their (few) good works during their lives, in this
world, so that He can punish them in the world to come.22
11. a: pl. lxx, v. lxx-Deut. almost always translates , which is used

as a collective in Deuteronomy, with a plural.23
Cambridge, without the text of the fragments. Other references to the Cairo Geniza texts
in this section are based on the text-critical apparatus of bhs.
20 McCarthy, Deuteronomy, 72*73*.
21 s is influenced by Jewish exegetical traditions, in particular in the Pentateuch. See
P.B. Dirksen, The Old Testament Peshitta, in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Inter-
pretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. M.J. Mulder,
cri ii/1 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988), 264285; Michael P. Weitzman, The Syriac Version
of the Old Testament: An Introduction, ucop 56 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1999), 86107, 127129.
22 This idea is found more often in rabbinic literature. For references see Bernard Gross-
feld, The Targum Onqelos to Deuteronomy: Translated, with Apparatus, and Notes, ArB 9
(Wilmington: Glazier, 1988), 37 n. 4; Levy, Targum Neophyti, 1:7172. Cf. Ramban (Moe
ben Naman, Nachmanides), , ed. C.B. Chavel
(Jerusalem: Harav Kook, 19631964), 2:378; Ramban (Moe ben Naman, Nachmanides),
Commentary on the Torah: Deuteronomy, ed. C.B. Chavel (New York: Shilo, 1976), 92; Rashi,
, ed. C.B. Chavel (Jerusalem: Harav Kook, 1983), 532.
23 Out of thirteen cases, the only exceptions are Deut. 30:11 (sg.) and 31:5 (not translated);
Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy, 134.
26 chapter 2
b: suffix > tj | suffix 2nd pl. s.

c: > tj.
12. a: lxx .
13. a-a : s, v, tn24 use the same translation for in both

cases. lxx, to, tj use a different translation.
b: tn translates your works (). Probably, this is a scribal error
for ( your grain).25
c: mt, 4QDeute, s, v | + mt2 Mss, sp, lxx.26
d: suffix 3rd pl. tn.
14. a: suffix pl. lxx.
15. a: pl. lxx, v, to | mtmlt Mss, Cairo Geniza, lxxmin. The reading
may be explained as an assimilation to the parallel in Deut. 28:60
(although various textual witnesses have a plural there) and perhaps to
the preceding singular ().
b: Egyptians s, todg, tn.
c . In 5QDeutcorr, a later hand has inserted between these words:
; cf. lxx: . This may be explained as an addi-
tion owing to the more frequent occurrence of seeing in connection with
Egypt in Deuteronomy (see esp. Deut. 7:19; cf. Deut. 1:30; 4:34; 6:22; 29:1;
34:12).27 Another possible (additional) explanation is that the scribe or
translator interpreted as knowing by experience. Israel has not expe-
rienced all the plagues of Egypt itself (cf. Exod. 8:1819; 9:6,26; 10:23), and
so knows some of the plagues, while only seeing the other ones.
24 ; tn always translates with ; Martin McNamara,

ed., Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy: Translated, with Apparatus and Notes, ArB 5a (Edin-
burgh: t&t Clark, 1997), 54 n. 9.
25 So also Levy, Targum Neophyti, 2:230.
26 sp: according to ed. Sadaqa and ed. Tal. In ed. Von Gall, this addition is missing. Otto,
Deuteronomium 111, 839840 views the reading with an explicit subject as the original
one.
27 Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy, 137 calls it a doublet rendering; so also
McCarthy in the text-critical apparatus of bhq. In light of the fragment from Qumran,
however, this explanation is less likely. Otto, Deuteronomium 111, 840 views the insertion
as a Vorausverweis to verse 19.
16. a: lxx inserts (arms, spoils) before this word; tn: the
possessions ( )of the nations. These readings may have arisen from a
desire to mitigate the command to exterminate other nations. According
to lxx and tn, the command would only concern the possessions, not
the nations themselves.28 Elsewhere in Deut. 7, however, lxx and tn do
not show such a desire when extermination is mentioned; therefore, this
explanation is less likely. Two other possible explanations are: (1) is
rendered twice, first as , then as . In this case, it is not necessary to
assume that lxx had a different Vorlage. (2) The combination to devour
nations seemed odd and was explained.29 Cf. Deut. 20:14, where the
object of is the booty ( )of Israels enemies. Since lxx translates
differently in that verse, an assimilation to lxx-Deut. 20:14 is unlikely, but
it is possible that assimilation occurred in the Hebrew Vorlage of lxx-
Deut. 7:16.
17. a: sg. lxx.
18. a-a : s everything that ; tj the mighty acts that ; tn the

revenge that Yhwh took (, a word play on ).
b: Egypt mt, tobg | Egyptians lxx, v, to, tj, tn.
19. a: 5QDeut seems to add , but the reading is uncertain. If the

reading would be correct, it must be an error.
b: lxx-b* . This rendering can be ex-
plained as an assimilation to Deut. 29:2.
c: > v | suffix 1st pl. lxx (2nd pl. / 2nd sg. lxxMss | 2nd pl. vl).30
22. a: mtMs, 4QDeutf, sp. as a demonstrative pronoun occurs nine

times in the Old Testament (Gen. 19:8,25; 26:3,4; Lev. 18:27; Deut. 4:42; 7:22;
19:11; 1Chr. 20:8). The variant is an adaptation to the more common form
.
28 According to Pierre Buis and Jacques Leclercq, Le Deutronome, SBi (Paris: Gabalda, 1963),
82, the translation of lxx is used pour adourcir lexpression.
29 Ccile Dogniez and Marguerite Harl, eds., La Bible dAlexandrie: Le Deutronome (Paris:
ditions du Cerf, 1992), 165.
30 According to John William Wevers, Yahweh and its Appositives in lxx Deuteronomium,
in Studies in Deuteronomy, ed. Florentino Garca Martnez et al., vt.s 53 (Leiden: Brill,
1994), 275276, the text of lxx is an adaptation to its context (all the nations).
28 chapter 2
b: lxx . The plus in lxx can be explained

as an assimilation to Exod. 23:29, which also gives two reasons why Israel
cannot expel the nations in one year. As for the first reason, missing in mt-
Deut. 7:22, there is an exact correspondence between lxx-Exod. 23:29 and
lxx-Deut. 7:22; the second reason is translated differently. This supports
the assumption that the plus in lxx-Deut. 7:22 is derived from lxx-Exod.
23:29.31
23. a: mt, 4QpaleoDeutr, sp, s, v, to, tj, tn | : 4QDeute, lxx (like

Deut. 7:2). See the annotation of verse 2a.
b: 4QpaleoDeutr ] [ . The plene spelling most naturally points
to the root , although in the Dead Sea Scrolls the mater lectionis waw
is sometimes used where the Tiberian tradition has qamets.32 Grammat-
ically, the form of mt is a qatal of the root with a suffix 3rd pl. As
the meaning seems to be closer to , however, various suggestions have
been made to amend mt. The text-critical apparatus of bhs proposes to
read ( cf. 2Chr. 15:6). Others have analyzed the form as a qatal with-
out a suffix,33 or have assumed a difference in meaning between in
Exod. 23:27 and in Deut. 7:23, being an adaptation of Exod. 23:27.34
These solutions, however, are both unlikely and unnecessary. Since the
verbs and are often contaminated, there is no difficulty in analyz-
ing the form as a qatal of the root , with the meaning of .35
c( inf.nif., [until] they are destroyed): mt, 4QDeute, 4QDeutf, v,
to, tj, TFrv | ( qatal hif., [until] He destroys them): 4Qpaleo-
Deutr, sp, lxx, tn.36 s uses the 2nd person sg. (until you destroy them;
31 According to Otto, Deuteronomium 111, 841, it is derived from the Hebrew Vorlage of lxx.
However, given the verbal agreement of the translation, this is less likely.
32 This occurs in particular with liquids and labials; Elisha Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead
Sea Scrolls, hss 29 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 3940.
33 So Rashbam (Samuel ben Meir), Rashbams Commentary on Deuteronomy: An Annotated
Translation, ed. M.I. Lockshin, BJSt 340 (Providence: Brown, 2004), 6971; Arnold B. Ehr-
lich, Randglossen zur hebrischen Bibel: Textkritisches, sprachliches und sachliches (Leip-
zig: J.C. Hinrich, 19081914), 2:274.
34 Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden, 19.
35 Cf. jm 82o. August Dillmann, Die Bcher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, 2nd ed., keh
(Leipzig: Hirzel, 1886), 275 assumes the verb is vocalized as because of the following
.
36 The element until is missing in tn. In the translations (Alejandro Dez Macho, Neophyti
1: Targum palestinense ms de la biblioteca Vaticana, csic.te 711.20 [Madrid: Consejo
superior de investigaciones cientficas, 19681979], 5:82, 475; McNamara, Targum Neofiti
cf. lxxMss: 2nd sg. / 2nd pl.), just as with the preceding verb.37 In the
tradition of vl, all three options occur.38 In my opinion, the reading of
mt should be considered the more original reading. sp can be explained
from the grammar of Samaritan Hebrew, which often replaces Nifal forms
by other conjugations or by active forms.39 s can be explained as an
assimilation to verse 24. Given the ambiguity of the (unvocalized) form
and the parallel active form in verse 24, this is also a plausible explanation
for the other textual witnesses using an active verb.
24. a: mt, 4QpaleoDeutr, sp, to | pl. mtpc Mss, Cairo Geniza, lxx (with
suffix pl.), s, v. Cf. Deut. 20:13; 21:10; 30:9, where mt has the same form
and vocalization and where there are also Mss and versions with a plural.
The consonants seem to indicate a singular, the vocalization a plural.40
This may explain the Hebrew variants with a plural. However, the singular
form in pause has the same vocalization. A form in pause is also used with
other accents than atna.41 Since the singular of is always used in the
combination in Deuteronomy, the explanation as a singular form
in pause is to be preferred.42
1, 55) it is supplemented on the basis of the parallel in verse 24. Verse 23 of tn, however,
only says on the time that () , which gives a good sense: God is giving confusion
on the moment that He destroys. As a translation of tn, therefore, the addition of until
is not necessary.
37 Therefore, it is dubious that Skehan mentions s as a witness of in his annotation
of 4QpaleoDeutr (djd 9:137).
38 Vetus Latina Database, a.l.
39 Cf. Deut. 28:20,24,45,51,61, where the inf.nif. of in mt is also a qatal hif. in sp. Macuch,
Grammatik des samaritanischen Hebrisch, 503504; Ben-ayyim, Grammar of Samaritan
Hebrew, 176179. The form of sp cannot be an inf.nif., because this would have short vowels
(and thus no mater lectionis) in Samaritan Hebrew; Macuch, Grammatik des samaritani-
schen Hebrisch, 290. Cf. McCarthy, Deuteronomy, 73*74*.
40 For the suffix 2nd masc.sg. without a yod, used with a nomen in the plural, see jm 94j;
gkc 91k.
41 jm 32f.; Israel Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah, ed. E.J. Revell, MasSt 5 (Mis-
soula: Scholars Press, 1980), 170171. The form ( without atna) is used some twenty
times in mt. For an overview of the accents with forms in pause in mt, see E.J. Revell, A
List of Pausal Forms in the TeNaK (preliminary version), ed. R. de Hoop (Pericope Group,
2004), http://www.pericope.net/Assets/pericope_texts/Pausal_Forms_Revell/PausalTNK
.pdf (accessed January 16, 2013).
42 Most ancient versions translate the combination in Deuteronomy with either a
singular or a plural (sg. in sp and to; pl. in lxx; s and v are not consistent). In those
30 chapter 2
b: mt, 4QpaleoDeutr ( reconstructed on the basis of the available

space) | sp (cf. sp-Deut. 9:3)43 | pl. lxx.
c : lxx . lxx probably refers to the land (cf.
Deut. 7:22).44
d: mtpc Mss,45 4QDeutf, 4QpaleoDeutr, sp.
e( inf.hif., subject 2nd sg., until you destroy them; cf.
verse 23)46 mt, 4QpaleoDeutr, sp, lxx, s, v, to, tj | subject 3rd sg. tn |
3rd pl. tni | 2nd pl. tnm. In the tradition of vl, both 2nd sg. and 3rd sg.
occur.
25. a: sg. mt, 4QDeute, sp, lxx, s, v, to | pl. 4QpaleoDeutr (cf. 11qta ii,
8).47
In conclusion, a comparison of the textual witnesses makes clear that mt may

be used as a reliable basis for the exegesis of Deut. 7.
2.3 Delimitation and Structure
In the light of the text-critical analysis, this section will discuss the delimita-
tion and structure of Deut. 7. The structure will provide a framework for the
exegesis, although some exegetical decisions may be needed in determining
cases, the difference in number with mt should be explained as a characteristic of the

translation.
43 The form is to be read as a pi.; Ben-ayyim, Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew, 123124.
44 Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy, 141142.
45 The text-critical apparatus of bhs mentions Ms. See, however, J.B. de Rossi, Variae
lectiones veteris testamenti ex immensa mss. editorumq. codicum congerie haustae et ad
samar. textum, ad vetustiss. versiones, ad accuratiores sacrae criticae fontes ac leges exa-
minatae (Parma: Regio, 17841798), a.l.: Kenn. code. 181, nunc 89, meus 1 primo, utrumque
503.
46 As the inf.const.hif., is used besides . For the verb , this is the case in Deut.
28:48; Josh. 11:14; 1Kgs 15:29; 2Kgs 10:17 (the latter two may also be read as a qatal). Cf. jm
54c; gkc 53l; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 111, AncB (New York: Doubleday, 1991),
361. Therefore, it is not necessary to change the vocalization, as S.R. Driver, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, 3rd ed., icc (Edinburgh: t&t Clark, 1902), 105 n.
proposes.
47 Elisha Qimron, ed., The Temple Scroll: A Critical Edition with Extensive Reconstructions, jds
(Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 1996), 11. 11qta is a non-biblical
text, but it quotes Deut. 7:25.
the architecture of the text. Rather than discussing all proposals for the struc-
ture of Deut. 7, the following analysis will present a proposal of the chapters
structure in conversation with other proposals.
In Codex Leningradensis, Deut. 7 is delimited by a between Deut. 6:25 and

7:1 and a after Deut. 7:26.48 Deut. 7:1 starts with a temporal protasis, which
describes the future situation of Israels arrival in the land of Canaan (cf.
Deut. 6:10). Although there are clear connections between Deut. 7 and the
surrounding chapters (see 3.1), Deut. 7 is a self-contained unit, as is generally
recognized. The theme of the chapter, from beginning to end, is the attitude
of Israel toward the nations of Canaan; Israel has to eradicate these nations
and their religion. While Deut. 6 and 8 reflect on aspects of Israels exclusive
allegiance, this particular issue is not addressed as a central theme in these
chapters.
For an investigation of the structure of Deut. 7, the subdivision of mt may

function as the starting point:49
after verse 6:
after verse 11:
after verse 16:
after verse 26:
According to this subdivision, the major division within Deut. 7 is between

verses 11 and 12. A formal argument for this is that both verse 1 and verse 12
begin with an extended protasis.50 This is followed in verse 2 by a command
48 There are differences between the various manuscripts in the tradition of mt: ms5 and ml17
have a after Deut. 7:26; McCarthy, Deuteronomy, 10*.
49 Except after verse 26, the manuscripts in the tradition of mt have the same division
markers; see the preceding footnote. The subdivision of sp is similar. The editions of lxx
and s provide no information on delimitation markers. 4QpaleoDeutr has a after verse 6,
like mt. On the basis of reconstruction, it is likely that 4QDeute and 5QDeut have a wide
space after verse 26. Again on the basis of reconstruction, 5QDeut seems to have little or
no space after verse 16. It is not clear whether 4QDeute has an open space after verse 21:
the edition in djd states that there seems to be an open space (djd 14:42); according to
McCarthy in bhq, however, this is not the case (Ibid., 14*).
50 According to Jason S. DeRouchie, A Call to Covenant Love: Text Grammar and Literary
Structure in Deuteronomy 511, GDis 30, Biblical Studies 2 (New Jersey: Gorgias, 2007), 212
215, is sometimes used (a.o. in Deut. 7:12) with a macrosyntactic function in order to
signal the start of a new paragraph or sub-unit.
32 chapter 2
to Israel, and in verse 12 by a promise of Yhwh. In addition, there is a turning

point in terms of content between verses 11 and 12. Verses 911 are a command
to Israel (cf. verses 25), while verses 1215 contain an enumeration of what
Yhwh will do (cf. verses 1824). Verse 12, therefore, starts the second main part
of Deut. 7.51
Within the first main part, verses 111, a distinction can be made between
the beginning (the command to exterminate the nations of Canaan) and the
end (the relationship between Yhwh and Israel and its consequences). In this
dichotomy, the position of verse 6 is ambiguous. On the one hand, verse 6 is
directly connected to verses 15, for which it gives the motivation (). Then,
verses 78 supply the motive for the command in verses 911. On the other
hand, verses 78 are an elaboration of the theme of Israels election, introduced
in verse 6. As verse 6 gives a direct motivation of verses 15, mt rightly marks the
division after verse 6.52 However, this does not remove the close relationship
between verse 6 and verses 78, which makes verses 68 the center and the
connecting element of the chapters first main part.
Within the second main part, verses 1226, a distinction can be made
between verses 1216 and verses 1726. In verse 17, a new situation is described
with , which is elaborated in the following verses. As regards content, there is
a shift from the blessing that Yhwh will give (verses 1216) to the question of
how Israel will be able to overcome the nations of Canaan (verses 1721).
Since the answer on the question of verse 17 is more or less completed in
verse 21, one might assume that the following verse open a new section.53
However, the content of the text indicates that there is continuity between
verses 1721 and verses 2226; both parts deal with the question of how Israel
can overcome the Canaanites. This continuity is also evident from the weqatal
at the beginning of verse 22. Therefore, verses 1726 can be considered as a
single unit.
51 For proposals that assign verses 11 and 12 to the same subunit, see Walter Brueggemann,
Deuteronomy, AbOTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 93; Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy,
otl (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002), 97 (verses 615); Schfer-Lichtenberger,
jhwh, Israel und die Vlker, 195 (verses 612).
52 This is the only difference between the structure proposed here and the one of Enrique
Sanz Gimnez-Rico, Un recuerdo que conduce al don: Teologa de Dt 111, BTeoC 11 (Madrid:
Universidad pontificia Comillas, 2004), 110112.
53 So Otto, Deuteronomium 111, 841846, who views verses 721 as a diptych (verses 711,12
21) within the framework of verses 15 and 2226. See the exegesis of verse 21 in 2.4; for
the possibility of an open space after verse 21 in 4QDeute, cf. p. 31 n. 49.
According to the division proposed here, Deut. 7 can be divided into four parts,
which are interrelated both in a concentric and in a linear way:54
16 command to destroy the nations

because of Israels relationship with Yhwh a
711 Israel is for Yhwh b
1216 Yhwh is for Israel b
1726 command to destroy the nations with the help of Yhwh a
The description of the parts and the relationship between them deserve some
explanation. In general, all parts begin with a discussion of the work of Yhwh,
followed by a command to Israel (verses 2b5,911,16,24a26).
Verses 12 open with a situation in which Yhwh brings Israel into Canaan,
and then mention the command to destroy the resident peoples. This com-
mand is elaborated on negatively (verses 2b4: no covenant, no grace, no
intermarriage, which would all lead to apostasy), and then positively (verse 5:
destroy everything that is reminiscent of their religion). Verse 6 gives the rea-
son for these commands: the unique position of Israel toward Yhwh. Israel is
a holy people, chosen by Yhwh. The command to destroy the nations is based
on the unique relationship between Yhwh and Israel.
The reason for Israels election lies not in the people, but in the love and
faithfulness of Yhwh. It is for that reason that He delivered Israel from Egypt.
On this basis, two imperatives follow: Israel should know that Yhwh is the
only God (verse 9a, elaborated on in verses 9b10), and it should keep his
commandments (verse 11).55 Accordingly, verses 711 can be characterized as
a description of who Israel is and how it should respond in relationship with
Yhwh.56
54 Cf. McConville, Deuteronomy, 151; Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, nac ([Nashville]:

Broadman & Holman, 1994), 181.
55 Given the parallelism between the two commands (marked by the weqatal at the begin-
ning of both verses), it is highly unlikely that verses 9 and 11 would belong to different tex-
tual units, as Christopher J.H. Wright, Deuteronomy, nibc (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996),
108 proposes.
56 According to Koschel, Volk Gottes in der deuteronomischen Parnese, 2325, Deut. 7:1
11 is designed as a treaty text (see 3.1.3). He proposes the following division: preamble
(Yhwh your God), prehistory (verses 12a), Grundsatzerklrung (verse 6), Einzelbestim-
mungen (verses 2b3,5), calling the gods (missing), curse (verse 10) and blessing (verse 9).
This structure, however, is forced; Koschel not only has to rearrange parts of the text, but
some elements from Deut. 7:111 have no place in his structure at all, while some elements
from the treaty texts are missing.
34 chapter 2
Verses 1216 describe how Yhwh will respond when Israel keeps his com-
mandments. He will give his people all good things (verses 12b14), and He
will take away from them all evil (verse 15). This section ends with the call to
destroy the nations of Canaan, because otherwise Israel will turn away from
Yhwh (verse 16). This command forms an inclusio with the condition that
Israel should keep the commands of Yhwh (verse 12a).
In verse 17, Israels fear of the greatness of the nations is expressed and
addressed. First, Israel is called to remember what Yhwh did to Egypt in the
past, for in the future He will act similarly (verses 1820). Second, the text
describes who Yhwh is (verse 21). The structure of these verses is more or less
parallel to verses 79: Israels smallness is emphasized (verses 7,17), there is a
reference to the exodus (verses 8,1819a), and there is a predicate describing
Yhwhs character (verse 9,21).57
Subsequently, it is emphasized again that Yhwh will hand over the nations
to Israel, and the text describes how He will do this (little by little, by means
of confusion, even the kings), until the nations of Canaan are totally destroyed
(verses 2224). The chapter closes with the call not to leave anything that is
reminiscent of the religion of the nations (verses 2526). Compared to verses 1
6, verses 1726 put more emphasis on the work of Yhwh; for that reason, I have
labelled the latter part as command to destroy the nations with the help of
Yhwh.
Parts a and a parallel each other. Agreements regarding content have been
pointed out above. There is also agreement in vocabulary between these two
parts. The following words and expressions correspond: ( verses 1,22);
( verses 1,17); ( verses 1,17); with the nations as object (verses 2,(16,)23,
24); ( verses 2,26); ( verses 4,23,24); and the command to burn the
images of the idols (verses 5,25).58
In addition, within parts b and b there are many agreements in vocabulary.
Norbert Lohfink has rightly noticed a concentric structure in these parts.59
57 Otto, Deuteronomium 111, 843.

58 These agreements in vocabulary are an argument against the view of Karin Finsterbusch,
Weisung fr Israel: Studien zu religisem Lehren und Lernen im Deuteronomium und in
seinem Umfeld, fat 44 (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 188190, that verses 1726 would
not really fit in the structure of Deut. 7.
59 Norbert Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot: Eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu
Dtn 511, AnBib 20 (Roma: Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1963), 182. Lohfink also mentions the
expressions ( verses 6,(7,)14) and ( )( verses 6,13) at the beginning
7
8
8
9
11
11
12
12
12
12(.13)
13
13
This concentric structure underlines both the coherence between part b and b
and the division between verses 11 and 12.60
In conclusion, Deut. 7 can be divided into four parts: verses 16, 711, 1216 and
1726. These parts relate to each other both in a concentric and in a linear way.
2.4 Exegesis
In preparation for an exegetical analysis of the text, I offer a brief description

and rationale of the method of exegesis that is followed in this section.
An important factor for the method of exegesis is the fact that the present
text of Deut. 7 is the only factual material that we have. Questions about the
composition of Deut. 7, the origins of the book of Deuteronomy, and relevant
and the end of the structure. Since these expressions are unimportant in terms of content,
however, they add little to the concentric structure.
60 Duane L. Christensen, Deuteronomy, 2nd ed. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 20012002), 1:155
156, 162164 proposes a concentric structure for both verses 111 and verses 1226. Daniel
I. Block, Deuteronomy, nivac (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 206; C.J. Labuschagne,
Deuteronomium, pot (Nijkerk: Callenbach, 19871997), ib:101103 propose a concentric
structure for Deut. 7 as a whole. However, the very general descriptions they use several
times weaken their proposals. The complex concentric structure presented by Robert H.
OConnell, Deuteronomy vii 126: Asymmetrical Concentricity and the Rhetoric of Con-
quest, vt 42 (1992): 248265, is, as he himself admits, more asymmetric than concentric.
Moreover, the division between the various parts is sometimes questionable; e.g., in verse
7a, OConnell assigns and to different sections.
36 chapter 2
historical backgrounds can only be answered after a thorough analysis of the

available texts. In the first place, therefore, the exegesis will have to read the
text in its present form as accurately as possible. Only then can possible ten-
sions within the text, the place of the text within its broader context, and the
relationship with other texts be examined carefully. Moreover, the theological
questions and the criticism of this text are evoked by the text in its present
form.61
For this reason, I will first offer a synchronic reading of Deut. 7 ( 2.4).
Subsequently, a diachronic analysis will be performed, in order to investigate
whether the text contains any indications of its genesis ( 2.5). After this, the
place of Deut. 7 in the book of Deuteronomy (in terms of both structure and
content) and its relation to other texts about the nations of Canaan will be
discussed (chap. 3).
2.4.1 Deut. 7:16

Deut. 7:16 contains the command to exterminate the nations that live in the
land of Canaan (verse 2b). This command is preceded by a description of
the situation in which the command is to be executed (verses 12a). Then,
the command is elaborated on both negatively (verses 2b4) and positively
(verse 5). The section ends with a motivation of the command (verse 6).
Verse 1
1a 1When Yhwh your God brings you

1a to the land you are going over to occupy,

1b and He drives out great nations before

youthe Hittites, the Girgashites, the
Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the
Hivites, and the Jebusites,
1b seven nations
1b more numerous and mightier than you
The beginning of Deut. 7 presupposes a situation in which Yhwh is about

to bring Israel into the land of Canaan. What follows in the chapter assumes
the realization of this situation; Israel actually comes into the land. ( verse
1a) has a temporal, not a conditional meaning in this verse (cf. Deut. 6:10
61 Neis, Vernichtet werdet ihr, 3740.

12); Deut. 7 is not concerned with the question of if Israel will come into the
land, but rather with how it should act when it is there. The entire book of
Deuteronomy envisions Israel at the border of the land. Deuteronomy shows
how Israel can come into the land (or not); it describes the situation in the
land; and it indicates how Israel should live there. The significance of the land,
Yhwhs gift par excellence, is a theme that permeates the entire book.62
Israel comes into Canaan, because Yhwh brings Israel into it. The combina-
tion of the verbs and builds on the beginning of Deuteronomy, Yhwhs
command to enter the land (Deut. 1:8).63 The verb , which is often used in
this context, emphasizes that Israel has not always lived in the land. There is
no natural connection between Israel and Canaan.64 In the near future, how-
ever, Israel will enter the land to occupy it.65 In the book of Deuteronomy, the
verb ( verse 1a) is often connected with Yhwh, who brings into the land or
who gives the land (e.g., Deut. 1:8,39; 9:23; 11:31). The distinction between Yhwh,
who gives the land, and the Israelites, who occupy the land, has been compared
with the distinction in Babylonian sale contracts between the formal transfer-
ence (bereignung) and the actual occupancy (Besitzergreifung).66
In verses 12, Yhwh and Israel alternate as the subject. Yhwh brings into
the landIsrael is going over to occupy it; Yhwh drives out the nations and
gives them over to IsraelIsrael defeats them. This alternation shows that both
Yhwh and Israel are involved in the Landnahme. Yhwh, your God, and Israel
are focused on the same goal; however, Yhwhs action always comes first.67
Yhwh will drive out the nations before Israel, as is usually translated.
This translation may give the impression that Israel does not have to fight. Some
have argued, therefore, that verse 1 (Yhwh acts, expulsion) does not fit well
with verse 2 (Israel is called to act, destruction).68 As noted above, however,
Yhwhs and Israels actions are connected in these verses. As for the supposed
contrast between expulsion and destruction, the meaning of is not exactly
62 On this theme, see Peter Diepold, Israels Land, bwant 95 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972),
74104; Patrick D. Miller Jr., The Gift of God: The Deuteronomic Theology of the Land,
Interp. 23 (1969): 452462; Josef G. Plger, Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stil-
kritische Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium, bbb 26 (Bonn: Hanstein, 1967), 60100.
64 Cf. Horst Dietrich Preu, ThWAT 1:544547.
65 For this translation, see Norbert Lohfink, Die Bedeutungen von hebr. jr qal und hif, bz
27 (1983): 1925.
66 Norbert Lohfink, Die Schichten des Pentateuch und der Krieg, in Gewalt und Gewalt-
losigkeit im Alten Testament, ed. Norbert Lohfink, qd 96 (Freiburg: Herder, 1983), 7273.
67 Cf. Plger, Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen, 8384.
68 So Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden, 19.
38 chapter 2
clear. The verb is used seven times in the Old Testament. Twice, it refers to
taking off shoes (Exod. 3:5; Josh. 5:15), once to the head of an axe which slips
from the handle (Deut. 19:5), and once to an olive tree dropping off its fruit
(Deut. 28:40). Closer to Deut. 7 is 2Kgs 16:6, where Rezin is said to drive out
the Judeans from Elath (pi.). The text contains no further indication of what
happened to those Judeans. In Deut. 7:1,22, is used with nations as its object
and with the adjunct . Due to the small number of texts and the variety
of its use, it cannot be stated that does not fit the context of destruction.
Nor does the adjunct exclude a connotation of destruction; this adjunct
is also used with hif. (2Kgs 21:9).69
Over against Israel are the many and great nations of Canaan. The text
emphasizes the number of nations, their size, and their power, thus underlining
the distinction between Israel and the nations of Canaan. The theme of Israels
smallness and the greatness of the nations is further developed in verses 7,17
21.70 The emphasis on the nations greatness also confirms the power of Yhwh:
He apparently has the ability to drive out or to defeat those nations. The
emphasis on the greatness of the nations of Canaan (verses 1,7,17) may already
be a suggestion that this is not a normal war.
The nations inhabiting Canaan are then listed. In the excursus below, I will
examine this so-called list of the nations.
Excursus: Lists of the Nations
Deut. 7:1 contains an enumeration of seven nations living in the land

of Canaan. Several Old Testament texts contain similar lists of the pre-
Israelite population of Canaan. A number of lists qualify for a comparison
with Deut. 7:1.
The following criteria have been used to select these lists. First, it
should be a longer list; enumerations of two or three nations are not
69 Cf. Lohfink, Bedeutungen von hebr. jr, 3031. There is nothing in 2 Kgs 16:6 (the only text
with a Piel), that warrants the opinion of Martin Rose, 5. Mose, zbk (Zrich: Theologischer
Verlag, 1994), 2:331332, that designates the removal of something that came later, but
does not belong there.
70 According to some authors, each of the seven nations would be greater than Israel; so,
e.g., Niels Peter Lemche, The Canaanites and Their Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites,
jsot.s 110 (Sheffield: jsot Press, 1991), 83. The comment in verse 7, that Israel is the
smallest of all the nations, seems to confirm this interpretation. However, the point of
Deut. 7 is not to make statements about the size of the population of Canaan, but to
contrast Israel and the nations of Canaan.
table 1 Lists of nations in the Old Testament
Text Sequence of nations (mt)a Number of nations
Gen. 15:1921 ***15*3427 10

Exod. 3:8 413567 6
Exod. 3:17 413567 6
Exod. 13:5 41367 5
Exod. 23:23 315467 6
Exod. 33:2 431567 6
Exod. 34:11 341567 6
Deut. 7:1 1234567 7
Deut. 20:17 134567 6
Josh. 3:10 4165237 7
Josh. 9:1 134567 6
Josh. 12:8 134567 6
Josh. 24:11 3541267 7
Judg. 3:5 413567 6
1 Kgs 9:20 31567 5
2 Chr. 8:7 13567 5
Ezra 9:1 4157***3 8
Neh. 9:8 413572 6
a The following designations are used: 1Hittites; 2Girgashites;

3Amorites; 4Canaanites; 5Perizzites; 6Hivites; 7Jebusites;
*another nation.
included. Second, it should be an enumeration of nations; Gen. 10:15

18 and 1Chr. 1:1316, containing an enumeration which is presented as
a genealogy of persons, are not discussed. Geographical notes (Num.
13:29; Josh. 11:3) are excluded as well, because they contain more than
an enumeration of nations, and in those cases the selection of nations
might be determined by their localization. On the basis of these criteria,
eighteen lists remain that are comparable in size and nature (Table 1).
The seven nations mentioned in Deut. 7:1 occur in these lists with the
following frequency:
Hittites 18
Girgashites 5
Amorites 18
40 chapter 2
Canaanites 16
Perizzites 17
Hivites 15
Jebusites 18
In addition, some other nations are mentioned in the lists, which do not
occur in Deut. 7:1: Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Rephaim (Gen. 15:19
21), Ammonites, Moabites, and Egyptians (Ezra 9:1). The seven nations of
Deut. 7:1 occur with a remarkable consistency, except for the Girgashites;
the latter are mentioned multiple times, but significantly less often than
the other six. Only three times, however, all seven nations are mentioned
(Deut. 7:1; Josh. 3:10; 24:11).
As for the order of nations in the lists, the following observations
may be made. (1) Only two sequences occur more than once, both three
times: 4 1 3 5 6 7 (Exod. 3:8,17; Judg. 3:5) and 1 3 4 5 6 7 (Deut. 20:17;
Josh. 9:1; 12:8). Thus, in the eighteen lists of nations, fourteen different
sequences are used.71 (2) When both the Hivites and the Jebusites occur
in a list (fifteen times), they almost always stand, in this sequence, at the
end of the list (fourteen times). When also the Perizzites occur (four-
teen times), these three nations are usually at the end of the list, in the
sequence Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (eleven times). (3) It follows
that the Hittites, Amorites, and Canaanites are almost always at the begin-
ning of the lists. The Hittites are on the first or second position in most
cases (fourteen times). The position of the Girgashites in the list varies
greatly.
The fact that a fixed order is missing is also evident from the other
textual witnesses. sp in all cases adds those of the seven nations that
are missing from a list in mt, and relatively often uses the order 4 3 1 2
5 6 7 (Exod. 23:23,28; 33:2; 34:11; Deut. 20:17; five of the nine lists in the
Pentateuch). lxx almost always completes the lists in the Pentateuch
(the only exception is Exod. 33:2), but elsewhere in the Old Testament,
it does so significantly less often (it does in Josh. 9:1; 1 Kgs 9:20; not in
Josh. 12:8; Judg. 3:5; 2Chr. 8:7; Ezra 9:1; Neh. 9:8). s always follows mt in the
Pentateuch; only in Exod. 13:5, it adds the Perizzites at the end of the list.
In a Qumran citation of Deut. 20:17 (11qta lxii, 1415), all seven nations
71 In all texts mentioned above (apart from Gen. 15:1921), mt has a mnemonic device in the
Masorah parva for the sequence of the nations in the list. See S. Frensdorff, ed., Das Buch
Ochlah Wochlah (Massora) (Hannover: Hahn, 1864), 274, where also Exod. 23:28; Num.
13:29; Josh. 11:3 are mentioned.
are mentioned (in mt, the Girgashites are missing) in the order 1 3 4 6 7
2 5, a sequence that never occurs in mt. The order within the lists often
differs between mt, sp and lxx.72
These data suggest that there was a tradition about a number of nations
that lived in the land of Canaan before Israel. There is a distinction
between the nations that are mentioned first (possibly due to their size
or their power) and the nations that are mentioned last. It is not clear
whether there is a tradition of six nations or of seven nations, or two
traditions. On the one hand, the Girgashites are often missing; on the
other hand, they are mentioned remarkably often in comparison to other
nations outside the six. The only text that mentions a number is Deut. 7:1
(seven nations; cf. Acts 13:19).
Tomoo Ishida states that originally six nations belonged to the list;
the Girgashites were not one of them.73 Kevin G. OConnell, on the other
hand, believes that originally seven nations belonged to the list. Accord-
ing to him, names were more often omitted by haplography in mt than
in sp and lxx. The Girgashites would belong to the original list, because
otherwise it could not be explained why this nation is so often inserted
and other nations are not.74 Although the latter observation deserves con-
sideration, this view leaves open the question of why precisely the Gir-
gashites were so often omitted in mt, and why this never happened in
sp.75
The question is debated whether the lists of nations originally had
a fixed order, which other sequences were derived from. According to
Ishida, there is a development, for which the shift of the Hittites from
the third to the first position is decisive. The original sequence would
be 4 3 1 5 6 7 (at the time of Solomon). This sequence then developed
via 4 1 3 5 6 7 (probably still at the time of Solomon) to 1 3 4 5 6 7
(seventh century b.c.). In the first three positions, the sequences 3 4 1
(ninth century) and 3 1 4 (eighth century) are secondary adjustments.
Lists in late sources (Ezra, Neh., 2Chr.) would be variations to the pattern
72 For the lists in the Qumran texts of Exodus, see Hans Ausloos, The Septuagint Version of
Exod 23:2033: A Deuteronomist at Work?, jnwsl 22/2 (1996): 9296.
73 Tomoo Ishida, History and Historical Writing in Ancient Israel: Studies in Biblical Historiog-
raphy, shcane 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 1012.
74 Kevin G. OConnell, The List of Seven Peoples in Canaan: A Fresh Analysis, in The Answers
Lie Below, ed. Henry O. Thompson (New York: University Press of America, 1984), 221241.
75 For more criticism, see Ausloos, Septuagint Version, 9699.
42 chapter 2
4 1 3 5 6 7, which had achieved more or less a canonical status.76 Ishida

thus wants to connect the different sequences exactly to a certain period.
This is problematic, however, since he repeatedly has to add or to move
elements to achieve this. For example, the lists in late sources would be
variations to a certain pattern; the pattern itself, however, does not occur
in the late sources at all. Moreover, according to Ishida, a certain sequence
cannot be used as an argument for dating that list, because the sequence
4 1 3 5 6 7 had a more or less canonical status. However, this seems to
contradict the exact datings Ishida himself proposes, and evinces circular
reasoning.
According to OConnell, the tradition of the seven nations goes back to
the pre-monarchic period.77 Edwin C. Hostetter argues that the lists were
composed at the time of David or Solomon.78 Like Ishida, he believes that
the lists of nations can only have been composed after the country was
completely conquered.79 This important thesis, however, is not argued
for.
In conclusion, in the Old Testament there is a tradition (or possibly two

traditions) about six or seven nations living in the land of Canaan before
Israel. Because of the wide variety in order in the lists of nations and
because of the differences between mt, sp and lxx there is no reason to
assume a fixed order (whether or not originating from a final redaction),
from which other sequences derived.80
The number of seven nations and the other lists make clear that in
Deut. 7:1 the emphasis is on the totality of the pre-Israelite population
of Canaan.81 For the individual nations mentioned in Deut. 7:1 and the
question of how they may be connected with archaeological and textual
material from the Ancient Near East, see 4.1.
76 Ishida, History and Historical Writing, 836.

77 OConnell, List of Seven Peoples.
78 Hostetter, Nations Mightier and More Numerous, 135141.
79 Ibid., 136; Ishida, History and Historical Writing, 20.
80 Cf. Jrn Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes Ex 34, 1026: Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft und
Wirken in vordeuteronomischer Zeit, frlant 114 (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1975), 142146; Hostetter, Nations Mightier and More Numerous, 115127.
81 Cf. Joel N. Lohr, Chosen and Unchosen: Conceptions of Election in the Pentateuch and Jewish-
Christian Interpretation, Siphrut 2 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 166.
Verse 1 states the situation in which the command to exterminate the

Canaanites is to be executed. The command of verse 2b is put in a context, as
regards both time (from the time of the conquest of Canaan) and extent (the
seven peoples living in Canaan). The threat of the Canaanites only exists from
the time of the conquest of Canaan.82
Verse 2
2a 2and Yhwh your God gives them over to

you
2a and you defeat them,
2b you must utterly destroy them.
2b Make no covenant with them
and show them no mercy.
The beginning of verse 2 is a continuation of the protasis of verse 1. Yhwh

gives the nations over to Israel, so that Israel defeats them. The expression
indicates surrender, followed by a victory in war (cf. verses 16,23,24).83 The
expression that Israel defeats the nations ( hif.) does not necessarily imply
that the nations are killed (cf. Deut. 25:23,11). Given the following command,
however, this is what has to be done.
As for the apodosis of the temporal protasis of verse 1, almost all commentaries
contend it begins in verse 2b () : when Yhwh brings you to the
land and He drives out great nations and Yhwh gives them over to
you and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy them. However, a
linguistic justification of this choice is rarely given.84 The traditional grammars
82 Lothar Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament, wmant 36 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu-

kirchener Verlag, 1969), 57. Diepold, Israels Land, 9196 points out that Deuteronomy
shows the close relationship between the land (indicative) and the commands of Yhwh
(imperative) in various ways: by means of localization, by a temporal protasis, or by a final
or conditional apodosis.
83 Cf. Deut. 1:21; 2:31; 23:15; 1Kgs 8:46 = 2Chr. 6:36; Isa. 41:2. The formula that a god gives over
the enemies or gives them in the hand of a people, is common in the literature of the
Ancient Near East; see Sa-Moon Kang, Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient
Near East, bzaw 177 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1989), 4344, 67, 99.
84 See, e.g., Eduard Knig, Das Deuteronomium, kat (Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuch-
handlung Werner Scholl, 1917), 102; McConville, Deuteronomy, 147; Gerhard von Rad,
Das fnfte Buch Mose: Deuteronomium, atd (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964),
44 chapter 2
as well usually do not address the question of how it can be determined where
the apodosis begins, probably because until recently, little research has been
done into the text grammar of Biblical Hebrew.85 Below, I attempt to justify
linguistically the choice for the starting point of the apodosis.
It is likely that the beginning of the apodosis is linguistically marked.86 If a
temporal protasis has a yiqtol as its first verb, the apodosis often starts with
weqatal. However, it is also possible that weqatal continues the protasis; in
that case, the weqatal represents chronologically (and logically) successive
situations.87 The situations described in verses 12 with the weqatals
and may be viewed as a consequence of Yhwh bringing Israel into the
land. Therefore, the apodosis may start with or with . If the
apodosis starts with , that would be indicated by the change of subject. In
that case, the rest of the verse can be interpreted as an elaboration of this verb.
However, since the verb does not necessarily imply killing people, this is less
likely. It is more likely to let the apodosis start with . The following
arguments are in favour of this interpretation. First, this construction does not
fit grammatically in the preceding enumeration.88 Second, in terms of content
a new element is introduced; is the reverse of the preceding ;the
47; Steuernagel, Das Deuteronomium, 27; Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy, jpstc (Philadel-
phia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 85; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 111, 357. Only John
C. Maxwell, Deuteronomy, mot (Dallas: Word Books, 1987), 136 lets the apodosis start with
( then you must defeat them). lxx lets the apodosis start with ( then He will
drive out; cf. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy, 127); s lets it start with
( then you shall make no covenant with them): there the waw is missing in s, apart
from a few manuscripts of the fifth and sixth century, which both indicate the beginning
of the apodosis; cf. Peter J. Williams, Studies in the Syntax of the Peshitta of 1 Kings, mpil 12
(Leiden: Brill, 2001), 9394 (I wish to thank dr. W.Th. van Peursen for this reference). v
translates and with one expression, which is the beginning of the
apodosis. In the Targumim, it is not clear where the apodosis starts.
85 Eduard Knig, Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebude der hebrischen Sprache (Leipzig:
J.C. Hinrich, 18811897), ii/2, 415 explicitly addresses the question. His conclusion is
(415): Weil brigens im Hebrischen viele Nachstze unangezeigt sind und andere
durch das allgemeine und eingeleitet werden: so bleibt der Anfang des Nachsatzes oft
zweifelhaft.
86 Cf. Udo Rterswrden, Die Apodosis in den Rechtsstzen des Deuteronomiums,zah 15
16 (20022003): 124137, who investigates the starting point of the apodosis in the laws of
Deuteronomy.
87 Bruce K. Waltke and Michael Patrick OConnor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax
(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 527.
88 Inf.abs. with yiqtol; an inf.abs. never has a waw-apodosis, jm 176m.
command to destroy people (), however, goes much further. Third, the
Masoretic accentuation points in this direction, because the atna before
indicates a break.89
On the basis of linguistic arguments, therefore, it is likely that the apodosis
of the temporal clause starts with verse 2b. In Deuteronomy, various simi-
lar constructions occur; after a protasis with + yiqtol, the apodosis starts
with inf.abs. + yiqtol (Deut. 17:14), with imp. (Deut. 6:10; 12:29), or with +
yiqtol, followed by inf.abs. + yiqtol as a contrast (Deut. 7:17; 13:7; 15:7; 21:22;
23:22).90
Not only linguistically, but also in terms of content it is likely that the
apodosis starts in verse 2b. The focus of Deut. 7 is not primarily the promise
that Yhwh will drive out the Canaanites, but the command what Israel should
do, even though the work of Yhwh is the condition and the motivation for the
command to Israel.
When Yhwh gives over the nations of Canaan to Israel, and Israel achieves
victory, it should utterly destroy these nations (). Because the meaning
and background of the verb are controversial, and because this verb is
crucial for the understanding of Deut. 7, this verb deserves further investiga-
tion.
Excursus: Meaning and Function of
In this excursus,91 I will first investigate the meaning of the root in the
Old Testament (1). Then, I will examine in what context the root is used
( 2) and if there is a possible connection between and the so-called
89 Cf., e.g., 1Sam. 1:11; see Revell, The Accents, 72.

90 According to Jason S. DeRouchie, clauses are normally connected by the copula in
Biblical Hebrew. An asyndetic connection would indicate the beginning of a new section
or an explanation; only as the last option, an asyndetic connection should be interpreted
as coordination. See DeRouchie, Call to Covenant Love, 103132. If this thesis is correct, this
would be an additional indication that the apodosis starts in verse 2b. In that case, the
asyndetic connection in verse 2b may be interpreted as an explanation of verse 2b. The
interpretation that an asyndetic connection introduces an explanation also makes good
sense in verses 3b, 5a, 10b, 14, 16a, 18b, 22b, 24b, 25b, and 26b. The interpretation
that a more or less new section is introduced, is more likely for the beginning of verses 7,
21, and 25.
91 A shorter version of part of the excursus (1, 2, and part of 4) was published in Arie
Versluis, Devotion and/or Destruction? The Meaning and Function of in the Old
Testament, zaw 128 (2016): 233246.
46 chapter 2
holy war (3). Finally, possible parallels from the Ancient Near East are
discussed (4). After the excursus, I will examine what this investigation
yields for the meaning in Deut. 7:2. The etymology of has been suffi-
ciently discussed by other authors.92
The semantic research conducted here is done on the basis of only
those texts in which the root is used.93 If other texts are included
in the investigation, as some have done,94 the danger is that those texts,
selected on the basis of a certain interpretation of , bring in other
elements. Nevertheless, it is possible that in some texts the word is
not used, but the matter is discussed. An example is Josh. 10:3033, where
is not used; however, in the reference to these verses in Josh. 10:35, the
verb is used (cf. the reference to Jericho in verse 30, and the comment
that nobody survived in verse 33), which suggests a close connection with
. In an investigation of the semantic value of a word, however, texts in
which the word is not used should be left aside.
Some texts are controversial from a text-critical point of view. This
concerns in particular Isa. 11:15 and Jer. 25:9.95 Isa. 11:15 is the only text
where the object of the verb is a river. The context and the parallels used
in these texts fit the semantic domain of . Accordingly, for this study
it is less important which text-critical decision is made.
1 Meaning
In the Old Testament, the root occurs in two semantic domains: first,
the domain of destruction and devastation; second, the domain of the
92 See C.H.W. Brekelmans, De erem in het Oude Testament (Nijmegen: Centrale drukkerij,
1959), 1753; Lohfink, ThWAT 3:201202. The meaning of a word should not be determined
on the basis of its etymology or original form, but on the basis of its actual usage; cf.
James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962),
107110.
93 I restrict myself to what is usually called i. The words and with the meaning
net are usually attributed to ii.
94 E.g., according to Friedrich Schwally, Semitische Kriegsaltertmer 1: Der heilige Krieg im
alten Israel (Leipzig: Dieterichsche Verlagsbuchhandlung Theodor Weicher, 1901), 3031,
1Sam. 22:11 ff.; 2Kgs 7:12 and 2Chr. 25:1213 also deal with the rem, although the word is
not used.
95 For text-critical remarks concerning , see Lohfink, ThWAT 3:193195. As for Isa. 11:15:
Brekelmans, De erem, 119120; Stern, Biblical erem, 192 read ;the reading is
defended by G.R. Driver, Studies in the Vocabulary of the Old Testament iiiii, JThS
32 (1931): 251; Lohfink, ThWAT 3:194. As for Jer. 25:9: Lohfink, ThWAT 3:194 reads ;
Brekelmans, De erem, 122; Stern, Biblical erem, 198 read .
sacred.96 The verb ( hif./hof.) almost always denotes destruction.97

A few times, the noun is used in this semantic domain, namely in 1 Kgs
20:42; Isa. 34:5 (both times in a genitive phrase: the man/nation of Yhwhs
rem); Zech. 14:11; Mal. 3:24 (as the direct object of hif., which often
is a parallel of ).
The meaning of the verb is apparent from the verbs used in combina-
tion or in parallel with , which indicate the destruction of persons or
goods. The most common parallel of is .98 Other parallel expres-
sions (active or passive) are: ; 99 ;100 ; ; ;101
;102 ;103 ;104 ;105 ;106 ;107 ;108 .109 In the direct
context, mention is made of slain people, destruction of grain, mourning,
and total devastation.110 Sometimes a situation of war is explicitly envis-
96 For an investigation of the semantic domain of and related verbs, see also Angelo
Vivian, I campi lessicali della separazione nell Ebraico biblico, di Qumran e della Mishna:
ovvero, applicabilit della teoria dei campi lessicali all Ebraico, QuSem 4 (Florence: Istituto
di linguistica e di lingue orientali, 1978). Lohfink, ThWAT 3:197198, following Brekelmans,
De erem, 163165, distinguishes a third domain: punishment and the first command-
ment. There is a connection with these elements, but it is not necessary to identify a
separate domain. It would be difficult to define the distinction with the first semantic
domain; moreover, punishment and the first commandment are rather an occasion for
the rem, than the rem itself.
97 In two texts (Lev. 27:28; Josh. 6:18), this meaning is unlikely; in both cases, the verb is used
in a subordinate clause with the noun . In Josh. 6:18, the meaning is denominative
(to become rem oneself). In Lev. 27:28, the verb may be interpreted as to devote. In
the next verse, the same construction is used and the meaning to kill is evident. The
relationship between Lev. 27:28 and Lev. 27:29, however, is controversial. Therefore, not
too much should be derived from the meaning in verse 29.
98 Josh. 8:21,22; 10:40; Judg. 1:17; 1Sam. 15:3,7; 1Chr. 4:41; Isa. 11:15; Mal. 3:24. : Josh.
11:10. : Josh. 8:24; 10:28,35,37,39; 11:11,12; Judg. 21:10.
99 Exod. 22:17.
100 Hif.: 1Sam. 15:3; hof.: Exod. 22:18; Lev. 27:29.
101 Josh. 8:24. As for : cf. the Mesha Inscription, line 16 (see below, 4).
102 Josh. 11:20; 2Chr. 20:23; Dan. 11:44.
103 Josh. 11:21.
104 1Sam. 15:6.
105 1Sam. 15:18; 2Chr. 20:23.
106 2Kgs 19:12; Isa. 37:12. : 2Chr. 20:23.
107 Isa. 34:2,6; Jer. 50:27.
108 Mic. 4:13.
109 Noun: Isa. 34:5; verb: Jer. 50:21,27.
110 Isa. 34:2; Jer. 25:9; 50:26; 51:4.
48 chapter 2
aged.111 A few times, the verb itself has the adjunct .112 The
meaning to destroy, to exterminate is confirmed by expressions used in
contrast to , which denote sparing or delivering people: ;113 ;114
; 115 ;116 ;117 ;118 ;119 .120
Almost always the (intended) destruction is executed by human
beings; only a few times, Yhwh is the subject of the verb.121 When the verb
has a human subject, this is never an individual, but always the whole peo-
ple of Israel.122 The object of the verb likewise mainly concerns human
beings.123 The extent of the destruction differs: usually it concerns all peo-
ple, but in Judg. 21:11 the virgins are spared. In addition to the people,
sometimes also the cattle or goods are destroyed. A few times, everything
that has to be destroyed is listed.124
111 : Deut. 2:32; 3:1; Josh. 11:19; Jer. 50:22. : Num. 21:1; 1 Sam. 15:18. Towns are captured
(: Deut. 2:34; 3:4; Josh. 6:20; 8:21; 10:1,28,35,37,39; 11:10,12), booty is taken (Deut. 2:35; 3:7;
Josh. 8:27) or burnt (Deut. 13:17; Josh. 6:24; 7:15; 8:28; 11:11), land is taken possession of (Deut.
3:8; Judg. 1:19; 1Chr. 4:41). According to Lohfink, ThWAT 3:199, when cities are taken, is
always mentioned as the last element, possibly as a summary. This needs to be qualified
thus that is always before ( in Josh. 10:40, it is both before and after), and what
happens with the booty is always mentioned after .
112 Deut 13:16; Josh. 6:21; 1Sam. 15:8.
113 Hif.: Josh. 2:13 ( ;)2Kgs 19:11,12; 2Chr. 32:13,14,15; Isa. 37:11,12.
114 Qal: Josh. 6:17; hif.: Josh. 2:13; 6:25.
115 Josh. 2:12.
116 Josh. 11:20.
117 1Sam. 15:3,9,15; Jer. 51:3.
118 Nif.: 1Kgs 9:20,21.
119 Pi.: 1Kgs 20:42.
120 Zech. 14:11.
121 Yhwh seems to the subject only in Isa. 11:15; 34:2; Jer. 25:9. Cf. Johan Lust, Isaiah 34 and
the erem, in The Book of Isaiah / Le Livre dIsae: Les oracles et leur relectures; Unit et
complexit de louvrage, ed. Jacques Vermeylen, BEThL 81 (Leuven: University Press, 1989),
285. However, two of these texts are controversial from a text-critical point of view (see
p. 46 n. 95 above).
122 Johann Dller, Der Bann (erem) im Alten Testament und im spteren Judentum, ZKTh
37 (1913): 7.
123 Sometimes cities are the object (Num. 21:2; Josh. 11:12,20,21); sometimes cattle are also
mentioned (Deut. 13:16; Josh. 6:21; 1Sam. 15:3,9). When the expression is used,
this probably excludes cattle; see T.C. Mitchell, The Old Testament Usage of Nem, vt
11 (1961): 177187. Only in Ezra 10:8; Mic. 4:13 (possessions); Isa. 11:15 (the tongue of the sea),
the object is not a person or an animal.
124 Deut. 2:34; 3:6; Josh. 6:21; 1Sam. 15:3.
In conclusion, the verb almost always belongs to the semantic

domain of destruction in the Old Testament (the exceptions are Lev.
27:28; Josh. 6:18); with the noun, this is the case only a few times.125 The
destruction means that goods are burnt, and animals and human beings
are killed.
The second semantic domain where the root occurs is the domain of
the sacred. In this domain, almost exclusively the noun is used (for the
verb in Lev. 27:28; Josh. 6:18, see above). In this semantic domain,
indicates a quality, a certain religious status of objects and persons.126
It may be considered as one of the categories by which objects or persons
were classified in the culture of ancient Israel.127
should be considered as a separate category, which does not coin-
cide with other ways of classification, like purity ( )or holiness ().
does not coincide with the category of holiness. On the one hand, it
can be used as the opposite of , parallel to ( Isa. 43:28) or
(Deut. 7:25,26). The object in question is to be abhorred and detested
(, ). One should not covet, take or possess something that is
.128 That would be unfaithfulness, a sin, breaking the covenant and
an outrageous thing.129 To become holy again, Israel should take away the
rem from among them, because Yhwh and the rem are irreconcil-
able (Josh. 7:1213). In Lev. 27, and are contrasted in a different
situation. Possessions that are consecrated ( hif.) to Yhwh, may be
redeemed, but something that is banned ( hif.) may not (Lev. 27:22
29).130 On the other hand, may belong to the sacred and denote some-
thing that is for Yhwh. This is said, for example, of the offerings that are
125 Cf. Lohfink, ThWAT 3:198199. The same applies to Ben Sira and the Hebrew texts from
Qumran; see dch s.v. ;F. Zanella in Theologisches Wrterbuch zu den Qumrantexten,
eds. Heinz-Josef Fabry and Ulrich Dahmen (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011), 1:10681071.
The toponym Hormah ( ) occurs a few times along with the verb , meaning to
destroy, to exterminate; in these cases, the verb seems to be an etiology for the toponym
(Num. 21:3; Judg. 1:17; cf. Num. 14:45; Deut. 1:44).
126 Cf. Brekelmans, that 1:636.
127 Richard D. Nelson, Raising Up a Faithful Priest: Community and Priesthood in Biblical
Theology (Louisville: Westminster, 1993), 1738 calls it the culture map.
128 Covet: Deut. 7:25; take: Deut. 7:25; Josh. 7:1,11; 1Sam. 15:21; possess: Deut. 7:26; 13:18.
129 Josh. 7:1,11,15; 22:20; 1Chr. 2:7.
130 : Lev. 27:20,28; : Lev. 27:28; : Lev. 27:29. Cf. K. Lawson Younger Jr., Judges and
Ruth, nivac (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 28.
50 chapter 2
the priests.131 In Lev. 27, likewise, something that is is compared with

things that are holy or most holy.132 This shows that is not always
opposite to , as some have stated.133 Sometimes, this is the case (Josh.
7:13), but in other contexts these categories overlap (Lev. 27:21,28; Josh.
6:19).
does not coincide with (im)purity either.134 They correspond in
the fact that both are contagious; whoever takes of the rem of Jericho,
becomes himself, as well as all the camp of Israel (Josh. 6:18). How-
ever, this is not caused by touching something (as is the case with impu-
rity), but by possessing it; when Achans booty is taken to be destroyed,
there is no pollution.135
In the domain of the sacred, is a concept that classifies objects
or persons. It should be considered as a specific way of classifying the
world, which partly overlaps with , partly with its opposite.136
131 Lev. 27:21; Num. 18:14; Ezek. 44:29.

132 : Lev. 27:21; Josh. 6:19; : Lev. 27:28. In Lev. 27, it is first stated that a field that
is holy to Yhwh, is as ( )a field which is ( Lev. 27:21); then, it is said that everything
that is , is most holy to Yhwh (without a comparison).
133 Norman H. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (London: Epworth,
1945), 33: One gods qodesh was another gods cherem; Lohfink, ThWAT 3:197: Das Heilige
ist also eine Art Gegenspre zum erm.
134 The rem is connected with (im)purity by Allan Bornap, El Problema del en el
Pentateuco y su Dimensin Ritual, dl 4 (2005): 116. He considers the destruction of cult
objects (verse 5) as ritual cleansing. According to him, both the destruction of people and
cult objects is about (im)purity.
135 Joel S. Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible, jsot.s 196 (Sheffield: Shef-
field Academic Press, 1995), 8687; Richard D. Nelson, erem and the Deuteronomic
Social Conscience, in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature, ed. Marc Vervenne and
Johan Lust, BEThL 133 (Leuven: University Press, 1997), 46.
136 Cf. Brekelmans, De erem, 160; Nelson, erem, 53 (with n. 50). Douglas S. Earl, Reading
Joshua as Christian Scripture, jti.s 2 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 9697 makes a
distinction between the deuteronomistic and the priestly concept of the rem. According
to him, in deuteronomistic texts the rem is considered as something horrible, in priestly
texts as holy. However, this distinction does not apply to some texts (Josh. 6:19,24). Earl
views these texts as priestly insertions. Hyung Dae Park, Finding Herem? A Study of Luke-
Acts in the Light of Herem, lnts 357 (London: t&t Clark, 2007), 752 distinguishes between
the rem executed at the command of Yhwh (mandatory), at the initiative of Israel
(voluntary) and by other people (pagan). The voluntary rem would be holy to Yhwh,
the mandatory rem would be abhorrent to Yhwh (Ibid., 15). However, this distinction
does not always apply (cf., e.g., Josh. 6:19) and sometimes leads to forced interpretations.
Park too much assumes a concept of , which he finds not only in the Old Testament,
but also in Luke and Acts. However, his method to investigate the concept in other
Something that is is separated from normal use, removed from

human decision.137
When one looks for common elements in the varied use of the root ,
the notion of separation may be useful.138 This can be interpreted as sep-
aration from society by devotion to the sanctuary, on the one hand, and as
separation from Israel in such a radical way that it means extermination
of people, on the other. A separation is made between the good and the
evil.139
A second common element is the emphasis on the radical nature and
the totality of .140 In the direct context, the word occurs remark-
ably often.141 Other expressions indicating the comprehensive nature are:
nobody survived,142 nothing that breathes remained alive,143 no one
escaped,144 and nothing was left.145
The formerly common translation with ban is nowadays unfortunate,
because it suggests a connection with excommunication.146 In the Old
languages than Hebrew (Ibid., 53169), is questionable, as he also uses words which rarely
occur as a translation of .
137 Therefore, the cattle of Amalek that are not killed (1 Sam. 15), cannot be brought as a
sacrifice: they no longer belong to Israel; Nelson, erem, 48.
138 Cf. A. Fernndez, El erem biblico,Bib. 5 (1924): 79; Nelson, erem, 44; Lohfink, ThWAT
3:201. The same for all Semitic texts with the root rm: Stern, Biblical erem, 16. So already
Iodad de Merw, Commentaire sur lAncien Testament ii: ExodeDeutronome, ed. Ceslas
Van Den Eynde, csco.s 80 (Leuven: Secrtariat du corpusSCO, 1958), 119 (translation
csco.s 81:160), who points out that has two nuances: approach and expulsion, which
come together in the conception of ( separation, division).
139 This is about separation from (Israel), not separation or devotion to (Yhwh), see below.
140 Cf. Lohfink, ThWAT 3:199: Jedenfalls scheint das Element des Radikalen, Vollstndigen,
Grndlichen im Vordergrund zu stehen, nicht der Gedanke an Ttung aufgrund einer
vorangehenden Weihung.
141 Nelson, erem, 47. Cf. the Mesha Inscription, line 16: [], followed by an enumeration.
142 : Deut. 2:34; Josh. 10:28,37,39,40; : Deut. 3:3; Josh.
8:22 (followed by: ).
143 : Deut. 20:16; : Josh. 10:40; : Josh.
11:11; : Josh. 11:22.
144 : 2Chr. 20:24.
145 : Jer. 50:26.
146 tj on Deut. 7:2, however, uses the translation , an expression which was used in
Talmudic times for the so-called great ban; Dller, Der Bann, 13. Cf. the article in tre
(Peter Welten et al., Bann, in tre 5:159190), which treats both the rem in the Old
Testament and excommunication in church history.
52 chapter 2
Testament, the noun is never used in that sense, and the meaning of the
verb is more radical. The only text that could be compared with excom-
munication, is Ezra 10:8; however, the object of concerns property;
concerning the people another verb is used ( nif.).
Thus, the meaning of the verb almost always belongs to the semantic
domain of destruction and devastation; the noun belongs to the domain
of the sacred, indicating a certain sacral status of persons or objects.
Both semantic domains occur together only in a few places (Josh. 6;
1Sam. 15). In those cases, a city or a people are for Yhwh (Josh.
6:17; 1Sam. 15:21); therefore, people are exterminated and (part of) the
booty is spared for Yhwh. Outside these chapters, however, it is not
easy to connect both semantic domains. When is used as a quality,
destruction is not always at stake, for example in the prescription that all
rem in Israel is for the priests. In the domain of destruction, the notion
of a certain quality of objects or persons seems not to be (explicitly)
present.
Therefore, it is problematic to interpret the verb as to devote to
destruction, as is often done.147 It is supposed then that the destruction of
people is (the result of) a dedication to the deity.148 In some wars, the best
of the spoils, especially the prisoners of war, would be for the deity.149 The
meaning to consecrate is clear in some texts (Lev. 27:28,29), but the idea
that people are dedicated to the deity and are accordingly exterminated
seems problematic in many other.
In particular texts using the verb in a context of war contain no indica-
tion for the interpretation mentioned, apart from the assumed meaning
of . The destruction of people is never used in combination with verbs
indicating consecration (, for example). A dedication of people to the
deity by means of a vow is recorded only once (Num. 21:23).150 Moreover,
147 E.g. Stern, Biblical erem, 1: is consecration-to-destruction, consecration-through-

destruction or destruction through consecration. It deserves further investigation if the
interpretation as consecration to the deity may have its origin in the theory of a holy war
(see 3 below).
148 So, e.g., Dller, Der Bann, 4.
149 Nelson, erem, 46; Gerhard von Rad, Der Heilige Krieg im alten Israel (Gttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 1952), 13.
150 There is no reason to assume a vow in other situations as well, as Brekelmans, De erem,
160 does.
in the context of destruction never has the complement ;151 this

is a contrast to the Mesha Inscription (line 17: ; see
below, 4).152
The idea that what is is the best part, which belongs to Yhwh, does
not apply to a number of texts. In Deut. 7:2526, what is is abhorrent
to Yhwh () . is a negative concept: that which does not
belong to Yhwh, but is radically opposed to Him (cf. Josh. 7:1213).153
A few times, the verb is also used for destruction by other nations, even
among each other, so with a clear non-religious connotation from the
perspective of Israel.154 This may be explained, however, by assuming a
development of the meaning of , in which this non-religious use is of
a later date. On the basis of these arguments, the thesis that the verb
always implies consecration to the deity is untenable.155
According to Philip D. Stern, intends to restore the cosmic order.156
However, this interpretation reads too much of a cosmic battle in the
texts. The element of consecration has already been rejected above. More-
over, in most of the texts there is no cosmic struggle; for example, con-
151 This complement is found only in Lev. 27:28, which is not about a situation of war, and in
Mic. 4:13, which is not about war either and where the object refers not to persons, but to
goods.
152 Brekelmans, De erem, 51; ONeill, Biblical Truth and the Morality of rem, 129. Cf. Lauren
A.S. Monroe, Israelite, Moabite and Sabaean War-rem Traditions and the Forging of
National Identity: Reconsidering the Sabaean Text res 3945 in Light of Biblical and
Moabite Evidence, vt 57 (2007): 333335, who refers to a Sabaean text which has, parallel
to rm (so with another verb), the complement llmqh wlsb (Almaqah was the moon god,
the national god of Sab).
153 The only text in the Old Testament that mentions the best in connection with the rem,
is 1Sam. 15:21. In the light of the theory discussed here, it is ironic that precisely this gift is
rejected by Yhwh.
154 2Kgs 19:11; 2Chr. 20:23; 32:14; Isa. 37:11; Dan. 11:44.
155 On the basis of an etymology, G.R. Driver, Hebrew Homonyms, in Hebrische Wort-
forschung, ed. Benedikt Hartmann et al., vt.s 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 5659 makes a dis-
tinction between extermination with and without a religious connotation. However, as
for the Old Testament this distinction is artificial; see Lohfink, ThWAT 3:202.
156 Stern, Biblical erem, 119: is the perfect verb to indicate the human action of building
of the world, because combines the notions of destruction (of chaos) and conse-
cration (of the world) at once; reenactment of creation (Ibid., 219). This interpretation
is followed by Carly L. Crouch, War and Ethics in the Ancient Near East: Military Violence
in Light of Cosmology and History, bzaw 407 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009), 174189,
who considers this as a correspondence with the cosmology and the ideology of Assyrian
texts.
54 chapter 2
cerning the fight against Amalek (1Sam. 15), the cosmic element is found
in Exod. 15, although the root is not used in the description of the
battle against Amalek in Exod. 17.
In conclusion, the root is used in two semantic domains in the Old

Testament: the domain of destruction and devastation, and the domain
of the sacred. The root has the following characteristics: the notion
of separation (sometimes destruction, sometimes dedication), and the
totality or radicalness of this separation. In contexts of war, the verb indi-
cates total destruction or extermination of people. The usual interpreta-
tion of the verb as consecration to destruction is problematic, since the
verb is never combined with verbs indicating dedication or with the com-
plement .157
2 Use
Next, it should be scrutinized when the root is used in the Old
Testament, and when it is not. In the description of many wars, the root
is not used at all. On closer examination, the distribution seems not
coincidental. As for the books of Genesis to Kings, the root seems to
be used almost exclusively for the conquest of Canaan and the associated
elimination of the indigenous population.158
A first indication that is used specifically for the nations of Canaan,
is the distinction made in Deut. 20:1018 between the battle of Israel with
the nations of Canaan and with other nations. The verb is used to
describe the battle with the nations of Canaan, but not concerning the
other nations, whereas their extermination is also mentioned. Although
there is a difference in the extent of the destructionas for the Canaanite
cities, Israel should not let anything that breathes remain alive; as for the
other nations, only the male population should be killed, the use of
is remarkable (for Deut. 20:1018, see 3.2.3.1).
157 For the rem in the Judaism of the Second Temple period, see Christophe Batsch, La
guerre et les rites de guerre dans le judasme du deuxime Temple, jsj.s 93 (Leiden: Brill,
2005), 408446. According to him, the war rem is never viewed as a sacrifice in the
Judaism of that time.
158 As far as I know, this connection has not been previously demonstrated. A suggestion in
this direction is made by Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Tes-
tament God (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011), 174; Wietske Klazina van der Molen, Een
ban om te mijden: Bouwstenen voor een bijbels-theologische verkenning (Rijksuniver-
siteit Groningen, 2008), 220221.
In many cases, is used to describe the battles against the resident

peoples during the conquest of Cisjordan.159 The possessions of these
nations are also subject to the rem.160 At an earlier moment, Israel is
recorded to fight against the king of Arad, in the south of Canaan. It is
noteworthy that this king is referred to only once as the king of Arad,
and twice, and first, as the Canaanite (Num. 21:1,3).
Concerning the conquest of Transjordan, there is a difference between
the books of Numbers and Deuteronomy. In the description of the battle
with King Sihon and Og in Num. 21:2135, the root is not used, while
it is used in Deuteronomy.161 This may be related to a different view on
the extent of the land promised to Israel. According to Deuteronomy,
Transjordan is part of the land; the battle with Sihon is interpreted as the
beginning of the conquest of the land (Deut. 2:24,30b31); this element
is missing in Num. 21. In Num. 21, only the land west of the river Jordan
is viewed as the promised land; in the narrative of Numbers, it becomes
clear only in Num. 32 that Israel may also live in Transjordan. This may
explain why the root is not used in Num. 21, while it is used in Deut.
23.162
In Exodus and Deuteronomy, Israel is commanded to exterminate
Amalek (Exod. 17:1416; Deut. 25:1719), but the word is not used in
this connection. In 1Sam. 15, however, the root is used with regard to
159 Deut. 20:17; Josh. 6:21; 8:26; 10:1,28,35,37,39,40; 11:11,12,20,21; Judg. 1:17; cf. 1 Chr. 4:41. In 1 Kgs
9:21, there is a reference to this (uncompleted) struggle.
160 Deut. 7:26; Josh. 6:17,18; 7:1,1113,15; 22:20.
161 Deut. 2:34; 3:6; cf. Josh. 2:10.
162 This could also explain why a reference to the promise to the fathers is missing in the
call to occupy Transjordan (Deut. 2:24,31; 3:2); cf. Neis, Vernichtet werdet ihr, 181. How-
ever, in Deut. 34:14 Transjordan is reckoned to the land Yhwh promised to the fathers.
For the status of Transjordan, see Moshe Weinfeld, The Extent of the Promised Land
the Status of Transjordan, in Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit: Jerusalem-Symposium 1981
der Hebrischen Universitt und der Georg-August-Universitt, ed. Georg Strecker, gta 25
(Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 5975; Moshe Weinfeld, The Promise of the
Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites, tljs (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1993), 5275 (6975). Cf. David Jobling, The Jordan a Boundary:
Transjordan in Israels Ideological Geography, in The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Structural
Analyses in the Hebrew Bible, jsot.s 39 (Sheffield: jsot Press, 1986), 2:88134. In extra-
biblical material too, the status of Transjordan is sometimes ambiguous; see Koert van
Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence: Ideology and Antiquarian Intent in the Historiog-
raphy of Israels Settlement in Canaan, chane 45 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 202205. See also
3.2.2.
56 chapter 2
Amalek. This may be explained by the fact that Amaleks dwelling place
is situated in the land of Canaan in Genesis to Kings.163 Still, this does not
explain why the word is not used in Deuteronomy. Although Amalek is
distinguished from the nations of Canaan in Deuteronomy, the requested
treatment is rather similar. The motive for the extermination of Amalek
is different from the motive for the extermination of the Canaanites (for
the position of Amalek, cf. 3.2.2).164
The verb is also used with Israel as its object, when it falls into
the same sins and serves the same gods as the nations of Canaan, so
when Israel becomes Canaanite itself. Deut. 13:16 prescribes that an
Israelite city willing to serve other gods should be totally destroyed and
burnt down (the booty is also rem, Deut. 13:18). The same sanction is
applied to Jabesh in Gilead, when the inhabitants do not show up in an
assembly (Judg. 21:11). It is not entirely clear why this sanction is applied.
A possible explanation is that by its absence, Jabesh associates itself
with Gibeah; for this reason, almost all the Benjaminites were already
destroyed (Judg. 20). The word is not used in that chapter, but the
emphasis on (almost) total destruction and the expression seem
to refer to Deut. 13 (: Deut. 13:17). However, it is also possible that the
extermination in Judg. 21 is intended as an illegitimate application of the
rem, and thus as an illustration of the religious and moral decline of
Israel.165
In Exod. 22:19, a legal text, an individual is the object of the verb

() . At first sight, there does not seem to be a link with the
nations of Canaan. It should be noticed, however, that the three inter-
related prescriptions of Exod. 22:1719 seem to warn against specifically
Canaanite practices.166
163 Num. 13:29; 14:25; 1Sam. 27:8; cf. 1Chr. 4:43.

164 Csilla Saysell, According to the Law: Reading Ezra 910 as Christian Scripture, jti.s 4
(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 64 suggests that the verb was gradually extended to
other enemies of Israel.
165 In the book of Judges, the root is used only in the first and last chapter (Judg. 1:17; 21:11).
The contrast between these two texts is remarkable and ironic: Israel should exterminate
the nations of Canaan and should not intermarry with them; the former, however, is
neglected, while the latter is done. At the end of the book, this leads to a prohibition
on marriage within Israel itself and the almost total destruction of a tribe of Israel. See
Younger, Judges and Ruth, 2930, 380381.
166 For the interrelatedness of these prescriptions, see below pp. 7172.
In Exod. 22:17, it is commanded not to let a live. The root

is used in connection with forms of divination and magical practices.167
These practices should not exist in Israel; they are attributed to Egypt
(Exod. 7:11) and Mesopotamia (Isa. 47:9,12; Dan. 2:2; Nah. 3:4), but also
to Canaan (Deut. 18:912: the of these nations).168 Although an
explicit reference is missing in Exod. 22:17, in the context of the Penta-
teuch divination and sorcery are viewed as characteristic of the nations
living in Canaan, among others.
The interpretation of Exod. 22:17 as sorceress or magician is disputed
by Cees Houtman. He gives two arguments: first, sorcery was not typically
feminine; second, sometimes the verb is linked with committing for-
nication ( ;2Kgs 9:22; Isa. 47:9; Nah. 3:4). According to Houtman, Exod.
22:17 is about a woman who is irresistible and seduces into fornication.169
Against Houtmans interpretation, however, the following objections can
be raised. First, a number of recent studies have demonstrated that in
the Ancient Near East sorcery was attributed much more often to women
than to men.170 Second, sometimes is indeed used parallel to , but
the latter root is often used in a metaphorical sense (being unfaithful to
Yhwh; see, e.g., Lev. 20:6).171
167 Cf. the parallels: ( Exod. 7:11; Dan. 2:2); ( Deut. 18:10,14; Jer. 27:9); ( Deut.
18:10,14; Jer. 27:9; Mic. 5:11); ( Deut. 18:10); ( Deut. 18:11; Isa. 47:9,12);
(Deut. 18:11); ( Deut. 18:11); ( Dan. 2:2);
(Isa. 47:13); ( 2Kgs 9:22; Nah. 3:4). lxx always translates with . In Exod.
22:17, s has ( magician, sorcerer). For the other Versions, see Cornelis Houtman,
Exodus, hcot (Kampen: Kok and Leuven: Peeters, 19932002), 3:211. For the semantic
domain, see G. Andr, ThWAT 4:375381; Rdiger Schmitt, Magie im Alten Testament,
aoat 313 (Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2004), 107122.
168 Andr, ThWAT 4:379.
169 Houtman, Exodus, 3:211212.
170 See the references in Yitschak Sefati and Jacob Klein, The Law of the Sorceress (Exodus
22:17[18]) in the Light of Biblical and Mesopotamian Parallels, in Sefer Moshe: Studies in
the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism, ed. Chaim Cohen,
Avi Hurvitz, and Shalom M. Paul (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 171190; Schmitt,
Magie im Alten Testament, 338339: [N]ach gemeinvorderorientalischer Vorstellung [ist]
eine bse zauberische Person oftmals eine Frau. For this view in rabbinic literature and
in later Jewish commentaries, see, e.g., the comment on Exod. 22:17 in b. Sanh. 67a; Sefati
and Klein, Law of the Sorceress, 176177 n. 18.
171 As for 2Kgs 9:22 also, this interpretation may be more likely than physical adultery, which
is never mentioned in connection to Jezebel. Cf. Schmitt, Magie im Alten Testament, 374
376.
58 chapter 2
Exod. 22:18 demands death for whoever has intercourse with an animal.
Elsewhere, bestiality is also forbidden (Lev. 18:23; 20:15; Deut. 27:21). In
the context of the Pentateuch, this practice is also associated with the
nations of Canaan (Lev. 18:3,24,27; 20:23; see 3.4.4.3).172 The same applies
to sacrificing to other gods, which is prohibited in Exod. 22:19 (Exod. 34:15,
where the verb is also used).
In Exod. 22:1719, an explicit link with the nations of Canaan is missing.
Elsewhere in the Pentateuch, however, the sins mentioned are described
as the practices of the Canaanites.173 On that level, it can be stated that
Exod. 22:19 matches with the use of specifically for the nations of
Canaan.
The only text in Genesis to Kings where is not used in connection

with the nations of Canaan (or Amalek), is 2 Kgs 19:11. In that text, the
Assyrian Rabshakeh says to Hezekiah that the Assyrian kings have utterly
destroyed ( hif.) all lands. In this text, however, both the subject of
the verb and the speaker are non-Israelites.174 Some texts in Leviticus
and Numbers are independent of the context of war; they deal with the
voluntary dedication of possessions (Lev. 27:21,28,29; Num. 18:14). As for
the other books of the Old Testament (in particular the prophets), the
restriction of the use of to the population of Canaan does not apply.
This might be explained by a development in the use of or by a final
redaction of Genesis to Kings.175
172 It is less important whether one wants to connect it with the religion of the Canaanites. It
has been linked with a fertility cult, but according to Schmitt, Magie im Alten Testament,
356, there are no indications for this in the Umwelt.
173 Ludger Schwienhorst-Schnberger, Das Bundesbuch (Ex 20,2223,33): Studien zu seiner
Entstehung und Theologie, bzaw 188 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1990), 316330 alludes to
this, but he does not elaborate on it.
174 It is ironic that, according to the rest of 2Kgs 19, Sennacherib cannot execute this destruc-
tion to Israel; Mark Fretz, Herem in the Old Testament: A Critical Reading, in Essays
on War and Peace: Bible and Early Church, ed. Willard M. Swartley, Occasional Papers 9
(Elkhart: Institute of Mennonite Studies, 1986), 26.
175 Also Monroe, Israelite, Moabite and Sabaean War-rem Traditions sees a connection
between and the land. She states that the rem in Israel, Moab and Sab presents
itself first and foremost as a political assertion of the inviolable relationship between a
conquering nation on its newly acquired land and the god from whom that land was
granted. (Ibid., 321) It should be noted that, at least in Deuteronomy, the relationship
between the nation and the land is not inseparable, and that the relationship with Yhwh
is primary.
In conclusion, in Genesis to Kings the root is used almost exclusively

in connection with the conquest of the land of Canaan and the associated
elimination of (the practices of) the nations of Canaan.
3 and Holy War

Several authors have argued that is connected to the so-called holy
war. After earlier publications of Friedrich Schwally in particular,176 this
theory gained influence in Old Testament studies especially by the work
of Gerhard von Rad.177
Von Rad argued that the holy war was a sacral institution of ancient
Israel. In theory, the holy war proceeded according to a fixed pattern.
The people were called for battle by the blowing of the shofar. Before the
battle, sacrifices and the Gottesbefragung took place. In response to this,
it was declared that Yhwh had given the enemies over to Israel. Yhwh
went before the army; as a consequence, the enemies lost courage. Israel
did not have to fear, but should only believe. The actual battle started with
Kriegsgeschrei. Yhwh intervened by confounding the enemy. The climax
and conclusion of the battle was the ban, the dedication of the booty to
Yhwh. Finally, the army was dismissed.178
As the climax of the holy war, the rem has an important place in Von
Rads reconstruction. Various elements from Deut. 7 correspond with the
proposed scheme: the call to destroy the nations of Canaan (verse 2), the
call not to fear the nations (verses 18,21), the promise that Yhwh will fight
for Israel (verses 12a,1921,24) and that He will throw the enemies into
confusion (verse 23), and the call not to appropriate that which is rem
(verses 2526). Von Rad even considers Deut. 7:1726 as an Ansprache
176 Schwally, Semitische Kriegsaltertmer. Schwally coined the term holy war; before him,
this term was not used in describing warfare in Ancient Israel; cf. Batsch, La guerre et les
rites de guerre, 2426.
177 Von Rad, Der Heilige Krieg im alten Israel. For the predecessors of Von Rad, for the place of
the theory of holy war in Von Rads own work, and for criticism of his thesis, see the histor-
ical overview of Ben C. Ollenburger, Introduction: Gerhard von Rads Theory of Holy War,
in Holy War in Ancient Israel, by Gerhard von Rad, trans. M.J. Dawn (Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 1991), 133. For a recent overview of the Forschungsgeschichte, see Rdiger Schmitt,
Der Heilige Krieg im Pentateuch und im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk: Studien zur
Forschungs-, Rezeptions- und Religionsgeschichte von Krieg und Bann im Alten Testament,
aoat 381 (Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2011), 150; Charles Trimm, Recent Research on Warfare
in the Old Testament, cbr 10 (2012): 171216.
178 Von Rad, Der Heilige Krieg im alten Israel, 614.
60 chapter 2
im heiligen Krieg.179 The fact that other elements are not mentioned
could be explained by the fact that Deut. 7 is not a description, but a
command.
However, Von Rads theory has been criticized from various sides. First,
the criticism concerns the term holy war. This expression does not occur
in the Old Testament, but is of Greek origin.180 Accordingly, other authors
use the terms Yahweh war or divine war. Second, one of the pillars of
Von Rads theory, the connection of the holy war with the amphictyony,
has collapsed, because the existence of the latter institution has become
highly controversial.181 Third, it is controversial whether it is possible to
distinguish between a holy war and other, profane wars in ancient Israel
and the Ancient Near East.182 Since such a distinction seems to be invalid,
this raises the question of the explanatory function of the theory of the
holy war. Moreover, the question remains why in so many texts about
wars the rem is not mentioned at all. Fourth, it has been demonstrated
that the ideology of war in the Old Testament has much more connections
with the Ancient Near East than Von Rad states. This is also the case with
various elements of Deut. 7 referred to above (see the exegesis of these
texts). Finally, Von Rad connects many elements from the war, but these
elements never occur together; Von Rad does not demonstrate that these
elements were connected in ancient Israel.183
For these reasons, it is highly controversial whether an institution of
holy war ever existed.184 In any case, it is clear that in the Old Testament
179 Ibid., 74.

180 Albert de Pury, La guerre sainte isralite: ralit historique ou fiction littraire? Ltat des
recherches sur un thme de lAncien Testament, etr 56 (1981): 67.
181 This criticism already in Rudolf Smend, Jahwekrieg und Stmmebund: Erwgungen zur
ltesten Geschichte Israels, frlant 84 (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963); Fritz
Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege: Kriegstheorien und Kriegserfahrungen im Glauben des
alten Israels, AThANT 60 (Zrich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972).
182 K. Lawson Younger Jr., Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and
Biblical History Writing, jsot.s 98 (Sheffield: jsot Press, 1990), 258260.
183 This is confirmed by Von Rads own remarks that his reconstruction of the holy war is
mainly ideal: Schwerlich ist je einmal ein heiliger Krieg in solch orthodoxer und schema-
tischer Vollstndigkeit gefhrt worden. [] Wir handeln also hier von einer kultischen
Institution, die in ihrer eigentlichen und intendierten Form geschichtlich nie vollkommen
in Erscheinung getreten ist. Von Rad, Der Heilige Krieg im alten Israel, 14, 29.
184 See in particular Gwilym H. Jones, Holy War or Yahweh War?, vt 25 (1975): 642
658; Gwilym H. Jones, The Concept of Holy War, in The World of Ancient Israel: Socio-
logical, Anthropological and Political Perspectives; Essays by Members of the Society for
there is no holy war, to be distinguished from other wars, as the expres-

sion suggests.185 For the present study of , this theory may better be
disregarded.
4 Parallels with the Umwelt

Finally, it is necessary to discuss parallels of in the Umwelt of Israel.
The occurrence of the root rm in other Semitic languages has been
described in detail by other authors.186 For this study, it is relevant that the
meaning to kill, exterminate also occurs in other Semitic languages.187
In a Ugaritic text, rm is used parallel to p[l] (to knock down) and hrg
(ktu 1.13:35).
Several authors have pointed to parallels of in terms of content,
although the root is not used. Of course, there are many general paral-
lels regarding situations of war. However, when a linguistic relationship
is missing, it is often unclear what criteria are used to select relevant
parallels.188 In my opinion, which is based on the following exegesis,
possible parallels from the Umwelt which are relevant for this study
should meet the following criteria: (1) it concerns the (intended) exter-
mination of an entire population, (2) at the command of a god, (3) while
the motivation for this command is preferably of a religious nature.
Virtually none of the alleged parallels, however, meets these criteria.189
Old Testament Study, ed. Ronald Ernest Clements (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1989), 299321; Pury, La guerre sainte isralite; Stanislaw Siwiec, La guerre de con-
qute de Canaan dans le Deutronome, Excerpta ex dissertatione ad Lauream in Facultate
Theologica Pontificii Athenaei Antoniani, paaft.sb 235 (Roma, 1976); Manfred Weippert,
Heiliger Krieg in Israel und Assyrien: Kritische Anmerkungen zu Gerhard von Rads
Konzept des Heiligen Krieges im alten Israel, zaw 84 (1972): 460493.
185 Cf. Schmitt, Heilige Krieg, 214217.
186 Brekelmans, De erem, 1736; Stern, Biblical erem, 556. Cf. Andr Lemaire, Le rem
dans le monde nord-ouest smitique, in Guerre et Conqute dans le Proche-orient ancien,
ed. Lala Nehm, AntS 4 (Paris: Maisonneuve, 1999), 7992.
187 Namely in Arabic (Stern, Biblical erem, 16), Ugaritic (see the main text), and possibly
in a Sabaean text (Monroe, Israelite, Moabite and Sabaean War-rem Traditions). The
Mesha Inscription is discussed below.
188 See Brekelmans, De erem, 128145; Lohfink, ThWAT 3:202206; Abraham Malamat, The
Ban in Mari and the Bible, in Biblical Essays 1966Proceedings of the 9th Meeting of Die
Ou-Testam. Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika (Potchefstroom: Pro Rege, 1966), 4049; Stern,
Biblical erem, 5787. In particular in Stern, the criteria for selecting parallels are unclear.
189 Cf. Kang, Divine War, 81. This is also the case with the claim of the Assyrian kings that
they were called by the god(s) of a people in order to punish this people (2 Kgs 18:25; cf.
62 chapter 2
Two possible parallels deserve a more detailed discussion, namely a Hit-

tite ritual and the Mesha Inscription.
Recently, authors have again drawn attention to a possible parallel from

the Hittites. In some situations, a rebellious city was totally destroyed,
together with the surrounding area. This total destruction has been com-
pared with the command of Deut. 7. The area was then given over to the
(storm) god and was intended for his two bulls. After the total destruc-
tion, the land was sown with a plant. Nobody was allowed to live in that
area, and nothing should be built (although it sometimes happened). In
addition to a few descriptions of such a total destruction, we have the text
of a ritual describing how a city, after consulting the gods, should be given
over to this destruction.190 On the basis of the Hittite ritual, Daniel I. Block
believes that the verb in Deut. 7 refers to a series of actions, namely
the defeat and extermination of the population, the burning of the town,
the sowing of the ground with salt (cf. Judg. 9:45), pronouncing a curse
(cf. Josh. 6:26) and consecrating the city to Yhwh.191
However, a number of objections may be raised against this hypothe-
sis and against the parallel as such. In the Hittite texts, the emphasis is on
the destruction and the desolation of an area, not on the destruction of
people. In Deut. 7, there is no question of leaving an area uninhabited; on
the contrary, Israel has to take the place of the Canaanites. In the Old Tes-
tament, only a few times a city is left uninhabited, namely Jericho (cf. the
curse in Josh. 6:26), Ai (Josh. 8:28), and an Israelite city worshipping other
gods (Deut. 13:17). The only time an area is sown with salt (Judg. 9:45) is
different from the situation in the Hittite ritual; according to the Hittite
text, a useful plant is sown.192 Although there are some parallels between
Klaas R. Veenhof, Geschichte des alten Orients bis zur Zeit Alexanders des Groen, gat 11
[Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001], 233234). In this case, a difference with Deut.
7 is that the god of another nation calls them, and that the intention is not the total
destruction of a nation.
190 See Giuseppe F. Del Monte, The Hittite erem, in Memoriae Igor M. Diakonoff, ed. Leonid
Kogan et al., OrCl 8, Babel und Bibel 2 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 2145; Kang,
Divine War, 6970; Hanna Roszkowska-Mutschler, and on its site I sowed cress :
Some Remarks on the Execration of Defeated Enemy Cities by the Hittite Kings, jac 7
(1992): 112; Stern, Biblical erem, 7277. For text and translation of the ritual, see Del
Monte. The title of his article already suggests the parallel with the Old Testament.
191 Block, Deuteronomy, 207208.
192 Roszkowska-Mutschler, And on its site I sowed cress, 23.
the Hittite texts and the destruction of Jericho in particular, these texts
do not specifically deal with the destruction of people. Therefore, these
Hittite texts cannot be considered as a parallel of in Deut. 7.
The most important parallel of is found in the so-called Mesha

Inscription (further: mi).193 The stela of king Mesha of Moab,194 dat-
ing from shortly before 830 b.c.,195 is a building inscription which also
describes Meshas military operations.196 The description of these oper-
ations consists of an introduction (mi 47), followed by an account of
four places where Mesha fought against Israel: Medeba (mi 710), Atarot
(mi 1014), Nebo (mi 1418), and Jahaz (mi 1821).197 The description
193 For the text, see kai 181; John C.L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions (Oxford:
Clarendon, 19711982), 1:7183; Kent P. Jackson and J. Andrew Dearman, The Text of the
Mesha Inscription, in Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab, ed. J. Andrew Dearman,
sblabs 2 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 9395. Differences between these editions are
mentioned only if they are relevant for the interpretation.
194 As for the (complex) relationship between the mi and the Old Testament (in particu-
lar 2Kgs 3), see J. Andrew Dearman, Historical Reconstruction and the Mesha Inscrip-
tion, in Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab, ed. J. Andrew Dearman, sblabs 2
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 155210; Klaas A.D. Smelik, King Meshas Inscription:
Between History and Fiction, in Converting the Past: Studies in Ancient Israelite and
Moabite Historiography, ots 28 (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 7392; Philip D. Stern, Of Kings and
Moabites: History and Theology in 2Kings 3 and the Mesha Inscription, huca 64 (1993):
114.
195 See Bruce Edward Routledge, Moab in the Iron Age: Hegemony, Polity, Archaeology, ACSo
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), 136138; Smelik, King Meshas
Inscription, 8083 (8182 n. 71).
196 For the genre of the mi, see Joel Drinkard, The Literary Genre of the Mesha Inscription,
in Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab, ed. J. Andrew Dearman, sblabs 2 (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1989), 131154; Klaas A.D. Smelik, The Literary Structure of King Meshas
Inscription, jsot 46 (1990): 23.
197 For the literary structure of the mi, see especially Smelik, Literary Structure (also in
Smelik, King Meshas Inscription, 5973), and a little different Routledge, Moab in the
Iron Age, 141143. mi 14 is an introduction in which Mesha presents himself as the
legal king. From mi 21 onwards, Mesha describes his building activities, always with the
construction plus qatal. In mi 421, the personal pronoun does not occur. In terms
of both grammar and content, therefore, mi 21 is the beginning of a new section. Probably,
the end of the mi (from mi 31 onwards) is about a battle again (, mi 32), but this
part is rather damaged. For the identification of the various locations mentioned, see, e.g.,
Dearman, Historical Reconstruction, 170189. The order of the locations probably is not
chronological; cf. Smelik, Literary Structure, 30 n. 27.
64 chapter 2
of these four campaigns contains an inclusio: with Medeba and Jahaz,

Kemosh is the subject of the action, and no battle or killing of people is
mentioned.198 With Atarot and Nebo, battle and killing are mentioned,
and Mesha is the subject. This section is relevant for the present study,
since the verb hif. is used this section (mi 17).
The descriptions of Meshas battle against Atarot and Nebo have a simi-
lar structure. In both cases, Mesha fights ( Gt); then he takes the city
( )and kills the inhabitants ( ;mi 11,1516); in both cases, the verb
is followed by , indicating the totality of the destruction. The descrip-
tion ends with the spoil Mesha takes and drags before Kemosh (;
mi 1213,1718).199 Next to the similarities, there are differences, pointing
mainly to literary creativity. The description of the battle against Atarot
is preceded by a description of its history; the battle seems to be Meshas
initiative. The description of the battle against Nebo is introduced by a
198 Kemosh returns the land of Medeba to Moab (mi 89) and expels the king of Israel from
Jahaz (, mi 19). After this, it is said that Mesha goes to Jahaz with 200 men, that he takes
it ( )and annexes it to Dibon (mi 2021). However, the act of Kemosh is mentioned first
and no battle by Mesha is recorded. This inclusio is not noted in the otherwise excellent
analysis of Smelik, Literary Structure.
199 It is controversial what the spoil is. Concerning Atarot, it is said that Mesha returned
( hif., mi 12; the verb is remarkable; cf. , mi 17). The text which mentions
the spoil of Nebo probably should be read as ][ , the vessels of Yhwh (mi 17
18). There may be a climax: from Atarot, something (possibly a lion statue or an altar
hearth) of the leader or of David is robbed; from Nebo, the vessels of Israels God are
robbed. As for , the following interpretations have been proposed: a lion statue,
an altar, and the proper name of a person or group; see Gibson, Textbook, 1:80; Kent
P. Jackson, The Language of the Mesha Inscription, in Studies in the Mesha Inscription
and Moab, ed. J. Andrew Dearman, sblabs 2 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 112113; Anson
F. Rainey, Mesha and Syntax, in The Land That I Will Show You: Essays on the History
and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, ed. J. Andrew Dearman and M. Patrick Graham,
jsot.s 343 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 300; Brekelmans, De erem, 29;
Stern, Biblical erem, 2930. The second element, , has been interpreted as chief
or as the proper name David; see Brekelmans, De erem, 29; Stern, Biblical erem, 3031;
Gibson, Textbook, 1:80. In the latter case, it is not clear whether the strange orthography
has to be interpreted as an abbreviation (of )?, or as a suffix. In Biblical Hebrew,
a suffix with a proper name never occurs. Rainey, Mesha and Syntax, 300304 shows
extensively that the suffix with a construct state may refer to the whole combination, but
he does not show that a suffix with a proper name would be possible. There is a possible
parallel: the texts from Kuntillet Ajrud, which mention Yhwh and his Asherah, Yhwh
of Samaria, and Yhwh of Teman, in which cases a proper name functions as a nomen
regens.
command of Kemosh to conquer Nebo from Israel.200 In this case, the

length of the battle is elaborated on. The description of the battle against
Atarot ends with the comment that Mesha provides a new population for
Atarot; concerning Nebo, this is missing. The main difference between the
description of the two battles, however, is the part following the conquest
of the city. The text reads as follows:
... ... 1112

.][..][.][...[]. 1617
...
Whereas Mesha killed all the people in the conquest of Atarot, he killed
Nebo completely. This declaration is followed by a number (seven thou-
sand) and a list of different types of people, indicating the totality of
the destruction.201 This destruction is motivated by the explanation for
I had devoted ( hif.) it [Nebo] to Ashtar-Kemosh.202 The verb
hif. is not used to describe the conquest of Atarot. However, the content
of these descriptions suggests that they are intended as parallels.203 This
is indicated by the parallels in the description of the battle (see above),
by the fact that in both cases the killing of the entire population is men-
tioned, and by the fact that in both cases the complement for (Ashtar)
Kemosh (and for Moab) occurs. The differences in the descriptions are
in accordance with the literary variation found throughout the inscrip-
tion.
200 The desription of the battles show a climax in the role of Kemosh. Concerning the
conquest of Atarot, he is mentioned only at the end, as the recipient of the booty. The
conquest of Nebo is at his command, and he receives booty as well. Concerning the
conquest of Jahaz, it is almost exclusively Kemosh who is acting: he expels ( )the
inhabitants (mi 19). Concerning Medeba, it is also exclusively Kemosh who acts (mi 8
9), but no battle is mentioned. Cf. Smelik, Literary Structure, 25.
201 The translations of some words differ, in particular concerning , which may be read as
, alien, or as , child; see Jackson, The Language of the Mesha Inscription, 98; Stern,
Biblical erem, 33.
202 The meaning of the combination is debated. Usually, both elements are
interpreted as the name of the god. Stern, Biblical erem, 3438 translates it as warrior
Kemosh. See Lemaire, Le rem, 8284; Gerald L. Mattingly, Moabite Religion and the
Mesha Inscription, in Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab, ed. J. Andrew Dearman,
sblabs 2 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 219221.
203 Otherwise Stern, Biblical erem, 3233.
66 chapter 2
It is unclear whether there is a parallel for the motivation in mi 17,

since the interpretation of the beginning of mi 12 is controversial.204
Three interpretations are possible: (1) The second word is usually read as
, meaning saturation, satisfaction.205 In this case, the noun could be
interpreted as a parallel of the verb in mi 17; in both cases, Kemosh is
the one to or for whom it is done. It is noteworthy that in mi 12 also Moab is
mentioned as the recipient. (2) Instead of the reading , Andr Lemaire
has proposed to read .206 In that case, there could be a parallel between
this line and the verb as well. (3) According to Anson F. Rainey, the
syntax of mi 12 (a noun followed by a qatal) indicates that the city ()
and the people ( )are contrasted. The people are killed, while the city
becomes the property of Kemosh and Moab.207 If no letters are missing at
the end of mi 11, this interpretation seems likely from a grammatical point
of view. However, it is not clear what the contrast between the people and
the city means in practice for the city. According to this interpretation,
there is no parallel in terms of content between mi 12 and the verb in
mi 17.
There are several similarities between the use of hif. in the mi and
in the Old Testament. First, both in the Old Testament and in the mi the
verb is used in combination with a verb indicating the killing of people
(, mi 11,16; cf. the summary in mi 7: ). Moreover, the totality of the
destruction is emphasized (, followed by a number and an enumeration
in mi 1617). After the conquest of Atarot, this city is used as a dwelling
place for other people; concerning Nebo, this is not mentioned. The
combination of the extermination of people and the settlement in their
area corresponds to Deut. 7. With the conquest of Jahaz, the verb
204 In the editions of kai and Gibson, Textbook, 1:79, it is indicated that there were possibly
some more letters at the end of line 11; according to Jackson and Dearman, The Text of
the Mesha Inscription, this is not the case.
205 See Gibson, Textbook, 1:7980; Jackson, The Language of the Mesha Inscription, 111112;
Stern, Biblical erem, 32. Cf. Isa. 34:5, where the roots and are used in combination
as well (Brekelmans, De erem, 31). Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 192 describes as
the execution of the .
206 This reading is criticized by Aaron Schaade, New Photographs Supporting the Reading
ryt in Line 12 of the Mesha Inscription, iej 55 (2005): 205208. It is defended by Andr
Lemaire, New Photographs and ryt or hyt in the Mesha Inscription, Line 12,iej 57 (2007):
204207.
207 Rainey, Mesha and Syntax, 296297.
is used, with Kemosh as its subject (mi 19). This verb is not used in
Deuteronomy, but it is used in Exodus with regard to the nations of
Canaan (Exod 23:2831; 33:2; 34:11; see 3.3).208
A second similarity is that the root is not used for all wars (see 2
above). In the description of the conquest of Medeba and Jahaz in the
mi, it is not stated that all people were killed. It is plausible that Atarot
and Nebo were considered a special case because of the oppression by
Israel.209 The use of the root shows the contrast between Israel and
Moab; any connection seems to rejected.210 Although Mesha is the subject
of the verb hif., the command of Kemosh to conquer Nebo suggests
his approval or his command to do so. This corresponds to the divine com-
mand in Deut. 7. The statement that Mesha used Israelite prisoners (
, mi 2526) for one of his building projects is another indication that
enemies were not always killed. Since it is not recorded where these pris-
oners were captured, it is not clear whether the Israelites were sometimes
spared, or the was not completely executed in Atarot and Nebo.211
A third similarity between the mi and the Old Testament is that (part
of) the booty is brought to the deity. In the story of the conquest of Jericho,
it is also stated that the spoils are for Yhwh (Josh. 6:1819). If the spoils
destined for Kemosh are cultic utensils,212 this can be considered as a
parallel of the stipulation in Deut. 7 that the Israelites are not allowed to
take anything of the images of the gods of the Canaanites for themselves
(Deut. 7:2526; cf. Josh. 6:18).
208 The verb occurs as well (mi 7), but with Omri as its subject. In the context, it has to
be the qal (g) of , not the hif. (h), which is often used as a parallel of in the Old
Testament. So, this verb is less relevant.
209 Cf. Dearman, Historical Reconstruction, 205207; Smelik, King Meshas Inscription, 85.
Probably, the inhabitants of Medeba were still considered as Moabite by Mesha.
210 Routledge, Moab in the Iron Age, 149150.
211 Bob Becking, Exile and Forced Labor in Bt Haro: Remarks on a Recently Discovered
Moabite Inscription, in Homeland and Exile: Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
in Honour of Bustenay Oded, ed. Gershon Galil, Mark Geller, and Alan Millard, vt.s 130
(Leiden: Brill, 2010), 312 discusses a Moabite inscription from the eighth century b.c.,
in which forced labour by (Ammonite) prisoners is also mentioned, although the word
is not used in this inscription. On the basis of this, Becking assumes that
(mi 17) denotes devotion to Kemosh, which would imply that people were taken into
state-slavery of the king of Moab, and could be deployed as forced labourers for building
activities. However, mi 16 explicitly states that the entire city is killed ( ;)in my view,
the antecedent of the pronominal suffix used in the object of and is the same.
212 In any case with the vessels of Yhwh (mi 1718), this is likely; see p. 64 n. 199.
68 chapter 2
However, there are also remarkable differences between the use of

hif. in the mi and the Old Testament. First, the verb hif. is used in the
mi with the complement for Ashtar Kemosh. It has already been pointed
out that in the Old Testament, this verb never has the complement for
Yhwh in a context of war and destruction of people. Second, in the mi
is not used for the extermination itself, but as a motivation for the
total destruction (for he devoted them ).213 It seems obvious, then, to
translate to devote, to consecrate in the mi, not to destroy. In the Old
Testament, however, such a use of the verb (people are killed, followed or
preceded by a motivation with hif.) does not occur.214
In conclusion, the only parallel in the Ancient Near East that is relevant
for in Deut. 7 is the Mesha Inscription. This inscription meets the cri-
teria set above: it concerns the extermination of an entire population (the
towns of Atarot and Nebo), and a command of the god Kemosh is men-
tioned; admittedly, it is not an explicit command to exterminate people,
but it does command the attack of Nebo. As in Deut. 7, this concerns a bat-
tle in Moabs own territory. In the mi, a motivation for Kemoshs command
is not given; the oppression of Moab by Israel seems to be an important
motive (mi 4). There is no indication of a religious motivation (the temp-
tation of serving other gods), as in Deut. 7. As for the use of the verb
hif., there are several relevant similarities between the mi and the Old
Testament. At the same time, there are some important differences in
the construction in which the verb is used and in its meaning. Therefore,
although our corpus of texts is small, there is no complete agreement in
the use of this verb. In the Old Testament, the verb is used for the destruc-
tion of a city or people, whereas it specifically refers to consecration in
the mi. Since the mi is the only relevant parallel, it is not possible to
conclude that the was a common phenomenon in Israels Umwelt.
213 Cf. Frdric Gangloff, Joshua 6: Holy War or Extermination by Divine Command (He-
rem)?, ThRev 25 (2004): 10. Contra Stern, Biblical erem, 36, who suggests that two
different actions are intended, namely the killing of the people and the devotion (
hif.: consecrated to destruction) of the city. Together, these actions would purify the city
and restore the world order. However, if a contrast with the people is intended, it is unlikely
that the city is only referred to by the suffix in ( cf. the possible parallel in mi 12,
where the city is mentioned separately). By the way, Sterns own translation (for to the
warrior Kemos I devoted them; Ibid., 55) does not correspond with this interpretation.
214 The combination of with a vow only occurs in Num. 21:23. In that case, however, the
verb hif. indicates the destruction, not the vow ().
Because of the differences mentioned, it is questionable whether the mi

may be regarded as evidence that would mean to devote in the Old
Testament as well.
In the light of the excursus, the meaning of in Deut. 7:2 may be determined.
In this text, the verb clearly belongs to the semantic domain of destruction.
It is used in combination with hif., which often occurs as a parallel in
this domain; moreover, a certain quality or status is not the issue here. This
interpretation is confirmed by the use of the verb elsewhere in Deuteronomy.
The verb is always used in the context of destruction and devastation. In Deut.
2:34, Israel defeats ( hif.) king Sihon of Heshbon; his cities are taken and
Israel executes to all inhabitants. To this is added: We left not a single
survivor. In Deut. 3:6, it is told that Israel acted the same way with king Og of
Bashan. Both times, the cattle are taken as spoil (Deut. 2:35; 3:7). In Deut. 13:16,
is the explanation of the preceding you shall surely strike ( hif.) with
the sword, and the verb itself has the complement ; moreover, in this
text Israel is called to destroy the spoil (Deut. 13:17). Finally, in Deut. 20:17 the
inf.abs. plus yiqtol of is used parallel to the preceding command to let no
one live ( , Deut. 20:16). These data show that in Deuteronomy
the verb hif. is always used in the meaning to kill, destroy, exterminate.
The meaning to exterminate fits in Deut. 7:2.215 Several elements of the
term occur: it concerns the killing of people (cf. the parallel hif.), by
which a separation is made between Israel and the nations of Canaan. The
radical nature of the command is clear (the construction inf.abs. + yiqtol; the
end of verse 2b), and it concerns the nations of Canaan, as is almost always
the case with this verb in Genesis to Kings.
However, a number of objections have been raised against this interpretation

of the verb in Deut. 7:2. First, the verbs range of meaning would be much
broader than extermination; the verb could also denote a ban on social inter-
course. If the verb has the sense of to kill, this would be clearly indicated by
parallel expressions.216 Therefore, we should not a priori assume the mean-
ing to kill.217 Second, Deut. 7:2 continues with the prohibition to make a
215 Cf. the Versions: sp, s: ;lxx: ; to, tj: ;tn: .

216 Schfer-Lichtenberger, Bedeutung und Funktion von erem, 273: Eine kommentarlose
Erwhnung des Vollzuges von erem findet sich in den Kriegsberichten nicht. Dieser
Sachverhalt kann als Indiz fr die Erklrungsbedrftigkeit des Begriffes erem gewertet
werden.
217 Ibid., 272275; Schfer-Lichtenberger, jhwh, Israel und die Vlker, 202. Nelson, erem,
70 chapter 2
covenant with the Canaanites. If the nations would have been exterminated,
this prohibition is unnecessary; therefore, extermination could not have been
intended.218 Third, in the verses from Deut. 7 that do mention the killing of
nations, other nations would be meant (Deut. 7:16,2526), or the terminology
of is missing (Deut. 7:1821,2324).219 Fourth, the parallel texts in Exodus do
not mention the killing of people, but use the verbs and . In the book of
Joshua, the verb is used, but other texts show that a total destruction never
occurred.220 Fifth, the immorality of a total extermination would exclude a lit-
eral interpretation of . The unconditional extermination of people would
not match with the stipulation that persons may be put to death only for their
own crimes (Deut. 24:16). Therefore, this terminology should be read as a hyper-
bole.221
Below, I will only deal with the first objection. The other arguments are dis-
cussed more extensively later in this study (in the exegesis of verse 2b, the
exegesis of verse 16, in 3.3 and 3.4, and in chap. 5, respectively). However, it
can already be noted that it is methodologically incorrect to expand the range
of meaning of a word on the basis of possible tensions with other texts. Nei-
ther is it correct to determine the meaning of a word on the basis of related
texts. Indeed, the difference in terminology between Deut. 7 and parallel texts
is remarkable. However, it should not be excluded beforehand that there may
be a development in the attitude toward the nations of Canaan. Therefore, no
conclusions can be drawn about the meaning of in Deut. 7 on the basis of
the verbs in Exodus, or on the basis of the alleged execution of this command
in Joshua. The same is true for the theological interpretation of this command.
Determining the semantic value of a word should not assume, but precede the
theological interpretation.
53 seems to join the view of Schfer-Lichtenberger, but in his later commentary, this is not
the case. Nelson also points to the use of the root in names, where it would have a
positive meaning (Ibid., 42). It remains unclear, however, what this positive meaning is.
Moreover, it is doubtful whether names are useful in determining the meaning of a word,
because of the archaic nature of names.
218 Lake, Did God Command Genocide, 213; Schfer-Lichtenberger, jhwh, Israel und die
Vlker, 202; Stern, Biblical erem, 96.
219 Schfer-Lichtenberger, jhwh, Israel und die Vlker, 211212, 214; Schfer-Lichtenberger,
Bedeutung und Funktion von erem, 275. According to her, Deut. 20:16 is later and is
dependent on Deut. 7.
220 Lake, Did God Command Genocide, 203, 211213.
221 Ibid., 222226.
As for the first objection, that the range of meaning of would be much
broader than extermination, Schfer-Lichtenberger adduces only two proof-
texts for this thesis, namely, Exod. 22:19 and Ezra 10:8.
Exod. 22:19, demanding the execution of for anybody who sacrifices to
gods other than Yhwh, is the last of a series of short apodictic laws (Exod.
22:1719).222 In the preceding verses, the death penalty is set on an offence
(Exod. 22:17: ; 22:18: ) . Still, according to Schfer-Lichtenberger,
the death penalty is not demanded in Exod. 22:19. She does not explicate her
argument,223 however, and it seems much more likely that Exod. 22:1719 deals
with three situations in which the death penalty is demanded. The three texts
have a parallel formulation: the situation is described by a participle, followed
by a yiqtol indicating the sanction. This sanction is formulated differently every
time: . As Abba Bendavid has extensively shown, such
a variation in formulations often occurs in the Old Testament, not only in
poetical, but also in juridical texts.224 Because of the paranomastic infinitive in
Exod. 22:18 and the radical nature of ( see above), the triad may be viewed
as climactic.225
The parallelism in Exod. 22:1719 pleads for the meaning to kill, to extermi-
nate, as also the Versions translate it. Moreover, it can be asked whether it was
possible, in the social-cultural situation presupposed by the Covenant Code
(a pre-deuteronomistic text, according to Schfer-Lichtenberger), that some-
one should be expelled from the community of Yhwh-worshipers without the
222 The suggestion of Albrecht Alt, Die Ursprnge des israelitischen Rechts, bvsaw.ph 86/1
(Leipzig: Hirzel, 1934), 4445 n. 2, among others, to emend Exod. 22:19 to
is unnecessary. All textual witnesses have a form or translation of .
The addition of other in sp and part of the witnesses of lxx may be explained as an
attempt to prevent misunderstanding. The context of the Covenant Code, verse 19b and
the article before ( Rashi) already make clear that Exod. 22:19a is about other gods
than Yhwh. Cf. Houtman, Exodus, 3:215216.
223 Schfer-Lichtenberger, Bedeutung und Funktion von erem, 274 gives the following
argumentation: Da der Rechtssatz von Ex 22,19 eine eremforderung enthlt und keine
Todesstrafe vorsieht, wie der vorangehende Rechtssatz ber Sodomie, drfte die Straffolge
jrm nicht identisch mit der als mot jumat bezeichneten sein. This, however, is a circular
argument.
224 Abba Ben-David, ( Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew) (Tel
Aviv: Dvir, 19671971), 1:2021; cf. Ibid., 1:1626. This explanation is more likely than the
suggestion that there would be a purely associative Stichwortanknpfung of with
( Exod. 22:18), as Schfer-Lichtenberger states; Schfer-Lichtenberger, Bedeutung
und Funktion von erem, 274; Schfer-Lichtenberger, jhwh, Israel und die Vlker, 201.
225 Lohfink, ThWAT 3:194.
72 chapter 2
implication of death. Such a distinction between the religious and the polit-
ical community is unknown in the Covenant Code. Finally, it is unlikely that
the death penalty is requested for sorcery or bestiality, while idolatry should be
punished with only expulsion from the community.
The other text Schfer-Lichtenberger adduces as evidence for her thesis is
Ezra 10:8. This text states that if anyone does not come to a certain assembly,
his property will be forfeited ( hof.) and he himself will be banned ( nif.)
from the congregation of the returned exiles. In this text, however, the verb
is not used for a person, but only for his property.226 Therefore, apart from the
fact that it is not stated what happened to the property, nothing can be deduced
from this text about the meaning of with regard to people.227
Schfer-Lichtenbergers argument that parallel expressions are necessary to
determine the meaning of also encounters objections. In that case, the con-
text of a word and parallel expressions would no longer indicate the meaning
of a word, but its ambiguity, because apparently an explanation is required.228
In a large number of texts (see above), the context and parallels plead for the
meaning to exterminate. Clear indications for another connotation are miss-
ing. This makes it plausible to interpret the verb likewise in Deut. 7:2. The fact
that different terminology is used on occasion in the book of Joshua may be
explained by the difference between a command (Deut. 7) and the description
of its execution (Joshua). Finally, in Deuteronomy the meaning of the verb is
always to exterminate, and the most frequent parallel, hif., is also used in
Deut. 7:2.
In conclusion, the thesis of Schfer-Lichtenberger that the range of meaning
of would be broader than to kill, and that we should assume the meaning
ban on social intercourse in Deut. 7:2 is untenable. Later, I will discuss the
question of whether the verb was possibly intended as a metaphor, and
whether an actual extermination did occur (4.3).
226 The reason for this may be that the post-exilic community did not have the competence
to execute the death penalty (to a group of people); Schfer-Lichtenberger, Bedeutung
und Funktion von erem, 272; cf. Dller, Der Bann, 11; Stern, Biblical erem, 211.
227 This is admitted by Schfer-Lichtenberger, Bedeutung und Funktion von erem, 272:
Aussagen ber die Natur des erem werden an dieser Stelle nicht gemacht. The fact that
in Ezra 10:8, the object of does not refer to people, but to property, is overlooked
also by Gangloff, Joshua 6, 18. In 1Esd. 9:4 () and Josephus, a.j. 11:148 (
[] ), it is explained that the goods were made available to
the sanctuary (cf. Num. 18:14).
228 In a broader sense, this is also true for the comparison with related languages. In any case
in Ugaritic (see above), is used in the semantic domain of destruction.
After the command to destroy the nations of Canaan, verse 2b continues

with the prohibition: Make no covenant with them.229 Many exegetes have
wondered how this prohibition and the continuation in verse 3 relate to the
command to exterminate the Canaanites (the end of verse 2b, show them no
mercy, does fit). If the nations of Canaan are destroyed, no covenant can be
made and a prohibition of intermarriage would be superfluous. According to
some authors, this is as an indication that the command to exterminate was
not intended literally.230 Others believe that this tension points to a different
origin of these commands.231
If these commands are treated synchronically, as this section attempts to
do (for diachronic questions, see 2.5), there are two possible interpretations.
First, verses 2b3 may be interpreted as a continuation of verse 2b. In that
case, the historical reality is taken into account. The book of Deuteronomy
has a negative expectation of the future regarding Israels faithfulness to Gods
commands.232 Verses 2b3 may be read as an admonition in case Israel does
not execute the command of verse 2b.233 According to this interpretation,
the prohibition of making a covenant is an alternative for the command to
destroy the nations. Against this interpretation, however, it can be argued that
a reference to Israels future disobedience is entirely lacking in Deut. 7. Such
a provision for Israels possible disobedience would be very unnatural in the
present context.
Second, verses 2b3 may be interpreted as an elaboration of verse 2b.
Making a covenant was the normal state of affairs after a victory. However,
229 The use of + yiqtol to indicate a prohibition is usual in Biblical Hebrew in a juridical
context; jm 113m; Waltke and OConnor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 510.
230 See, e.g., John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove: ivp Academic, 2003
2009), 1:497498; Nathan MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of Monotheism,
fat 2/1 (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 112; R.W.L. Moberly, Toward an Interpretation
of the Shema, in Theological Exegesis, ed. Christopher R. Seitz and Kathryn Greene-
McCreight (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 135136; Otto, Deuteronomium 111, 861862;
Timo Veijola, Das 5. Buch Mose: Deuteronomium: Kapitel 1,116,17, atd (Gttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 197198. See also above, the second objection to the meaning
to exterminate on p. 69.
231 Flix Garca Lpez, Un peuple consacr: Analyse critique de Deutronome vii, vt 32
(1982): 439440. For the various proposals, see 2.5.1.
232 See Paul A. Barker, The Triumph of Grace in Deuteronomy: Faithless Israel, Faithful Yahweh
in Deuteronomy, pbm (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004).
233 So Gottfried Seitz, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Deuteronomium, bwant 93
(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1971), 75; Edward J. Woods, Deuteronomy, totc (Downers Grove:
ivp Academic, 2011), 143.
74 chapter 2
this is prohibited in verses 2b3, which want to cut off all other possibilities
of dealing with the nations of Canaan. The story of the covenant with the
Gibeonites (Josh. 9) shows that this was considered a real danger. According to
this interpretation, the prohibitions of verses 2b3 underline the absoluteness
of the command of verse 2b: no covenant or intermarriage, only radical
extermination of these nations will be sufficient.234 This interpretation does
justice to the text of Deut. 7 in its canonical form and it gives a sensible
explanation of the coherence between verse 2b and verses 2b3 (cf. the
same structure in Deut. 7:2526).235 Moreover, the stipulations in verses 2b
3 are important if the destruction would take a longer time to complete (cf.
verse 22).236
According to some authors, the use of the preposition with indi-
cates that verse 2b is about making a covenant after a victory. This combina-
tion would be used in particular for a covenant between a higher (victor) and
a lower party.237 It is doubtful, however, whether the use of the preposition
justifies this conclusion. For a number of texts with the combination
, it is unlikely or uncertain whether a distinction between a higher and a lower
party is intended.238 The same thesis could be defended for other prepositions
(, ), without finding more exceptions. Since in general the preposition
does not indicate a difference in level between two parties, it is not likely that
this would be the case in this instance.
Israel is not allowed to make a covenant with the nations of Canaan. Christa
Schfer-Lichtenberger believes that the reason for this prohibition is that when
making the covenant one would have to swear by the gods of the treaty partner,
which would be a transgression of the first commandment (cf. Josh. 23:7).239
However, it is unlikely that this is the main reason for the prohibition. The
making of a covenant is not mentioned at all in Deut. 7, but only its effects
234 See Finsterbusch, Weisung fr Israel, 179; Lohr, Chosen and Unchosen, 168; Carl Steuernagel,
Deuteronomium und Josua und allgemeine Einleitung in den Hexateuch, hk (Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900), 27: [D]u sollst keine Bedingungen stellen, unter denen
du sie am Leben lsst.
235 Cf. Saysell, According to the Law, 62.
236 Otto, Deuteronomiumstudien ii, 193.
237 Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden, 45; Weinfeld, ThWAT 1:784788.
238 JoshuaIsrael (Josh. 24:25); HezekiahYhwh (2Chr. 29:10); peopleYhwh (Ezra 10:3); I
my eyes (Job 31:3). Weinfeld, ThWAT 1:787788 reckons 2 Chr. 29:10 and Ezra 10:3 to the
later, irregular usage.
239 Schfer-Lichtenberger, jhwh, Israel und die Vlker, 203. Cf. Otto, Deuteronomium 111,
862.
(verse 4). A covenant with the nations of Canaan is incompatible with the
covenant Yhwh made with Israel (verse 12).240
The end of verse 2, , fits the command of destruction. The command
show them no mercy pleads against the interpretation that the command of
verse 2b would only be a command on making a covenant. Israel may not show
mercy to the Canaanites, by letting these nations live.241 Any positive attitude
toward them is prohibited.242
Verse 3
3a 3Do not intermarry with them:

3b do not give your daughter to his son
3b and do not take his daughter for your son.
Verse 3 continues the prohibitions of verse 2b (even the sound corresponds:

) , as an elaboration of the preceding commands, in par-
ticular the prohibition of making a covenant (verse 2b). Israel must not go and
live in peace with the nations of Canaan by means of intermarriage. That would
imply that these nations would not be eradicated (cf. Josh. 23:1213). Verse 3b
(do not give your daughter to his son and do not take his daughter for your
son) elaborates the prohibition of verse 3a and underlines its completeness:
any kind of mixed marriage is rejected. The transition from the plural to the
singular in verse 3b may be explained by the idea of a concrete marriage, in
which case only one person is involved on both sides.243
The reason for the prohibition of intermarriage is religious in nature
(verse 4). Reaching forward to verse 4, tj adds at the end of verse 3: for any-
one who marries with them, is like one who marries with their idols. Peter
C. Craigie assumes that Deut. 7:3 is not directed primarily against mixed mar-
riages in general, but especially against sealing political treaties with a mar-
riage.244 Because of the explicit motivation in verse 4, however, it is unlikely
that the prohibition should be restricted to this. Moreover, Deut. 7 is not
directed only at kings or leaders, but at the people of Israel as a whole.
240 Nelson, Deuteronomy, 99 calls it a countercovenant.

241 Weinfeld, ThWAT 1:784 considers this as the content of the covenant and translates verse
2b thus: [I]hr sollt ihnen nicht gndige Bedingungen gewhren.
242 Rose, 5. Mose, 2:333.
243 Cf. McConville, Deuteronomy, 153: The singular address [] evokes the marriage agree-
ment between respective fathers.
244 Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, nic (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 178179.
76 chapter 2
Verse 4
4a 4For he would turn away your son from

behind Me,
4a so that they would serve other gods,
4b and the anger of Yhwh would be kindled
against you,
4b and He would quickly destroy you.
The motivation in verse 4 could be an elaboration of the prohibition to make

a covenant with the nations of Canaan (verse 2). Given the repetition of ,
however, it should be primarily considered as a motivation of the prohibition
of intermarriage (verse 3).
The subject of ( for he would turn away your son from behind Me) is
remarkable. After verse 3b one would expect a subject 3rd fem.sg. (his daugh-
ter) or 3rd pl. Exegetes disagree on how this has to be understood. There are
three possible interpretations. First, the subject of may be the father of a
Canaanite girl. This view corresponds as closely as possible to the concrete situ-
ation of verse 3b.245 Second, the subject of may be the Canaanite man who
marries the daughter of an Israelite; in that case, your son would be the child
born from that marriage.246 This interpretation is unlikely, however, because it
reaches back to an earlier element of verse 3 leaving aside the end of this verse,
and because in this case would indicate in quick succession first a son and
then a grandson. Third, the subject of may be the Canaanite in a general
sense. In that case, verse 3 is not so much about the influence of a Canaanite
woman or of her father, but rather about the influence of the nations of Canaan
in general; by a marriage, an Israelite would come into contact with the Canaan-
ites. The first and the third interpretation are both possible. The fact that the
context of this verse is not so much about a specific situation, but rather about
the influence of the Canaanites in general is in favour of the third interpreta-
245 Dillmann, Deuteronomium, 273; Jack R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 335; Nelson, Deuteronomy, 99. Reinhard Achenbach, Israel zwi-
schen Verheiung und Gebot: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zu Deuteronomium 511,
ehs.t 422 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1991), 217 views the temptation to apostasy
from Yhwh im Zuge von Hochzeitsriten in the house of the father of the Canaanite girl.
246 Rashi, , 531; Veijola, Deuteronomium, 202 n. 476. Rashi views this as a proof
that only the child of a daughter of an Israelite is called your son, and is thus an Israelite
(cf. b. Qidd. 68b). According to Veijola, formally the subject has to be interpreted this way,
although the redactor probably did not intend this.
tion. The first and third interpretation may be combined if the father of the
Canaanite girl is viewed as a representative of the nations of Canaan.247 The
singular corresponds to verse 3b, which also refers to the nations of Canaan
with a suffix 3rd masc.sg.
It is noteworthy that your son (not: you) is said to be in danger of apostasy.
Apparently, a marriage with a foreigner is considered a serious threat for the
Israelites religion. A result of a mixed marriage would be that the Canaanites
would turn away the Israelite(s) from behind Yhwh (cf. Judg. 3:57). The image
of going on or turning away from a road is used more often in Deuteronomy for
(un)faithfulness to Yhwh. Turning away from behind Yhwh leads to serving
other gods; serving other gods is identical to turning away from Yhwh.248
Yhwh alone, however, is to be served and followed (cf. Deut. 6:13; 13:5). This
metaphor is also known from Ancient Near Eastern vassal treaties for the
relation between a king and his vassal.249
With the sudden transition to the first person (), verse 4a becomes
a speech of Yhwh. It has been proposed to view as an abbreviation of
,250 or as a haplography of .251 However, both proposals are
superfluous; a sudden transition to a speech of Yhwh is found several times in
Deuteronomy (Deut. 11:1415; 28:20; 29:45).252
An Israelite turning away from behind Yhwh makes the Israelites go and
serve other gods. The subject changes to the plural (), which probably
refers to the Canaanite (the subject of )and the Israelite (your son)
together. Other possible interpretations are that the plural refers to a father and
his son who is married with a Canaanite woman,253 that it is a construction ad
247 So Otto, Deuteronomium 111, 838.

248 Cf. Deut. 4:9; 5:32; 9:12,16; 11:16,28; 28:14; 31:29. In Deut. 9:12,16, it is explicitly called turning
away from the road. In Deut. 11:16,28; 28:14, there is a direct connection with serving other
gods.
249 Christoph Koch, Vertrag, Treueid und Bund: Studien zur Rezeption des altorientalischen
Vertragsrechts im Deuteronomium und zur Ausbildung der Bundestheologie im Alten Testa-
ment, bzaw 383 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 143145; William L. Moran, The Ancient
Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy, cbq 25 (1963): 8283 n. 35.
250 Alfred Bertholet, Deuteronomium, khc (Freiburg: Mohr (Siebeck), 1899), 26; Steuernagel,
Deuteronomium und Josua, 27. Cf. the text-critical apparatus of bhs.
251 Ehrlich, Randglossen, 2:272.
252 The Versions agree with mt. Driver, Deuteronomy, 99 points out that a sudden transition to
a speech of Yhwh also occurs often in the prophets. See also Exod. 15:26; 23:25. According
to Otto, Deuteronomium 111, 863, the transition is deliberate, with the intention to put
Moses at the side of Yhwh.
253 So Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheiung und Gebot, 218.
78 chapter 2
sensum (son, sg. > offspring, pl.), or that it refers to the people of Israel as a
whole, possibly from the implicit idea that turning away from Yhwh leads to
imitation.254
When Israel serves other gods, this invokes the anger of Yhwh. In the book
of Deuteronomy, the anger of Yhwh is always connected with his judgment
on Israel; it will lead to the rapid destruction of Israel.255 C.J. Labuschagne
believes that the plural ( verse 4b) refers to the parents, because they are
also responsible for a marriage with a Canaanite partner.256 This interpretation
is dubious, however, since the preceding is already in the plural. The most
natural explanation is that the plural applies to the people of Israel as a whole.
In verse 4, the rapid succession of verbs is remarkable (cf. Deut. 6:15). More-
over, with every verb both subject and object change compared to the preced-
ing verb. This rapid change of person and number is exceptional in the Old
Testament. The rapid change on the level of the language seems to correspond
with the speed ( )of Israels turning away and of Yhwhs anger, if Israel does
not obey the commands of verses 23 (cf. Deut. 4:26).
The motivation of the prohibition of intermarriage is religious in nature.257
Such a marriage will lead to serving other gods, will invoke the anger of Yhwh,
and will lead to the destruction of Israel. From the perspective of Deuteronomy,
the succeeding verbs in verse 4 do not describe possible, but certain conse-
quences. It is noteworthy that Israel has to expect destruction all the same as
the Canaanites. Yhwh, who calls Israel to exterminate the nations of Canaan,
will himself destroy Israel, if it serves the gods of these nations. Israel is not safe
or inviolable on the basis of its ethnicity.
Verse 5
5a 5But thus you shall deal with them:

5a
break down their altars,
5a smash their sacred pillars,
5b cut down their Asherahs,
5b and burn their idols with fire.
254 The suggestion of Ehrlich, Randglossen, 2:272 to read is superfluous.

255 Cf. E. Johnson, ThWAT 1:385387.
256 Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ib:108.
257 Cf. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alten Testament, 56. Contra Georg Braulik, Deuteronomium,
neb.at (Wrzburg: Echter, 19861992), 1:62, who states: Die freie und egalitre Stammes-
gesellschaft Israel kann mit den ausbeuterischen kanaanischen Stadtstaaten nicht ko-
existieren.
After the command to destroy (verse 2b) and its elaboration in a num-
ber of prohibitions (verses 2b4), the text shifts to a contrast () ,
describing what Israel should do. The altars, sacred pillars, Asherahs, and idols
of the nations of Canaan have to be removed and destroyed. While verses 1
4 were about Israels attitude toward persons, verse 5 deals with their cult
objects. Although the chapter deals with people as well, this emphasis on
the cult of the Canaanite peoples (cf. verses 2526 and the motivation in
verse 4) clearly indicates that the chapters commands are not rooted in racism
or feelings of superiority, but in a religious controversy with the nations of
Canaan.
Verse 5 may also be read as a sequel of the command to destroy the Canaan-
ites (verse 2b): the destruction of these nations alone is not sufficient; any-
thing that is reminiscent of the religion of the nations of Canaan has to be
eliminated. Such a command should be interpreted against the background of
the Ancient Near Eastern custom of taking over the cult sites and the sanc-
tuaries of the conquered after a victory.258 This is prohibited to Israel. The
same radicalness that is required toward human beings (only total extermi-
nation will suffice), applies to every reminder of the religion of the Canaan-
ites.259
Four important elements from the Canaanite cult are enumerated: altars,
sacred pillars, Asherahs (sacred posts, apparently connected with the goddess
Asherah), and images of idols.260 In this verse, these objects are always at the
beginning of the clause and thus receive emphasis. The enumeration indicates
totality: everything has to be destroyed.261
On the basis of the motivation of the prohibition of mixed marriages
(verse 4) and the command in verse 5, it may be concluded that, according to
258 Schfer-Lichtenberger, jhwh, Israel und die Vlker, 204.

259 The motive to destroy the idols is not so much the second commandment, but rather the
fact that they belong to the religion of the Canaanites.
260 For a description of , see J. Gamberoni, ThWAT 4:10641074; for , see J.C. de
Moor, ThWAT 1:477481.
261 The last two verbs (pi. and qal) have a nun-paragogicum, the first two (qal and pi.) have
not. J. Hoftijzer believes that the forms with nun-paragogicum may possibly be explained
as a contrast with the preceding prohibitions (verses 34), and as a persistent habit that
is prohibited; Jacob Hoftijzer, The Function and Use of the Imperfect Forms with Nun-
Paragogicum in Classical Hebrew, ssn 21 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985), 1213. This does not
explain, however, why only the last two verbs have the nun-paragogicum; there does not
seem to be a contrast within verse 5. Possibly, variation plays (also) a role; cf. the variation
in conjugations (qalpi.pi.qal) and in suffixes ( versus ).
80 chapter 2
Deut. 7, the command to destroy the nations of Canaan is not a goal in itself,
but a means to prevent syncretism or idolatry.262
Verse 6
6a 6For you are a people holy to Yhwh your

God;
6b it is you Yhwh your God has chosen

6b out of all the nations who are on the face of
the earth, to be for Him a people of his
treasured possession.
Verse 6 gives yet another motivation ().263 This may refer to the command
of verse 5, just as verse 4 gives a motivation for verse 3. However, because
of the broad elaboration that follows (verses 611) and the coherence of the
commands and prohibitions of verses 15, it is more likely to view verse 6 as a
motivation for verses 15 as a whole.264
The motivation for Israels attitude toward the nations of Canaan is not so
much something characterizing these nations; rather it is Israels own identity.
This corresponds to verse 4, where the reason for the prohibition of mixed
marriages was not primarily the Canaanite culture, but the fact that Israel
would be entrained. Thus, there is a double, related motivation in Deut. 7:
identity (what Israel is) and loyalty (faithfulness to Yhwh).265
Following Israels relationship toward the nations of Canaan, the text moves
to its relationship toward Yhwh.266 Israel is a people holy to Yhwh. The
expression occurs only in the book of Deuteronomy (cf. ,
Exod. 19:6). In the Old Testament, the term holy is rarely used in connec-
tion with the people of Israel. Israels holiness is connected both with cultic
262 Sanz Gimnez-Rico, Un recuerdo que conduce al don, 121; Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden,
140141.
263 According to Samuel Amsler, La Motivation de l thique dans la Parnse du Deutro-
nome, in Beitrge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie, ed. Herbert Donner, Robert Hanhart,
and Rudolf Smend (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 12, one of the features of
Deuteronomy is son effort pour motiver lappel obir aux commandements de Yahweh.
264 According to Otto, Deuteronomium 111, 842, verse 6 is the centre of Deut. 7, which would
be highlighted by means of the Numeruswechsel in this verse.
265 Talstra, Identity and Loyalty.
266 Cf. Otto, Deuteronomium 111, 866.
purity and with obedience.267 Still, Israels holiness is not due to Israels ethical
standards, but to Yhwhs election.268
By Yhwhs election, Israel is placed in a special relation to Him (positively)
and as a consequence of this, in a special relation to other nations, in particular
the Canaanites (negatively).269 Thus, Israels relation toward Yhwh and toward
the nations of Canaan is closely connected. In verse 6, dealing with the relation
between Yhwh and Israel, the relation to Yhwh has priority when Israel is
called a holy nation.270 This also becomes clear from the fact that
is always followed by ( Deut. 7:6; 14:2,21; 26:19; cf. 28:9). The contrast
with the other nations is reflected in the fronted and therefore emphasized
and out of all the nations at the end. Out of all the nations on the earth is a
universal horizon, which, however, is at the service of the particularity of Israel.
Besides, this underlines the greatness of Yhwh, who has the power to choose
out of all the nations.
Yhwh has chosen Israel to be for Him a . The word occurs only
eight times in the Old Testament, six of which refer to the people of Israel
(Exod. 19:5; Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18; Ps. 135:4; Mal. 3:17). The other two texts make
clear that the word denotes possessions. In 1Chr. 29:3, David says that in addi-
tion to all that he has already provided for the temple, he wants to give even
more: . In Qoh. 2:8, Qoheleth says that he gathered for him-
self silver and gold and of kings and of the provinces. In these two texts,
is a property with two characteristics. First, it is a personal property (cf.
in both texts).271 Second, it is a precious property. In both texts, it is mentioned
together with silver and gold, and its context makes clear that it is something
valuable.272
267 MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of Monotheism, 153157.

268 Cf. Pancratius C. Beentjes, Holy People: The Biblical Evidence, in A Holy People: Jew-
ish and Christian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity, ed. Marcel Poorthuis and
Joshua Schwartz, jcps 12 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 315.
269 Braulik, Deuteronomium, 1:63 characterizes Israel as a Kontrastgesellschaft: Die Aufgabe
der Absonderung ergibt sich aus der Gabe der Aussonderung.
270 Contra the suggestion in MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of Monotheism, 154.
271 It is not proven, however, if this is personal property in contrast to royal property, as is
sometimes suggested, e.g., by Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ib:116.
272 In Akkadian also, sikiltu means (accumulated) property; Samuel E. Loewenstamm,
, in Hebrew Language Studies, ed. Moshe Bar-Asher and Aron Dotan (Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1983), 324. He demonstrates (contra Held) that it does not have the connotation
of property that is illegally obtained.
82 chapter 2
In a metaphorical sense, , personal, precious property, is applied to

the people of Israel. In Deut. 7:6, the element of personal property is evident
from the words ( cf. Ps. 135:4, where and are paralleled). The
element of preciousness is reflected in Deut. 26:19, where a formulation similar
to Deut. 7:6 is continued by Yhwhs promise that He will set Israel high above
all nations, in praise, in fame, and in honour.
The metaphorical meaning of also occurs in Ugarit and Mesopotamia.
In Ugarit, the word sglt is used in a letter from the Hittite king to the king
of Ugarit (ktu 2.39).273 The Hittite king, Suppiluliuma ii (12051175 b.c.),274
blames his vassal Ammurapi (12051175 b.c.) that he has not come to him for
two years now, as was prescribed in earlier treaties, and that he has failed
to fulfill certain obligations. Because the text has not been preserved in its
entirety, several elements from the letter are debated. The lines that contain
the word sglt, however, are fairly clear.275
7 k . [bdm . ]sglth . hw
7 for he [the king of Ugarit] is a servant [of the Hittite king], his personal
property
12 b[d]m. sglth . at
12 a servant, his personal property you are
The element of personal property is even more pronounced if line 11 may be

read as a parallel of line 12.276
11 ht [ . ] at [ . ] l . p . blk
11 Now, you belong to the Sun, your lord277
273 Possibly, this letter is a translation from Akkadian; Meindert Dijkstra, Two Notes on pru 5,
No. 60, uf 8 (1976): 439. The question whether sglt may be a loanword from Akkadian in
Ugaritic requires a broader investigation of the semantic domain in Ugaritic.
274 Dates according to Veenhof, Geschichte des alten Orients bis zur Zeit Alexanders des Groen,
185, 314.
275 According to the reading of ktu, supplemented with Dijkstra, Two Notes; Dennis Pardee,
A Further Note on pru v, No. 60, uf 13 (1981): 151156.
276 I follow the reading of Pardee, Further Note.
277 The Sun is a common designation for Hittite kings in that time; see Viktor Koroec,
Hethitische Staatsvertrge: Ein Beitrag zu ihrer juristischen Wertung, lrws 60 (Leipzig:
Weicher, 1931), 3637.
It is clear that sglt is used in a metaphorical sense in this text, by a king for
his vassal.278 The vassal is considered the personal property of the king. The
connotation of precious property does not seem to be present here.
In Akkadian, sikiltu occurs in a metaphorical sense on a seal from Alalakh.
On it, Abbn, a king of Alalakh, is called warad dn narm dn2 s-ki-il-tum
a dn3, Abbn, the slave of D(ivine)N(ame), the beloved one of dn2, the
personal property of dn3.279 In this context, sikiltu indicates the relationship
between a god and the king. The relationship between a god and an individual
is also reflected in the use of sikiltu in the proper names Sikilti-dAdad and Sikilti-
dNergal (both mid-second millennium b.c.).280
So, the metaphorical meaning of sglt/sikiltu also occurs in Israels Umwelt.281
The word /sglt/sikiltu is used for three relations (leaving aside the usage
in proper names): deityking; kingvassal; deitynation. Although the total
number of occurrences from the Ancient Near East is too small to draw far-
reaching conclusions, it is remarkable that in the Old Testament only the third
category occurs. The word is never used for the king; only the people of Israel
as a whole are regarded as a )( for Yhwh.
Yhwh has chosen Israel out of all the nations of the earth to be for Him a
people of his precious possession. Out of all the nations may be connected
either with ( to choose from all nations) or with ( a people that is his
personal possession, unlike or in contrast to all nations).282 An argument for
the latter option is that is directly joined to this expression, and that
( without )is also used elsewhere with the addition of ( Exod.
19:5). An argument for the connection with is the fact that in Deuteronomy,
Yhwh is more often said to have chosen Israel from all the nations (Deut.
10:15), and that the verb often has the preposition . Usually, after the verb
it is mentioned first from which a selection is made (), then the purpose
of the election ( ;)however, the reverse order also occurs (1 Kgs 14:21//2 Chr.
12:13), as in Deut. 7:6. This order may emphasize the purpose of the election,
278 This is not a reason to view bd and sglt as synonyms, and to translate sglt as vassal, as
Benjamin Uffenheimer, , BetM 22 (71) (1977): 427434 does. See the criticism of
Loewenstamm, .
279 cad, s.v.; cf. M.-J. Seux, Epithtes royales akkadiennes et sumriennes (Paris: Letouzey et
An, 1967), 261262.
280 cad, s.v.; E. Lipiski, ThWAT 5:750.
281 For the use in rabbinic literature, see Moshe Greenberg, Hebrew segull: Akkadian
Sikiltu, jaos 71 (1951): 172174; Loewenstamm, .
282 The latter translation in Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ib:116.
84 chapter 2
since this is mentioned first. In terms of content, it makes little difference which
translation is chosen; in both cases, the emphasis is on the distinction between
Israel and the other nations.
Israel is chosen out of all the nations that are on . According to Hans
Wildberger, this term refers to the land of Canaan, so that all the nations
are the nations of Canaan.283 It is unlikely, however, that would refer
only to the land of Canaan. From the perspective of Deuteronomy, Israel is not
(yet) in Canaan. Moreover, in this verse and in the direct context, Israel is not
represented as belonging to the nations of Canaan, out of which it would have
been chosen; on the contrary, the emphasis is on the distinction between Israel
and the Canaanites. It is more likely, therefore, that all the nations of the earth
are meant.
Israels identity is defined by Yhwhs election. That way, Israel has a special
relationship with Yhwh. This has consequences for its relationship with other
nations. Israel has to keep far away from the nations of Canaan and their
religion.284
2.4.2 Deut. 7:711

In verses 711, the reason and the consequences of Israels election are elabo-
rated. Israels election is not based on the people itself (verse 7), but on the love
and the oath of Yhwh (verse 8). As a result of Yhwhs electing and redemptive
acts, Israel must know who He is (verses 910) and keep his commandments
(verse 11).
Verse 7
7a 7It was not because you are more numerous

than all the nations,
7a that Yhwh took delight in you
and chose you,
7b for you are the smallest of all the nations.
283 Hans Wildberger, Jahwes Eigentumsvolk: Eine Studie zur Traditionsgeschichte und Theolo-
gie des Erwhlungsgedankens, AThANT 37 (Zrich: Zwingli Verlag, 1960), 77.
284 According to Kenton L. Sparks, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel: Prolegomena to the
Study of Ethnic Sentiments and Their Expression in the Hebrew Bible (Winona Lake: Eisen-
brauns, 1998), 1622, ethnicity plays only a small role in Israels Umwelt. It is remarkable,
therefore, that in Deuteronomy Israels own identity receives much emphasis. At the same
time, it is clear that the separation from the nations of Canaan is not motivated by a desire
for ethnic purity, but by the religious identity of Israel: their relationship with Yhwh (cf.
Ibid., 236, 283, 323).
In verses 7 and 8, the cause and content of Israels election (verse 6) are
elaborated. The grammatical structure of these verses is identical: + inf.const.
(in verse 8 twice) is followed by a qatal and wayyiqtol.285 First, it is stated that
the cause of Israels election is not in Israel itself; this is underlined by verse
7a, which is in focus position.286 Any idea of superiority as a basis for Israels
election or for the extermination of the nations of Canaan is rejected. Israel is
even the smallest of all the nations.
This greatness and smallness can be understood either quantitatively or
qualitatively. tj chooses the latter and translates more exalted and humbler
and more oppressed, respectively.287 However, since the size of the nations of
Canaan (quantitatively) is mentioned several times in Deut. 7 (verses 1,17), that
interpretation is more likely.
Yhwh took delight in Israel (). This word is used elsewhere for the love
between man and woman, in combination with ( Gen. 34:3; Deut. 10:15)
and beauty (Deut. 21:11). It indicates a close relationship.288 The end of verse 7
underlines that the election is not based on characteristics of Israel. Israel is
not the largest, but the smallest nation (cf. verse 1; Deut. 4:38; 9:1; 11:23). In this
way, the non-meritorious character of Israels election is emphasized.
Verse 8
8a 8But because Yhwh loved you

and kept the oath
that He swore to your fathers,
8a Yhwh brought you out
with a mighty hand
285 The form ( verse 7) may be derived either from the noun or from the verb .
The forms in verse 8 must be inf.const., because of the form ( )or the following
object (). Because of the parallel structure, it is likely to view as an inf.const.
as well. The following comparison with other nations also argues for this interpretation:
the noun followed by a comparison with is not found in the Old Testament; the verb
is followed by a comparison in Exod. 23:29; Deut. 7:22 (with ;)Ps. 4:8; 69:5; Jer. 46:23
(with ).
286 Cf. jm 160bc; gkc 152de.
287 So also Rashi, , 531.
288 G. Wallis, ThWAT 3:280281. The use of this verb is an argument against Von Rads thesis
that in Deuteronomy, the love of Yhwh would never occur as Gattenliebe; Gerhard von
Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments (Mnchen: Kaiser, 19571960), 1:237. Cf. Koschel, Volk
Gottes in der deuteronomischen Parnese, 53.
86 chapter 2
8b and redeemed you from the house of

slavery,
8b from the hand of Pharaoh, the king of
Egypt.
As a contrast (), verse 8 is directly connected to verse 7. In a parallel formula-

tion, the positive reason for Yhwhs election of Israel is given, namely the love
and the oath of Yhwh, not anything in Israel itself. Yhwhs love for Israel is
mentioned more often in Deuteronomy (Deut. 4:37; 10:15; 23:6). It is not only his
loyalty to the covenant, but also denotes an emotional or affective nuance.289
His love is the reason for his intervention in favour of Israel. The paradoxical
logic of vv. 78, then, is that yhwh loved you ( )because he loved you ().
This decisive location of election not in Israel, but in yhwh, undercuts any
attempt to explain Israels election.290 It could even be regarded as a double
paradox, since the explanation of Israels election at the same time undercuts
any explanation.
Parallel to Yhwhs love for Israel is the oath that He swore to the fathers
(verse 8a). This raises, first of all, the question of who are meant by your
fathers. The oath to the fathers regarding the land is mentioned several times
in Deuteronomy. This could refer either to the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob) or to the exodus generation.291 This latter possibility cannot be ruled out
in advance, since the exodus generation factually is the previous generation
in the perspective of Deuteronomy. The parlance of Deuteronomy, however,
does not point in this direction. Time and again, the generation at the border
289 The affective element is pointed out by Bill T. Arnold, The Love-Fear Antinomy in Deu-
teronomy 511, vt 61 (2011): 551569 (562).
291 According to Thomas C. Rmer, Israels Vter: Untersuchungen zur Vterthematik im Deu-
teronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition, obo 99 (Freiburg: Universittsver-
lag, 1990), only the final redaction of the Pentateuch would have identified the fathers in
Deuteronomy with the patriarchs; actually, however, the exodus generation would have
been meant (for Deut. 7, see Ibid., 141152). For an extensive, critical review and rebuttal
of his thesis, see Norbert Lohfink, Die Vter Israels im Deuteronomium: Mit einer Stellung-
nahme von Thomas Rmer, obo 111 (Freiburg: Universittsverlag, 1991). According to Jerry
Hwang, The Rhetoric of Remembrance: An Investigation of the Fathers in Deuteronomy,
Siphrut 8 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012), in Deuteronomy as a whole there is a con-
scious rhetorical conflation of Israels generations (Ibid., 88) from the patriarchs up to
the present of Deuteronomy, intended to underline the unity of the people of God and
of the covenant.
of Canaan is identified with the exodus generation.292 Also in Deut. 7, there

are various indications for this identification: at the end of verse 8, it is stated
that Yhwh has redeemed you ( ;)verse 15b refers to the diseases of
Egypt that Israel has experienced; verses 1819 refer to the events of the exodus
that your eyes saw. Because the generation at the border of Canaan and the
exodus generation are identified, the designation your fathers has to refer
to the patriarchs. This is confirmed by Deut. 6:10, the parallel of Deut. 7 in
the structure of the book of Deuteronomy (see 3.1), where the names of the
patriarchs are mentioned.293
The next question is whether it can be determined which oath is meant.
It is possible to view verse 8ab as the fulfilment of Yhwhs promise; in
that case, the oath to the fathers would contain the promise of the redemp-
tion from Egypt. An argument against this interpretation, however, is the fact
that nowhere else in Deuteronomy is Yhwhs oath connected with the exo-
dus, while Yhwhs faithfulness to his oath to the fathers is an important theme
in this book.294 Moreover, it is not explicitly stated in verse 8 that the content
of the oath concerns the redemption from Egypt; only a connection is indi-
cated.
A more likely interpretation is that the oath refers to Yhwhs promise to
give the land of Canaan to Israel. In Deuteronomy, Yhwhs oath is connected
almost always with the land of Canaan. Moreover, several times there is a close
link between the exodus from Egypt and the gift of the land of Canaan (Deut.
4:3738; 6:23; 9:8; cf. also 26:89).295 In this interpretation, the redemption from
292 See broader Dieter Eduard Skweres, Die Rckverweise im Buch Deuteronomium, AnBib
79 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979), 101107. His conclusion regarding the fathers
in Deuteronomy is that in eight texts, the context makes clear that the patriarchs are
meant; in five texts, their names are mentioned; in six texts, a certain identification is
not possible, but per analogiam it is likely that the patriarchs are meant. Cf. H. Ringgren,
ThWAT 1:11.
293 According to Bernd Biberger, Unsere Vter und wir: Unterteilung von Geschichtsdarstel-
lungen in Generationen und das Verhltnis der Generationen im Alten Testament, bbb 145
(Berlin: Philo, 2003), 387388, in the book of Deuteronomy only in Deut. 1:1946 a distinc-
tion is made between two generations in the desert; the word fathers is not used in this
context.
294 Deut. 1:8,35; 4:31; 6:10,18,23; 7:8,12,13; 8:1,18; 9:5; 10:11; 11:9,21; 13:18; 19:8; 26:3,15; 28:9,11; 29:12;
30:20; 31:7,20,21,23; 34:4.
295 Cf. Skweres, Die Rckverweise im Buch Deuteronomium, 110114. According to some
authors, there is a difference between Yhwhs oath in Deuteronomy (which would only
concern the land) and his oath elsewhere in the Old Testament (which would contain
also offspring and blessing); so Koschel, Volk Gottes in der deuteronomischen Parnese,
88 chapter 2
Egypt is a means to fulfill Yhwhs oath to the fathers, which has the promise
of the land as its content (cf. the focus on the land in verse 1). The goal of the
oath is not mentioned in this text; however, this may be explained well by the
intention of verse 8. The argument is not the content of the oath, but the fact
that Yhwh swore an oath.
The election of Israel and the redemption from Egypt are closely related,
though they do not coincide with each other. The election proves itself in
the redemption from Egypt. Various images are used for the liberation from
Egypt,296 of which hif. is the most common. The addition ( often
combined with ) emphasizes that the exodus was a demonstration
of Yhwhs power. This is an encouragement for Israel (cf. verses 1719); the
smallest under the nations should know that it has the most powerful God,
something that has been proven in the redemption from Egypt.297
The verb is used a few times in Deuteronomy to designate Israels
liberation from Egypt.298 Elsewhere in the Pentateuch, this verb is not used for
the redemption from Egypt. The object of this verb is always in the singular
in Deuteronomy; if it is a fixed formula, this could explain the change in
number over against the 2nd pl. references to Israel in the preceding clauses
(see 2.5).299 Because of the limited number of texts, it cannot be determined
with certainty whether serves as a juridical term in Deuteronomy (to
ransom).300
Egypt is designated as the house of slavery ( ; cf. Deut. 5:6; 6:12;
8:14; 13:6,11). This designation possibly functions more or less as the name of a
place, which would explain the absence of an article.301 The title king of Egypt
occurs elsewhere in the Pentateuch only in Deut. 11:3.
Deut. 7:8 refers to Yhwhs redemptive acts in the past and to his love for
Israel, on which the redemption is based. Only Yhwhs love and his oath are the
6370; Plger, Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen, 6679;

Gerhard von Rad, Verheienes Land und Jahwes Land im Hexateuch,zdpv 66 (1943): 191.
In Deut. 7:1314, however, offspring and blessing are promised.
296 See H. Ringgren, ThWAT 4:1108.
297 Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ib:125 [my translation].
298 Deut. 9:26; 13:6; 15:15; 21:8; 24:18.
299 Cf. Eduard Nielsen, Deuteronomium, hat i/6 (Tbingen: Mohr, 1995), 98; Irene Schulmeis-
ter, Israels Befreiung aus gypten: Eine Formeluntersuchung zur Theologie des Deuterono-
miums, bs 36 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2010), 208209; Veijola, Deuteronomium,
207; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 111, 369.
300 See Schulmeister, Israels Befreiung aus gypten, 253259.
301 jm 137s.
reason for Israels election. Thus, all pride and complacency are cut off. Yhwhs
love and his acts are then the basis to exhort the people to love and obey Yhwh
(verses 911).
Verse 9
9a 9Know therefore
9a that Yhwh your God is indeed God,
9b the faithful God,
9b who keeps the covenant and the faithful

love with those who love Him and keep his
commandments, to a thousand generations,
In verse 9, the conclusion is drawn from the previous verses.302 A weqatal

(verse 9) can also be used as a rather loose continuation of the previous sen-
tences.303 In terms of content, verse (6)8 is the motivation for the commands
in verses 911.304 It is possible to translate as a command (know there-
fore) or as a consequence (so that you know).305 The interpretation as a com-
mand is more likely, because Deuteronomy continuously exhorts to observe the
commandments and because and with an imperative meaning are
more often used in combination (Deut. 4:3940; 8:56).
The coherence of verses 811 has been described by Norbert Lohfink as a
Schema der Beweisfhrung. After a reminder of the past (Geschichtliche Tat-
sachen) follows a call to acknowledge (Glaubensmige Schlufolgerung)
and to act (Anwendung auf das Handeln). In its most complete form, which
Lohfink finds in Deut. 8:26, the weqatal (2nd masc.sg.) of , , and
are used. In a more free form of this scheme, the verb may be absent.306
This freer form is found in Deut. 7:811. In verse 8, Yhwhs acts in the past are
302 Theoretically, it is possible to view verse 9 (and 11) as the apodosis of verse 8, which serves
as the protasis ( + qatal + wayyiqtol). Because of the antithetic parallelism of verses 7
and 8, however, it is more likely to connect verse 8 primarily with verse 7.
303 gkc 112xee; for an imperative meaning 112aa. Cf. Deut. 10:19.
304 Waltke and OConnor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 532: According to the
theology of Deuteronomy, Israel should offer God future obedience on the basis of past
gracious acts to them, and here as elsewhere wqatalt represents the entreaty form ()
and qtl + wayyqtl the past acts. Contra Buis and Leclercq, Le Deutronome, 81, who believe
that verse 9 is not at all connected with the previous verses.
305 Waltke and OConnor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 532 n. 31.
306 Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 125131.
90 chapter 2
called to remembrance. Verse 9 calls for the recognition that Yhwh is indeed
God (, the so-called Erkenntnisaussage). Verse 11 then calls the people to
keep the commandments ().
On the basis of the redemption from Egypt, Israel has to recognize that
Yhwh is indeed God, the only God (). This designation for Yhwh is
also used in Deut. 4:35,39, where the meaning clearly is that Yhwh is the
only God () .307 The point is not whether and how Deuteronomy
recognizes other gods, but the uniqueness and incomparability of Yhwh. His
unique actions in the history of Israel demonstrate that He as God is unique.308
Precisely in the context of Deut. 7, it is noteworthy that the conclusion is not
that Israel is a unique nation, but that Yhwh is unique. In contrast to the gods
of the nations (cf. verses 15), He is the God.309
In a series of participles, verses 9b10 elaborate on who Yhwh is (cf. Exod.
34:67). He is the faithful God, an expression that is used only once in the
Old Testament. As an epithet of Yhwh, only occurs in Isa. 49:7, also in
combination with Israels election (cf. Deut. 32:4: ) .310 Yhwh is the one
who is to be trusted, even and precisely in circumstances in which this cannot
be taken for granted.311 This faithfulness of Yhwh is evident from the fact that
He still keeps his promise to the fathers (verse 8).312
Following this and as an elaboration of Yhwhs faithfulness, the text declares
that Yhwh keeps the covenant and the with those who love Him and keep
his commandments.313 In verse 8, and were combined to state that
Yhwh loved Israel and that He kept his oath. In verse 9, the same verbs are
307 In Deut. 33:1, the only other occurrence of as a designation for Yhwh in Deuteron-
omy, Moses is called , but the meaning is not that specific.
308 Cf. Rolf Rendtorff, Die Erwhlung Israels als Thema der deuteronomischen Theologie,
in Die Botschaft und die Boten, ed. Jrg Jeremias and Lothar Perlitt (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 83.
309 Eric E. Elnes, Discerning the Difference: The Distinctiveness of Yahweh and Israel in the
Book of Deuteronomy (Princeton Theological Seminary, 1997), 146159 has demonstrated
that the uniqueness of Yhwh and of Israel are interrelated in Deuteronomy. Contrary to
what Elnes states, however, Deut. 7:78 make clear that the uniqueness of Israel is much
more dependent on Yhwh than vice versa.
311 A. Jepsen, ThWAT 1:317319.
312 Cf. Neis, Vernichtet werdet ihr, 8081.
313 Cf. Finsterbusch, Weisung fr Israel, 180181. Finsterbusch believes that those who love
Him and keep his commandments is primarily a reference to the fathers. However, in
the context of this verse only Yhwhs love for the fathers is mentioned, not their love for
Yhwh or their behaviour. Therefore, it is more likely that this is a general statement.
used with Israel in view; thus, a close connection is made between Yhwhs love
and faithfulness to the covenant, on the one hand, and Israels love for Yhwh
and obedience to his commandments, on the other (for , cf. verse 12). The
verb reoccurs in verse 13; there, the love of Yhwh is mentioned once
again. So, in Deut. 7 the verbs and are used first for Yhwhs love
and faithfulness (verse 8), then for the love and faithfulness that is required
of Israel (verse 9), and then again for Yhwhs love and faithfulness (verses 12
13). Yhwhs love and faithfulness are the basis and the framework for the love
and faithfulness that are required of Israel. The exhortation to observe the
commandments is still implicit in verse 9, but is explicitly stated in verse 11.
Loving Yhwh is closely connected with living according to his command-
ments.314
In Deuteronomy, the concept is connected with various moments in
the history of Israel: the covenant Yhwh swore to the fathers (Deut. 4:31; 7:12;
8:18); a covenant that was made at the exodus from Egypt (Deut. 29:24); the
covenant at Horeb (Deut. 4:13; 5:2,3; 9:9; 29:1); and a covenant in the land of
Moab, the content of which is to be found in the book of Deuteronomy itself
(Deut. 28:69; 29:8). Because of the connection with verse 8 and the identical
formulation in verse 12, we may assume that verse 9 is primarily about the
covenant with the fathers, although the formulation is more general. Yhwhs
covenant with Israel excludes serving other gods or a covenant with other
nations (and their gods) (cf. verse 2; Deut. 17:2; 29:11,14; 31:16,20). The combi-
nation of and is not very common; when the words are combined,
this is almost always in the fixed expression , as an apposition
to Yhwh.315 The combination with Yhwh as the subject never occurs
without .316
314 The combination of obedience with the right inner attitude is also present in Ancient Near
Eastern treaties; for parallels, see Moran, Ancient Near Eastern Background; Udo Rters-
wrden, Die Liebe zu Gott im Deuteronomium, in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichts-
werke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur Deuteronomismus-Diskus-
sion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten, ed. Markus Witte et al., bzaw 365 (Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 2006), 229238. For parallels between Ancient Near Eastern treaty texts and the
covenant relationship of Yhwh and Israel, see also Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the
Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 8184.
315 Deut. 7:12; 1Kgs 8:23; 2Chr. 6:14; Neh. 1:5; 9:32; Ps. 89:29; Dan. 9:4. It is only in Deut. 7:12 and
Ps. 89:29 that the expression is not cast as a fixed combination; in Ps. 89, is combined
with , but is frontloaded. Possibly, the fixed combination may be ascribed to the
influence of Deut. 7:9. Apart from Deut. 7:9,12; Ps. 89:29, it is always an address to Yhwh
in a prayer.
316 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 111, 370371 views the combination as a hendiadys and translates
92 chapter 2
The end of verse 9, , is joined to as an adjunct to Yhwh.

This confirms the faithfulness of Yhwh; the faithful God remains so through
the ages. The question of whether is to be viewed as a cardinal or as an
ordinal numeral makes no difference for its meaning; it indicates an immensely
long time. This is confirmed by the other texts where and are used in
combination, and the term is a parallel of ( 1 Chr. 16:15; Ps. 105:8).317
Verse 10
10a 10and who repays those personally who hate

Him, by destroying him.
10b He will not delay it with the one who hates
Him;
10b He will repay him personally.
In verse 10, the participles that describe Yhwhs character are continued. In
contrast to verse 9, it is stated that Yhwh repays those who hate Him by
destroying them. Both times, may be interpreted as an adjunct of the
verb . The concentric structure of verse 10 emphasizes the verb . This
makes it more likely that is an adjunct to the verb, not to )(.318 In
verse 10b the Masoretic accentuation also connects more closely with
than with .319 According to this interpretation, the suffix in does
not refer to Yhwh, but to the one who hates Him, like the suffixes in
and .320
his gracious covenant. He also points to parallel expressions in treaties from the Ancient
Near East.
317 Cf. Steuernagel, Das Deuteronomium, 79: fr [so gut wie] alle Generationen. Possibly,
is an interpretation of from the Decalogue (Exod. 20:6; Deut. 5:10); so, e.g.,
Driver, Deuteronomy, 102; Otto, Deuteronomium 111, 870. See also the exegesis of verse 10.
318 So Craigie, Deuteronomy, 180: the one that openly hates Him.
319 has a zaqef qaon, has a ifa. According to the theory of James D. Price,
the phrase before a silluq is divided by a ifa as the near disjunctive accent and a zaqef
as the remote disjunctive accent. As the ifa cannot be placed at the last word (which
already has a higher disjunctive accent, silluq), it comes at the word before it. The division
is thus marked by the zaqef, and is primarily connected with . See Price,
The Syntax of Masoretic Accents in the Hebrew Bible.
320 According to Ronald Ernest Clements, The Book of Deuteronomy, in The New Inter-
preters Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck et al. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 350, the use of the
singular would indicate that only individuals turn away from Yhwh.
is the face of a human being; it can also be used to designate the

whole person.321 It seems likely, therefore, to interpret in this verse as a
reference to the person who hates Yhwh. The interpretation of this expression
as a synonym of , with the meaning immediately,322 is not convincing.
Yhwh repays the one who hates Him in a personal, direct confrontation.323
Elsewhere in Deuteronomy, it is stated that someone who makes a vow to
Yhwh, should not postpone fulfilling it ( , Deut. 23:22); according
to Deut. 7:10, Yhwh himself does not do so either. He is not only faithful to his
covenant (verse 9), but He also actually executes his judgment.324 The verb
hif. indicates what Yhwhs retribution means: destruction.
Verse 10 is primarily about a situation within the people of Israel. This
becomes clear from the connection with verse 9 (an exhortation of Israel) and
from the fact that the words and are often used in the context of a
covenant (see verses 8,13). However, in the direct context those who hate Him
may also refer to the Egyptians (verses 8,1819) and to the nations of Canaan.
Concerning the Canaanites, the same verb is used twice (verses 20,24).
Although in Deut. 7 no direct connection is made between the command to
exterminate the nations of Canaan and their attitude toward Yhwh and his
commandments (see verse 6), indirectly that connection is made in verse 10.325
Verse 10 emphasizes Yhwhs personal retribution. According to some
authors, the expressions for those who love Him and keep his command-
ments and for those who hate Him are a reference to the Decalogue (Deut.
5:910), where it is stated that Yhwh will punish the children for the sins of the
fathers. By emphasizing personal retribution, Deut. 7:10 would deliberately dis-
tance itself from this, and reject the idea of corporate responsibility.326 How-
ever, the focus of Deut. 7:10 is that the one who hates Yhwh does not escape
321 H. Simian-Yofre, ThWAT 6:635636. See, e.g., Deut. 4:37. + a person scheint den
Adressaten einer Handlung stark hervorzuheben. (Ibid., 657).
322 So Ehrlich, Randglossen, 2:273; Merrill, Deuteronomy, 181. Cf. the text-critical annotation
in 2.2.
323 Cf. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ib:126; Nelson, Deuteronomy, 101102; Nielsen, Deutero-
nomium, 99; Veijola, Deuteronomium, 208.
324 Cf. Matthias Franz, Der barmherzige und gndige Gott: Die Gnadenrede vom Sinai (Exodus
34,67) und ihre Parallelen im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt, bwant 160 (Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 2003), 216217.
325 Cf. Finsterbusch, Weisung fr Israel, 181.
326 Bernard M. Levinson, Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2008), 7284; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 111, 371. In Deut. 7:910,
the order of the expressions is inverted compared to the Decalogue; this is the technique
of inverted citation or Seidels law; Levinson, Legal Revision, 73.
94 chapter 2
his retribution; possible consequences for his offspring are not discussed in
Deut. 7. On the other hand, it is unlikely that Deut. 5:9 would mean that the
one who sins has nothing to fear himself. It is true that Deut. 7:10 may refer
to Deut. 5:9, and that in Deut. 7:10 there is more emphasis on personal retri-
bution; it cannot be simply stated, however, that Deut. 7:10 is intended as a
correction of Deut. 5:9.327 The idea of individual retribution fits well with Deut.
24:16. It is noteworthy that Deut. 7:10 emphasizes individual retribution, while
in this chapter Israel is called to destroy an entire population (cf. Deut. 13:13
19). According to Deut. 7, individual and collective retribution apparently are
not mutually exclusive.
Verse 11
11a 11And keep therefore the commandment,

the statutes and the ordinances
11b that I am commanding you today,
to do them.
The weqatal continues ( verse 9). Israel should know that Yhwh is
the only God and (therefore) should keep his commandments. The combina-
tion of these verbs occurs several times in Deuteronomy (see verse 9).
The verb plays an important role in verses 811. Yhwh keeps his oath
to the fathers; therefore, He has brought Israel out of Egypt. Yhwh keeps the
covenant and faithful love with those who love Him and keep his command-
ments. Based on these acts of Yhwh, Israel is now exhorted to keep Yhwhs
commandments.328 Reference is made to the past (verse 8) and to the future
(verse 12) in order to motivate Israel to obedience in the present (verses 9
11).329 The call to obedience refers (inter alia) to the commands of verses 15,
which is confirmed by the use of the verb in both verse 5 and verses 11 and
12.330
327 MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of Monotheism, 160161. Levinson, Legal Revi-
sion, 7284 acknowledges that Deut. 7:910 is not presented as a change with respect to
the Decalogue, but he considers this to be part of a subtile strategy, that does not explicitly
contradict the Decalogue, but that changes the content by means of paraphrase and refor-
mulation. [W]hat purports to be mere paraphrase in fact constitutes a radical subversion
of the textual authority of the Decalogue; Ibid., 80.
328 Cf. Koschel, Volk Gottes in der deuteronomischen Parnese, 135.
329 Hwang, Rhetoric of Remembrance, 215.
330 Cf. Finsterbusch, Weisung fr Israel, 184.
The commandments of Yhwh are often designated with the combination

, , and . This combination is found several times in Deuteron-
omy (Deut. 5:31; 6:1; 26:17), among many other combinations. With these com-
binations, the emphasis is not so much on the individual components, but on
the totality of Yhwhs commandments.331 Deuteronomy often uses synonyms
in combination (cf. the enumeration of cult objects in verse 5 and the combi-
nation , , and in verse 12).
The subordinate clause, that I am commanding you today (the so-called
Promulgationssatz), occurs frequently in the book of Deuteronomy. It empha-
sizes the situation of Deuteronomy, at the border of the land of Canaan, and
its authoritative speaker, Moses or Yhwh.332 may be interpreted as an
adjunct of or . The first option is the most likely one, because the com-
bination is often found in Deuteronomy.333
2.4.3 Deut. 7:1216

Together, verses 1216 describe what Yhwh will do if Israel keeps his com-
mandments. He will bless the people abundantly (verses 12b14) and ward off
all misery (verse 15). The section ends with another command to destroy the
nations of Canaan (verse 16).
Verse 12
12a 12It will happen,

if you listen to these ordinances,
12a and keep

and do them,
12b then Yhwh your God will keep with you the
covenant and the faithful love
12b that He swore to your fathers.
In verse 12, the call to keep the commandments (verse 11) is motivated by
a promise of the blessings that will follow from keeping Yhwhs command-
ments. Vocabulary and content are in line with verses 89 and verse 11. The
331 Cf. Georg Braulik, Die Ausdrcke fr Gesetz im Buch Deuteronomium,Bib. 51 (1970): 39
66; Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 5458, 295296; Norbert Lohfink, Die uqqm mipm
im Buch Deuteronomium und ihre Neubegrenzung durch Dtn 12,1, Bib. 70 (1989): 130.
332 Cf. Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 5763, 297298.
333 Cf. Ibid., 6870.
96 chapter 2
word means first of all consequence, indicating a motivation;334 but it

can also mean reward, recompense. As a conjunction it usually occurs in the
combination or . The combination does not occur
elsewhere in the Old Testament; usually, the combination is with a
conditional clause. In the rare instances that a subordinate clause with yiqtol
follows (only Deut. 7:12; 8:20; Amos 4:12), the meaning becomes almost identi-
cal with if. The connotation with reward or recompense cannot be excluded,
but the translation as a reward for335 probably is too explicit in this text. In
any case, it is clear that what follows is a condition for the promise in the apo-
dosis.
Israel has to hear the commandments, keep them, and do them. Deuteron-
omy often uses a combination of (these and other) verbs to exhort to obedi-
ence.336 The focus is not on possible differences between these verbs, but on
the total obedience that is required.337
If Israel keeps Yhwhs commandments (, cf. verse 11), He in turn will
keep ( )what He promised (cf. verses 89). Verses 12b15 may be regarded as
an elaboration of Yhwhs covenant and faithful love (verse 9).338 The condition
mentioned here does not contradict verses 811, where this condition seems
to be absent. Indeed, verse 8 is about the oath Yhwh has already kept by
liberating Israel from Egypt. Verse 9 mentions who Yhwh is (participle); it is
also stated, however, for whom Yhwh keeps his covenant and faithful love,
namely for those who love Him and keep his commandments. Verse 9 thus
connects faithfulness to Yhwhs commandments with Yhwhs faithfulness.
Therefore, the relationship between these verses is more complicated than
a simple contradiction of unconditionality (verses 811) and conditionality
(verse 12).339 The use of the verb connects Yhwhs and Israels keeping of
the covenant. It is noteworthy that the series starts and finishes with Yhwh
keeping the covenant. Moreover, his faithfulness extends to the thousandth
generation, while his judgment extends far less.340
334 jm 104b: as a consequence of (recompense for), because.

335 So Dillmann, Deuteronomium, 274; Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ib:129130; Samuel
Oettli, Das Deuteronomium und die Bcher Josua und Richter, kk (Mnchen: Beck, 1893),
4445.
336 The combination of , , and occurs elsewhere in Deuteronomy (referring to
Yhwhs commandments) in Deut. 5:1; 6:3; 12:28; 13:19; 15:5; 28:1,13,15; 31:12.
337 Cf. Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 6472, 299302.
339 Cf. Hwang, Rhetoric of Remembrance, 210215; McConville, Deuteronomy, 159.
Yhwh swore the covenant and the faithful love to the fathers (see verse 9).
As in verse 8, the patriarchs are in view. Unless is interpreted as an explana-
tion of , nothing is said in verse 12 about the contents of the covenant. The
continuation in verse 13, however, shows that the content is Yhwhs blessing in
the land of Canaan.
Verse 13
13a 13He will love you,

13a He will bless you,
and He will multiply you.
13b He will bless the fruit of your womb and the
fruit of your ground, your grain and your
wine and your oil, the increase of your herds
and the young of your flock,
13b in the land
13b that He swore to your fathers
to give you.
The weqatals of verse 13 continue the apodosis of verse 12 (). Yhwh

will love Israel, bless it, and multiply it. Yhwhs love for Israel was already
mentioned in verse 8. There, it was one of the reasons for the redemption from
Egypt. If Israel keeps Yhwhs commandments, Yhwhs love for Israel will be
perpetuated. As in verse 12, there is no contradiction between an unconditional
promise and a conditional promise.341
In Deuteronomy, Yhwhs blessing is almost always mentioned in view of
the future (only in Deut. 2:7, it refers to the past), often under the condition
of living according to his commandments. In this context, Yhwhs blessing
is connected with his faithfulness (verse 12) and love (verse 13). The promise
of multiplication of the people also occurs several times in Deuteronomy.342
Twice, there is an explicit reference to a promise (to the fathers) that is fulfilled
this way (Deut. 6:3; 13:18). In Deut. 7:13, the promise of multiplication stands
over against the smallness of Israel (verse 7).
Next, the blessings of Yhwh are elaborated. The seven objects that follow
show the totality of the blessing.343 Together, they set the stage for the great
341 Contra Veijola, Deuteronomium, 206207.

342 Deut. 6:3; 8:1,13; 13:18; 30:5,16.
343 Veijola, Deuteronomium, 203204.
98 chapter 2
chapter of blessing and curse (Deut. 28), focusing on Yhwhs blessing.344 The
elaboration has a chiastic structure.
a: fruit of the womb b: fruit of the ground
b: grain, wine, oil a: increase of herds, young of flock
In the centre (bb), the fruit of the land is mentioned. Grain, wine and oil
(, , )are the chief products of Canaan.345 As the fruits of the land,
these products are always used as a fixed combination in Deuteronomy. b
is the comprehensive concept, while b is a concrete expression of the most
important fruits of the land. In terms of content, b and b are synonyms.
Surrounding the centre (aa) the fruit of women and animals is mentioned.
The expression designates human offspring. This is clear from a number
of similar enumerations in Deuteronomy, where in addition to the fruit of
your womb, the fruit of your cattle is mentioned as a separate element (Deut.
28:4,11; 30:9; in 28:18, this is not the case). Elsewhere in the Old Testament,
is used several times parallel to human offspring, but nowhere parallel to
cattle. Therefore, it is likely that designates only children, not animals.
This element is an elaboration of the promise that Yhwh will multiply the
people (verse 13a). a and a are complementary: the offspring of humans and
animals. As a whole, the enumeration indicates that both the fruit of living
creatures and the fruit of the land will increase.346
The combination occurs only in Deuteronomy (Deut.
7:13; 28:4,18,51), always in a context of blessings and curses. The noun
is not used outside of this combination in the Old Testament; occurs
elsewhere only in Exod. 13:12. There it is used in the combination ,
parallel to . In the context of the combination in Deuteronomy, the
word is always found. These data indicate that the expression refers to the
offspring of cattle and flock.347
344 Cf. Deut. 28:4,11,18,27,38,40,59,60; Otto, Deuteronomium 111, 873.

345 They are mentioned here in an unmanufactured state: grains, juice of grapes from the
winepress and not yet refined oil. The terms for the manufactured products are: or
( threshed grain), ( wine) and ( oil). Cf. Driver, Deuteronomy, 103; Labuschagne,
Deuteronomium, ib:131; Nielsen, Deuteronomium, 101; George Adam Smith, The Book of
Deuteronomy, cbsc (Cambridge: University Press, 1950), 113.
346 Cf. Craigie, Deuteronomy, 181: so that the increase in population would be matched by an
increase in the food supply.
347 The context of in Sir. 40:19 yields no indications for the meaning; however, it is clear
that it is not a nomen divinum.
Several words that are used in Deut. 7:13 in connection with the blessing of
Yhwh also occur as the name of a deity in the Old Testament or the Ancient
Near East (in particular and ). This has raised the question whether
this vocabulary reflects a polemic with the Canaanite religion. According to
some authors, the names of Canaanite gods are used deliberately in verse 13, in
order to indicate that the fruitfulness does not originate from these gods, but
only from Yhwh.348 Each of these terms deserves specific comment.
. In the texts from Ugarit, gr is used twice, once to indicate the offspring
of cattle,349 once to refer to a deity.350 In Punic inscriptions from Carthage, the
name bdgr occurs three times; the element gr may best be explained as a
theophoric element.351 Finally, there is a controversial passage in the Bileam
texts of Deir Alla (i 14):352
() wkl . zw . qqn . gr . wtr . l
It is controversial how gr in da i 14 should be interpreted. It is possible to view

gr and tr as the names of deities.353 An argument in favour of this interpre-
tation is the occurrence of gr as nomen divinum in the Umwelt of Deir Alla.
348 So Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary (New York:
Norton, 2004), 918: the God of Israel supersedes all these agricultural deities as the
source of fertility, reducing them to mere common nouns; Block, Deuteronomy, 213;
Woods, Deuteronomy, 146147. Cf. Judith M. Hadley, The De-deification of Deities in
Deuteronomy, in The God of Israel, ed. R.P. Gordon, ucop 64 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2007), 157174. Hadley does not state this concerning .
349 ktu 1.5:iii:1617: gr mu(d); cf. 2223: mud in.
350 ktu 1.148:3031, an offering list, in the combination gr w im.
351 Frank L. Benz, Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions: A Catalog, Gram-
matical Study and Glossary of Elements, StP 8 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1972), 163,
413414.
352 Text according to Jacob Hoftijzer and Gerrit van der Kooij, eds., Aramaic Texts from Deir
Alla, dmoa 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1976); line numbering according to Andr Caquot and Andr
Lemaire, Les textes aramens de Deir Alla, Syr. 54 (1977): 189208 (i 16 in the editio
princeps).
353 So Hoftijzer and Van der Kooij, Aramaic Texts from Deir Alla, 273274; G. Garbini, Liscri-
zione di Balaam bar-Beor, Hen 1 (1979): 166188; Baruch A. Levine, The Deir Alla Plaster
Inscriptions, jaos 101 (1981): 195205; Hans-Peter Mller, Einige alttestamentliche Pro-
bleme zur aramischen Inschrift von Dr All, zdpv 94 (1978): 5667; Hans-Peter Mller,
Die aramische Inschrift von Deir All und die lteren Bileamsprche, zaw 94 (1982):
214244; Helmer Ringgren, Balaam and the Deir Alla Inscription, in Isac Leo Seeligmann
Volume: Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World 3: Non-Hebrew Section, ed. Alexander
Rof and Yair Zakovitch (Jerusalem: Rubinstein, 1983), 9398; Victor Sasson, The Book
100 chapter 2
tr exclusively occurs as nomen divinum, among others in the Moabite Mesha

Inscription (in the combination , line 17) and in Ugarit.354 However,
it is also possible to interpret gr and tr as nouns, meaning offspring.355 An
argument for this interpretation is the parallel expression in Deuteronomy, the
only place where gr and tr(t) are really used in combination (in ktu 1.148:30
31, they are in close proximity). This interpretation would fit the context of the
Deir Alla text, where more animals are mentioned (i 15: nmr, panther; ny,
young pig). An objection to this interpretation is that an appellative use of tr is
attested nowhere else.356 Because of the fragmentary context and the problems
of interpretation within the text, it cannot be concluded with certainty whether
gr is the name of a deity in da i 14. The occurrence of tr in the Umwelt and
the fact that the combination in Deuteronomy is not an exact parallel (
instead of tr, and the addition of / )favour the interpretation as a
deity, although the interpretation as offspring cannot be excluded.
In conclusion, gr is used as the name of a deity, once in Ugarit, in a Punic
name from Carthage, and possibly in the texts of Deir Alla. From these texts (an
offering list, a name, and a fragmentary text), little can be deduced about the
nature of this deity. On the basis of the combination with tr and the parallel in
Deuteronomy, a connection is often made with fertility,357 but because of the
scarce data, this is uncertain.
. In the Old Testament, clearly is the name of a deity. In
the Umwelt also, /rt often occurs as a nomen divinum.358 This goddess has
a relation with sexuality and fertility, though not as close as assumed in the
past.359
of Oracular Visions of Balaam from Deir Alla, uf 17 (1985): 283309; Helga Weippert
and Manfred Weippert, Die Bileam-Inschrift von Tell Dr All, zdpv 98 (1982): 77
103.
354 For Ugarit, see Gregorio del Olmo Lete and Joaqun Sanmartn, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic
Language in the Alphabetic Tradition, ho 67 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), s.v. tr. For more refer-
ences, see H.-P. Mller, ThWAT 6:454456.
355 Caquot and Lemaire, Les textes aramens de Deir Alla; Jo Ann Hackett, The Balaam Text
from Deir All, hsm 31 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1984), 41, 133134; P. Kyle McCarter Jr., The
Balaam Texts from Deir All: The First Combination, basor 239 (1980): 4960.
356 Mller, Einige alttestamentliche Probleme, 64 n. 48.
357 Hoftijzer and Van der Kooij, Aramaic Texts from Deir Alla, 273. K. van der Toorn, ddd, 760
762 identifies gr with the Mesopotamian Shaggar, the god of the moon; the moon would
influence conception and birth.
358 For an overview, see Mller, ThWAT 6:453463.
359 N. Wyatt, ddd, 109114. Cf. M. Delcor, Astart et la fcondit des troupeaux en Deut. 7,13
et parallles, uf 6 (1974): 714.
. In Akkadian and Ugaritic texts, a god Dagan is known. He is mentioned

in the same offering list from Ugarit as art and gr (ktu 1.148:26). In the Old
Testament, Dagon occurs as the god of the Philistines (Judg. 16:23; 1 Sam. 5:27;
1 Chr. 10:10).360
. In Ugaritic, tr occurs as a noun (new wine), but also as a nomen
divinum, once in a list of gods (ktu 1.102:9) and twice in an offering list (ktu
1.39:11,16). In the letters from El Amarna, the name Abdi-tir-i occurs; tir-i
may be interpreted as a theophoric element.361
. It has been suggested that is the name of a fertility god.362 How-
ever, there is no evidence for this view in texts from the Ancient Near East or
in the Old Testament.
The thesis that the vocabulary of Deut. 7:13 is a polemic against the Canaan-
ite religion encounters two objections. First, it is uncertain whether all the
deities mentioned were known in Canaan. There are only few texts in which
and occur as nomen divinum. Concerning , there are no indica-
tions at all that it was used as the name of a deity. It is difficult to demonstrate,
both positively and negatively, whether the gods mentioned were known in
Canaan, and in what period. Second, there is nothing in Deuteronomy itself
that suggests the interpretation of these nouns as an allusion to the Canaanite
religion. Therefore, although an extra emphasis on Yhwhs power would fit in
the context of Deut. 7, the evidence for this thesis is too weak.363
Verse 13 ends with the location where Israel will receive the blessings of Yhwh:
in the land that He swore to your fathers to give you. In verse 1, Deut. 7 uses
the word as a designation of the land of Canaan; in verses 6 and 13, it uses
. These two words may be used as synonyms.364 In verse 13, may
have been used in connection with the preceding , thus giving it the
connotation of the soil on which something is growing.365
360 Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartn, Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, s.v. dgn; H. Ringgren,
ThWAT 2:148151.
361 J.F. Healey, ddd, 871872.
362 Alter, The Five Books of Moses, 918. N. Wyatt, ddd, 640 mentions this view, but considers it
unconvincing.
363 Cf. Rose, 5. Mose, 2:451452.
364 Diepold, Israels Land, 76; Plger, Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Unter-
suchungen, 121129.
365 Cf. McConville, Deuteronomy, 149. The combination of and does not occur in
Deuteronomy. In combination with the verb , Deuteronomy almost always uses
(verse 1); cf. Plger, Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen,
124126.
102 chapter 2
Again, reference is made to the oath to the fathers (see verse 8). This oath
was referred to indirectly in the promise of blessing and multiplication. The
oath at the end of verse 13 seems to imply that Yhwh swore to give the land
not so much to the fathers, but to their offspring.366 This promise is about to be
fulfilled (see verse 1).
Verse 14
14a 14You will be blessed above all nations;

14b there shall not be male or female barren
among you or among your livestock.
Verse 14 is an elaboration of elements already mentioned in verse 13.

corresponds with the verb in verse 13 (twice). The promise that there will
be no male or female barren corresponds with the fruit of your womb and the
promise that Yhwh will multiply Israel; your livestock is a counterpart of the
increase of your herds and the young of your flock. Thus, verse 14 underlines
the wealth of Yhwhs blessings. Grammatically, verse 14 is a parenthesis. With
a weqatal, verse 15 continues the series of weqatals of verses 12b and 13.
with a second person is rare in the Old Testament (in Deuteronomy
only in 28:36). Almost always, Yhwh is the object of this blessing; in this text,
however, it is Israel. The addition above all nations confirms Israels unique
position. The point is not whether or not the other nations will be blessed,367
but the unique position of Israel (cf. verse 6).
The promise of the absence of infertility occurs elsewhere in Exod. 23:26,
also in connection with living in the land of Canaan. In the Old Testament,
fertility is viewed as a sign of Yhwhs blessing. This verse is the only text in
the Old Testament where the adjective has a masculine form. Apparently,
infertility was viewed especially as a matter concerning women. The use of both
the masculine and the feminine form in this text serves to indicate the totality
of the promised blessing.
The addition at the end of verse 14, or among your livestock ( )has
been viewed as a possible gloss, because it does not follow immediately after
366 Cf. Deut. 6:10,23; 26:3,15; 28:11. For an overview of the combination of Yhwhs swearing
with the land in Deuteronomy, see Plger, Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkri-
tische Untersuchungen, 6365. Cf. Suzanne Boorer, The Promise of the Land as Oath: A Key
to the Formation of the Pentateuch, bzaw 205 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1992), 112128.
367 As Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ib:131 suggests by translating in contrast to.
.368 However, such a construction is rather common in Biblical Hebrew.369

tj explicates the fertility of the flock: they will not be barren from wool, milk
and young.
Verse 15
15a 15Yhwh will take away from you all sickness,

15b and all the evil diseases of Egypt,
which you know,
He will not inflict on you,
15b but He will give them to all who hate you.
With a weqatal, verse 15 continues verse 13 syntactically. There, it was stated

positively how Yhwh will bless Israel if it keeps his commandments. Elaborat-
ing on this, in verse 15 it is promised how Yhwh will ward off evil from Israel.
The noun , with the meaning illness, occurs elsewhere only in Deut.
28:60. That text also deals with the diseases of Egypt, that Yhwh will inflict
on Israel too if it does not keep his commandments (cf. Deut. 28:5961). In the
beginning of Exodus, where the plagues of Egypt are recorded, the verbs
and do not occur (cf. , Exod. 15:26). This raises the question whether
Deut. 7:15 is about the well-known plagues of Egypt or about diseases of Egypt
in general.
According to some authors, Deut. 7:15 refers to diseases of Egypt in gen-
eral. Egypt would be a country where many serious diseases and epidemics
occurred.370 In the middle of the nineteenth century, E.W. Hengstenberg wrote
that there is consensus on the idea that gypten in Bezug auf die Krankheiten
ein sehr eigenthmliches Land sey und mit ihnen in ganz besonderem Grade
heimgesucht.371 The Roman author Pliny (first century a.d.) already wrote
about a skin disease (lichens/mentagra) that originated ex Aegypto genetrice
368 So G. Hlscher, Komposition und Ursprung des Deuteronomiums,zaw 40 (1922): 171 n. 4;

Steuernagel, Das Deuteronomium, 80: hinkt nach, vielleicht Zusatz.
369 Cf., e.g., Deut. 1:36; 28:54,56; Gen. 2:9; 12:17; 28:14; 43:15,18; Exod. 34:27; Num. 18:8; Josh. 14:9.
See Driver, Deuteronomy, 103 n. v translates: sterilis utriusque sexus tam in hominibus
quam in gregibus tuis.
370 E.g, Smith, Deuteronomy, 113114. For Exod. 15:26, see also Houtman, Exodus, 2:308. Labus-
chagne, Deuteronomium, ib:131132 believes the text is not about special diseases of Egypt,
but about diseases due to poverty.
371 Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Die Bcher Moses und gypten (Berlin: Ludwig Oehmigke,
1841), 225226.
104 chapter 2
talium vitiorum.372 Of the disease of elephantiasis, it can be said according to

him: Aegypti peculiare hoc malum.373
The question to what extent Egypt is an ailing country according to todays
standards is irrelevant for the exegesis. However, it is also questionable whether
the explanation mentioned is true for Deut. 7:15. Apart from the texts men-
tioned (Deut. 7:15; 28:60), Egypt is connected with illness in Deuteronomy only
in Deut. 28:27. Given the vocabulary used (, boils; cf. , to grope about,
Deut. 28:29), this text refers to (inter alia) the plagues of Egypt (cf. Exod. 9:10;
10:21; Amos 4:10). Elsewhere in the Old Testament, Egypt is not specifically con-
nected with illness either. Therefore, it is more likely that Deut. 7:15 refers to the
so-called plagues of Egypt. The reference to the time of the exodus in verses 18
19 also points in this direction.374 The objection that Israel does not know all
these plagues from experience (cf. the text-critical annotation in 2.2)375 is not
decisive, because the generation at the border of the land is identified with the
exodus generation in Deuteronomy (see the exegesis of verse 8).
Apart from the question how the diseases of Egypt is to be interpreted, the
promise of Deut. 7:15 is much broader, since Yhwh will take away all sickness
from Israel. The plagues of Egypt are a deterrent example that Israel knows.
Yhwh will take away sickness from Israel, but He will give it to those who
hate Israel (in contrast to Deut. 28:60). Evil for those who hate Yhwh was
already announced in verse 10, which also uses the verb . Verse 15 is con-
sistent with this, for Yhwh and Israel are viewed as one party, provided that
Israel keeps Yhwhs commandments. The reference to the plagues of Egypt
may be interpreted as an illustration that Yhwh inflicts illness on those who
hate Israel: He already did so to Egypt.
Verse 15 is similar to Exod. 15:26, which states that Yhwh will not bring
upon Israel any of the diseases ( )that He brought upon the Egyptians, if
Israel will keep his commandments. For Yhwh is the one who heals Israel.376
The connection between illness and Egypt, and between keeping Yhwhs com-
mandments and being protected from disease, corresponds to Deut. 7:15. The
element that Yhwh will give the diseases to those who hate Israel is lacking in
372 Pliny, Nat. 26:4, ed. W.H.S. Jones, lcl (London: Heinemann, 1956).
373 Pliny, Nat. 26:8.
374 So also Rose, 5. Mose, 2:452; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 111, 374.
375 Veijola, Deuteronomium, 204 n. 491.
376 Cf. Houtman, Exodus, 2:308315; Norbert Lohfink, Ich bin Jahwe, dein Arzt (Ex 15,26):
Gott, Gesellschaft und menschliche Gesundheit in einer nachexilischen Pentateuch-
bearbeitung (Ex 15,25b.26), in Studien zum Pentateuch, sbab 4 (Stuttgart: Katholisches
Bibelwerk, 1988), 93108.
Exod. 15:26. That may be explained by the fact that there is no confrontation
with enemies in Marah (Exod. 15:2326). The characterization of Yhwh as a
physician is absent in Deut. 7:15. It is not clear whether there is literary depen-
dence between Exod. 15:26 and Deut. 7:15.
Verse 16
16a 16You shall devour all the nations

that Yhwh your God will give you.
16a
Your eye shall not pity them,
16b and you shall not serve their gods,
16b for that would be a snare to you.
The weqatal continues the series of weqatals of verses 12b13 and verse 15.
In verse 16, the subject changes from Yhwh to Israel. The verb can be
interpreted as a promise (then you will devour) or as a command (you have
to devour). In view of the following (negative) imperatives in verse 16ab and
the suggested objection in verse 17, the interpretation as a command is more
likely.377 The verb is used, as often elsewhere, with a metaphorical meaning:
to devour, to destroy.378
Christa Schfer-Lichtenberger has raised the question of what nations Israel

has to devour according to verse 16. According to her, verse 16 refers to nations
other than those in verse 1.379 Therefore, the identification of the nations has
to be examined. Deut. 7 uses both the word and to refer to nations.
In Deut. 7, refers in all cases to the nations of Canaan. In verse 1, twice
the great nations are mentioned that Yhwh drives out before Israel. After the
first occurrence, seven nations are listed; with the second occurrence, mention
is made of seven nations. In verse 17, the possible objection is mentioned that
Israel will think it is not able to drive out these nations because of their size.
The words used ( and )refer to the nations of verse 1. In verse 22, it is
repeated that Yhwh will drive out these nations before Israel. The rare verb
( seven times in the Old Testament) makes a connection with verse 1, where
the same verb is used with regard to the nations. In the current text of Deut. 7,
can only refer to the nations of Canaan.
377 Cf. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 103. Otherwise Finsterbusch, Weisung fr Israel, 186 n. 269.
378 M. Ottosson, ThWAT 1:254256.
379 See above, pp. 6970.
106 chapter 2
The use of is more differentiated. In verse 6, the sg. is used twice with
regard to Israel, which is and for Yhwh. In verses 6, 7 (twice)
and 14, all the nations (who are on the face of the earth, verse 6) are men-
tioned in a comparison with Israel. In verse 16, Israel receives the command to
devour all the nations Yhwh gives them. In verse 19, it is stated what Yhwh
will do to all the nations of which Israel is afraid, as He did to the Egyptians.
In the context of Deut. 7, verse 16 and verse 19 must refer to the nations of
Canaan.380 Yhwh will give these nations to Israel (verses 2,16), Israel is warned
of their gods (verses 4,16), and these are the nations Israel is afraid of (verses 17
18). Between these two texts with , verse 17 speaks about , which clearly
refers to the nations of Canaan (see above). There are no indications that
verses 16 and 19 are about other nations.
In conclusion, read in the context of Deut. 7 as a whole, the nations in
verse 16 can only mean the nations of Canaan. Schfer-Lichtenberger can posit
her thesis only by isolating verses 1316a from the context, and by situating
them in the time that Israel already lives in Canaan.381 If verse 16 is read within
the context of Deut. 7, however, this thesis is untenable.
The preceding weqatals (verses 1215) were about the question of what Yhwh
will do for Israel; verse 16 is about what Israel has to do (cf. verses 12). On
the one hand, this is a repeated exhortation (you have to devour all the
nations); on the other hand, it is a promise (that Yhwh your God will give
you).
The command is followed by a prohibition (cf. verse 2b): your eye shall not
pity them. The subject of the verb is usually . The eye stands for the
whole person, drawing attention to the affections in particular.382 If there is
an object, this is almost always introduced by the preposition and regards
human beings.383 As a parallel of , the verb is often found. The meaning
of may be described as: to save, to spare, to have compassion out of human
feelings and therefore to act helpingly.384 So, it is forbidden for Israel to spare
the nations of Canaan or to act out of pity for them. This is consistent with
380 According to Otto, Deuteronomium 111, 860, is used when the expulsion of the
Canaanites is mentioned, and when Israel is distinguished from the other nations.
This, however, is not true for the use of in verses 16 and 19.
382 See F.J. Stendebach, ThWAT 6:3540. Cf. Ezek. 7:4, where my eye as the subject of is
used parallel to a verb in the first person () .
383 Only in Gen. 45:20 the object is not a human being.
384 S. Wagner, ThWAT 2:811812 calls it a Gesinnungs-Handlungs-Zusammenhang.
the radical command and the prohibitions of verse 2b and with the command
of verse 16a. Apparently, it is considered a danger that Israel would spare the
nations.385
The rest of verse 16, you shall not serve their gods, explains the commands
of verse 16a. If Israel would spare the nations, the expected result apparently
is that it will also go and serve their gods. That way, it would not keep the
commandments of Yhwh and would lose his blessing (cf. verses 1213). The
danger that Israel would be drawn into serving the gods of the nations of
Canaan was already indicated in verses 24 (cf. verse 4 ). This motivation
shows that the command to exterminate the Canaanites is not a goal in itself,
but a means to prevent Israel from serving other gods than Yhwh, as was
already indicated in verse 5.
At the end of verse 16, refers to the two preceding prohibitions.386
Sparing the nations of Canaan and consequently serving their gods would be a
snare to Israel. A is used to catch birds, although it is controversial which
object is exactly meant.387 The image nevertheless is clear: sparing the nations
and serving their gods would lead to captivity and destruction for Israel. Either
Israel will destroy the nations, or it will be destroyed itself (cf. verse 4).388 It
cannot be determined whether the (Babylonian) exile is in view here, since the
word is only used here in Deuteronomy and the image is not explained.
As the context gives no further indications, nothing more can be stated than
that it is a general threat of destruction.
2.4.4 Deut. 7:1726

Verses 1726 again call Israel to destroy the nations of Canaan. First, the objec-
tion is discussed that the nations would be too large to be destroyed (verse 17).
385 Cf. Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden, 141. Markus Philipp Zehnder, Umgang mit Fremden in
Israel und Assyrien: Ein Beitrag zur Anthropologie des Fremden im Licht antiker Quellen,
bwant 168 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2005) has compared dealing with other nations in
Israel and Assyria. On the one hand, other nations are always viewed and treated as human
beings in the Old Testament (in contrast to Assyrian texts) (Ibid., 554; cf. 6194). On the
other hand, Israels intolerance toward the Canaanites and their religion is remarkable in
comparison with Assyrian texts (Ibid., 546547, 552; cf. 388401, 482498).
386 Since they belong together, it is less likely that would refer to one of the two prohi-
bitions only. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ib:132 mainly mentions the first prohibition
(sparing as a first step to serving their gods). For the use of as a general reference, see
Waltke and OConnor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 301 ( 16.3.5c).
387 For an overview of the various opinions, see H. Ringgren, ThWAT 3:866.
388 Rose, 5. Mose, 2:453.
108 chapter 2
In response to this, the text recalls Yhwhs past acts. Just as Yhwh has done
in the past, so also He will do again (verses 1819). He will send even hornets
to destroy the nations (verse 20). Next, the text highlights who Yhwh himself
is: a great and awesome God (verse 21). He will drive out the nations, although
slowly, but fully (verses 2224). The section ends with a call not to engage in
anything of the Canaanite religion (verses 2526).
Verse 17
17a 17If you say in your heart:

17a These nations are more numerous than I;
17b how can I dispossess them?
In verse 17, a possible objection to the command to exterminate the Canaanites

is introduced. Because of the statement in verse 19b, according to which Israel
is afraid of these nations, it apparently is not a fictitious situation, but an
objection which is regarded as realistic.
Israel might think that it is impossible to destroy these nations. In verse 1, it
was already stated that the nations in Canaan are more numerous than Israel
(cf. the agreement in vocabulary: and the comparison with ). In
verse 7, the smallness of Israel was emphasized. This can raise the question
how it will ever be possible for Israel to conquer and destroy these nations.
The verb hif. is often translated as to expel. This translation suggests
that the nations stay alive and may continue to live elsewhere. The direct
context of verse 17, however, shows that this should not be the case. This is
clear from other verbs used regarding the nations of Canaan: ( verse 16),
( verse 16), qal/hif. (verses 20,24), pi. (verse 22) and hif.
(verses 23,24). These parallels make it likely that hif. should be understood
as to destroy, not as to expel.389 Perhaps the translation to wipe away can
cover both meanings, though suggesting destruction.
Other texts in the Old Testament confirm the meaning to destroy, to exter-
minate.390 In a number of texts, no persons are mentioned, or it is not clear
what happened to the people. It is relevant, however, that nowhere in the
Old Testament is any suggestion made that the nations of Canaan could or
were allowed to live on elsewhere. Moreover, there are several texts in which
389 According to Lohfink, Bedeutungen von hebr. jr, 26 n. 41, lxx and v usually translate
to destroy, but to always translates to expel.
390 The use of qal and of hif. with the meaning to become poor or to inherit are
left aside here.
hif. occurs with persons as its object, and where parallels or the con-
text make clear that destruction is meant. In Deuteronomy, this is evident
from the parallels in Deut. 9:3: , hif., hif., and hif. Although
in this context, the verb is also used (Deut. 9:4), the verbs of Deut. 9:3
clearly suggest that the nations of Canaan will be destroyed (cf. Josh. 23:4
5, where as a parallel of hif., both and hif. are used).391 This
intention is also clear in other texts (Num. 14:12; Josh. 13:12; Judg. 11:23; cf.
3.4.2).392
The question of how Israel can destroy the nations is of particular impor-
tance in the book of Deuteronomy. In the beginning of the book, an earlier
moment was described when Israel arrived at the border of Canaan. At that
moment, the fear of the size of the Canaanites (Deut. 1:28) had such an effect
that Israel could not enter the land.393 In the perspective of Deuteronomy,
Israel now is at the border of Canaan again. From the beginning of the book,
the warning sounds that Israel should not, out of fear for the nations of Canaan,
be disobedient to Yhwh again.
Verse 18
18a 18Do not be afraid of them;

18b remember very well
what Yhwh your God did
18b
to Pharaoh and all Egypt:
Verse 18 is the response to the objection raised in verse 17. According to Eckart
Otto, the structure of this response corresponds with a war oracle, known from
neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions. It contains the following elements: the call not
to fear, a promise of divine assistance (I am with you), a reference to help
in the past, and the promise of deliverance from the enemies.394 All these
elements are present in Deut. 7:1821.
391 Deut. 9:4 and Josh. 23:5 are the only texts in which the parallels of hif. suggest
that people were not exterminated. Lohfink, Bedeutungen von hebr. jr, 31 states that
the use of proves nothing, since it can also mean to punch down. This objection
is unconvincing, however. It is more important that in these few texts, there is always
another verb besides that clearly means to destroy.
392 For a broader justification of this translation, see Ibid., 2633.
393 Craigie, Deuteronomy, 181; Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ib:135; Woods, Deuteronomy,
147.
110 chapter 2
Israel is called not to fear the nations it will encounter. This exhortation
occurs several times in Deuteronomy.395 In response to fear, Israel is called to
remember. The remedy for fear is memory.396 Israel should take heart from
what Yhwh has done to Egypt in the past. If Yhwhs power is greater than even
the power of the Pharaoh and Egypt, Israel definitely should not be afraid of the
nations of Canaan and their kings (cf. verses 2324).397 In Deuteronomy, the
verb usually regards Israels stay in Egypt, the exodus, or the journey through
the wilderness. Remembering is not a purely intellectual activity; rather, it
calls attention to the significance of the past for the present and the future.398
Remembering the acts of Yhwh should keep Israel both from timidity before
the conquest of Canaan (Deut. 7:17) and from arrogance after it (Deut. 8:17).399
The mention of Egypt refers to verse 15, where Yhwhs power, demonstrated
in Egypt, was already mentioned. The response to the objection of verse 17 is
not an explanation of how Israel can wipe away the nations, but of how Yhwh
will do it. The memory of what Yhwh did to Pharaoh and to Egypt in order
to liberate Israel occurs in many texts in Deuteronomy.400 In Deut. 20:1, this
remembrance is also used as a motivation for the call not to be afraid of the
enemy.
Verse 19
19a 19the great trials

that your eyes saw,
and the signs, the wonders,
the mighty hand and the outstretched arm,
19a by which Yhwh your God brought you out.
19b So Yhwh your God will do to all the nations
19b of which you are afraid.
395 Deut. 1:29; 3:22; 20:1; 31:6,8.

396 Christensen, Deuteronomy, 1:166.
397 OConnell, Deuteronomy vii, 259.
398 Willy Schottroff, Gedenken im alten Orient und im Alten Testament: Die Wurzel zkar im
semitischen Sprachkreis, wmant 15 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1964), 339:
Die Erinnerung ergreift Vergangenes um seiner Gegenwartsbedeutung willen und im
Blick auf ein gegenwrtiges Handeln.
400 See (apart from the texts where only the exodus from Egypt is mentioned) Deut. 1:30; 4:34;
9:26; 11:34; 26:8; 34:11.
The beginning of verse 19 offers an elaboration of the end of verse 18,

concerning what Yhwh has done to Pharaoh and to all Egypt (cf. verse 8). With
a five-fold formula, Yhwhs deeds are listed. Such multiple formulations as an
elaboration of the redemption from Egypt are used more often, up to a seven-
fold formula (Deut. 4:34).401 In these lists, the emphasis is not on the separate
elements, but on the totality of Yhwhs demonstrated power. His power is also
underlined in this verse. Israel has experienced this itself (that your eyes saw);
therefore, it need not be afraid of the nations of Canaan.
As Yhwh has redeemed Israel from Egypt in the past, so He will now deliver
it from the nations of which Israel is afraid. This is an example of a typological
use of history: as Yhwh acted once, so also He will act in the future.402 The
reference to Yhwhs power demonstrated in the past is a motivation in the
present not to be afraid of the future.
Verse 20
20a 20Moreover, Yhwh your God will send

hornets among them,
20b until those who are left or hide themselves
are destroyed before you.
Verse 20 continues ( )with the acts of Yhwh in destroying the nations. Yhwh
will send even hornets among them, so that all of them will be destroyed.
The meaning of is controversial. Elsewhere in the Old Testament, the

word is used only in Exod. 23:28 and Josh. 24:12, both times in a context similar
to Deut. 7:20. In all of these texts, it is stated that Yhwh sends the ;(
Exod. 23:28; Josh. 24:12: qal; Deut. 7:20: pi.). In Exod. 23:28 and Josh. 24:12, the
result is that the drives out ( )nations before Israel. In Deut. 7:20, it
leads to the destruction of the nations (). Concerning the meaning of ,
three options have been defended:
401 For an overview, see Rolf Rendtorff, Die Herausfhrungsformel in ihrem literarischen und
theologischen Kontext, in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature, ed. Marc Vervenne
and Johan Lust, BEThL 133 (Leuven: University Press, 1997), 501527; Schulmeister, Israels
Befreiung aus gypten.
402 See Norbert Lohfink, Geschichtstypologisch orientierte Textstrukturen in den Bchern
Deuteronomium und Josua, in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature, ed. Marc Ver-
venne and Johan Lust, BEThL 133 (Leuven: University Press, 1997), 133160.
112 chapter 2
1. wasp, hornet. This is the way in which almost all the Versions translate
it.403 This is also the terms meaning in rabbinic Hebrew.404 Outside of
the Old Testament, wasp, hornet is the only meaning that occurs.405
However, a number of objections have been raised against this rendering:
first, in Exod. 23:28, it is used parallel to ( fear) and ( to throw
into confusion); second, this meaning has no parallel in other Semitic
languages; third, it seems unlikely that wasps would drive out human
beings.406
2. fright, discouragement. Because of the objections against the first option
and on the basis of Arabic, Ludwig Khler chooses this meaning. Many
authors follow this view.407
3. disease, plague. This is the way in which some less relevant Versions
translate the term.408 This translation may have originated from a sup-
posed connection with .409
403 lxx: = wasps nest (in Exod. 23:28; Deut. 7:20 pl.). Targumim of Deut. 7:20: (a plague
of [stinging]) hornets (to: ;tj: ; tn: ) . s of

Deut. 7:20: ( wasps, hornets). v always: crabrones (hornets). This interpretation
is also found in Wis. 12:8.
404 Cf. the dictionary of Yastrow. Rashi, , 532 refers to b. Soah 36a (ed. Abraham
Liss, The Babylonian Talmud with Variant Readings collected from Manuscripts, Fragments
of the Genizah and Early Printed Editions: Tractate Sotah [Jerusalem: Institute for the
Complete Israeli Talmud, 19771979], 2:127128), where the hornets are described. Morde-
cai E. Kislev, , Le. 61 (1998): 5161 has pointed out that in
Biblical and rabbinic times, the semantic domain of is broader than hornets; it can
designate all wasp species (Hymenoptera). For the present study, it is especially relevant
that it always designates animals (insects).
405 So also Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ib:135.
406 Ludwig Khler, Hebrische Vokabeln i, zaw 54 (1936): 291: Man erwartet () neben
Schrecken und Verwirrung und Flucht () einen vierten Ausdruck, der etwa die Mut-
losigkeit und den Verzicht darauf, Israel berhaupt noch anzugreifen, ausdrckt. So
already Friedrich Delitzsch, Die grosse Tuschung (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt,
1921), 1:114 n. 20.
407 See McConville, Deuteronomy, 149, 161; Nielsen, Deuteronomium, 103; Von Rad, Das fnfte
Buch Mose, 49; Robert G. Bratcher and Howard A. Hatton, A Handbook on Deuteronomy,
ubshs (New York: United Bible Societies, 2000), 162163. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 90 translates
hornet, but he suggests the possibility that this is a metonymy for panic; he refers to a
parallel in Greek; cf. Houtman, Exodus, 1:141142.
408 The Ethiopian translation (according to the apparatus of lxx), lxx321 ( ) and
vl (Cod.Lugd.); Vetus Latina Database, a.l.
409 So already Ibn Ezra (according to Tigay, Deuteronomy, 360 n. 33); Ehrlich, Randglos-
sen, 1:361. This connection (but without this meaning of )is also made by John
An important objection against the second and third interpretation, how-

ever, is that it cannot be explained how it is possible that both the Versions
and rabbinic Hebrew assume a totally different meaning.410 In response to the
objections raised against the meaning hornet, the following may be stated.
The absence of a related word in other Semitic languages is not decisive: the
use in Hebrew itself is primary. The objection that the parallelism with
and in Exod. 23:28 would argue against the meaning wasp, hornet is not
convincing either. After the words fear and to throw into confusion, another
synonym may follow, but it is also possible that the means or the cause of the
fear would be indicated. Since almost all the Versions and post-biblical Hebrew
agree on the meaning wasp, hornet and since the objections that have been
raised against this meaning are not decisive, the interpretation of as hor-
net (the singular being used for a collective) is the most likely one.
If this interpretation is correct, it could be asked which sort of wasp is
meant. This is not easy to determine, since a more detailed description is
missing in the Old Testament. The description in the Babylonian Talmud that
the spat poison, blinded the eyes of the enemies, and castrated them,411
can hardly be regarded as a useful description. According to the theologian
and ornithologist Henry Baker Tristram, who visited Palestine several times in
the nineteenth century, there are four sorts of hornets that occur frequently in
Canaan.412 Hornets are larger and more vicious than wasps. Authors discussing
the question generally believe that the is the Vespa orientalis, the largest
hornet in Canaan. It builds its nest in the ground or in rocks. It can multiply
rapidly, especially if the field is left bare, as is the case in times of war. The
number and the content of the references in rabbinic literature indicate that
the Vespa orientalis was common in post-biblical times in the Middle East. Its
sting is very painful and multiple stings can kill a child; with an adult, this
does not seem to be the case in normal circumstances.413 Taken together, it
F.A. Sawyer, A Note on the Etymology of raat, vt 26 (1976): 241245. He suggests that
the disease possibly received its name because somebody felt like they were stung by a
wasp.
410 The etymology of the second interpretation has been questioned by Labuschagne, Deute-
ronomium, ib:135. Unfortunately, he offers no elaboration or references.
411 b. Soah 36a (ed. Liss, The Babylonian Talmud, 2:127128), followed by Rashi, ,
532.
412 Henry Baker Tristram, Hornet, in A Dictionary of the Bible Comprising Its Antiquities, Biog-
raphy, Geography, and Natural History, ed. W. Smith and J.M. Fuller, 2nd ed. (London: John
Murray, 1893), 1389. When his observation is reliable, it is preferable to a contemporary
survey, due to the ecological changes in the twentieth century.
413 Benjamin Mazar, , in ( Encyclopaedia Biblica) (Jerusalem:
114 chapter 2
is likely that a large sort of wasp is meant in the Old Testament. It is not
certain at all, however, if the authors had any further identification in mind.
The identification with the Vespa orientalis may be considered a possibility, for
this kind of hornet did live in the land of Canaan.
According to some authors, Deut. 7:20 does not refer to an actual animal,
but uses the hornet as a symbol for Egypt. The symbol of the kingship of
Lower Egypt ( ), which is usually viewed as a bee (bi.t, as it is read, means
bee), would be more like a wasp in some inscriptions. Deuteronomy would
use such a cryptical indication since the writer could not state it openly that
Yhwh uses another nation.414 According to Oded Borowski, it would even
be a reference to the campaign of Merneptah (ca. 1220 b.c.), known from
his so-called Israel Stele.415 However, even if the symbol of Lower Egypt is
indeed a wasp, this interpretation is speculative. There are no indications
at all that in this text refers to Egypt. On the contrary, the context of
verses 1819 is rather directed against Egypt, which makes this interpreta-
tion unlikely. Moreover, in this interpretation the connection with the end of
verse 20 (those who are left or hide themselves will be destroyed) remains
unclear.
The next question concerns what kind of role these wasps could have played
in conquering Canaan and destroying its inhabitants. Edward Neufeld has
defended the thesis that other insects were possibly also used in wars in the
Ancient Near East, as an early form of biological warfare.416 According to him,
nests of bees, for example, may have been plugged with mud and hurled as
a projectile to the enemy. Unfortunately, his argument rests largely on what
should be considered possible and probable; Neufeld himself has to admit
Bialik, 1971), 6:773774; Jehuda Feliks, The Animal World of the Bible: The Identification of All
Animals Mentioned in the Bible and Their Descriptions Based on the Bible, the Mishna, the
Midrash and the Talmud and Placed in an Israeli Setting (Tel-Aviv: Sinai, 1962), 121; Feliks,
Hornet, in ej 9:257; Houtman, Exodus, 1:141142; Tristram, Hornet. According to Tristram,
multiple stings could be fatal for a human being. According to prof.dr. Jacob S. Ishay, who
has done much research into hornets, this is not the case (communication by e-mail,
July 9, 2007).
414 John Garstang, Joshua, Judges, fbh (London: Constable, 1931), 259260; Oded Borowski,
The Identity of the Biblical ir, in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth, ed. Carol
L. Meyers and Michael Patrick OConnor, asorsv 1 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 315
319. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 111, 375 views the insects as a metaphor for invading armies,
but without the identification with Egypt.
415 Borowski, The Identity of the Biblical ir. Garstang dates the conquest earlier.
416 Edward Neufeld, Insects as Warfare Agents in the Ancient Near East (Ex. 23:28; Deut. 7:20;
Josh. 24:12; Isa. 7:1820), Or. 49 (1980): 31.
that no (textual or iconographic) evidence can be found in Egypt, Assyria or

elsewhere to confirm his thesis.417 Therefore, it remains unproven.
The most natural interpretation is that Deut. 7:20 is about hornets that are
sent by Yhwh to the nations of Canaan. This interpretation makes verse 20a
fit best with verse 20b: even those who are left or hide themselves will be hit
by the hornets. In Deut. 7:20, it is not stated that they will be killed by the
sting of the hornets; it could also be supposed that by the hornets, the enemies
are forced to leave their hiding places. The emphasis is on the hornets as a
devastating power.418 In classical literature, there are testimonies that human
beings have been expelled by wasps.419 may indicate that the hornets are
only an example of what Yhwh will do.420 A description that anything like this
actually happened, however, is missing in the Old Testament.
Yhwh will release the hornets to the nations of Canaan. pi. with the
preposition can be translated as to release to.421 Possibly this is an allusion to
the plagues of Egypt, when Yhwh also used animals in order to punish a nation
(cf. verses 15,1819). The subject, Yhwh, is mentioned explicitly in verse 20a,
although there is no change of subject. Grammatically, this explicit mention is
unnecessary. This emphasizes the work of Yhwh.422
417 Ibid., 39.

418 For animals as a devastating power in the Old Testament, cf. Lev. 26:22; Deut. 1:44; 28:38
39,42; 32:24; Ps. 118:12; Ezek. 14:15. Otherwise Steuernagel, Das Deuteronomium, 80, who
emphasizes their smallness: alle Mchte, sogar die kleinsten, wie die Hornissen, die in
die verborgensten Schlupfwinkel eindringen und durch ihre Stiche tten knnen. In Wis.
12:810, the hornets are interpreted as a forerunner and as mitigation of Gods judgment;
see Versluis, The Early Reception History, 320.
419 Aelianus, De natura animalium 11.28, ed. A.F. Scholfield, lcl (London: Heinemann, 1959):
, (And a swarm of flies drove out
the people of Megara, wasps the people of Phaselis, trans. Scholfield 2:394398). Phaselis
is a city at the east coast of Lycia.
420 Dillmann, Deuteronomium, 275. Carl Friedrich Keil, Genesis und Exodus, bc (Leipzig:
Drffling und Franke, 1866), 498 states that Josh. 24:12 shows that the hornet is bildlich,
since it is said that the hornets drove out the Amorites, whereas other texts make clear
that only Israel did so. However, even if Josh. 24:12 refers to Sihon and Og (which is
controversial), Yhwhs deeds (and the means He uses) and Israels deeds are contrasted
too much in this interpretation.
421 Cf. Deut. 28:20,48; 32:24. For more examples, see Ernst Jenni, Die hebrischen Prpositio-
nen: Band 1: Die Prposition Beth (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1992), 241242. This expression
is used for the release of pestilence, enemies, lions, snakes, etc.
422 Cf. verses 7 and 8. See DeRouchie, Call to Covenant Love, 192197.
116 chapter 2
The warning that Yhwhs enemies will be destroyed ( )occurs often in

Deuteronomy (cf. verses 10,24).423 This is true for the nations of Canaan, but
also for Israel if it is disobedient to Yhwh. By or with the aid of the hornets,
the Canaanites will be totally destroyed. Even the animal world is involved in
their destruction. The intervention of a deity in the natural world for the benefit
of the party he supports is a widespread motif in the Ancient Near East. An
important difference between the literature of the Ancient Near East and Deut.
7 is that in Deut. 7 the king does not have a central role.424
As an encouragement, verse 20 emphasizes the power and involvement of
YhwhHe can even deploy the hornetsand the totality of the extermina-
tion of the nations of Canaanthey are not safe anywhere; Yhwhs commit-
ment continues until all are destroyed.
Verse 21
21a 21You shall not be in dread of them,

21b for Yhwh your God is in your midst,
21b a great and awesome God.
Parallel to verse 18, verse 21 is a response to the objection raised in verse 17. Like
verse 18, verse 21 starts with a vetitive ( , a play on words with from
verse 20). The fact that is always used as a pair with in Deuteronomy is
another argument that verses 18 and 21 belong together.425
Christa Schfer-Lichtenberger has argued that the response to the question
raised in verse 17 consists of three parts: (1) remember (verse 18); (2) Yhwh
is in your midst (verse 21); (3) Yhwh gives over the enemies (verse 23). This
structure would match Assyrian king oracles. Verse 22, however, does not fit
in this structure.426 Therefore, a better three-part structure would be: (1) past
(verses 1819); (2) present (verse 21, a nominal sentence); (3) future (verses 22
24). An argument against this structure, however, is that verse 20 does not seem
to fit. If verse 20 is a deliberate allusion to the plagues of Egypt (in line with
verses 1819), this objection would be less important and this structure could
be used as a global characterization. However, verse 22 does not fit very well in
this structure, because the emphasis in this verse is not on the fact that Yhwh
will drive out the nations, but on the length of time of that expulsion. Therefore,
423 Deut. 4:26; 8:1920; 11:4,17; 28:20,22,51,63; 30:18.

424 See Otto, Deuteronomium 111, 875877.
425 Deut. 1:29; 20:3; 31:6. Cf. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 103. does occur independently.
the answer to the question of verse 17 is better viewed as twofold (verses 1820
and verse 21); verse 22 is more or less an independent continuation (cf. 2.3).
Again, Israel is called not to be afraid of the nations of Canaan. In Deuteron-
omy, the verb always occurs in the context of the conflict with the nations
of Canaan (Deut. 1:29; 20:3; 31:6). In terms of content, this call is equal to the
one in verse 18.
The reason Israel should not be afraid is that Yhwh himself is in their
midst. In connection with warfare, Yhwhs presence is an important theme
in Deuteronomy. If Yhwh is not in the midst of Israel, it is defeated (Deut. 1:42)
or destroyed (Deut. 6:15). If, however, Yhwh is in Israels midst, the enemies are
defeated (Deut. 23:15). In this verse, the motive not to be afraid is not based on
what Yhwh has done in the past or what He will do in the future (verses 18
20), but on who He is: a great and awesome God (cf. Deut. 10:17). Opposite the
great and mighty nations (verse 1) is the greatness of Yhwh. The enemies are
not to be feared (, ), but Yhwh is the one who is to be feared ().427
Verse 22
22a 22Yhwh your God will drive out these

nations before you
22a little by little.
22b You will not be able to make an end of them
quickly,
22b otherwise the beasts of the field might
become too numerous for you.
Verse 22 is connected to the preceding verses by the weqatal , but without

the explicit notion of succession in time.428 The promise that Yhwh will drive
out the nations refers to verse 1 (). Verse 22 adds to this that the expulsion or
extermination will be little by little, in contrast to what one would expect after
the description of Yhwh as a great and awesome God (verse 21b).429
The fact that Yhwh will destroy the nations gradually has the consequence
that the same pace applies to Israel. This is a qualification of the call to destruc-
tion; it could also explain the prohibition of making a covenant and of inter-
427 McConville, Deuteronomy, 161. Cf. OConnell, Deuteronomy vii, 259: [I]f you fear these
foreign nations whom yhwh can overpower ( v. 19b) then how much greater should be
your respect for the fearful supremacy of yhwh who is among you ( v. 21b).
428 See jm 119f.
429 Finsterbusch, Weisung fr Israel, 187188.
118 chapter 2
marriage (see the exegesis of verse 2). The verb ) ( may be

translated as to be able or to be allowed. Several authors have pointed to texts
in Deuteronomy where with a negation clearly means not to be allowed
(Deut. 12:17; 16:5; 17:15; 21:16; 22:3,19,29; 24:4).430 At the same time, there are other
texts where it clearly means not to be able (Deut. 1:9; 9:28; 14:24; 28:27,35;
uncertain is 31:2). In my opinion, no antithesis should be made between both
interpretations, because Yhwhs and Israels work regarding the destruction of
the nations always go together (cf. verses 12). It is stated first that Yhwh will
drive out the nations little by little; therefore Israel is not allowed nor will be
able to do it rapidly. This statement is related to the question of verse 17 con-
cerning how Israel can ( )dispossess the nations.431
The motivation for the gradual expulsion or extermination is that otherwise
Israel will not be able to stand up against the beasts of the field (cf. Exod. 23:29
30). Israel itself is, indeed, small (verse 7). The comparative ( ) is to be
interpreted as too numerous; the scope of verse 22 is not whether Israel has
a numerical majority over the beasts, but whether Israel can stand up against
them. The idea is that a totally deserted country cannot yet be populated by
Israel, and then becomes desolate (cf. Exod. 23:29: ).432 This motivation
for a gradual destruction makes clear that the reason for the command to
exterminate the nations is not the lack of space in Canaan. Because of the slow
expulsion by Yhwh, the nations in Canaan have a double function: they must
keep the place for Israel and they are a touchstone for Israels obedience.433
Verse 23
23a 23Yhwh your God will give them over to

you,
23b and He will throw them into great
confusion,
23b until they are destroyed.
The weqatals of verse 23 continue the beginning of verse 22. Again, an element
from the first section of Deut. 7 is elaborated, this time the promise that Yhwh
will give the nations over to Israel (verse 2).
430 Veijola, Deuteronomium, 194 n. 432; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 111, 361.

431 Cf. Sanz Gimnez-Rico, Un recuerdo que conduce al don, 126.
432 tj connects this even more closely to the destruction of the nations of Canaan, by adding
at the end: when they [the beasts of the field] come to eat their bodies.
The means that Yhwh uses to give the nations over is confusion. In the
Old Testament, the verb is quite frequently used in a context of war,
when Yhwh throws the enemies (or Israel itself, Deut. 2:15) into confusion
and defeats them. In that case, there is deadly confusion or panic, by which an
army falls prey to the enemy (Exod. 14:24; Josh. 10:10; 1 Sam. 7:10; 2 Chr. 15:6). Not
by numerical minority, but by internal confusion the enemies are defeated.434
Israel should not be afraid of the nations, but the nations themselves will
become afraid (cf. Deut. 2:4).
These actions of Yhwh will continue until the nations are destroyed. The
fact that it will happen gradually (verse 22) does not diminish the certainty that
it will happen.435 The passive form, emphasizing Yhwhs actions, is in line with
the fact that a command to Israel is missing in this verse. The verb occurred
earlier in this chapter (verse 4) with reference to the case in which Israel goes
and serves the gods of the Canaanites. So, either Israel or the nations will be
destroyed. According to Deut. 7, the command to exterminate the Canaanites
is a matter of life and death for Israel.
Verse 24
24a 24He will give their kings into your hands,

24a and you shall blot out their name
24a from under heaven.
24b No man will be able to stand against you,
24b until you have destroyed them.
In verse 24, the series of weqatals of verses 2223 is continued. Yhwh will give
the kings of the nations into the hands of Israel. This indicates the totality of
the victory: even the kings cannot escape, so that the power of the nations
is indeed broken (cf. the list of defeated kings in Josh. 12).436 In the light of
the earlier allusions to Israels recent past (Egypt, earlier arrival at the border
of Canaan, verses 1719), this promise may be interpreted as an allusion to
Deut. 23, where two kings were already said to be defeated (although it is not
explicitly stated that Sihon and Og themselves fell into the hands of Israel).437
434 The motif of fear or panic in war is very common in texts from the Ancient Near East;
see Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, 276279; Stolz, Jahwes und Israels Kriege,
188190; Younger, Ancient Conquest Accounts, 258.
436 Cf. McConville, Deuteronomy, 161162.
120 chapter 2
A reference to Pharaoh, the king of Egypt (verse 8) is also possible; he also

could not stand against the power of Yhwh.
The memory of the nations of Canaan and of their kings should be com-
pletely erased (cf. Deut. 29:19). Regarding the religion of the Canaanites, this
was already stated in verse 5. The attempt to blot out the memory of an adver-
sary was a common practice in the Ancient Near East after a victory. Some-
times a persons name was literally erased by removing or replacing it in an
inscription.438 In various inscriptions an attempt is made to avert this damna-
tio memoriae by means of curse formulas (cf. 1Sam. 24:22).439 Over against this,
the establishment of Yhwhs name in the sanctuary (Deut. 12:5 a.o.) means his
claim on the land.440
Again, Israel is assured that nobody will be able to stand against them. The
preposition has a negative connotation,441 so it refers to a hostile con-
frontation. It is repeated that this will continue until the nations are destroyed.
In contrast to verse 23 and in line with the command to Israel in verse 24, the
verb has an active form here: Israel is the subject of this destruction.
Verse 25
25a 25The idols of their gods you shall burn with

fire.
25b You shall not covet the silver and the gold

that is on them and take it for yourself,
25b lest you be ensnared by it,
25b for it is abhorrent to Yhwh your God.
Verse 25 does not continue the series of weqatals (verses 2224), but introduces
a new theme, namely the idols of the gods of the nations. This change is
438 Cf. the damnatio memoriae of Hatshepsut and Akhenaten in Egypt.

439 See the Tell-Fekherye Inscription (Akkadian lines 1618,2638, Aramaic lines 1012,1622;
Takamitsu Muraoka, The Tell-Fekherye Bilingual Inscription and Early Aramaic, Abr-
n. 22 [19831984]: 79117); the Arm Inscription from Byblos (Phoenician; kai 1,2); the
Karatepe Inscription (Phoenician; kai 26 a iii 1314; c iv 1416); the Sfire Stela 2 (Aramaic;
kai 223 b 7). Cf. inscriptions in which it is asked that the gods will erase a persons name
(kai 225 910; 228 a 14; both Aramaic).
440 See J.G. McConville, God and Earthly Power: An Old Testament Political Theology; Genesis
Kings, lhbots 454 (London: t & t Clark, 2006), 89.
441 Driver, Deuteronomy, 105 n.; Jenni, Die Prposition Beth, 241; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 111,
361.
marked by fronting the object of the verb. The prescription seems intended
for the period after the nations of Canaan have been destroyed (cf. verse 2).
In terms of content, it is an elaboration of verse 5. Along with the nations
themselves and their kings (verse 24), their religious objects are dealt with.442
Israel should burn the idols of the gods of the Canaanites. These nations and
their religion may not even live on by the statues of their gods. The suffix 3rd
masc.pl. ( )refers back to these nations of verse 22, as the suffixes 3rd
masc.pl. in verses 2324 do. From the four elements mentioned in verse 5, only
the last one ( )is repeated here, as pars pro toto.
This call is emphasized and elaborated by two prohibitions (cf. the structure
of verses 23). The Israelites should not even covet the silver and the gold that
is on them. That would lead to Israel being ensnared (cf. verse 16 ). It is not
entirely clear what situation is referred to. It is possible that the silver and the
gold with which the images were studded would be removed and taken.443 In
that case the image itself, which was made of wood, could be burned according
to the letter of the command. In the Ancient Near East, it sometimes happened
that the statue of a god was recycled. In a text from Alalakh, it is explicitly
indicated that various silver objects were made of an idol (at 366:12,20).444
Another possible explanation is that Israel, attracted by the silver and gold,
would take the idols as a whole. Statues of a god were sometimes taken as a
sign of victory. As a result of this, however, Israel would be tempted to serve
those idols.
If Israel does not burn the idols, but takes the statues or their silver or gold,
this is a . In Deuteronomy, the word is often used to charac-
terize the practices of the nations of Canaan (Deut. 12:31: every ,
that He hates, they have done for their gods; 18:9; 20:18). It indicates some-
thing that raises the aversion of Yhwh and is radically opposed to Him.445
This characterization should convince Israel to keep aloof from such prac-
tices.446
442 Cf. Lohr, Chosen and Unchosen, 174.

443 So Bertholet, Deuteronomium, 28; Craigie, Deuteronomy, 182183; Steuernagel, Deutero-
nomium und Josua, 29.
444 See Nadav Naaman, The Recycling of a Silver Statue, jnes 40 (1981): 4748.
445 Cf. H.D. Preu, ThWAT 8:585.
446 For the origin of the concept , see 3.2.4.1. For a comparison with possible Sume-
rian and Akkadian parallels, see William W. Hallo, Biblical Abominations and Sumerian
Taboos, jqr 76 (1985): 2140; Jacob Klein and Yitschak Sefati, The Concept of Abomina-
tion in Mesopotamian Literature and the Bible, BSh 3 (1988): 131148.
122 chapter 2
Verse 26
26a 26And you shall not bring an abhorrent

thing into your house,
26a and become rem like it.
26b You shall utterly detest it,
you shall utterly abhor it,
26b for it is rem.
In verse 26, the imperatives of verse 25 are continued. Something that is

for Yhwh an Israelite should not bring into his house (an elaboration of
from verse 25). The reason for this prohibition is that whoever brings an idol
or its gold and silver into his house becomes rem himself. refers to the
silver and gold of the statues, to which verse 25 already referred using a 3rd
masc.sg. suffix and pronoun (, ;cf. the rest of verse 26).447 Possessing or
taking something that is rem is thus contagious. If Yhwh brings Israel into
the land (verse 1), Israel should not, subsequently, bring the idols of that land
into their houses (verse 26, both times hif.).
Israel must utterly detest and abhor (the silver and gold of) the idols. The
double paranomastic infinitive gives great emphasis to this command. The verb
is often used in connection with the cult. If Israel does not detest the idols,
it will itself be under the rem, and it risks destruction (cf. verses 2,25; Deut.
13).448
Verses 2526 are a (chiastic) resumption of verses 2b5.449 These verses
confirm the radicalness that is required of Israel. Only a complete destruction
of these nations and everything relating to their religion will suffice.
447 Contra Ehrlich, Randglossen, 2:274, who believes refers to .

448 Van der Molen, Een ban om te mijden, 154 states that the identification of and
, and the reference to both of them with a suffix 3rd masc.sg. are an indication
that this text is not so much about the concrete material, but about the intention. This
distinction, however, is never made in Deut. 7. Moreover, in Biblical Hebrew a suffix in
the singular may refer to a collective or something general; see Waltke and OConnor, An
Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 303, 305. For the use of , see the exegesis of
verse 16.
2.5 Unity of Deuteronomy 7
In the light of the synchronic exegesis in 2.4, it is necessary to explore whether

or not Deut. 7 can be considered a literary unity. After all, it is possible that parts
of the text originate from various times and authors. If during the composition
of the current text, substantive changes have occurred, that is relevant for the
message of Deut. 7. The question to be answered in this section is whether
the text contains indications for a reconstruction of its composition. Opinions
on this issue vary widely. On the one hand, some authors assume the unity
of the chapter.450 On the other hand, Deut. 7 has been called a Geflecht von
literarisch-redaktionellen Schlaufen und Knoten.451
For my exegesis of Deut. 7, it is not necessary to fully discuss all recon-
structions.452 It is sufficient to discuss the tensions in the text that various
authors have signaled. In this way the arguments that are brought forward can
be weighed and it may become clear which view on the composition of the text
may best explain the existing tensions.
2.5.1 Deut. 7:16

In verse 1, the list of the seven nations (verse 1b) has been regarded as sec-
ondary.453 The following arguments have been mentioned for the secondary
character of the list (and the end of verse 1): the number of seven appears arti-
ficial; the lists of nations are deuteronomistic; it interrupts the connection with
verse 2; and the expression is repeated.454
450 Carl Friedrich Keil, Leviticus, Numeri und Deuteronomium, bc (Leipzig: Drffling und
Franke, 1862), 427429; Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ib:102103; McConville, Deuteron-
omy, 150151. Labuschagne does not deny that the text may have a prehistory, but he does
not elaborate this.
451 Rose, 5. Mose, 2:331. Cf. Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheiung und Gebot, 212: Unklar ist
also so ziemlich alles.
452 For an overview of verses that have been considered secondary, see Garca Lpez, Un
peuple consacr, 438 n. 1.
453 It is not always clear whether this judgment also applies to verse 1b. If this is not the
case, the repetition of is curious. Carl Steuernagel has resolved this tension by
translating the first time as many and the second time as numerous; Steuernagel,
Das Deuteronomium, 78. He considers the words , together with the list of
nations, as possibly secondary (zweifelhaft).
454 Bertholet, Deuteronomium, 26; Johannes Peter Floss, Jahwe dienenGttern dienen: Ter-
minologische, literarische und semantische Untersuchung einer theologischen Aussage zum
Gottesverhltnis im Alten Testament, bbb 45 (Kln: Hanstein, 1975), 289; Garca Lpez,
Un peuple consacr, 440441; Hlscher, Komposition und Ursprung, 171 n. 4; Nielsen,
124 chapter 2
These arguments can be weighed as follows. In the excursus on the lists of

the nations in 2.4, it has become clear that there is a rich diversity between
the various lists. This makes it unlikely that these lists all stem from one
(deuteronomistic) redaction.
The objection that the list of nations interrupts the connection with verse 2
cannot serve as an argument for its secondary character. That argument seems
to exclude beforehand the possibility of a parenthesis. Thus, such a list, which
inevitably has the character of a parenthesis, could never be original.455 Finally,
the repetition (with variation) of the expression has a clear function
in its context: it underlines the size of the nations in Canaan, a theme returning
later in this chapter. Therefore, the hypothesis that the list of nations (and
the rest) of verse 1 is secondary has insufficient basis and does not solve any
problems.
Johannes Hempel views the whole of verses 12 as a later insertion. As argu-

ments he adduces the parallel with Deut. 6:10 and the occurrence of the un-
usual word . Verse 6 (according to Hempel, verses 35 are also secondary)
would then be the continuation of Deut. 6:15b.456 However, the occurrence
of a parallel formulation (see 3.1) and the frequency of used words do not
demonstrate that these verses would have another origin. Moreover, in terms
of content Deut. 6:15b is almost identical to Deut. 7:4.
In verse 2, Flix Garca Lpez considers verse 2ab (

)and the end of verse 2b ( ) as secondary. His argument focuses
on the tension between verse 2 and verse 3: if the nations of Canaan would
be exterminated, the prohibition on making a covenant and intermarrying
is superfluous. He sees this confirmed by the fact that elsewhere in the Old
Testament, is used in combination with a prohibition to be merciful,
but never in combination with covenanting.457 The latter should not surprise
us, because of the contrast between destruction and making a covenant. In
the texts about the execution of the extermination, such a combination is
Deuteronomium, 9495; Otto, Deuteronomium 111, 854855; Seitz, Redaktionsgeschicht-

liche Studien, 75; Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua, 27; Veijola, Deuteronomium, 196
n. 440.
455 Cf. Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheiung und Gebot, 247.
456 Johannes Hempel, Die Schichten des Deuteronomiums: Ein Beitrag zur israelitischen Lite-
ratur- und Rechtsgeschichte, bku 33 (Leipzig: Voigtlnder, 1914), 139.
457 Garca Lpez, Un peuple consacr, 439440.
not to be expected. However, this is an insufficient reason to consider this

combination to be impossible in this text.
The tension between the command to exterminate the Canaanites in verse 2
and the prohibition on intermarriage in verse 3 has been pointed out by other
authors, who view verse 3 as the later insertion.458 Garca Lpez is right in stat-
ing that the tension does not start in verse 3, but already with the prohibition of
making a covenant in verse 2b.459 The prohibition to be merciful to the nations
(the end of verse 2b), however, does fit the command to exterminate. The most
sensible diachronic solution to this tension is to hold together the beginning of
verse 2b ( ) and verse 3.460 However, this hypothesis does not
explain the origin of the current text, in particular at the end of verse 2. More-
over, in the exegesis it has become clear that the end of verse 2 and verse 3
can be sensibly interpreted as an elaboration of the command to destroy the
nations of Canaan. This is elaborated first negatively (verses 2b4), then posi-
tively (verse 5). Finally, Deut. 7 does not assume that the prohibitions of verses
2b3 come chronologically after the command of destruction, as is often sug-
gested. Even if it were possible to draw any conclusions from the absence of a
copula before , it is unlikely that the copula would be absent if a tem-
poral sequence was intended.461 The perceived tension between verse 2b and
verses 2b3 cannot be easily resolved in a diachronic way; moreover, a sensi-
ble synchronic explanation is possible.
Another objection that has been raised against the originality of verse 3 is
that this prohibition would not match with Deut. 21:1014.462 Yet, even apart
from the question of whether Deut. 21:1014 is about the nations of Canaan,
this text deals with another situation. Deut. 21:1014 is about a wife that was
taken prisoner; Deut. 7:3 is about a covenant between Israel and the nations
458 Floss, Jahwe dienen, Gttern dienen, 290291; Hempel, Die Schichten des Deuteronomiums,
126; Hlscher, Komposition und Ursprung, 171 n. 4; Willy Staerk, Das Deuteronomium:
Sein Inhalt und seine literarische Form; Eine kritische Studie (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrich, 1894),
66.
459 It would be consistent then to view both verse 2b and verse 3 as a later insertion. This,
however, is done only by Garca Lpez, Un peuple consacr, 439440; Floss, Jahwe
dienen, Gttern dienen, 290291.
460 So Garca Lpez, Un peuple consacr, 439441.
461 Therefore, the view of Floss, Jahwe dienen, Gttern dienen, 290 is to be rejected, who
regards the end of verse 2 as an insertion, because there is no copula before ,
nor is there inversion. Asyndetic constructions are far too common in Biblical Hebrew to
view them as secondary beforehand.
462 Hlscher, Komposition und Ursprung, 171 n. 4.
126 chapter 2
of Canaan and about mutual marriages (see 3.2.3.1). The transition from the
plural to the singular in verse 3b has already been discussed in the exegesis.463
Verses 4(b)5 are regarded as secondary by many scholars. The arguments

mentioned for this view are: the transition to the first person (verse 4a: ),
the change of number in verse 4, the fact that Israel is addressed in the second
person plural in verse 4b and verse 5, the contrast in terms of content between
verse 5 and verse 2, and the fact that verse 6 would be a fitting continuation of
verse 3.464
The following may serve as a response to these observations. In the exegesis
it has become clear that a sudden transition to the first person is more often
used in Deuteronomy, which relativizes the weight of this argument. It is true
that there is a difference in terms of content between verse 5 and verse 2.
However, it can be asked whether they are really opposed to each other. Verse 5
may be viewed as a complement to and a qualification of verse 2; both verses
do not exclude each other.465 If verses 45 are declared secondary, verse 6
would be a continuation of verse 3. The coherence between verses 3 and 6
is understandable, since in the current text, verse 6 refers back to verses 15
463 Contra Floss, Jahwe dienen, Gttern dienen, 291; Yoshihide Suzuki, The Numeruswechsel
in Deuteronomy (Claremont/Ann Arbor: umi, 1982), 80, who for this reason view verse 3b
as a later elaboration of verse 3a.
464 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheiung und Gebot, 218220; Bertholet, Deuteronomium,
26; Floss, Jahwe dienen, Gttern dienen, 291292; Garca Lpez, Un peuple consacr, 442;
Hempel, Die Schichten des Deuteronomiums, 125126; William Robert Higgs, A Stylistic
Analysis of the Numeruswechsel Sections of Deuteronomy (Ann Arbor: umi, 1982), 7981;
Hlscher, Komposition und Ursprung, 171 n. 4; Johannes Hendrik Hospers, De numerus-
wisseling in het boek Deuteronomium (Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon, 1947), 20; Georges Minette
de Tillesse, Sections Tu et sections Vous dans le Deutronome, vt 12 (1962): 36;
H.G. Mitchell, The Use of the Second Person in Deuteronomy, jbl 18 (1899): 89; Nielsen,
Deuteronomium, 9495; A. Filemon Puukko, Das Deuteronomium: Eine literarkritische
Untersuchung, bwat 5 (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrich, 1909), 151152; Von Rad, Das fnfte Buch Mose,
4849; Seitz, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien, 75; Staerk, Das Deuteronomium, 6566;
Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua, 27; Suzuki, The Numeruswechsel in Deuteronomy,
8081; Veijola, Deuteronomium, 196 n. 441; Adam C. Welch, The Purpose of Deuteronomy,
Chapter vii,et 42 (19301931): 409412. Garca Lpez considers only verse 4 as secondary;
Achenbach, Bertholet and Von Rad only verse 5.
465 The contrast that Minette de Tillesse, Sections Tu et sections Vous, 36 makes between
verses 14 (military, marriage) and verse 5 (cult) is not valid either. Verse 4 motivates the
prohibition of intermarriage by the cultic practices that would follow. Verse 5 is not about
the cult, but about its destruction.
(see the exegesis of verse 6, 2.4). But the correspondence between verse 6
and verse 3 is not as smooth as is often stated. In any case, the reasoning
that intermarriage is prohibited, because Israel is a holy nation, is incomplete.
Finally, regarding form and content verses 3 and 4 are smoothly connected.
Because the change in number occurs often in Deuteronomy and because it
has played an important role in the literary-critical research of the book, I will
discuss it separately.
Excursus: The Numeruswechsel as a Literary-Critical Criterion
In Deuteronomy, Israel is addressed both in the second person singular

and in the second person plural. However, these two are interchanged
continuously, the so-called Numeruswechsel.466 Although the Numerus-
wechsel occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament467 and in the literature of
the Ancient Near East,468 it occurs much more frequently in Deuteron-
omy. According to one count, the Numeruswechsel would occur in a third
of all clauses.469
Various explanations have been given for this phenomenon. It would
indicate a difference between (sg.pl.) collectiveindividual, pareneti-
466 Numeruswechsel is used here to indicate the change between the second person singular
and plural to address the people of Israel. This can be distinguished from a change
between the first, second, and third person (for this, see J. Sperber, Der Personenwechsel
in der Bibel, za 32 [1918]: 2333) and from a change in number with the first or third
person. According to Suzuki, The Numeruswechsel in Deuteronomy, every person and
number indicates one or more separate sources (he distinguishes 3Gr, 2Sg.g., 2Sg1, 2Sg2,
2Pl1, 2Pl2, 1Pl, 2Sg3, and a latest phase), each with its own genre and setting.
467 See Christopher T. Begg, Contributions to the Elucidation of the Composition of Deuter-
onomy with Special Attention to the Significance of the Numeruswechsel (Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven, 1978), 11511179; Hospers, Numeruswisseling, 4158; Jan Joosten, The
Numeruswechsel in the Holiness Code (Lev. xviixxvi), in Lasset Uns Brcken Bauen :
Collected Communications of the xvth Congress of the International Organization for the
Study of the Old Testament, Cambridge 1995, ed. Klaus-Dietrich Schunck and Matthias
Augustin, beat 42 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1998), 6771; Mitchell, Use of the
Second Person, 6366.
468 See Begg, Contributions, 11361150. His conclusion is that the context of these texts (in
particular the Sfire Inscription) is different, because with the change of number there is
also a change of the addressee(s). That is different from Deuteronomy.
469 L.J. de Regt, A Parametric Model for Syntactic Studies of a Textual Corpus, Demonstrated on
the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 130, ssn 24 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988), 6365; Supplement
28.
128 chapter 2
calhistorical material, optimismpessimism, or primaryembedded

material.470 The origin of the Numeruswechsel in Deuteronomy is
debated. On the one hand, it is explained as a stylistic technique.471 On
the other hand, it is used as a literary-critical criterion to distinguish the
sources of the text.472 In recent research, only sporadically it is stated that
a change of number in itself would be a sufficient indication to assume a
later reworking or multiple sources.473 If the Numeruswechsel is consid-
ered useful as a literary-critical criterion, it is usually used in combination
with other arguments.
Regarding both the stylistic and the literary-critical approach, ques-
tions can be asked. If the Numeruswechsel is regarded as a stylistic tech-
nique, it can be asked whether it is always possible to determine what
the change of number intends to convey. Because of its frequent occur-
rence in Deuteronomy, explanations are likely to become rather general
(emphasis, a climax).474 At the same time, the use of the Numeruswech-
sel as a literary-critical criterion raises questions. Is there a reason for
the assumption that a writer or redactor wanted to indicate an insertion
by means of the Numeruswechsel, especially in Deuteronomy? The dis-
tribution of the sections in the singular and the plural over the various
sources appears to be no easy task; already the reconstructions of Staerk
470 See Joosten, Numeruswechsel in the Holiness Code; Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 244251;
Georges Minette de Tillesse, tu & vous dans le Deutronome, in Liebe und Gebot:
Studien zum Deuteronomium, ed. Reinhard Gregor Kratz and Hermann Spieckermann,
frlant 190 (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 156163; DeRouchie, Call to
Covenant Love, 272273 (as a possibility that deserves further investigation), respectively.
471 Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 239258.
472 The use as a literary-critical criterion started with the studies of W. Staerk and C. Steuer-
nagel, both from 1894 and independent from each other. Christopher T. Begg, The Signif-
icance of the Numeruswechsel in Deuteronomy: The Pre-History of the Question, EThL
55 (1979): 116124 has pointed out that the idea itself was not new, but they were the first
to apply it to Deuteronomy as a whole. In 1861, Knobel would have been the first to use
the Numeruswechsel as an indication for Quellenscheidung. For a very broad history of
research, see Begg, Contributions.
473 This, however, was stated by Minette de Tillesse, Sections Tu et sections Vous.
474 According to Otto, Deuteronomium 111, 880887, the Numeruswechsel in Deut. 7 is used to
structure the text and to emphasize its theological message. Various times the Numerus-
wechsel would indicate a connection with other texts from Deuteronomy, or it would point
to the distinction between the time of Moses, when Deuteronomy is situated, and the time
it actually originated. However, it is not clear why the Numeruswechsel would be used to
indicate these intertextual connections or the difference in situation.
and Steuernagel differ widely. If one assumes that both numbers occur in
a source, it can be asked why this would be possible in a source and not
in the final text. Finally, ascribing something to a different author gives
no explanation for the phenomenon, but only transposes it to another
source or to a redactor.
Since both the stylistic and the literary-critical explanation of the
Numeruswechsel have their problems, they cannot be used to simply cover
all situations. Therefore, it is necessary to carefully weigh the possible
explanations in all cases found in Deut. 7. In mt (for differences in the tex-
tual witnesses, see 2.2), a Numeruswechsel occurs in the following verses:
Sg. > pl. Pl. > sg.
Verse Word Verse Word
4 4
5 6
7 8
12 12
25 25
The vast majority of Deut. 7 uses the singular. The plural appears only five
times, varying in length from one or a few words (verses 4,12,25) to one
or one and a half verses (verses 5,78). Compared to Deuteronomy as a
whole, the Numeruswechsel is relatively rare in Deut. 7.
The Numeruswechsel in verse 4b cannot be separated from the preceding plu-

ral . The possible reason for this plural has been discussed in the exegesis.
is a continuation of this plural. The end of the verse uses the singular again
(). If one considers verse 4b as secondary,475 the problem of the other
changes in number and person remains. The question why verse 4b returns
to the singular cannot be clearly answered.476 Possibly the form could play a
475 So Hospers, Numeruswisseling, 20; Minette de Tillesse, Sections Tu et sections Vous, 36;
Higgs, Stylistic Analysis, 7980; Suzuki, The Numeruswechsel in Deuteronomy, 80.
476 Knig, Das Deuteronomium, 102 n. assumes that haplography has occurred, so that the
form would have been a plural originally.
130 chapter 2
role; in the qatal, a suffix 2nd masc.pl. is extremely rare in Biblical Hebrew.477
Verse 4b may be considered secondary, which would connect the plurals in
verses 45, but it is difficult to explain why it was inserted. Therefore, a conclu-
sive explanation cannot be given.
Given the singular in verse 4b, the plural in verse 5 is, in principle, unrelated
to the one in verse 4b. In verse 5, only plural verbs and nouns are used, in
contrast to the preceding prohibitions, which are all in the singular. The plurals
may have been used to emphasize the totality of the command (although
the commands in verses 24 are total as well), to indicate the distinction
between human beings (verses 24) and cult objects (verse 5), or to have
some variation (cf. the variation in suffixes, and verbs with and without nun-
paragogicum). Finally, the plural in the parallel Exod. 34:13 may have been of
influence. Because the plural occurs throughout verse 5 and because there is no
tension with the context in terms of content, in my opinion there is insufficient
reason (apart from the change in number) to consider the verse as secondary.
Among the verses in the initial section, verse 6 is the least controversial. Johan-
nes Peter Floss regards verse 6b as a secondary expansion, because of the
repetition of and the lack of a syntactical connection.478 However, a
repetition of occurs much more often, for example in verse 2 (where
Floss views these words also as secondary). The fact that a copula is missing
before verse 6b is no argument for an insertion, since an asyndetic construction
is not uncommon in Classical Hebrew.479
2.5.2 Deut. 7:711

Verses 78a again use the second person plural for the people of Israel. There-
fore, many authors view this part as a later insertion. The solution that is chosen
for verse 8b differs: some authors view verse 8b as secondary;480 Staerk wants to
477 See jm 61a. A query in shebanq results in only two instances (Jer. 25:34; Ps. 118:26); see
https://shebanq.ancient-data.org/hebrew/query?version=4&id=921 [accessed August 11,
2015].
478 Floss, Jahwe dienen, Gttern dienen, 293. Martin Rose, Der Ausschlielichkeitsanspruch
Jahwes: Deuteronomische Schultheologie und die Volksfrmmigkeit in der spten Knigszeit,
bwant 106 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1975), 115, 119 also makes a division between verse 6a
and 6b, but without a clear argumentation. He views verse 6b as the older part.
479 See jm 177.
480 Floss, Jahwe dienen, Gttern dienen, 298; Garca Lpez, Un peuple consacr, 444445;
Hempel, Die Schichten des Deuteronomiums, 126; Hlscher, Komposition und Ursprung,
171 n. 4; Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua, 28.
move it;481 others prefer to let it remain.482 Some authors believe that verse 8b
was originally formulated in the plural, as some textual witnesses have it.483 In
that case, however, a text-critical decision is liable to be influenced by a literary-
critical choice.484 mt probably has the original reading in verse 8b; because of
the change in number, the singular is the lectio difficilior.
Apart from the change in number, the only argument used for the secondary
character of verses 78(a) is that it can be removed. Indeed, as an elaboration of
verse 6, verses 78 do not continue the argument. There is no reason, however,
why such an elaboration in an argument would be remarkable or improper.
Apart from the change in number, therefore, there is little reason to regard these
verses as a later insertion. An explanation for the Numeruswechsel might be that
the use of a plural is more fitting when speaking about the size of Israel. The
return to the singular in verse 8b may be explained by the fact that the object of
is always in the singular in Deuteronomy, if this would be a fixed formula
(see the exegesis of verse 8, 2.4).
Some earlier authors proposed to remove in verse 9, because this word is

missing in the Lucian version of the Septuagint.485 This text-critical basis is very
weak, however, and the proposal is not followed by more recent commentators.
According to Floss, verse 9 cannot be the continuation of verse 8b, because
of the change in subject and the fact that verse 9 does not start with a yiqtol.486
However, both a change in subject and a continuation with weqatal are very
common patterns in Biblical Hebrew (see the exegesis). The final (purposive)
character that Floss is missing as the introduction of the following Erkennt-
nisaussage is precisely expressed by the weqatal.
According to other authors, not only verse 9 but also the following verses are
to be regarded as secondary.487 Their argument is the agreement between these
481 Staerk, Das Deuteronomium, 66 wants to insert verse 8b between verse 6a and 6b.
482 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheiung und Gebot, 222223; Higgs, Stylistic Analysis, 8182;
Minette de Tillesse, Sections Tu et sections Vous, 36; Mitchell, Use of the Second Person,
89; Puukko, Das Deuteronomium, 152.
483 In that case, haplography has occurred; so Hospers, Numeruswisseling, 2021; Knig, Das
Deuteronomium, 102 n.; Suzuki, The Numeruswechsel in Deuteronomy, 81.
484 Cf. Begg, Contributions, 1117 for various examples of this.
485 Hempel, Die Schichten des Deuteronomiums, 128; Hlscher, Komposition und Ursprung,
171 n. 4; Puukko, Das Deuteronomium, 153 n. 2; Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua, 28.
486 Floss, Jahwe dienen, Gttern dienen, 298300.
487 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheiung und Gebot, 223229: verses 8b11; Hempel, Die
Schichten des Deuteronomiums, 127128: verses 9b12a.
132 chapter 2
verses in Deut. 7, on the one hand, and the Decalogue and other late texts, on
the other. This interpretation is dependent on the reconstruction and dating of
other texts.488 However, the agreement between texts does not ipso facto imply
the same period of origin.
Verse 10 has been considered as secondary because the theme of retribution

would not be addressed elsewhere in Deut. 7.489 Because of the close connec-
tion between Yhwhs and Israels work in the conquest of the land, however,
it can be stated that this theme does return later in Deut. 7 (verses 15,1821).
Moreover, verse 10 is the counterpart of from verse 9.490
Martin Rose has stated that verses 9b10 disrupt the coherence of verses 9
11.491 It is true that verses 9 and 11 are closely connected; however, Roses view
seems to exclude the possibility of an elaboration of who Yhwh is. Moreover,
various elements of verses 9b10 return in the following verses. Verse 10b has
been regarded a later gloss because of the repetition of verse 10a.492 However,
the repetition may also function to underscore the point of verse 10a.
Some earlier authors believed that (part of) verse 11 is a later gloss. The reason
for this view is the formelhafte character of the verse, or the occurrence
of various expressions that are often used elsewhere with an address in the
plural.493 The latter, however, may as well be used as an argument for the
original character of verse 11. It is true that verse 11 uses several common
expressions, but the repetition of certain expressions occurs very frequently
in Deuteronomy; therefore, this is an insufficient reason to regard this verse as
secondary.
488 E.g., the reconstruction of Hempel is dependent on the theory of B.D. Eerdmans that
the words in the Decalogue are a deuteronomistic insertion. Since
verse 11 refers back to these words from verse 9, this whole section would be a later
insertion; Hempel, Die Schichten des Deuteronomiums, 128.
489 Hlscher, Komposition und Ursprung, 171 n. 4; Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua,
28.
490 Cf. Puukko, Das Deuteronomium, 153 n. 2.
491 Rose, 5. Mose, 2:339340.
492 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheiung und Gebot, 227, 230; followed by Veijola, Deute-
ronomium, 208. Achenbach, however, is less explicit than Veijola suggests.
493 Mitchell, Use of the Second Person, 89; Staerk, Das Deuteronomium, 88; Steuernagel,
Deuteronomium und Josua, 28. Hlscher, Komposition und Ursprung, 171 n. 4 views only
the words as a gloss.
2.5.3 Deut. 7:1216

In verse 12a, the number changes again. Accordingly, this part of the verse is
regarded as secondary by many authors. Apart from the change in number, the
following arguments are adduced: verse 12b fits verse 11; verse 12a is a repetition
of verse 11; some expressions indicate its secondary character (,
;)and the theme is different from the previous verses. In addition, the
expression in this meaning would occur only here.494 These
arguments may be weighed as follows. Verse 12b fits verse 11 less well than it is
suggested. If verse 12a is not original, it is unclear how verse (9)11 and verse 12b
relate to each other: are the deeds of Yhwh independent from what Israel does,
or are they dependent on it? Verse 12a, then, is not a repetition of verse 11,
but a clarification of the relationship between verse (9)11 and verse 12b and
following. The fact that some expressions are less frequent is not an argument
for the secondary nature of this verse. In Deuteronomy, the word occurs
only here and in Deut. 8:20. Whenever one would date the latter text, this basis
is too small to draw conclusions about Deut. 7:12. Finally, it is true that verse 12
is the beginning of a new theme (see 2.3). However, this is also the case if
verse 12a is considered as a later insertion. In the exegesis, it already became
clear that there is no contradiction between unconditionality (verses 611) and
conditionality (verse 12 and following).495
It is not clear why Israel is addressed in the plural in verse 12a. It could
be assumed that this emphasizes the responsibility of every Israelite, but this
provides no conclusive explanation. The arguments for the hypothesis that
verse 12a is a later insertion, however, are not convincing either; moreover, in
this hypothesis the relationship with verses 911 remains unclear. According to
Eckart Otto, the change in number in verse 12 is an indication of the structure
of Deut. 7, marking a new section.496
494 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheiung und Gebot, 229230; Floss, Jahwe dienen, Gttern
dienen, 300; Garca Lpez, Un peuple consacr, 447; Higgs, Stylistic Analysis, 82; Hlscher,
Komposition und Ursprung, 171 n. 4; Hospers, Numeruswisseling, 21; Minette de Tillesse,
Sections Tu et sections Vous, 36; Mitchell, Use of the Second Person, 89; Puukko, Das
Deuteronomium, 153; Schfer-Lichtenberger, jhwh, Israel und die Vlker, 197; Smith,
Deuteronomy, 113; Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua, 28; Suzuki, The Numeruswechsel
in Deuteronomy, 82. According to Floss, it is questionable whether verses 11 and 12b belong
together, because of the change in subject and the repetition of words.
495 According to Otto, Deuteronomium 111, 872, verse 12a can be viewed as an insertion only
when it is misunderstood in a nomistic way.
496 Ibid., 842843.
134 chapter 2
According to Garca Lpez, verses 1316 should be connected to verse 4.497

However, some similarities in vocabulary do not justify such an intervention,
especially as the content of verse 13 well fits verse 12. Floss states that verse 15
should be connected to verse 13, and verse 16 to verse 14, because of the
agreement in subject.498 However, there is no reason to use a change in subject
as a literary-critical criterion (compare verses 12). In terms of content, there is
no tension between these verses.
The last word of verse 14, , has been viewed as a gloss, because it is
not placed immediately after .499 In the exegesis, however, it was shown that
such a construction is not infrequent in Biblical Hebrew, which invalidates the
argument to view this word as a gloss.
According to several scholars, verse 16ab should be regarded as secondary.

It would fit neither verse 16a nor the main theme of verses 1216, and it
would introduce a foreign element into a promise.500 However, verse 16a only
underlines the command of verse 16a, as in verse 2 also the command is
followed by a prohibition. The objection that the command against the nations
of Canaan does not fit in the context of the promises of the preceding verses
regards not only verse 16ab, but also verse 16a. In the context of Deut. 7, this
command refers back to the command to keep the commandments (verses 11
12a) and to the commands and prohibitions of verses 25. Both formally and in
terms of content, therefore, verse 16ab does fit in its context.
2.5.4 Deut. 7:1726

With verse 17, a new section of Deut. 7 starts. However, it is connected to the
preceding sections and does not contradict it (see the exegesis).501 Therefore,
there is no reason to view verses 1724 as a later interpolation, as some have
stated.502
497 Garca Lpez, Un peuple consacr, 447448.

498 Floss, Jahwe dienen, Gttern dienen, 301.
499 Hlscher, Komposition und Ursprung, 171 n. 4; Steuernagel, Das Deuteronomium, 80.
500 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheiung und Gebot, 236; Hempel, Die Schichten des Deute-
ronomiums, 131; Hlscher, Komposition und Ursprung, 171 n. 4; Puukko, Das Deuterono-
mium, 153; Schfer-Lichtenberger, jhwh, Israel und die Vlker, 215; Staerk, Das Deute-
ronomium, 66; Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua, 28.
501 Cf. OConnell, Deuteronomy vii, 259260.
502 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheiung und Gebot, 236237; Suzuki, The Numeruswechsel
in Deuteronomy, 83.
Verse 20 is regarded as a later insertion by some authors. The arguments for

this thesis are: the opening construction intimates an insertion; the content
is superfluous; and it may be derived from Exod. 23:28.503 This thesis is not
impossible; the proof, however, is weak. The beginning with fits well after
the enumeration of verse 19a. If one views the agreement with Exod. 23:28 as
an argument for a later insertion of verse 20, this should also apply to verse 22,
which corresponds with Exod. 23:29.504 However, this agreement may also be
explained by a common tradition, or the initial author of Deut. 7 may have
derived it from the parallel text in Exod. 23 (for the relationship between Exod.
23 and Deut. 7, see further 3.3.1).505
Several authors consider verse 22 as secondary, because it would contradict

Deut. 9:3 and because it would disrupt the coherence of verses 2123.506 How-
ever, in the exegesis it has been demonstrated that verse 22 refers to the begin-
ning of Deut. 7, which it underlines and elaborates. Verses 21 and 23 point out
that Yhwh is in the midst of Israel and that He will drive out the nations; this
is qualified in verse 22. There is no contrast, then, with the direct context. The
relationship between Deut. 7:22 and Deut. 9:3 will be discussed later ( 3.2.3.4).
Eduard Nielsen views verse 24 as a later insertion, because the suffix of

( verse 25) can hardly refer to the kings.507 It is more likely, however, that
the suffix 3rd masc.pl. refers to in verse 22, as do the other suffixes 3rd
masc.pl. in verses 2324. This invalidates Nielsens argument.
503 Garca Lpez, Un peuple consacr, 448449; Hlscher, Komposition und Ursprung, 171
n. 4; Nielsen, Deuteronomium, 102103; Seitz, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien, 77; Veijola,
Deuteronomium, 204.
504 Nielsen and Veijola, however, do not regard verse 22 as secondary.
505 Garca Lpez, Un peuple consacr, 449 believes that verse 20 is from the same author as
verse 16; this would also be the case with verses 2224. He does not make clear, however,
why verses 2224 cannot be a continuation of verse 21.
506 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheiung und Gebot, 238; Bertholet, Deuteronomium, 28;
Floss, Jahwe dienen, Gttern dienen, 302; Hempel, Die Schichten des Deuteronomiums,
131132; Hlscher, Komposition und Ursprung, 171 n. 4; Hubert Junker, Das Buch Deute-
ronomium, hsat (Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1933), 52; A.D.H. Mayes, Deuteronomy, NCeB (Lon-
don: Oliphants, 1979), 188; Mitchell, Use of the Second Person, 89; Puukko, Das Deutero-
nomium, 153; Schfer-Lichtenberger, jhwh, Israel und die Vlker, 215; Seitz, Redaktions-
geschichtliche Studien, 77; Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua, 29.
507 Nielsen, Deuteronomium, 102. Hempel, Die Schichten des Deuteronomiums, 137 regards
verse 24b as secondary, but he gives no arguments. According to Floss, Jahwe dienen,
Gttern dienen, 303304, the suffix does refer to the kings.
136 chapter 2
Because of the change in number in verse 25a, many authors view verse 25a
or verses 2526 as secondary. As an additional argument, the connection with
verse 16 is mentioned.508 If only verse 25a is regarded as secondary, it is difficult
to see how verse 25b relates to verse 24. The plural in verse 25a may be explained
as a quotation from or an analogy with verse 5, which is elaborated in verses 25
26. If that is the reason to view these verses as a later insertion, verses 2224 too
have to be declared secondary, because they also are an elaboration of the first
section of Deut. 7. It is more natural to explain these connections as structuring
elements of the chapter.
2.5.5 Conclusion
In the exegesis, the coherence of Deut. 7 in terms of structure and content
has become clear. The textual witnesses contain no indications for the genesis
of Deut. 7. In some cases, there was a plausible explanation for the perceived
tensions in the text. In other cases, hypotheses that assume an origin of the text
in multiple phases lacked explanatory power. This does certainly not exclude
the possibility of a (complicated) history of the text. However, the present text
contains insufficient indications to conclude this or to reconstruct the chapters
composition. Therefore, it is methodically sound to view Deut. 7 as an original
literary unity.
2.6 Conclusions
In view of the exegesis of Deut. 7, the following conclusions may be drawn

concerning the command about the nations of Canaan.
Deut. 7 contains a command of Yhwh to exterminate the nations of Canaan.
The chapter is not about expulsion, as some have stated, but about destruction.
This became clear from an investigation of the semantic value of the verb ,
508 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheiung und Gebot, 238; Floss, Jahwe dienen, Gttern
dienen, 303; Garca Lpez, Un peuple consacr, 449450; Hempel, Die Schichten des
Deuteronomiums, 126127; Higgs, Stylistic Analysis, 83; Hlscher, Komposition und Ur-
sprung, 171 n. 4; Hospers, Numeruswisseling, 21; Minette de Tillesse, Sections Tu et sec-
tions Vous, 36; Mitchell, Use of the Second Person, 89; Nielsen, Deuteronomium, 102103;
Puukko, Das Deuteronomium, 153; Von Rad, Das fnfte Buch Mose, 49; Schfer-Lichten-
berger, jhwh, Israel und die Vlker, 197; Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden, 131132; Staerk,
Das Deuteronomium, 66; Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua, 2930; Welch, The Pur-
pose of Deuteronomy, Chapter vii. Only verse 25a is mentioned by Floss, Higgs, Hospers,
Minette de Tillesse, Mitchell, and Von Rad.
which in this chapter clearly means to kill, to exterminate, and which in Gene-
sis to Kings is used almost exclusively in connection with the nations of Ca-
naan. The radical nature of this command is also shown by the elaboration that
follows in verses 2b5: Israel should not make a covenant with these nations,
it should show them no mercy, and mixed marriages are prohibited. Everything
that is reminiscent of the religion of the Canaanites has to be destroyed. Finally,
this interpretation is supported by expressions in the rest of Deut. 7. Verse 16
calls Israel to devour the nations and not to pity them. At the end of the
chapter, Israel is called to blot out the name of the kings of these nations
(verse 24a) and to destroy their idols (verses 2526). It has been stated that
the command to exterminate the nations of Canaan was conditional (see 1.1).
However, the text of Deut. 7 contains no indications supporting this view.
Concerning the extermination of the nations of Canaan, not only the work of
Israel but also the activity of Yhwh is mentioned, who is in the midst of Israel
(verse 21). He brings Israel into the land (verse 1); He drives out the nations
(verses 1,22) and gives them over to Israel (verses 2,16,23). He will do to the
Canaanites as He did to Egypt (verses 1819). For this purpose, He will use
hornets (verse 20); He will throw them into confusion (verse 23); and He will
give even their kings into Israels hands (verse 24). This will continue until these
nations are destroyed (verses 20,23,24).
The command to destroy the nations is limited. It concerns (only) the
nations living in Canaan. Seven nations are mentioned by name (verse 1). The
terminus a quo is the moment that Yhwh brings Israel into the land of Canaan.
A terminus ad quem is not indicated.
In Deut. 7, the motivation for the command to exterminate the nations of
Canaan is not primarily any actions of these nations, but the (threatened)
identity of Israel. Living together with these nations would lead Israel to serving
their gods (verses 4,16,25). Israel is warned about this, because it is a nation
chosen by Yhwh and belonging to Him (verse 6). The extermination of the
nations of Canaan and the destruction of everything that is reminiscent of their
religion thus is not a goal in itself, but a means to keep Israel at the service
of Yhwh alone. Viewed in this light, the Deuteronomic command is not an
expression of xenophobia. The exhortation to show the nations no mercy and
to not pity them (verses 2,16) underlines this. Apparently, it is considered a
danger that Israel would spare the nations.
Indirectly, the command to exterminate the Canaanites is connected with
their attitude toward Yhwh. Yhwh is the only God (verse 9). Those who hate
Him, He will destroy (verse 10); this will also happen with the nations of Canaan
(verses 20,24). In this way, an indirect connection is made between the religion
of these nations and their destruction.
138 chapter 2
The same threat applies to Israel as well. If it will go and serve the gods of
the Canaanites, Yhwh will destroy Israel (verse 4; cf. verses 23,24). He will even
do so quickly (verse 4), while the destruction of the Canaanites will be little by
little (verse 22). Thus, there is no question of ethnocentrism, as if nothing could
happen to Israel because of its ethnicity or its election by Yhwh. Either Israel
will destroy the nations of Canaan and receive Yhwhs blessing (verses 1214),
or it will perish itself (verse 4). Therefore, the execution of Yhwhs command
is a matter of life and death for Israel. In addition, however, Yhwhs love,
faithfulness and salvation are emphasized repeatedly: Yhwh loved Israel; He
keeps the covenant and the faithful love; He redeemed Israel (verses 79,12
13,19). This He will continue to do if Israel keeps his commandments. That
should urge Israel to love Yhwh and to be faithful to Him alone.
chapter 3
Literary Context
Following the exegesis of Deut. 7 (chap. 2), this chapter provides an analysis
and interpretation of Deut. 7 in both its immediate and wider literary con-
text. It contains four sections. The first will discuss the place and function of
Deut. 7 in the structure of the book of Deuteronomy ( 3.1). The second will
investigate the position of the nations of Canaan in the book of Deuteron-
omy, comparing it with the attitude toward other nations ( 3.2). The third
will compare the Deuteronomic command with its parallels in Exod. 23 and
34 (3.3). The fourth will examine how the Deuteronomic attitude toward the
Canaanites relates to the way in which these nations are treated in the rest of
the Old Testament (3.4), before it closes with a summary of the conclusions
( 3.5).
3.1 The Place of Chapter 7 in the Structure of Deuteronomy
This section will discuss the place and function of Deut. 7 in the structure of the
book of Deuteronomy. After all, the meaning of a text really becomes clear only
if it is read in its context. I will examine the structure of the book of Deuteron-
omy as a whole (3.1.1), the immediate context of Deut. 7 ( 3.1.2), and the
question of whether the structure of Deuteronomy corresponds with the struc-
ture of Ancient Near Eastern treaty texts (3.1.3). Finally, some conclusions are
drawn (3.1.4). The discussion in this section is based on the canonical form of
Deuteronomy and in principle on the Masoretic text.
3.1.1 The Structure of Deuteronomy

The book of Deuteronomy starts with a superscription of the narrator: These
are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel, followed by an indication of
the location and time (Deut. 1:12). Similar superscriptions are found in Deut.
4:4445; 28:69; and 33:1. The structure of these superscriptions is as follows:
a nominal sentence with a demonstrative pronoun as its subject, followed by
a subordinate clause, in which Moses acts on behalf of Israel.1 Finally, it is
indicated where and/or when the relevant event took place. Deut. 4:4445
1 Apart from Deut. 28:69, Moses is also the grammatical subject of the subordinate clause.

140 chapter 3
seems to have a double construction, but verse 45 may be interpreted as an

explanation of verse 44, since it is asyndetically connected.2 Some authors have
interpreted Deut. 28:69 as the closure of the second main part of Deuteronomy,
forming an inclusio with Deut. 5:23, but it seems better to regard it as a
superscription.3
The four superscriptions divide the book of Deuteronomy into four main
parts:4
Deut. 1:14:43 these are the wordsremembrance

Deut. 4:4428:68 this is the torahinstructions
Deut. 28:6932:52 these are the words of the covenantclosing of the
covenant
Deut. 33:134:12 this is the blessingblessing and farewell5
Similar to these superscriptions are Deut. 6:1 and 12:1, the only other texts in
Deuteronomy where a nominal sentence with a demonstrative pronoun as
its subject is followed by a subordinate clause with . These texts, how-
ever, are not the narrators words, but belong to the direct speech reported
in Deuteronomy, the words of Moses. Moreover, in the subordinate clause of
these superscriptions Moses is not the actor. Therefore, Deut. 6:1 and 12:1 are
not on the same level as the superscriptions mentioned above. They can, how-
ever, have a structuring function within the second main part of Deuteron-
omy.6
2 DeRouchie, Call to Covenant Love, 4853.

3 See the discussion in Norbert Lohfink, Dtn 28,69berschrift oder Kolophon?, bn 64
(1992): 4052; Seitz, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien, 2526. Deut. 28:69 is viewed as a sub-
script by McConville, Deuteronomy, 401402; Herrie F. van Rooy, Deuteronomy 28,69
Superscript or Subscript?, jnwsl 14 (1988): 215222.
4 So, e.g., DeRouchie, Call to Covenant Love, 49; Norbert Lohfink, Der Bundesschlu im Land
Moab: Redaktionsgeschichtliches zu Dt 28,6932,47, bz 6 (1962): 3235; Veijola, Deuterono-
mium, 122123. DeRouchie does not mention Deut. 33:1. According to Seitz, Redaktions-
geschichtliche Studien, 2344, Deut. 6:1 and 12:1 are also relevant (see below). According to
him, there is an older (Deut. 4:45; 6:1; 12:1) and a later system of superscriptions (Deut. 1:1;
4:44; 28:69; 33:1). Since this section deals with Deuteronomy in its present form, this thesis is
not discussed.
5 The characterizations of the parts are from Eep Talstra, Deuteronomium, in De Bijbel
theologisch: Hoofdlijnen en themas, ed. Klaas Spronk and Archibald L.H.M. van Wieringen
(Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2011), 52.
6 Otherwise Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ib:69, according to whom Deut. 6:1 and 12:1 are not
superscriptions.
literary context 141
The superscription in Deut. 12:1 divides the second main part of Deuteron-
omy (Deut. 4:4428:68) into two sections (for the function of Deut. 6:1, see
3.1.2). This subdivision is confirmed by the content of the sections. In Deut. 5
11, Israel is called in more general terms to obey the law of Yhwh. From Deut. 12,
it is explained in concrete terms what it means to live according to this law.
Another formal argument is the combination in Deut. 5:1; 11:31;
12:1; 26:16, which forms an inclusio around the two sections.7 All other times
this combination occurs in Deut. 528, it is (in contrast to the four texts just
mentioned) combined with other expressions for laws.8
It appears, then, that the direct context of Deut. 7 is formed by the first
section of the second main part of Deuteronomy, Deut. 4:4411:32. There is
some debate about both the beginning and the end of this part. According to
some authors, Deut. 4:4449 belongs to the first main part of Deuteronomy.9
The arguments for this view are the many similarities in vocabulary between
Deut. 4:4449 and Deut. 1:15, by which these parts would form an inclusio
around Deut. 14. In addition, the themes of the history of Israel (the battle with
Sihon and Og) and the journey through the wilderness would better fit with
Deut. 14.10 However, these themes are also found in Deut. 511. The similarity
in vocabulary might be explained as an indication for an inclusio, but also as
an indication for a new section, which starts in a similar way. Because of the
function of analogous superscriptions elsewhere in Deuteronomy, and because
of the fact that Deut. 4:4143 as a text of the narrator interrupts the words
of Moses, it is reasonable to view Deut. 4:4449 as the introduction of a new
7 Cf. Hans Ausloos, Deuteronomium, in De Bijbel literair: Opbouw en gedachtegang van de

bijbelse geschriften en hun onderlinge relaties, ed. Jan P. Fokkelman and Wim J.C. Weren
(Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2003), 120; DeRouchie, Call to Covenant Love, 232233; Lohfink,
Das Hauptgebot, 5657.
8 See (apart from the superscription in Deut. 4:45) Deut. 5:31; 6:1,20; 7:11. In these texts,
Lohfink attempts to explain as an apposition to the preceding or
. This explanation is probable in Deut. 6:1, since no copula precedes .
In the other texts, however, there is a copula, which makes it an enumeration. Lohfink
considers these copulas (as the lectio facilior) as secondary, relying on sp and mtMss;
Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 5657. However, he does not make clear why the reading with-
out a copula is the lectio difficilior. From a text-critical point of view, his proposal is
weak.
9 DeRouchie, Call to Covenant Love, 5152 also discusses and rejects the option that the
second main part of Deuteronomy would start in Deut. 4:41.
10 Jack R. Lundbom, The Inclusio and Other Framing Devices in Deuteronomy ixxviii,
vt 46 (1996): 302304; McConville, Deuteronomy, 101.
142 chapter 3
part.11 Concerning the end of this section, Deut. 11:3132, there is a similar
debate. In view of the superscription in Deut. 12:1, it seems best to regard Deut.
11:32 as the end of this section, although this question is not directly relevant
for the present study.12
Chapter 7 is given a different position in some alternative proposals on the

structure of Deuteronomy. A central place is assigned to the chapter in the
views of David A. Dorsey and C.J. Labuschagne. They both view Deut. 411 as
a main unit with a concentric structure (in a different way), in which Deut. 7
is the centre.13 For Labuschagne, the concentric structure of Deut. 411 is not
based on its content, but on the number of smaller textual units and on
the verse division. Dorseys structure is based on a characterization of the
content of the different parts. However, such a characterization necessarily has
a subjective character, so that it can only function within the framework of a
division based on formal grounds. Duane L. Christensen divides Deuteronomy
in eleven main parts, locating Deut. 7 at the border of the second (Deut. 3:23
7:11) and third part (Deut. 7:1211:25).14 An objection to his proposal, however, is
that it disrupts the unity of Deut. 7 (on which see 2.3). An objection to all these
proposals is that they fail to do justice to the formal structure of superscriptions
in Deuteronomy as elaborated above.
3.1.2 Deut. 7 in Its Direct Context

The direct context of Deut. 7 is formed by Deut. 4:4411:32. Deut. 4:4449
functions as an introduction to the words of Moses. The narrator recalls the
location and the situation of the people of Israel. The reference to the victory
11 Cf. DeRouchie, Call to Covenant Love, 5253; Driver, Deuteronomy, lxviii; Tigay, Deuteron-
omy, 5859; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 111, 233.
12 For an overview of the various views, see DeRouchie, Call to Covenant Love, 230233.
13 David A. Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A Commentary on Genesis
Malachi (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 87; Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ia:50
51.
14 Christensen, Deuteronomy, 1:lxxlxxix; cf. 1:6364, 158. He admits, however, that a second
part of the book begins in Deut. 4:44; Ibid., 1:103. The division in Christensens commentary
is different from an earlier article and the first edition of his commentary, in which he
views Deut. 7:128:20 as the centre of the concentrically structured part of Deut. 411;
Duane L. Christensen, Form and Structure in Deuteronomy 111, in Das Deuteronomium:
Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft, ed. Norbert Lohfink, BEThL 68 (Leuven: University
Press, 1985), 140; Duane L. Christensen, Deuteronomy 111, wbc (Dallas: Word Books, 1991),
69.
over Sihon and Og is a recapitulation of material from Deut. 23. This victory
is viewed as the beginning of the conquest of Canaan (see 3.2.3.2); it is a
motivation for what follows.
Deut. 5:111:32 is presented as a speech of Moses. Since it is not easy to define
the exact structure and progress, it is preferable to pay special attention to
formal indications. As several authors have noted, Deut. 5:111:32 is divided
into three parts by the threefold call ( Deut. 5:1; 6:4; 9:1).15 The texts
mentioned are the only texts in this corpus where the imperative occurs
without a grammatical connection with the preceding clause.16 The use of the
vocative is also remarkable. As there is no change of addressee, the vocative
is a grammatically unnecessary referent. Apparently, the vocative is used to
signal a text boundary.17 On this basis, Deut. 4:4411:32 may be divided as
follows:
Deut. 4:4449 introduction

Deut. 5:16:3 part i
Deut. 6:48:20 part ii
Deut. 9:111:32 part iii
Some scholars, however, have viewed Deut. 6:1 as the beginning of a new
section, rather than Deut. 6:4. An argument for this view is that Deut. 6:1 seems
to be a superscription (see 3.1.1). Those arguing for Deut. 6:4 as the beginning
of a new section point to the petuah in mt after Deut. 6:3,18 the beginning of
Deut. 6:4 with , and the concentric structure of Deut. 5:276:3, by
which these verses are interconnected.19 For the purposes of the present study,
the exact subdivision is of no importance. Possibly, Deut. 6:13 may be viewed
as a transition from part i to part ii.
For a global characterization of the three parts, the proposal of Jason S. De-
Rouchie is useful. According to him, each of the three parts presents an aspect
of the nature of the covenant relationship between Yhwh and Israel. Part i
15 DeRouchie, Call to Covenant Love, 227228; cf. Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 66; Nelson, Deu-
teronomy, 3.
16 In Deut. 5:27, the imperative occurs with a copula, following another imperative.
17 DeRouchie, Call to Covenant Love, 189.
18 So the Codex Leningradensis and mtl17. mts5 has the space of a setumah, but in it is written
. See McCarthy, Deuteronomy, 10*15*.
19 DeRouchie, Call to Covenant Love, 228230. For the concentric structure of Deut. 5:276:3,
see Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 6668.
144 chapter 3
deals with the foundation, part ii with the essence, and part iii with the
perpetuation of the covenant relationship.20
In Deut. 5:16:3, Israel is reminded of the fact that Yhwh made a covenant
with them (Deut. 5:23), what Yhwh spoke at that occasion (the ten words,
Deut. 5:621), and in what way the covenant was made (Deut. 5:45,2231). The
section ends with a call to keep the commandments, so that it may go well with
Israel (Deut. 5:326:3). Deut. 5:16:3 thus offers a retrospect of the covenant
made at Horeb. Yhwhs revelation and words and the peoples promise on that
occasion function as a motivation for the call to keep Yhwhs commandments.
Thus, the covenant at Horeb is the foundation of what follows in Deut. 6:4
11:32.
According to Norbert Lohfink, Deut. 56 originally were a unity; this view is
based on similarities in vocabulary, structure and themes.21 In the present text
of Deuteronomy, however, Deut. 6:425 is more closely connected to Deut. 7
8 than to Deut. 5.22 Deut. 5 is about the past, namely the covenant at Horeb as
the foundation for the paraenesis of Deuteronomy. From Deut. 6 onwards, the
focus in on the future, namely life in the land of Canaan. The close connection
between at least Deut. 6 and 7 is confirmed by the parallel construction in Deut.
6:10 and 7:1 (see below).
In Deut. 6:4, part ii of Deut. 4:4411:32 starts, dealing with the content of
the commands that Yhwh gives at the border of Canaan. Deut. 6:49 is the
core of this part. Yhwh is one, or the only one.23 Since He is the only God,
the Israelites should love Him with all their heart, and his commandments
should permeate throughout their lives. In Deut. 6:10, a new section starts with
. When Israel has come in the promised land and fares well there, it
should not forget Yhwh and go and serve other gods, but it should keep Yhwhs
commandments (Deut. 6:1019). The question of Deut. 6:20 (when your son
asks you tomorrow) may be viewed as an elaboration of this call; therefore, it
is not to be considered as a parallel of the protasis from Deut. 6:10. Israel should
pass on the history of Yhwhs acts and the call to keep his commandments to
generations to come (Deut. 6:2025).
20 DeRouchie, Call to Covenant Love, 228229. For an overview of his view on the macrostruc-
ture of Deut. 511, see Ibid., 345349.
21 Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 142143, 290. Cf. McConville, Deuteronomy, 119, 138.
22 This is also recognized by Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 292 in his proposal for the structure
of Deut. 511.
23 For the extensive discussion about the translation of Deut. 6:4, see, e.g., MacDonald,
Deuteronomy and the Meaning of Monotheism, 6270. For the central place of Deut. 6:49,
see Ibid., 6062.
Deut. 7 begins with a formulation that is identical with Deut. 6:10: When
Yhwh your God brings you to the land () . The
preceding in Deut. 6:10 is lacking in Deut. 7:1; a possible explanation is that
the content of Deut. 7 grows not out of the end of Deut. 6, which would be
suggested by the repetition of .24 Rather, the protasis that Deut. 7 begins
with joins this chapter to Deut. 6:49, parallel to Deut. 6:1025. In both cases,
the protasis is followed by a series of commands (Deut. 6:1218; 7:211) and the
promise of blessing if Israel keeps the commands (Deut. 6:1819; 7:1215). Both
sections end with a question and answer, in which elements from the beginning
return as an inclusio (Deut. 6:2025; 7:1726).25 This structure indicates that
Deut. 7 is a consequence or an elaboration of the central part, Deut. 6:49.26
The content of Deut. 7 results from the proclamation of who Yhwh is and the
call to love and serve Him alone.
Some authors have stated that Deut. 7 has another perspective than Deut. 6
and 8. Deut. 6 and 8 would deal with the situation in the land of Canaan,
while Deut. 7 assumes that the conquest has yet to take place.27 However,
although the theme of Deut. 7 is different from the surrounding chapters,
the parallel construction in Deut. 6:10 and 7:1 suggests that the same perspec-
tive is assumed. Just as Deut. 6 and 8, Deut. 7 is about the future situation
(from the point of view of Deuteronomy) in the land of Canaan. In Deut.
7:22 (Yhwh will drive out the nations little by little), it becomes clear that
Deut. 7 not only refers to the conquest of the land, but also to life in the
land.
In Deut. 8, the exhortation to keep Yhwhs commandments is repeated.
In this chapter, several elements from Deut. 67 come together. Deut. 8:718
repeats the warning from Deut. 6:1012 not to forget Yhwh when Israel fares
well in Canaan.28 The message of Deut. 7 reappears in the call not to serve other
gods, because otherwise Israel would perish like the nations of Canaan (Deut.
8:1920).
24 So DeRouchie, Call to Covenant Love, 240.

26 Cf. Moberly, Toward an Interpretation of the Shema, 134. He even mentions Deut. 7 a
primary exposition of the implications of the Shema.
27 See Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 168.
28 The construction of Deut. 8:7 ( ) is not a grammatical
parallel of Deut. 6:10 and 7:1, since Deut. 8:7 uses a participle instead of a yiqtol. DeRouchie,
Call to Covenant Love, 244248 argues that the construction + ptc. is perhaps never used
as the beginning of a temporal protasis.
146 chapter 3
Deut. 9:111:32, the last section of Deut. 4:4411:32, starts with a reference to
the nations of Canaan. Yhwh will destroy these nations, not because of Israels
righteousness, but because of the wickedness of the nations and because of
Yhwhs oath to the fathers. Israel itself is a stubborn people (Deut. 9:16).
The latter statement is underpinned by a broad description of the wilderness
journey, during which Yhwh was about to destroy Israel several times (Deut.
9:710:11). It is only due to Yhwhs grace and to Mosess mediation that Yhwhs
covenant with Israel was maintained. From Deut. 10:12 onwards (introduced
by ) , Israel is called again to love Yhwh and to keep his command-
ments. For this purpose, Yhwhs power is emphasized, on the one hand, and
the richness of what He gives to Israel, on the other. If Israel is obedient to
Yhwh, He will bless it and He will destroy the nations; if Israel is disobedient,
his curse awaits them. Deut. 10:1211:32 is a summary of the preceding chapters,
in which many motifs return.29
In conclusion, the place of Deut. 7 in its direct context may be represented as

follows:
Deut. 4:4411:32 general call to keep the covenant

Deut. 4:4449 introduction
Deut. 5:16:3 i. foundation of the covenant relationship
Deut. 6:48:20 ii. essence of the relationship
Deut. 6:49 core: Yhwh is the only one
Deut. 6:1025 elaboration: when Yhwh brings you
Deut. 7 elaboration: when Yhwh brings you
Deut. 8 recapitulation
Deut. 9:111:32 iii. perpetuation of the relationship
3.1.3 The Structure of Deuteronomy and Ancient Near Eastern Treaty

Texts
Finally, it has to be scrutinized whether the structure of Deuteronomy corre-
sponds with the structure of Ancient Near Eastern treaty texts. According to
some authors, such a correspondence has direct consequences for the struc-
ture and dating of Deuteronomy; therefore, this question should be discussed
briefly.
29 J.G. McConville and J. Gary Millar, Time and Place in Deuteronomy, jsot.s 179 (Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 67.
Some dozens of such texts are known from the Ancient Near East, dating
from 2500 to 625 b.c.30 For the present study, the vassal treaties from the Hittite
and neo-Assyrian empire are particularly relevant.31
George E. Mendenhall has connected the structure of especially the Hittite
treaties with the Old Testament.32 Hittite vassal treaties are typically structured
as follows: (1) preamble: name and title of the Hittite king; (2) prehistory:
description of the relationship between the Hittite king and his vassal in the
past; the emphasis is on the benefits of the king, which oblige the vassal to
faithfulness and eternal gratitude; (3) stipulations of the treaty; (4) regulations
regarding deposition and periodical reading out of the treaty; (5) witnesses of
the treaty: the kings and the vassals respective gods, among which heaven and
30 Numbers that are mentioned differ, due to the fact that it is not clear whether or not sev-
eral texts or fragments may be considered as a treaty text. Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the
Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 283 mentions 8090 doc-
uments, but he seems to include several legal texts. Amnon Altman, How Many Treaty
Traditions Existed in the Ancient Near East?, in Pax Hethitica: Studies on the Hittites and
Their Neighbours, ed. Yoram Cohen, Amir Gilan, and Jared L. Miller, StBT 51 (Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz, 2010), 1736 mentions more than 60 treaties. For a recent overview of the
known treaties and their historical context, see Ibid.; Gary Beckman, Hittite Treaties
and the Development of the Cuneiform Treaty Tradition, in Die deuteronomistischen
Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur Deuterono-
mismus-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten, ed. Markus Witte et al., bzaw 365
(Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006), 279301.
31 Some 35 Hittite (15th13th century b.c.) and 22 neo-Assyrian (825625 b.c.) treaties are
known; see Gary Beckman, International Law in the Second Millennium: Late Bronze
Age, in A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, ed. Raymond Westbrook, 2 vols., ho 72
(Leiden: Brill, 2003), 1:753774; Simo Parpola, International Law in the First Millennium,
in A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, ed. Raymond Westbrook, 2 vols., ho 72 (Leiden:
Brill, 2003), 2:10471066. According to a calculation of Parpola, in total 160 treaties would
have been closed in neo-Assyrian times. For (text and) translation of the treaties, see
Gary Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, 2nd ed., sblwaw 7 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999);
Bernd Janowski and Gernot Wilhelm, eds., Staatsvertrge, Herrscherinschriften und andere
Dokumente zur politischen Geschichte, tuat 2 (Gtersloh: Gtersloher Verlagshaus, 2005);
Simo Parpola and Kazuko Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, saa 2
(Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988).
32 George E. Mendenhall, Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition, ba 17 (1954): 5076. Men-
denhall calls Deuteronomy a treaty document, but he does not discuss its structure. In
a later article, he states that Deuteronomy reflects the structure of a treaty, but he does
not elaborate on this; George E. Mendenhall, The Suzerainty Treaty Structure: Thirty
Years Later, in Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives, ed. Edwin Brown
Firmage, Bernard G. Weiss, and John W. Welch (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 96.
148 chapter 3
earth; (6) blessings and curses.33 It should be noticed, however, that not every
treaty has all these elements, and that the sequence may differ.
According to several authors, the structure of the book of Deuteronomy
corresponds to this structure. Kenneth A. Kitchen presents the following divi-
sion:34
1. preamble: Deut. 1:15

2. historical prologue: Deut. 1:63:29
3. stipulations: intro: Deut. 4; basic: Deut. 5; detail: Deut. 611; 1226
4a. depositing text: Deut. 31:9,2426
4b. reading out: Deut. 31:913
5. witnesses: Deut. 31:26,1922; 32
6b. blessings: Deut. 28:114
6c. curses: Deut. 28:1568
For the present study, it is not necessary to extensively discuss this view on the
structure of Deuteronomy. Strictly speaking, the book of Deuteronomy itself
is not a treaty text.35 It is generally recognized that Deuteronomy does not fit
seamlessly in the structure of the Hittite treaties. It seems difficult, for example,
to give a suitable place to Deut. 2930. Moreover, the structure of an Ancient
Near Eastern treaty can only partially do justice to the structuring elements of
Deuteronomy itself (see 3.1.1).
33 This structure is from the classical work of Koroec, Hethitische Staatsvertrge, 1114.
A slightly different format is given by Klaus Baltzer, Das Bundesformular, wmant 4
(Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1960), 2025; Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant:
A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament, 2nd ed.,
AnBib 21a (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1981), 6768. They do not mention the regulations
regarding deposition and reading of the treaty; and concerning the stipulations, they
distinguish between a Grundsatzerklrung about the future relationship and Einzel-
bestimmungen.
34 Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 284. According to some authors, the struc-
ture of a treaty may be found in a part of Deuteronomy; see, e.g., Baltzer, Das Bundesfor-
mular, 4047; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 157205. According to McCarthy, Deut. 511
would function as the historical prologue within the treaty structure of Deut. 4:4128:68;
the genre of the historical prologue, however, would have developed in the direction of
the paraenesis; Ibid., 170, 186; cf. 291292. The assumption of such a development, how-
ever, weakens the thesis that the structure of (part of) Deuteronomy would be analogous
to the structure of the treaty texts.
35 Merrill, Deuteronomy, 29. See also Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School,
146157.
The debate about the structure of Deuteronomy has gained importance

because it was connected with the dating of the book. One of the differ-
ences between the Hittite and neo-Assyrian treaties is the fact that in the
neo-Assyrian treaty texts a historical prologue is missing.36 According to some
authors, the occurrence of a historical prologue in Deuteronomy is an argu-
ment to date this book in the same time as the Hittite treaties, namely before
1200 b.c.37
This argumentation, however, has two objections. First, it is controversial
to what extent the historical prologue is a distinctive element of the Hittite
treaties.38 Incidentally, a historical prologue seems to be missing in Hittite
treaty texts.39 Concerning the Assyrian treaties, it has been stated that a his-
torical prologue is present in the succession treaty of Esarhaddon and in the
treaty of Aurbanipal with Qedar.40 However, a description of the prehistory
36 According to Itamar Singer, The Hittites and the Bible Revisited, in I Will Speak the Rid-
dles of Ancient Times: Archaeological and Historical Studies, ed. Aren M. Maeir and Pierre
de Miroschedji (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 746, there are also similarities in the
description of boundaries in the Old Testament and in Hittite treaties. In Assyrian treaties,
as a rule boundary descriptions would not occur. For a comprehensive comparison of
Deuteronomys structure and content with Ancient Near Eastern treaty texts, see Ken-
neth A. Kitchen and Paul J.N. Lawrence, Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient Near East
(Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012), 3:117213, 251261.
37 So Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 283299; Meredith G. Kline, Treaty of
the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy; Studies and Commentary (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 2744.
38 For the historical prologue, see broader Guy Kestemont, Diplomatique et droit interna-
tional en Asie occidentale (16001200 av. J.C.), piol 9 (Leuven: Institut Orientaliste, 1974),
148151, 279340, and in particular Amnon Altman, The Historical Prologue of the Hittite
Vassal Treaties: An Inquiry into the Concepts of Hittite Interstate Law, bisnelc (Ramat-Gan:
Bar-Ilan University Press, 2004). Altman argues that the historical prologue occurs only in
vassal treaties, not in treaties made on the basis of equality (except in the treaty between
the Hittites and Egypt). The historical prologue would be an integral part of the treaty. Its
function is not just historical, but also juridical, since it aims to justify the obligations of
the treaty to the gods; Ibid., esp. 2541.
39 McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 5455, 8485. Altman, Historical Prologue, 478479 con-
cludes: A Historical Prologue was likely to appear in any Hittite state document imposing
on a subordinate party certain obligations or restrictions, which involved infringement
of some enshrined or traditional rights of that party. [my italics] Cf. Beckman, Hittite
Treaties and the Development, 298. Altman mentions twenty Hittite treaties with a his-
torical prologue, but also one exception, the so-called Aziru treaty; Altman, How Many
Treaty Traditions Existed, 2627.
40 Parpola and Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, xxxv. For the texts of these
150 chapter 3
is not present in the succession treaty of Esarhaddon.41 In Aurbanipals treaty

with Qedar, the reference to the past is the motivation for a concrete command:
because Yauta wanted to kill the Qedarites, and Aurbanipal was favourable
to them, the Qedarites are not allowed to seek peace with Yauta. It is question-
able whether this reference can bear the thesis that a historical prologue also
occurs in Assyrian times.42 These data indicate that indeed the Hittite treaties
very often had a historical prologue, but not always. It has not been shown that a
historical prologue occurs also in Assyrian treaties. Accordingly, the presence of
a historical prologue, within the corpus of treaty texts known to us, is a distinc-
tive element of Hittite vassal treaties, but its absence is not entirely distinctive.
The second objection against dating Deuteronomy on the basis of the
alleged structure of the book is that it has not been shown that similarity in
structure ipso facto stems from a similar date. It is also conceivable that it is
inspired by an older tradition or a common culture.43
For the investigation of the place and function of Deut. 7 within the structure
of the book of Deuteronomy, it makes no substantive difference whether one
believes that the structure of Deuteronomy corresponds with the Hittite vassal
treaties, or that such a correspondence is not convincingly demonstrated.
treaties, see Ibid., 2858, 6869. Altman, Historical Prologue, 479481; McCarthy, Treaty
and Covenant, 119120 only mention the latter one.
41 So also Altman, Historical Prologue, 479481.
42 So rightly Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 290291.
43 Influence of the Hittite empire on Israel seems to be possible. Due to the long period
in which this cultural influence could have taken place, however, this is not yet proof
for an early or late dating of Deuteronomy. According to Harry A. Hoffner Jr., Ancient
Israels Literary Heritage Compared with Hittite Textual Data, in The Future of Biblical
Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions; The Proceedings of a Sympo-
sium, August 1214, 2001 at Trinity International University, ed. James K. Hoffmeier and
A.R. Millard (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 176192, cultural influence between the Hit-
tite empire and Israel should be considered plausible in the second millennium b.c. Koch,
Vertrag, Treueid und Bund, 2729, 32 has pointed to the cultural influence of the Hittite
empire on Karkamish and the later Aramaic states. Cf. Lorenzo dAlfonso, Die hethitische
Vertragstradition in Syrien (14.12. Jh. v. Chr.), in Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke:
Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur Deuteronomismus-Diskussion in
Tora und Vorderen Propheten, ed. Markus Witte et al., bzaw 365 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
2006), 303329; Christoph Koch, Zwischen Hatti und Assur: Traditionsgeschichtliche
Beobachtungen zu den aramischen Inschriften von Sfire, in Die deuteronomistischen
Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur Deuteronomis-
mus-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten, ed. Markus Witte et al., bzaw 365 (Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 2006), 379406.
Agreements in theme or vocabulary with Ancient Near Eastern treaties may

also be explained by the common cultural context of the Ancient Near East, of
which the treaty tradition is a part.44
3.1.4 Conclusion
The message of Deut. 7 is determined, inter alia, by its place and function in
the literary context. Deut. 7 is joined to Deut. 6:49, parallel to Deut. 6:1025.
Deut. 7 thus gives the consequence or an elaboration of this central passage.
In the present text of Deuteronomy, the content of Deut. 7 grows out of the
proclamation of who Yhwh is and the call to love Him alone and to keep and
pass on his commandments. Israel should not forget Yhwh (Deut. 6:1014; 8:11
14). In the form of exhortation (Deut. 6:59) and warning (Deut. 6:15; 8:1920),
it is indicated that serving Yhwh alone is a matter of life and death. Thus, the
context of Deut. 7 underlines the close connection between serving Yhwh and
the command to exterminate the nations of Canaan. This conclusion confirms
the earlier observation (see 2.6) that according to Deut. 7 the command
to exterminate the Canaanites is not a goal in itself, but a means to keep
Israel at the exclusive service of Yhwh. The motivation of the command to
eradicate the nations of Canaan is religious in nature. This, however, makes
the theological and ethical questions all the more pressing (cf. 1.1).
The place of Deut. 7 within Deut. 4:4411:32 is also relevant with regard to the
importance of the chapters content within the book of Deuteronomy. Deut.
1226 contains prescriptions for Israels life in the land of Canaan. Deut. 5
11 states the framework of these laws: the proclamation of the law at Horeb,
the confession of who Yhwh is, and the covenant relationship between Him
and Israel. Deut. 7 has its place within that framework. This makes clear that
the command to exterminate the Canaanites is not just one of the concrete
commandments, but that it is a condition for keeping all the commandments
and for serving Yhwh. The fact that Deut. 7 has its place in this context, and not
among the laws of Deut. 1226, indicates that exterminating the Canaanites is
not just one example of, but a precondition for living with Yhwh.45 Thus, the
place of chapter 7 in the book of Deuteronomy indicates the great importance
that was attached to it.46
44 Cf. Koch, Vertrag, Treueid und Bund, 2223, 5152; Millar, Now Choose Life, 4244; Zehnder,
Building on Stone, 511528, 534535.
45 Cf. Millar, Now Choose Life, 85.
46 Contra Frank Crsemann, Die Tora: Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen
Gesetzes (Mnchen: Kaiser, 1992), 156, who believes that the development of Exod. 34 via
Exod. 23 to Deut. 7 (see 3.3) shows marginalization, because in Deut. 7 the command
152 chapter 3
3.2 The Nations of Canaan in the Book of Deuteronomy
This section discusses the theme of the nations of Canaan in the book of
Deuteronomy. Deut. 7, the focus of this study, treats these nations as a col-
lective. Therefore, the position of the individual non-Israelite ( , ) is not
considered here. Another restriction is that only those texts that explicitly refer
to the indigenous population are discussed. Thus, regulations that might be
directed against the practices of the Canaanites without explicit reference to
these nations are left aside.
First, I will describe the relationship between Yhwh and the nations in gen-
eral and between Yhwh and Israel in particular ( 3.2.1). Next, Israels attitude
toward the non-Canaanite peoples (3.2.2) and toward the Canaanites ( 3.2.3)
will be scrutinized. Finally, I will discuss the motives that are given in Deuteron-
omy for Israels attitude toward the nations of Canaan ( 3.2.4). The section
closes with a summary of the conclusions (3.2.5).
3.2.1 Yhwh, the Nations and Israel

Otto Bchli starts his monograph on Israel and the nations in the book of
Deuteronomy by stating that Deuteronomy has two foci: the nation (Israel)
and the nations. According to him, the content of Deuteronomy is determined
by the Auseinandersetzung of Israel with the nations.47 This thesis seems to
overstate the matter, but it is true that the nations have an important place
in Deuteronomy. The interest in other nations is not an independent one, but
always concerns the relationship between the nations and Israel.48
3.2.1.1 Yhwh and the Nations

Several texts in Deuteronomy mention Yhwhs might over the nations in gen-
eral terms. In Deut. 4:32, it is said in a subordinate clause that God created
human beings on the earth. In the texts direct context, the work of and
Yhwh in Israels history is equated (compare Deut. 4:33 with 4:12; 5:26); from
this, it is concluded that only Yhwh is God (Deut. 4:35). Because of this con-
text, in Deut. 4:32 also has to be a reference to Yhwh. Thus, the creation
concerning the nations of Canaan would be independent of concrete laws. On the basis
of this section, however, it should be stated that by its place in Deuteronomy, Deut. 7 is
not marginalized, but has a more prominent place, and that it is not just a reflection on
the past, as Crsemann states.
47 Bchli, Israel und die Vlker, 7, 11.
48 So rightly Bchli, Ibid., 12: Jede Aussage des Dts ber die Vlker ist eine Aussage ber deren
Verhltnis zum Gottesvolk. Cf. Millar, Now Choose Life, 147148.
of man in the past is ascribed to Yhwh. According to Deut. 9:14, Yhwh still has
the power to create. Looking back at the history of the golden calf, it is stated
that Yhwh is able to destroy Israel and make of Moses a new nation. The most
explicit recognition of Yhwhs might is the statement of Deut. 10:14: Look, to
Yhwh your God belong the heaven and the heaven of heavens,49 the earth and
all that is in it.
In the song of Deut. 32, the apportioning of territory to the nations is called
the work of ( Deut. 32:8: ) . This name of a deity does not
occur elsewhere in Deuteronomy, but in the present context it has to be a
designation for Yhwh.50 This is evident from the direct context of the song,
in which it is stated that there is no God besides Yhwh (Deut. 32:39). This
view is supported by the wider context of the entire book, in which it is
stated more often that Yhwh gives territory to nations (Deut. 2:5,9,19). In Deut.
32:8, the verb hif. is used with one object, ( accusativus personae); it
is not indicated what the nations receive (accusativus rei). In almost all other
Deuteronomic texts using this verb, it has two objects and it is about Israel that
receives the land of Canaan.51 It is likely, therefore, that also Deut. 32:8 is about
the allocation of land. This interpretation is supported by the rest of the verse,
which speaks about the boundaries of the peoples (Deut. 32:8b: ) .52
The fact that the apportioning of territories to the nations is praised as the work
of Yhwh (cf. the notes on the territory of Edom, Moab and Ammon in Deut.
2:5,9,19) accentuates his power and uniqueness.53 To do this, Yhwh can even
destroy other nations (Deut. 2:2122).
49 For the meaning of this expression, see Cees Houtman, Der Himmel im Alten Testament:
Israels Weltbild und Weltanschauung, ots 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 337342.
50 From the point of view of the history of religion, this identification is controversial. For
discussion and literature, see Paul Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, ots 37
(Leiden: Brill, 1996), 7681, 363374. Sanders concludes that in Deut. 32:89, Yhwh and
refer to the same deity. So also the recent commentaries of Walter Brueggemann,
Deuteronomy, AbOTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 279; McConville, Deuteronomy, 454
455; Nelson, Deuteronomy, 371. This interpretation is already found in Sir. 17:17 (long text).
51 Deut. 1:38; 3:28; 12:10; 19:3; 31:7; the only exception is 21:16.
52 Cf. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, iii:232. Otherwise Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteron-
omy 32, 154, who interprets as accusativus rei.
53 For this interpretation, the text-critical problems of Deut. 32:8b make no difference. The
reading ( mt, sp, t, s, v) is defended by Jan P. Fokkelman, Major Poems of the
Hebrew Bible at the Interface of Hermeneutics and Structural Analysis: Volume i: Ex. 15, Deut.
32, and Job 3, ssn 37 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1998), 8285. For the reading ( 4QDeutj,
djd 14:90; cf. lxx ), see Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 156158,
154 chapter 3
In two texts,54 not only the allotting of land, but also the allotting of deities
to the nations is mentioned as a work of Yhwh (Deut. 4:19; 29:25).55 In Deut.
4:19, Israel is emphatically warned (cf. verse 15) not to be enticed to serve the
celestial bodies. Yhwh has allotted ( )them to all the nations under all
the heaven. The use of the verbs and indicates that serving and
worshiping of the celestial bodies as deities is intended, although they are not
called thus.56 In Deut. 29:25, the cause of the (future) judgment on Israel is
described: they abandoned the covenant of Yhwh and went to serve other
gods, whom they had not known and who [Yhwh] had not allotted to them.57
Thus, by means of an affirmation (Deut. 4:19) and a negation (Deut. 29:25) it is
made clear that Yhwh has indeed allotted other gods to the nations, but not
to Israel (cf. Deut. 17:3). In these texts, Yhwhs power is evident from the fact
that it is He that allots the celestial bodies. His power extends over all the earth
(Deut. 4:19: all the nations under all the heaven).58 Also nations other than
Israel are within Yhwhs power range (cf. 3.2.4.1).
363374 (and the literature cited there). Iodad de Merw, Commentaire ExodeDeutro-
nome, 134 (translation csco.s 81:180) attempts to harmonize the readings of mt and lxx
by stating that the descendants of Shem are also called gods or angels.
54 If in Deut. 32:8b the reading is followed, Deut. 32:89 may be added.
55 McConville, Deuteronomy, 108 calls the fact that nations have their own gods an extension
of Gods allocation to the nations of their territories.
56 Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ia:265. Probably in reaction to the suggestion that Yhwh
would incite other nations to serving idols, the interpretation originated that the celestial
bodies were allotted only to give light or to indicate the times; so the Vulgate of Deut. 4:19;
b. Meg. 9b; Iodad de Merw, Commentaire ExodeDeutronome, 118; Rashi, ,
526; Rashbam, Commentary on Deuteronomy, 52. Cf. Merrill, Deuteronomy, 124. Rashi and
Rashbam admit that the interpretation as deities is possible. However, the interpretation
that the celestial bodies were given to provide light ignores the use of the verbs and
( cf. Deut. 29:25) and does not make clear why an explicit distinction is made
between Israel and the nations.
57 According to to, the idols are the subject of ;Israel would have received nothing from
the other deities. This interpretation may have originated to avoid the suggestion that
Yhwh would incite the worship of idols (see the preceding footnote). Ramban,
, 2:478 already refutes this interpretation.
58 In these texts, the emphasis is on the distinction between Israel and the nations (Israel is
not allowed to worship the celestial bodies), not on the relationship between the idolatry
of the nations and the will of Yhwh, nor on the question of whether or not the existence
of other deities is recognized (cf. Deut. 4:28,35,39). Cf. Houtman, Der Himmel im Alten
Testament, 204205; Veijola, Deuteronomium, 106. Otherwise Von Rad, Das fnfte Buch
Mose, 36.
A final text that may refer to the relationship of Yhwh to the nations in gen-
eral is Deut. 33:3. In Mosess blessing it is stated that Yhwh (the subject 3rd
masc.sg. refers to verse 2) loves the nations (
). It is disputed, how-
ever, whether refers to Israel or to other nations. The Septuagint translates
his people ( ).59 Following Targum Onqelos, various exegetes
interpret as the tribes of Israel.60 However, there is no exegetical agree-
ment on the parallels adduced to substantiate this meaning. In the book of
Deuteronomy, such a use of certainly is not present. Therefore, it is likely
that in Deut. 33:3a the love of Yhwh for the nations is mentioned.61 If this
interpretation is correct, Yhwhs kingship over Israel (Deut. 33:45) is placed
in the context of his universal power.62
In addition to these texts about the relationship of Yhwh and the nations in
general, Deuteronomy more specifically deals with the relationship between
Yhwh and the nations encountered by Israel. In the description of the con-
quest of Transjordan, Yhwhs power over the nations is reflected in the fact
that He destroyed nations (Deut. 2:21,33; 3:23). He promises to put dread and
fear of Israel upon the nations (Deut. 2:25; cf. 7:23); the fact that Yhwh will do
this with all the nations under all the heaven underlines the universality of
his power.
Many texts deal with Yhwhs actions concerning the nations of Canaan.
Particularly in Deut. 9:13, the power of these nations is emphasized: the
nations are larger and mightier than Israel; the Anakites are a strong and
tall people, against whom nobody can stand up; their cities are large and
fortified to the heavens. It is Yhwh, however, who will go before Israel. He
will destroy these nations, subdue them, and quickly annihilate them ( hif.;
59 So also Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua, 123.

60 Stefan Beyerle, Der Mosesegen im Deuteronomium: Eine text-, kompositions- und formkri-
tische Studie zu Deuteronomium 33, bzaw 250 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1997), 75; Knig, Das
Deuteronomium, 218; Merrill, Deuteronomy, 435; Ramban, , 2:492493; Rashi,
, 598; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 320321.
61 This interpretation may be supported by the use of the verb , which does not occur
elsewhere in the Old Testament, instead of one of the verbs that are used for Yhwhs love
for Israel (, ). does occur in Sir. 7:21 (Ms a , Ms b ), as a variant of
the verb ( Ms c ;)Pancratius C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text
Edition of all Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and A Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira
Texts, vt.s 68 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 136.
62 McConville, Deuteronomy, 474: His specific, historical kingship in Israel derives from his
everlasting cosmic kingship. Cf. Ibid., 468469; Christensen, Deuteronomy, 2:836; Keil,
Leviticus, Numeri und Deuteronomium, 563564.
156 chapter 3
hif.; hif.; hif.).63 Also in the war against non-Canaanite nations,

Yhwh will be with Israel (Deut. 20:1).
Finally, Yhwh can bring a nation from the end of the earth to punish
Israel if it abandons Him (Deut. 28:49; cf. 32:21). However, He can also gather
Israel again from all the nations, even from the end of heaven (Deut. 30:34;
cf. 4:34). These texts underline Yhwhs universal power.
3.2.1.2 Yhwh and Israel

Among the nations, Israel has a unique position. Yhwh is called the father of
Israel; He created it (Deut. 32:6: , , , creation terminology). Very often
Yhwh is called your [Israels] God. In contrast to other nations, Israel is called
the people of Yhwh,64 or his children (Deut. 14:1). Other qualifications of Israel
result from this: it is a holy people () , a people that is the inheritance
( ) or the personal, precious property of Yhwh () .65
Israels special position is the result of Yhwhs election. Twice the state-
ment occurs: it is you Yhwh your God has chosen () out of all the nations
that are on the face of the earth (Deut. 7:6; 14:2). In these texts, the con-
trast with the other nations is reflected in the emphatic, fronted and the
addition out of all the nations on the earth at the end. The universal hori-
zon is at the service of the particularity of Israel as Yhwhs personal prop-
erty () . The combination of universality and particularity is also found
elsewhere in Deuteronomy. In Deut. 10:1415, the confession that the heaven,
the earth, and everything in it belong to Yhwh, is followed by the state-
ment that He loved Israels ancestors alone (, , cf. Deut. 7:78), and
chose their descendants out of all the nations. In Deut. 32:89, first Yhwhs
work in the apportioning of territory to all the nations is mentioned (see
3.2.1.1). Then, it follows that Israel is Yhwhs inheritance (, ) ,
and the rest of the song is about the special relationship between Yhwh
and Israel. If Deut. 33:3 is about Yhwhs love for the nations (see 3.2.1.1),
there too the relationship between Yhwh and the nations is at the service of
the special relationship between Yhwh and Israel. Deut. 33 continues with
the legislation and Yhwhs kingship over Israel (Deut. 33:45).66 In all these
63 Cf. Deut. 4:38; 7:11,1619; 11:23; 19:1; 31:3.

64 Your people: Deut. 9:26,29; 21:8; 26:15; his people: Deut. 32:9,36,43; cf. Deut. 26:18; 27:9;
29:12. The expression does not occur in Deuteronomy.
65 : Deut. 7:6; 14:2,21; 26:19; 28:9. : Deut. 4:20; cf. 9:26,29. : Deut. 7:6;
14:2; 26:18.
66 In the context of Deut. 33:25, the most likely interpretation is that the king is Yhwh; cf.
Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, iii:293.
texts, Yhwhs universal power is connected with the special relationship

between Yhwh and Israel.
Not only does Israel have a unique position among the nations, but Israels
experiences in history are unique as well. In Deut. 4:3235, Israel is called to
ask about the past (cf. Deut. 32:7). The rhetorical questions in verses 3334
demonstrate that Israels experience is unique: never (since the day that God
created man on the earth) and nowhere (from one end of heaven to the
other end of heaven, Deut. 4:32) has what Israel has experienced happened.
At Horeb, Israel has heard the voice of God speaking out of the fire, and lived.67
No other god ever made an attempt to deliver a nation, like Yhwh delivered
Israel from Egypt.68 To Israel, however, it was shown (emphatically fronted)
that it might know that Yhwh is God, He alone (Deut. 4:35). The uniqueness of
Israels experience demonstrates the uniqueness of Israels God.
According to Deuteronomy, Israels unique position is not due to certain
qualities of this people, but to Yhwhs love and faithfulness to his oath (Deut.
7:8). Both the size and the righteousness of Israel are explicitly rejected as an
explanation (Deut. 7:7; 9:6). Israel is the smallest of all the nations (Deut. 7:7)
and a stubborn and foolish people (Deut. 9:6,13,27; 32:6,28). Its special position
is not based on ethnic identity or moral superiority, but only on the choice of
Yhwh.69
The distinction between Israel and the nations imposes obligations on Israel.
Because Israel is chosen by Yhwh out of the nations, it should not be like the
other nations. A set of prescriptions on clean and unclean animals is intro-
duced and concluded by the statement that Israel is a people holy to Yhwh
(Deut. 14:2,21). It should not serve the gods of the nations (Deut. 6:14) or take
over for the service of Yhwh the ways in which the nations serve their gods
(Deut. 12:30). The practices of the nations of Canaan are qualified as wicked
and abhorrent (Deut. 9:45; 18:9; 20:18; see 3.2.4). Israel is not allowed to do
like them (Deut. 18:14).70
67 In Deut. 4:33, refers to Yhwh. Earlier in the chapter, speaking out of the fire is
a description of Yhwhs revelation at Horeb (Deut. 4:12). Moreover, Deut. 4:33 is not a
comparison between Yhwh and other gods, but between Israel and other nations. Cf. the
parallel Deut. 5:26 () .
68 In Deut. 4:34, is to be interpreted as a god. The text is not about delivering a nation,
but about making an attempt to do so ( pi.). Moreover, in Deut. 4:34 not nations, but
deities are compared: in contrast to .
69 Cf. Talstra, Identity and Loyalty, 72. Contra Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten und der
Juden zu den Fremden, 90, who states that Deuteronomy shows dass die Israeliten im
Gefhl, der Adel der Menschheit zu sein, mit Fremden nichts mehr zu tun haben wollen.
70 It is not entirely clear whether in Deuteronomy the desire for a king is also grouped with
158 chapter 3
Concerning the future, Israel is also compared with other nations. The
nations are spectators of Israels relationship with Yhwh.71 If Israel is disobedi-
ent to Yhwh, it will be scattered among the nations (Deut. 4:27; 28:32,36). It will
perish like the nations that Yhwh destroyed before Israel (Deut. 8:20). Then all
the nations will ask why Yhwh has acted thus (Deut. 29:23) and Israel will be
a horror, a proverb, and a byword under the nations (Deut. 28:25,37). Earlier,
Israel has already been defeated by other nations (Deut. 1:44). However, if Israel
is obedient to Yhwh, Yhwh will bless it above all nations (Deut. 7:14). Israel
will lend to and rule over many nations (Deut. 15:6; 28:12). All the peoples of the
earth shall be afraid, as they see that Israel is called by the name of Yhwh (Deut.
28:10). Yhwh will set Israel high above all nations, in praise and in fame and in
honour (Deut. 26:19; cf. 28:1, followed by a series of blessings). Again, this high
position compared to the nations does not show any superiority of Israel. In
the texts mentioned, Israels high position is exclusively spoken about as some-
thing future, on the condition of obedience to Yhwhs commandments, as the
work of Yhwh, and intended for the service of Yhwh (to be a people holy to
Yhwh your God, Deut. 26:19; cf. 28:9).
In Deut. 4:68, an explicit comparison is made between the life of Israel and
the nations. If Israel will keep Yhwhs commandments, that will be your wis-
dom and your discernment for the eyes of the nations. The nations will praise
Israel as a wise and discerning people (Deut. 4:6). This is followed by two paral-
lel rhetorical questions articulating the uniqueness of Israel, as the nations will
recognize it. No nation has a god so near to it as Yhwh is to Israel whenever it
calls to Him.72 No nation has laws so righteous. If Israel is obedient to Yhwh,
the nations will recognize the uniqueness of Israel, and of Yhwh, Israels God.
Finally, in two poetic texts the praise is sung of Israels unique position under
the nations (Deut. 32:43; 33:29).
the practices of the nations. On the one hand, it is not forbidden to Israel to appoint a king,
albeit that strict conditions are set (Deut. 17:1420); so McConville, Deuteronomy, 293. On
the other hand, the desire to appoint a king seems to be valued negatively by the addition
like all the nations that are around me. This expression recalls other Deuteronomic texts
about imitating the nations (Deut. 12:30; 18:9); Israel should keep well away from that; so
Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ii:122123.
71 Cf. Millar, Now Choose Life, 150.
72 In Deut. 4:7, is to be interpreted as a plural. The contrast is stated between the
nations that speak about the nearness of their gods, on the one hand, and the nearness
of Yhwh our God to Israel, on the other. The suffixes 1pl. (, )indicate that
Deut. 4:7 is not a continuation of the quotation of the nations, but a motivation why the
nations will speak thus.
Deut. 32:43 introduces a summons to a song of praise. From a text-critical

point of view, this verse is highly controversial. mt (and sp) differ substantially
from both 4QDeutq and lxx. In mt, Deut. 32:43 has 4 cola, in 4QDeutq 6 cola
and in lxx 8 cola.73 In mt and lxx, a call is addressed to the nations (first
colon of mt, third colon of lxx; not in 4QDeutq). In 4QDeutq and lxx, a
call is addressed to the heavens and the gods (first and second colon in both;
not in mt). There are no correspondences of mt and 4QDeutq over against
lxx. The most likely explanation of these data is that lxx has combined
(and supplemented) the readings of mt and 4QDeutq, so that text-critically
the reading of lxx is secondary.74 It is more difficult to determine the text-
historical relationship between mt and 4QDeutq.75 In Deut. 32:43a, which is
relevant here, there are two main text-critical differences: (1) whereas mt reads
, 4QDeutq (cf. lxx) reads ( ;2) ( mt) seems to have been read as
by lxx (this cannot be determined with certainty for 4QDeutq).
If the reading is chosen, the text does not speak about the relationship
between Israel and the nations.76 Since the nations are mentioned several
times in Deut. 32, however, the possibility should not be excluded that mt ()
has the oldest text here.77 If the reading is chosen, there are four possible
interpretations for the first colon of Deut. 32:43 () . (1) First,
hif. may be interpreted as having a causative meaning (to make rejoice).78 In
73 See, e.g., Alexander Rof, The End of the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:43), in Liebe
und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium, ed. Reinhard Gregor Kratz and Hermann
Spieckermann, frlant 190 (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 164172. In his
reconstruction of the verse, Rof proposes an emendatio parallelismi causa.
74 So, e.g., Sanders, The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 249. Due to the complex character of
lxx in this verse, it is dubious to mention lxx as a witness for the reading , but not
for the reading , as the text-critical apparatus of bhq does; lxx has both readings.
75 Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, Les trois rdactions conserves et la forme originale de l envoi du
Cantique de Mose (Dt 32,43), in Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft,
ed. Norbert Lohfink, BEThL 68 (Leuven: University Press, 1985), 329340 attempts to
explain the versions of mt, 4QDeutq and lxx by the hypothesis of a fourth, original text,
out of which these versions would have originated.
76 In that case, has to be read as . So, e.g., McCarthy, Deuteronomy, 152*153*; Sanders,
The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32, 248252.
77 In that case, the reading could be explained as an adaptation to Deut. 32:1. If the
reading of 4QDeutq is followed, sometimes a connection is made with from
Deut. 32:8 (lxx/4QDeutj). The function of in verse 8 (only their number is
mentioned), however, is different from verse 43 (a call to rejoice about the work of Yhwh).
78 So Christensen, Deuteronomy, 2:812 (but with the reading ;)Labuschagne, Deutero-
nomium, iii:260261.
160 chapter 3
that case, however, it remains unclear why and how the nations have to play an
active role in making Israel rejoice; moreover, the relationship with the rest of
Deut. 32:43 is unclear. (2) Second, may be read as an apposition of . In
that case, the nations are called the people of Yhwh, and Israel apparently loses
its unique position. If this interpretation is chosen, the reading of as his
people must be original, because it is unlikely that in later times the (possible)
interpretation that Israel is no longer (exclusively) the people of Yhwh would
have been preferred. However, this interpretation is not supported by the rest
of Deut. 32, and is therefore rarely defended.79 (3) Third, may be interpreted
as with his people (cf. lxx; Rom. 15:10).80 Then the nations are summoned to
rejoice together with Israel about the work of Yhwh. (4) Fourth, the text may
be interpreted as a call to the nations to rejoice about the people of Yhwh.81
In that case, the nations are witnessing what Yhwh does to Israel, and they
are called to praise Yhwhs vengeance on his adversaries and the restoration
of his people. The entire worlds population is summoned to raise a song of
Israels praise. The reason is not that this people is so marvelous, but that the
God of this people is so marvellous, and this people is his people.82 If the
reading ( mt) is chosen, this seems the most likely interpretation. It is in
line with other texts in Deuteronomy where the nations are spectators of the
relationship between Yhwh and Israel (see above).
The praise on Israels position also sounds in Deut. 33:29, the last verse before
the final chapter on the death of Moses. Happy are you, O Israel! Who is like
you? Israel is saved by Yhwh. Because He is the shield, the help and the sword
for Israel, the enemies have to subdue themselves. From this context, it again
becomes clear that the unique position of Israel is due to Yhwh and his deeds.
In conclusion, the book of Deuteronomy presents the relationship between

Yhwh and the nations as follows. Yhwhs power extends over all the nations.
He created them and allotted to them territories and gods. He may also destroy
nations, or use them to punish Israel. One text possibly mentions Yhwhs love
for the nations (Deut. 33:3). In this text and in the allotting of territory (Deut.
79 Driver, Deuteronomy, 380381 n. refers to some authors, but he himself rejects this inter-
pretation.
80 Merrill, Deuteronomy, 425.
81 So Fokkelman, Major Poems i, 58, 130; McConville, Deuteronomy, 450; H.G.L. Peels, The
Vengeance of God: The Meaning of the Root nqm and the Function of the nqm-Texts in the
Context of Divine Revelation in the Old Testament, ots 31 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 141148.
82 Peels, Vengeance of God, 144 (sic).
32:8), there seems to be a blessing for the nations.83 The relationship between
Yhwh and the nations (universality), however, always is at the service of the
relationship between Yhwh and Israel (particularity). Among the nations,
Israel has a unique position as the people of Yhwh. Israels identity is also
shaped by the contrast between Israel and the (Canaanite) nations and their
religion.84 Israels unique position and experiences are not due to any quality of
the people itself, but only to the love and the oath of Yhwh. If Israel is obedient
to Yhwh, it will keep its unique position, and the nations will recognize and
praise that.
3.2.2 Israel and the Non-Canaanite Peoples

This section scrutinizes Israels attitude toward the non-Canaanite peoples. In
Deut. 20:1516, a clear distinction is made between the nations living in and
outside of Canaan (for Deut. 20:1018, see 3.2.3.1). The non-Canaanite peoples
mentioned in Deuteronomy are Edom, Moab, Ammon, Egypt, and Amalek. In
addition, in Deut. 23 various peoples are named that formerly lived in and
around Canaan. The position of the latter peoples and Israels attitude toward
Sihon and Og are discussed in the next section ( 3.2.3.2; 3.2.3.3).
Deut. 2 describes how Israel travels through the Transjordan to Canaan.
Coming from the south, it meets Edom, Moab, and Ammon. When Israel passes
through the territory of Edom, it should not contend with the children of Esau,
for Yhwh will not give Israel even so much as a foots length of their land.85
The Edomites are called the brothers of Israel (, Deut. 2:4,8). Yhwh has
given Mount Seir to Esau as a possession ( , Deut. 2:45). Concerning the
land of Moab and Ammon, it is likewise stated that Yhwh has given it as a
possession to the children of Lot; therefore, Israel will not receive it (Deut.
83 Cf. Millar, Now Choose Life, 154: It may not be possible to show conclusively that the
nuanced treatment of the nations in Deuteronomy rests in a belief that the nations are
involved in the fulfilment of the patriarchal promise, but that does not take away from
the fact that, at its fringes, the Deuteronomic theology of blessing extends even to them.
Millar does not mention Deut. 33:3, but sees this blessing mainly in Deut. 4:58. That
text, however, is more about the nations being spectators of Israels blessing than about
a blessing for the nations themselves. Millars conclusion, however, may be substantiated
with the texts mentioned above.
84 Cf. E. Theodore Mullen, Narrative History and Ethnic Boundaries: The Deuteronomistic
Historian and the Creation of Israelite National Identity, sblss (Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1993), 5576.
85 The designation Edom is not used in Deuteronomy. Deut. 2 only mentions (the children
of) Esau; Deut. 23:7 uses the Edomite.
162 chapter 3
2:9,19). Israel will pass through the land of Moab (Deut. 2:18), whereas it will
only approach the land of Ammon (Deut. 2:19). The motive mentioned is that
Yhwh has given the land to Moab and Ammon; they are not called a brother
of Israel.86
It is noteworthy that the territory of Edom, Moab and Ammon is called ,
while the land Israel receives is usually called .87 In Deuteronomy, Israels
territory is only twice called ( Deut. 2:12; 3:20), but both times this concerns
the Transjordan only. In Deut. 12:9 also, a distinction seems to be made between
the Transjordan and Cisjordan. There, it is stated that Israel has not yet come
into the rest ( )and the that Yhwh gives them; thus, it seems that the
Transjordan does not belong to the . However, it is also possible to interpret
as a reference to the country as a whole, including the Transjordan; indeed,
the land as a whole has not yet been occupied. In Deut. 29:7, the Transjordan is
explicitly called .88
In Deut. 23:29, the requested attitude of Israel toward Ammon, Moab, and
Edom (and Egypt) in later times is described. This passage regulates who are
excluded from the .89 First, a eunuch and a bastard ( ) are men-
tioned.90 Then the position of various non-Israelites is discussed. Probably,
86 According to Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ia:148149, there is a distinction between the

attitude toward Edom, on the one hand, and toward Moab and Ammon, on the other.
Deut. 2:5 (Edom) uses the plural, which would indicate that all Israelites are involved.
Deut. 2:9,19 (Moab, Ammon) use the singular, which would indicate that this is a matter
of Moses personally. However, Labuschagne does not make clear why this distinction was
made or what it would mean in practice.
87 Barker, Triumph of Grace, 4546.
88 Cf. Weinfeld, The Extent of the Promised Land; Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land, 5275,
esp. 6975. See also p. 55 n. 162 above.
89 C.L. Crouch, The Making of Israel: Cultural Diversity in the Southern Levant and the Forma-
tion of Ethnic Identity in Deuteronomy, vt.s 162 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 186187 argues that this
designation does not (only) refer to exclusion from the sanctuary, but to exclusion from
the Israelite community.
90 Since elsewhere in the Old Testament, the word is only used in Zech. 9:6, it cannot
be determined with certainty what kind of person is meant here. It has been suggested
that a child from a marriage between an Israelite and a Canaanite may be intended
(cf. Deut. 7:3); so, e.g., McConville, Deuteronomy, 348. Cf. Mayes, Deuteronomy, 316. This
is less likely, however, because of the categorical prohibition of such a marriage and
the express command to eradicate all the nations of Canaan; in that case, one would
expect a more explicit designation; cf. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ii:221. According to
Braulik, Deuteronomium, 2:170, it is a child conceived in cultic prostitution, which would
be considered as the child of a foreign god.
people residing in Israel as foreigners ( )are meant.91 The nations are men-
tioned in geographical order from north to south. First, the Ammonites and
Moabites are dealt with. They may not enter the . This prohibition even
applies to the tenth generation, that is forever ( , Deut. 23:4).
Two reasons are given for the exclusion of the Ammonites and Moabites.
The first reason is that they did not meet Israel with bread and water after the
exodus from Egypt (Deut. 23:5). The plural of the verb ( )seems to indi-
cate that both the Ammonites and the Moabites are the subject.92 This view
is not contradicted by the fact that nowhere in the Old Testament a meet-
ing between Israel and the Ammonites is mentioned. The Ammonites and
Moabites may be treated as a collective in this text. However, Deut. 2:2829
seems to state that the Moabites did provide Israel with food and water.93
Some authors have solved this problem by the assumption that apparently
a distinction is made between meeting with (Deut. 23:5) and selling of food
(Deut. 2:28).94 Another possibility is that Deut. 2:2829 is rhetoric of war,
since these are words of Moses by which he attempts to persuade Sihon to
let Israel pass through his land.95 However, it is questionable whether there
really is a contrast between Deut. 23:5 and 2:2829. The comparison with the
Edomites and the Moabites in Deut. 2:29 (as did) is a continuation of
the call to let Israel pass through the land. That call is clearly distinguished
(asyndesis, )from the preceding request to sell food and water. In addi-
tion, the central motive in Mosess argument (Deut. 2:2729) is the passage
through Sihons land. Accordingly, the most likely reading of Deut. 2:2829
91 Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ii:218. According to Christoph Bultmann, Der Fremde im

antiken Juda: Eine Untersuchung zum sozialen Typenbegriff ger und seinem Bedeutungs-
wandel in der alttestamentlichen Gesetzgebung, frlant 153 (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1992), 103119, non-Israelites (from the seventh century b.c.) are meant who
have an independent economic existence and who seek full integration. For the position
of a female captive (Deut. 21:1014), see 3.2.3.1.
92 Otherwise Craigie, Deuteronomy, 297 (only the Ammonites); so also Ramban,
, 2:455456.
93 Nielsen, Deuteronomium, 221. He states that for this reason a second explanation was
added at a later time.
94 Bertholet, Deuteronomium, 72 (who considers this as artificial); Driver, Deuteronomy, 43.
Scheiber, Lots Enkel, 111112 posits the hypothesis that at first Moab refused to let Israel pass
through its territory and to provide it with food, but that later on it wanted to sell food. In
that case, Deut. 23:5a would refer only to the initial refusal. Evidence for this hypothesis,
however, is lacking.
95 McConville, Deuteronomy, 349. Cf. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ii:219.
164 chapter 3
is that the comparison with the Moabites only regards the passage through
their land, not the provision with food.96
The second reason mentioned for the prohibition to admit the Ammonite
and the Moabite in the is that they hired Balaam against Israel to curse
it. The verbal form is singular ( )and leaves open who is responsible for
this. Possibly, it is assumed to be well-known that it was the initiative of the
Moabites or their king, Balak (cf. Num. 2224). Due to the use of the singular,
it is not necessary to assume that the Ammonites were also involved. For the
reasons stated, Israel should not even seek the welfare of the Ammonites and
Moabites. The terminology, which also occurs in Ancient Near Eastern treaty
texts (, ), indicates that Israel should not conclude treaties with these
nations.97
According to several authors, another reason, or the actual reason, for the
exclusion of the Ammonites and Moabites is the incestuous origin of these
nations (Gen. 19:3038). The argument for this view is the connection with
Deut. 23:3, where the bastard ( )is excluded.98 An objection against this
interpretation, however, is that Deut. 23:47 does not contain any reference
to the origin of the Ammonites and Moabites, while it explicitly gives other
reasons. In addition, the verses that follow (Deut. 23:89, the attitude toward
the Edomite and the Egyptian) certainly do not have such a connection with
Deut. 23:23.99 Therefore, Deut. 23:29 is an insufficient basis for viewing the
origin of Ammon and Moab as a reason for their exclusion from the .
In sum, Israel is called to separate itself from the Moabites and Ammonites.
The reason given for this is not the origin of these nations, but their attitude
toward Israel in the period just before the conquest of Canaan. Notably, Israel
is not called to destroy or to expel the Moabites and Ammonites, but rather to
respect their territory.
96 The statement that the children of Esau let Israel pass through their land (Deut. 2:29)
does seem to be rhetoric of war. In Deut. 2:8, it is suggested that Israel did not pass through
their territory; in Num. 20:1421, it is stated that Edom refused so.
97 Delbert R. Hillers, A Note on Some Treaty Terminology in the Old Testament, basor 176
(1964): 4647; William L. Moran, A Note on the Treaty Terminology of the Sefre Stelas,
jnes 22 (1963): 173176. Cf. Craigie, Deuteronomy, 298.
98 Braulik, Deuteronomium, 1:170; Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ii:218, 221; Scheiber, Lots
Enkel, 110, 114; Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua, 85; Steuernagel, Das Deuterono-
mium, 136. Cf. McConville, Deuteronomy, 349 (associative link).
99 Of course, Deut. 23:89 may be explained as an association because other peoples are
mentioned. In the explanation of Deut. 23:29 as a whole, however, this has little to offer:
in that case, Deut. 23:47 seems to fit better with the previous verses (albeit implicitly),
but the connection with the following verses becomes less clear.
After the Ammonites and Moabites, in Deut. 23:8 the Edomite is mentioned.
Israel should not abhor him ( pi.). Elsewhere in Deuteronomy, this verb is
used only in Deut. 7:26, where Israel is called to abhor the idols of the nations of
Canaan (, ). Israels attitude toward the Edomites should be different,
it seems, from its attitude toward the Canaanites (and their idols). The motiva-
tion given for this is that Edom is a brother of Israel (, cf. Deut. 2:4,8). Thus,
with respect to the Edomites Israel is called to a more positive attitude than
with the Ammonites and Moabites. The text is silent about Edoms behaviour
during Israels journey in the wilderness. Moab is, but Edom apparently is not
charged that it did not succour Israel spontaneously.100 On the basis of the
brotherhood, Edom should be approached relatively positively. This attitude
toward Edom is exceptional in the Old Testament.101
The last people mentioned in Deut. 23:29 is Egypt. Like the Edomites, Israel
should not abhor them ( pi.). The motivation given is that Israel has resided
as an alien ( )in Egypt. This argument is remarkable, since elsewhere in
Deuteronomy the Egyptians are said to have suppressed Israel with hard slavery
( hif., pi., , Deut. 26:6). That statement is part of a credo, which
should be reminded constantly. Egypt is compared to an iron furnace (Deut.
4:20)102 and a house of slavery. The point of comparison is the unbearably hard
bondage that characterized life in Egypt.103 The same negative evaluation of
Israels experience in Egypt seems to be reflected by the repeated exhortation to
care for the poor, because Israel itself as strangers in Egypt had been poor and
oppressed.104 In Deut. 23:8, these negative experiences are ignored. Possibly,
this motivation refers back to the time that Israel arrived in Egypt and was
100 B. Maarsingh, Onderzoek naar de ethiek van de wetten in Deuteronomium (Winterswijk:

Van Amstel, 1961), 130. Millar, Now Choose Life, 152 concludes: [T]he relationship of any
nation with Yahweh is somehow dependent on that nations relationship with Israel. With
respect to Israels attitude toward Edom and Egypt, somehow should be underlined.
101 Dicou, Edom, Israels Brother and Antagonist, 170.
102 For this metaphor (including technical details and archaeological data), see Dieter
Vieweger, und fhrte euch heraus aus dem Eisenschmelzofen, aus gypten, .
als Metapher fr die Knechtschaft in gypten (Dtn 4,20; 1 Kn 8,51 und Jer 11,4),
in Gottes Recht als Lebensraum, ed. Peter Mommer, Werner H. Schmidt, and Hans Strauss
(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993), 265276.
103 Deut. 5:6; 6:12; 7:8; 8:14; cf. 5:15; 6:21. Cf. Dion, Isral et l tranger dans le Deutronome,
220221.
104 Deut. 10:19; 15:15; 16:12; 24:18,22. Cf. Bertholet, Deuteronomium, 72, who concludes: So
widerspricht sich doch kein Schriftsteller.
166 chapter 3
received well.105 In any case, despite the negative experiences in history, Egypt
is part of the nations that Israel should deal with relatively positively. The third
generation of an Egyptian or an Edomite may be admitted to the ( Deut.
23:9).106
The last non-Canaanite nation mentioned in Deuteronomy is Amalek (Deut.

25:1719). Israel is called to remember Amaleks treacherous attack after the
exodus from Egypt. The call to remember ( )and not to forget ()
forms an inclusio around Deut. 25:1719, which gives emphasis to this pas-
sage. When Yhwh has brought Israel into Canaan and has given it rest from
its (other) enemies, Israel should blot out the remembrance ( )of Amalek
from under heaven.107 The motivation for this attitude is Amaleks behaviour
during the wilderness journey. Elsewhere, the expression blot out the mem-
ory ( ) is used only in Exod. 17:14, where the battle against Amalek is
described; in that text, Yhwh is the subject. Israel has to remember that Yhwh
will blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. If the content of this
expression corresponds to a related combination, to blot out the name (
), it conveys extermination.108 This latter expression is reminiscent of Deut.
7:24, where Israel receives the command to make the name of the Canaan-
ite kings perish ( hif.) from under heaven.109 A difference with Exod. 17
105 So, e.g., McConville, Deuteronomy, 349; Rashi, , 568. Otherwise Steuernagel,
Das Deuteronomium, 136, who thinks that reference is made to the later colonies in Egypt.
106 Merrill, Deuteronomy, 309 views in Deut. 23:29 a line of increasing amelioration and
acceptance.
107 The command to blot out the remembrance of Amalek is contrasted with the preceding
call to ensure that the name of a brother shall not be blotted out from Israel (,
Deut. 25:6). Rooze, Amalek geweldig verslagen, 45 characterizes Amaleks attitude as anti-
brotherhood.
108 Deut. 9:14; 29:19; Ps. 9:6; 109:13; parallels are hif., pi., hif.; in Deut. 29:19, it
is not certain whether this results in death. Cf. Stern, Biblical erem, 178, who refers to
Akkadian zikru, name.
109 According to Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ii:275, there is a difference between blotting
out the memory and extermination, although the former includes the latter. In the writers
time, Amalek had already been destroyed; only its remembrance should disappear now
(ironically, the text itself rather keeps the remembrance of Amalek alive). A similar
distinction is made by Tanner, Amalek, but he does not make clear what this distinction is.
Sometimes he suggests that blotting out of the memory implies destruction and is even
more radical (9798 n. 51), while at other times it only seems to be a mental battle or the
handling of traumatic experiences, without any concrete extermination (9596, 102103,
353).
is that in Deut. 25 Israel is called to destroy Amalek, whereas in Exod. 17 it seems

to be the work of Yhwh (see 3.3).110
On the one hand, Amalek is distinguished from the nations of Canaan in
Deuteronomy.111 Amalek is not mentioned in the enumeration of the indige-
nous nations. Moreover, the command to blot out Amaleks memory is
intended for the time after Yhwh has given Israel rest from all the enemies
around you (Deut. 25:19). It is likely that the latter expression includes the
Canaanite peoples. Finally, the motivation for Israels attitude is different. The
reason for the requested attitude toward Amalek is not the temptation of its
religion, but Amaleks behaviour toward Israel during the wilderness journey.112
On the other hand, the command to blot out the memory of Amalek is related
to the command concerning the nations of Canaan (Deut. 7:24), so that the
requested attitude of Israel toward Amalek is more hostile than toward other
non-Canaanite peoples. The regulations of Deut. 20:1015, namely to first offer
peace to enemies, do not seem to apply to Amalek (see 3.2.3.1). Thus, Amalek
is distinguished from the nations of Canaan, but the requested treatment of
Amalek is rather similar to that of the Canaanites, in contrast to the other non-
Canaanite peoples mentioned in Deuteronomy.113
Some authors have stated that the passage about Amalek (Deut. 25:1719,
together with Deut. 26) corresponds to the judgment on the Canaanites in
Deut. 12.114 That would strengthen the connection between Amalek and the
nations of Canaan. The argument in favour of this thesis is that both passages
mention that Yhwh will give Israel rest from its enemies (Deut. 12:910; 25:19).
An argument against the connection with Deut. 12, however, is that the latter
chapter does not mention the destruction of the nations of Canaan, but only
the destruction of their cult objects. In addition, the function of the motif of
110 Cf. Rooze, Amalek geweldig verslagen, 5455.

111 Amaleks special position is also clear in the genealogy of Gen. 36. Amalek is called the
son of Eliphaz, who is a child of Esau and a Hittite woman. Thus, genealogically Amalek
is connected both with Israel (through Esau) and with the nations of Canaan (through
Esaus wife).
112 Amaleks attitude toward Israel is connected with its attitude toward Yhwh by the addi-
tion ( Deut. 25:18); however, Amalek is not considered a religious danger for
Israel, like the nations of Canaan. Rooze, Amalek geweldig verslagen, 51; Tanner, Amalek,
99102 believe that Israel is (also) the subject of .
113 Contra Rooze, Amalek geweldig verslagen, 229230, who states that the theme of Amalek
is also present in Deut. 23 and 7, a.o. Rooze and Tanner, Amalek believe that in the Old
Testament, Amalek is a symbol of evil. In Deuteronomy, however, this is not the case;
rather the Canaanites peoples are (see 5.4.3.2).
114 Braulik, Deuteronomium, 2:190; McConville, Deuteronomy, 373.
168 chapter 3
Israels rest is different. In Deut. 12:910, the rest serves to indicate the moment
that Yhwh will appoint a central sanctuary; an explicit connection with Israels
attitude toward other nations (Deut. 12:24) is not made, in contrast to Deut.
25:19, where the rest of the enemies indicates the moment that Israel should
blot out the memory of Amalek. For these reasons, there is insufficient basis
to state that the command concerning Amalek corresponds to the command
concerning the Canaanites in Deut. 12.
In conclusion, Israels attitude toward the non-Canaanite peoples should be

different from its attitude toward the Canaanites, albeit that the evidence in
Deuteronomy is scarce. Moreover, a distinction is made between the various
non-Canaanite peoples.115 The attitude toward Edom and Egypt is relatively
positive, whereas Moab and Ammon are valued negatively. Amalek is almost
put on a par with the nations of Canaan, although a distinction remains. The
following motives for Israels attitude are mentioned: Yhwhs decision (Edom,
Moab and Ammon have received their territory from Yhwh), kinship (Edom is
a brother), and experiences in the past, mainly during the wilderness journey
(Moab, Ammon, Egypt, Amalek).
3.2.3 Israel and the Canaanite Peoples

In this section, Israels attitude toward the nations of Canaan in the book of
Deuteronomy is discussed.116 First, I will discuss texts that mention the exter-
mination of the Canaanite peoples, as Deut. 7 does ( 3.2.3.1). Next, other texts
that mention one or more of the nations of Canaan are dealt with, includ-
ing the position of Sihon and Og (3.2.3.2). Third, the question is investigated
whether the former population of Canaan and its surroundings is considered
as Canaanite (3.2.3.3). Fourth, I will deal with the terminology used for the
treatment of the Canaanites. This will provide a basis from which to deter-
115 Joel S. Kaminsky, Did Election Imply the Mistreatment of Non-Israelites?, HThR 96
(2003): 397425 (followed by Lohr, Chosen and Unchosen, 3540) makes a distinction
between elect, non-elect, and anti-elect. Although Deuteronomy makes a clear distinction
between the Canaanite (anti-elect) and the non-Canaanite peoples (non-elect), there
are also distinctions within the latter group.
116 I restrict myself to texts that explicitly refer to these nations (see the introduction of 3.2).
According to Braulik, Die Vlkervernichtung, 2728, 37, for example, those who cut your
wood and draw your water in Deut. 29:10 is a reference to the Canaanites. Since they
are incorporated into the people of Israel, Deut. 29:10 would undermine the command of
Deut. 7:2. Deut. 29:10 itself, however, gives no indications for this interpretation (cf. Deut.
20:11, which is about non-Canaanite peoples).
mine whether Deuteronomy provides a consistent picture of the requested atti-

tude toward these nations (3.2.3.4). Finally, the question is discussed whether
Deuteronomy indicates a terminus ad quem of the command to destroy the
nations of Canaan (3.2.3.5).
3.2.3.1 Deut. 20:1018

A passage that is similar to Deut. 7 is Deut. 20:1618. Both passages contain a list
of nations and use the same verb to describe the requested attitude toward the
nations of Canaan ( hif.). In Deut. 20, however, the command concerning
the Canaanites is part of the laws of warfare, which have a more general scope.
The call not to fear a nation that is larger than Israel, since Yhwh is in their
midst (Deut. 20:1), is similar to Deut. 7:1718,21. In Deut. 20, however, warfare is
not restricted to the nations of Canaan, as in Deut. 7. The formulation at the
beginning of the chapter is rather general (when you go out to war, Deut.
20:1). After some instructions on the composition of the army, Deut. 20:1018
indicates what course of action is to be followed for the battle.
When Israel comes to a city, it should first offer peace. This implies that the
city will conclude a (vassal) treaty with Israel.117 In that case, the population
may remain alive, but it has to serve in forced labour for Israel.118 If a peace
treaty is rejected, however, Israel should besiege the city and Yhwh will give it
into Israels hand. In that case, all male inhabitants have to be killed ( hif.
;) women, children, and livestock are the spoil for Israel (Deut. 20:1014).
After this general direction, however, a restriction is added (Deut. 20:15): this is
the way Israel should treat all the towns that are very far from you, which are
not part of the towns of these nations here. This stipulation makes clear that
the regulation of Deut. 20:1014 applies only to cities outside of Canaan.119 The
designation these nations in verse 15 points forward to the following verses.120
In Deut. 20:16, it is described how Israel should treat the Canaanite peo-
ples, in contrast to ( )the non-Canaanite nations mentioned in the preceding
117 Tigay, Deuteronomy, 188189 points to parallel idiom in Mari and Egypt. Cf. Craigie,
Deuteronomy, 275276; McConville, Deuteronomy, 320.
118 According to Sipre Deut. 200 (Louis Finkelstein, ed., Siphre ad Deuteronomium: H.S. Horo-
vitzii schedis usus cum variis lectionibus et adnotationibus [Berlin: Jdischer Kulturbund
in Deutschland, 1939], 237); Rashi, , 562, this also applies to the Canaanites
living in cities outside of Canaan. This question, however, seems to be outside of the scope
of the Old Testament; see 5.4.2.
119 In Deut. 13:8; 28:49, very far is even connected with the end of the earth.
120 The previous mention of the nations was in Deut. 19:1. It is unlikely that Deut. 20:15 refers
to that verse.
170 chapter 3
verses.121 Yhwh will give the towns of the Canaanites to Israel as an inheritance
().122 Nothing that breathes may remain alive; Israel has to totally extermi-
nate these nations. The expression only refers to human beings, not
to cattle.123 This view is supported by the list of nations and the motivation in
verse 18. The command to exterminate these nations is similar to the formula-
tion in Deut. 7:2 ( ; the only difference is that Deut. 7:2 uses
instead of a suffix). In Deut. 20:1018, the verb is used only concerning the
nations of Canaan, not concerning the other nations.124 The prescription that
Israel should not let anything live that breathes emphasizes the radical nature
of the command: the nations of Canaan have to be totally destroyed.
As in Deut. 7:1, a list of nations indicates which nations are meant. The list of
Deut. 20:17 uses the same order as Deut. 7:1; only the Girgashites are missing.125
A convincing explanation for this difference has not yet been given.126 The
list of nations is followed by the subordinate clause as Yhwh your God has
commanded you (Deut. 20:17). The similar construction with the verb and
the list of nations make it very likely that Deut. 7:12 is referred to. It is true that
121 Cf. B. Jongeling, La particule , in Syntax and Meaning: Studies in Hebrew Syntax and
Biblical Exegesis, by C.J. Labuschagne et al., ots 18 (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 101: followed
by a clause with yiqtol expresses quelque chose d oppos ce qui prcde ou du moins
quelque chose de different.
122 The inheritance ( )may refer to the towns or the peoples. In both cases, the expression
is unique in Deuteronomy; all the other times the noun or the verb is used, it
concerns the land. Therefore, it is likely that refers to the towns, rather than to the
nations. For the inheritance Israel receives, see Deut. 4:21,38; 12:9; 15:4; 19:10; 21:23; 24:4;
25:19; 26:1.
123 See Mitchell, The Old Testament Usage of Nem. Otherwise Christensen, Deuteronomy,
1:447.
124 See 2.4, Excursus: Meaning and function of , 2.
125 Deut. 20:17 is supplemented with the Girgashites by 11qta lxii, 1415 (ed. Qimron, 87), sp
and lxx. The sequence of these lists is different. 11qta lxii, 1415 has the sequence (for
the designations, see 2.4, Excursus: Lists of the nations) 1 3 4 6 7 2 5; sp has 4 3 1 2 5 6 7;
lxx has 1 3 4 5 6 7 2. It can be questioned, however, whether these textual witnesses are an
indication that the Girgashites have dropped out in mt (and the other textual witnesses).
Compared to mt, sp always supplements the lists of nations to seven nations; lxx does so
almost always in the Pentateuch. It is noteworthy that the sequence of 11qta lxii, 1415
never occurs in mt. See 2.4, Excursus: Lists of the nations.
126 The hypothesis that the Girgashites are a later addition in Deut. 7:1 leaves unanswered the
question why this has not been done in Deut. 20:17. The hypothesis that the Girgashites
were left out in Deut. 20:17 seems more likely, therefore, but indications for this are
lacking, as well as an explanation for the omission. Cf. Skweres, Die Rckverweise im Buch
Deuteronomium, 4647.
in Deut. 7 Moses is speaking, not Yhwh, but in Deuteronomy no substantial

difference is made between Mosess and Yhwhs words.127
Finally, Deut. 20:18 gives a motivation for the command to exterminate the
nations of Canaan: otherwise they will teach Israel their abhorrent things
( ;see 3.2.4). Thus, in Deut. 20 the motivation for Israels attitude
toward the Canaanite peoples is religious in nature: the danger that Israel will
take over Canaanite practices. This is different from the attitude toward other
nations in Deut. 20, where an explicit motive for the war is not mentioned.
Domination and spoil are mentioned (Deut. 20:11,14), but a reference to the
religion of these nations is missing.128
An important question for the interpretation of Deut. 20:1618 is whether
the offer of peace (Deut. 20:10) also applies to the nations of Canaan; or to
put it differently: whether the restriction concerning the Canaanites (verse 16)
refers to verses 13b14 only (sparing women and children), or to verses 1014 as
a whole. In the first case, only the Canaanite cities that refuse to make peace
would be exterminated.129 This interpretation already occurs in early Jewish
exegesis and is also followed by some modern exegetes.130 Two texts seem to be
127 Ibid., 4347. Skweres also discusses and refutes the possibility that Deut. 20:17 would refer
to other texts.
128 Cf. Rose, Der Ausschlielichkeitsanspruch Jahwes, 114.
129 On the basis of this interpretation, Ronald Bergey, La conqute de Canaan: un gnocide?,
RRef 54, no. 5 (2003): 8287 believes that there is a difference between Deut. 7 and 20.
According to him, Deut. 7 describes a cultural situation, Deut. 20 a situation of war. In
Deut. 7, no extermination of the nations would be intended, but only separation. Since
in Deut. 20, the offer of peace would also apply to the Canaanite cities, the latter chapter
would only speak about the extermination of hostile Canaanite cities.
130 See for the Jewish exegesis: t. Soah 8:7 (after a quote from Deut. 20:18):
( Saul Lieberman, ed., The Tosefta, according to Codex Vienna, with
Variants from Codices Erfurt, London, Genizah Mss. and Editio Princeps (Venice 1521) [New
York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1955], 205); Sipre Deut. 202 (Finkelstein,
Siphre zu Deuteronomium, 238); b. Soah 35b (Liss, The Babylonian Talmud, 2:123); cf.
Ramban, , 2:438; Rashi, , 563. Otherwise Josephus, a.j., 4:300;
4:305, and Rashbam, Commentary on Deuteronomy, 120121, who state that no peace
has to be offered; however, if the Canaanites submit of their own volition before the
war, they may be left alive. In rabbinic literature, usually the opinion is that there was
also room for repentance for the Canaanite peoples within the land of Canaan; see
Rivon Krygier, Did God Command the Extermination of the Canaanites? The Rabbis
Encounter with Genocide, CJud 57 (2005): 7894; Versluis, The Early Reception History,
323327. See for later and modern authors: Calvin, Comm. Josh. 6:22 (co 25:469470),
who does not mention that the Israelites should offer peace to the Canaanite cities in
his commentary on Deut. 20 (co 24:632633); Reinke, Ueber das Recht der Israeliten
172 chapter 3
in favour of this interpretation. In Deut. 2:26, an offer of peace is made to king

Sihon.131 And Josh. 11:19, describing Joshuas victories, states that not a town had
made peace with the Israelites, except Gibeon.
However, there are arguments against this interpretation. First, Deut. 20:10
18 itself does not point in this direction. Deut. 20:15 closes the preceding passage
and identifies the cities to which the conduct described applies. Verses 15
16a mention the towns of the Canaanites in a general sense, without the
suggestion of a situation of war, as in the preceding verses. This makes it likely
that verse 15 refers to verse 10 (when you draw near to a city to fight against
it), and so is a conclusion of verses 1014. The radical command in verses 16b
17a also seems to leave little room for an offer of peace. Finally, the motivation
in Deut. 20:18 argues against the interpretation that the nations of Canaan may
be left alive when they submit to Israel. In that situation, it remains possible
that they teach Israel their practices.
Second, it does not follow from the texts mentioned (Deut. 2:26; Josh. 11:19)
that the instruction about the offer of peace also applies to the nations of
Canaan. In the story about King Sihon, Moses does not offer him a peace treaty,
making Sihons people serve in forced labour for Israel, but Moses asks to let
Israel pass through his land (Deut. 2:2629). That situation is different from the
one described in Deut. 20:1011. Moreover, there is some difference between the
battle in Transjordan and in Cisjordan (see 3.2.3.2). Josh. 11:19 is not decisive
either. It is stated that not a town made peace with Israel, except Gibeon. This
suggests that it was possible to make peace, but it does not imply that this peace
was to be offered by Israel. In the description of the war with the Canaanite
peoples in the book of Joshua, an offer of peace is not mentioned anywhere.
The peace between Israel and Gibeon, making the Gibeonites serve in forced
labour (Josh. 9:27; cf. Deut. 20:11), is evaluated negatively. For these reasons, it
is unlikely that the prescription to first offer a peace treaty applies also to the
Canaanite cities.132
According to many scholars, Deut. 20:1518 is a later addition to Deut. 20:10
14. The arguments adduced for this thesis are: the differences between Deut.
an Canaan, 369375 (with references to authors before the twentieth century); Bergey,
La conqute de Canaan, 8285; Klaus-Peter Lehmann, Die Erwhlung Israels und die
Bannung der Gtzendiener: Auslegung um Dtn 7,112, TeKo 14 (1991): 224; Lohfink,
ThWAT 3:210211.
131 So Calum M. Carmichael, The Laws of Deuteronomy (London: Cornell University Press,
1974), 130131.
132 So also Keil, Leviticus, Numeri und Deuteronomium, 487; Knig, Das Deuteronomium, 149;
Tigay, Deuteronomy, 470.
20:1014 and 20:1518; the fact that only in verse 15 it becomes clear that
verses 1014 do not apply to all situations; the similarities between Deut. 20:15
18 and Deut. 7; and the fact that Deut. 20:1518 disrupts the coherence between
Deut. 20:1014 and 20:1920.133 These arguments may be evaluated as follows.
The differences between Deut. 20:1014 and 20:1518 are all related to the dis-
tinction made in verses 1516a between the cities far away and the cities of the
Canaanite peoples.134 If this distinction is accepted, the differences are not con-
tradictory in terms of content. The fact that only in verse 15 it becomes clear
that verses 1014 do not apply to all situations may be explained by the fact
that Deut. 20 primarily is about a normal situation of war, not about the atti-
tude toward the nations of Canaan. At the end of this section, however, it is
emphasized that the preceding directions do not apply to the Canaanite peo-
ples.135 There are indeed clear correspondences between Deut. 20:1518 and
Deut. 7 (in particular the construction and the list of nations),
which may point to the same author or to literary dependence.136 However,
this does not provide an answer to the question of whether or not Deut. 20:10
14 and 20:1518 may be from the same author. Finally, some correspondences
between Deut. 20:1014 and 20:1920 have been noted.137 If Deut. 20:1518 is a
133 Verses 1518 are regarded as secondary by Michael A. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in
Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985), 199200; Hlscher, Komposition und Ursprung,
207 n. 1; Rosario Pius Merendino, Das deuteronomische Gesetz: Eine literarkritische,
gattungs- und berlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Dt 1226, bbb 31 (Bonn:
Hanstein, 1969), 232; Nelson, Deuteronomy, 246247; Nielsen, Deuteronomium, 198; Ed
Noort, Das Kapitulationsangebot im Kriegsgesetz Dtn 20:10 ff. und in den Kriegserzhlun-
gen, in Studies in Deuteronomy, ed. Florentino Garca Martnez et al., vt.s 53 (Leiden: Brill,
1994), 216218; Alexander Rof, The Laws of Warfare in the Book of Deuteronomy: Their
Origins, Intent and Positivity, jsot 32 (1985): 2829; Rose, 5. Mose, 1:242243, 251; Schmitt,
Du sollst keinen Frieden, 143144; Seitz, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien, 159. Some of
these authors distinguish different times of origin within verses 1518. Only verse 18 is
regarded as secondary (because of the change of number) by Hempel, Die Schichten des
Deuteronomiums, 231232; Higgs, Stylistic Analysis, 109110; Hospers, Numeruswisseling,
2930; Von Rad, Das fnfte Buch Mose, 95; Staerk, Das Deuteronomium, 20; Steuernagel,
Deuteronomium und Josua, 7677 (including verse 17b).
134 For the differences, see Noort, Das Kapitulationsangebot, 218.
135 Therefore, the sequence in Deut. 20:1018 (the cities far away are mentioned first) is not
unnatural, as Rof, Laws of Warfare, 29 states.
136 Noort, Das Kapitulationsangebot, 217 states: Dtn 20,17 macht einen sekundren Ein-
druck durch die schon geschehene Zusammenfassung im Suffix (). He does not
make clear, however, why the use of a suffix instead of a construction with ( as in Deut.
7:2) would be an indication for the secondary character of a text.
137 Nelson, Deuteronomy, 246247; Noort, Das Kapitulationsangebot, 219.
174 chapter 3
parenthesis in the normal laws of warfare, as I suggested above, this may also
be used as an argument for the coherence of Deut. 20:1020; it does not neces-
sarily indicate a different origin of the parts. For these reasons, the obviousness
with which Deut. 20:1518 is sometimes viewed as a later insertion may be ques-
tioned.138
In conclusion, Deut. 20:1018 makes a distinction between Israels attitude
toward non-Canaanite and Canaanite nations. The Canaanite peoples have to
be exterminated. An offer of peace to them is not mentioned in Deut. 20:10
18. This corresponds to Deut. 7:24, where a covenant is explicitly forbidden.
The fact that the requested attitude toward the nations of Canaan is repeated
in the laws of warfare (as an exception to the normal situation) confirms the
importance attached to the command of Deut. 7.
An issue similar to the offer of peace is found in Deut. 21:1014, describing the
conditions for taking a female war captive as ones wife. According to Bertho-
let, this passage contradicts both Deut. 20:1618 and the explicit prohibition
on marriage in Deut. 7:3.139 However, it is unlikely that Deut. 21:1014 relates to
the battle against the nations of Canaan. First, in the Old Testament the root
( to take captive) is never used concerning the nations of Canaan. Second,
the beginning of Deut. 21:1014 (when you go out to war against your ene-
mies) is identical to Deut. 20:1, which suggests that this passage is about war
against non-Canaanite peoples, as in Deut. 20 (except verses 1618). Third, the
laws of Deuteronomy (Deut. 1226) are about the situation after the conquest
of Canaan (Deut. 20:1618 is an exception, as is explicitly indicated), a time
when the nations of Canaan should have been exterminated already, according
to Deuteronomy. For these reasons, Deut. 21:1014 is about captives of non-
Canaanite peoples, as is generally recognized; it does not contradict Deut. 7:3
or 20:1618.140
138 Cf. Bertholet, Deuteronomium, 64; Driver, Deuteronomy, 238239; Knig, Das Deutero-
nomium, 149.
139 Bertholet, Deuteronomium, 66. He considers it remarkable that the passage is included,
denn ohne Widerrede widerspricht es der ganzen Tendenz des Dtn.
140 Braulik, Deuteronomium, 2:154; Christensen, Deuteronomy, 2:474; Craigie, Deuteronomy,
281; Dillmann, Deuteronomium, 340; Driver, Deuteronomy, 244; Keil, Leviticus, Numeri und
Deuteronomium, 489; Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ib:107; Merrill, Deuteronomy, 291;
Nelson, Deuteronomy, 260; Rashi, , 564; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 194. According
to Rashi, Canaanites who live outside of Canaan may be taken captive.
3.2.3.2 Canaanites and Amorites

From the Canaanite peoples mentioned in Deut. 7:1 and 20:17, only the Canaan-
ites and Amorites are also mentioned elsewhere in Deuteronomy. The Canaan-
ites are not mentioned as a nation, but twice the expression the land of the
Canaanites is used (Deut. 1:7; 11:30). In Deut. 11:30, it is added that the Canaan-
ites live in the Arabah (), which seems to denote the Jordan valley south of
Chinneroth.141 In Deut. 1:7, first the hill country of the Amorites and all their
neighbours is mentioned; then follows an enumeration of five locations, every
time preceded by the preposition : the Arabah, the hill country, the Shephelah,
the Negeb, and the sea coast. The expression the land of the Canaanites is
asyndetically joined to this list; after a copula, the list ends with the Lebanon
and the territory up to the Euphrates. Some authors understand the land of
the Canaanites as an apposition of the sea coast; in that case, part of the
land of Canaan is designated.142 Another possibility is to relate the land of
the Canaanites to the whole of the preceding enumeration; then, Cisjordan
as a whole is designated.143 Because of the inclusio with the hill country of the
Amorites, a designation used in Deut. 1:20 for all the land of Canaan, this latter
interpretation is more likely.144 The land of the Canaanites in Deut. 1:7, then,
is a designation of Cisjordan as a whole; it is equated with the hill country of
the Amorites and distinguished from the territory from the Lebanon up to the
Euphrates.145
In Deut. 32:49, the land of Canaan is mentioned. From Mount Nebo, which
is in the land of Moab, Moses is allowed to view the land of Canaan, but he
will not enter it. Thus, the land of Canaan is opposed to the land of Moab. This
opposition and the addition that Yhwh is giving Canaan to Israel, make clear
141 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 111, 452, with reference to Josh. 11:2; 12:3.
142 Driver, Deuteronomy, 1314; McConville, Deuteronomy, 63; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 9. Cf.
Edwin C. Hostetter, Geographic Distribution of the Pre-Israelite Peoples of Ancient Pales-
tine, bz 38 (1994): 84.
143 Craigie, Deuteronomy, 95; Keil, Leviticus, Numeri und Deuteronomium, 395; Lothar Perlitt
and Udo Rterswrden, Deuteronomium, bk (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1990), 1:47.
144 According to Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ia:92, Canaanites in Deut. 1:7 is a generic
term for inhabitants of the plains, to be distinguished from the Amorites as inhabitants
of the hill country. However, the fact that the hill country is already mentioned in
the enumeration preceding the land of the Canaanites argues against this view. It is
more likely to understand both the hill country of the Amorites and the land of the
Canaanites as a description of Cisjordan as a whole, or as a hendiadys.
145 Plger, Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen, 120.
176 chapter 3
that the land of Canaan refers to the whole of Cisjordan.146 Since the des-
ignation (the land of) Canaan is quite frequently used in Genesis to Joshua,
it is noteworthy that this name is used only once in Deuteronomy. A possible
explanation is that a reference to the Canaanite peoples is avoided to designate
the land that Yhwh gives to Israel. An argument against this explanation, how-
ever, is the fact that several times in Deuteronomy Canaan is called their [the
Canaanites] land (Deut. 4:38; 9:5; 12:29; 19:1).
The Amorites are mentioned several times in Deuteronomy, always in surveys

of the past. In Deut. 1, it is described how at Kadesh Israel is confronted with the
inhabitants of the country, and then fails. The inhabitants of Canaan are called
Amorites (Deut. 1:27) and their territory the hill country of the Amorites
(Deut. 1:7,19,20,44). Various motifs that are mentioned in Deut. 7, also occur in
the texts about the confrontation between Israel and the Amorites: Yhwh gives
the land and Israel has to occupy it (, Deut. 1:8,21); Israel should not be afraid
(Deut. 1:21,29); and Yhwh is with Israel and will do as He did in Egypt (Deut.
1:30). The Amorites are characterized as a great and awesome people (Deut.
1:28; cf. 1:44) with cities that are great and fortified up to heaven (Deut. 1:28).
Other texts about the Amorites describe the battle with Sihon and Og. Sihon
is called the king of the Amorites (Deut. 1:4; 2:24; 3:2; 4:46), or Sihon and
Og together are called kings of the Amorites (Deut. 3:8; 4:47; 31:4). In the
description of the battle with Sihon and Og as well, several motifs mentioned in
Deut. 7 occur: Yhwh gives Sihon into Israels hand and Israel has to occupy his
land (Deut. 2:24,31); Yhwh puts fear among the Amorites (Deut. 2:25); Yhwh
gives them over to Israel, and Israel defeats and exterminates them ( hif.,
Deut. 2:3334). Israels peaceful intentions are emphasized (Deut. 2:2629),
thus legitimizing the violence that follows. Remarkably, an explicit command
of Yhwh that Israel should exterminate Sihons people is missing, although
the motifs mentioned (Yhwh gives them over, puts fear among them, hardens
Sihons heart) clearly suggest divine approval or even initiative.
Concerning Og also, Israel should not be afraid of him, for Yhwh will give
him into Israels hand. Now Yhwh commands Israel that it should do to Og
as it did to Sihon (Deut. 3:2). Israel defeats him (Deut. 3:3) and exterminates
his people ( hif.), as it did to Sihon (Deut. 3:6). In Deut. 31:34, an explicit
connection is made between Sihon and Og, on the one hand, and the Canaanite
peoples in Cisjordan, on the other. Yhwh will destroy these nations, as He
destroyed Sihon and Og ( hif.).
146 According to H.-J. Zobel, ThWAT 4:231232, Canaan always refers to Cisjordan only.
On the one hand, Deuteronomy makes a distinction between Sihon and Og,
and the nations of Canaan. The battle with Sihon and Og belongs to the past,
while the battle with the Canaanite peoples in Cisjordan is still in the future.
Sihon is offered peace (Deut. 2:26), but concerning the nations of Canaan this
possibility is rejected (3.2.3.1). As a motive for the war against Sihon and Og,
their behaviour or religion are not mentioned, although this may be explained
by the fact that their destruction has already taken place, so that a motivation
for the war is no longer necessary.
On the other hand, there are similarities between Sihon and Og and the
nations of Canaan. Sihon and Og are called Amorites, one of the Canaanite
peoples. Various motifs for the war against them correspond to the command
concerning the population of Cisjordan in Deut. 7. The main corresponding
motifs are that Yhwh gives their land to Israel and that the original inhabi-
tants have to be exterminated, although a command is not explicitly stated in
the case of Sihon. Once, the battle with Sihon and Og is referred to as an encour-
agement for the battle against the (other) nations of Canaan (Deut. 31:34). In
addition, the battle with Sihon and Og is designated as the beginning of the
conquest of Canaan ( , Deut. 2:24). In Deut. 3:21, it is promised that Yhwh
will do to all the Canaanite kingdoms as He did to Sihon and Og.147
It may be concluded that according to Deuteronomy the battle against Sihon
and Og is the prelude and the beginning of the extermination of the nations of
Canaan.148 The differences between Sihon and Og and the Canaanite peoples
may be explained by the fact that Deuteronomy is situated between the battle
with Sihon and Og and the war with the Canaanites in Cisjordan.
3.2.3.3 Former Population of Canaan and Its Surroundings

In Deut. 2 and in some other texts in Deuteronomy, various former peoples of
Canaan and its surroundings are mentioned. This raises the question whether
the judgment of the Canaanites also applied to these peoples. In Deut. 1:28, it
is stated that the offspring of the Anakim are living in Canaan. In Deut 9:2, this
designation is used as a summary for all the inhabitants of Canaan. Twice the
Anakim are mentioned in a comparison on the basis of their length (tall as the
Anakim, Deut. 2:10,21); they are reckoned as Rephaim (Deut. 2:11). The Rephaim
are situated in Transjordan: the territory of Moab, Ammon and Bashan was
147 In the introduction of the book of Deuteronomy already, reference is made to these
victories (Deut. 1:4). This positive start stands in opposition to Israels failure at Kadesh
(Deut. 1:1946).
148 Cf. Neis, Vernichtet werdet ihr, 7376, 227228.
178 chapter 3
formerly reckoned as the land of the Rephaim (Deut. 2:11,20; 3:13).149 King Og
is called the last remnant of the Rephaim, a designation that may (partly)
be related to his length (Deut. 3:11). Finally, in two historical notes on the
land of Moab and Ammon (Deut. 2:1012,2023) some former peoples out-
side of Canaan are mentioned. The Moabites called the former inhabitants of
their land Emim, the Ammonites called the former inhabitants of their land
Zamzummim; both peoples were also reckoned as Rephaim (Deut. 2:1011,20).
The territory of Edom was formerly inhabited by the Horim (Deut. 2:12,22).
Finally, the Avvim are mentioned, who would formerly have lived in the area
of the Philistines (Deut. 2:23). The latter two nations are not called Rephaim.
Concerning the Emim, Zamzummim, Horim, and Avvim, it is said that they
have been destroyed by another nation, which settled in their place. As for the
Rephaim and the Horim, it is even stated that it was Yhwh who destroyed them
(Deut. 2:2122).
The question that is relevant for this study is whether a connection is made
between the command to destroy the Canaanite peoples and the destruction of
these former peoples.150 Cees Houtman has drawn attention to the theological
purpose of the description of the pre-Israelite history of Canaan and its sur-
roundings. First, Yhwhs power is shown by the fact that other nations received
their territory at the hands of Yhwh. His power is emphasized by the repeated
mention of the greatness and the length of these peoples (Deut. 2:10,21). That
should give Israel confidence for the conquest of Canaan, which in the perspec-
tive of Deuteronomy has already begun (Deut. 2:24,31; see 3.2.3.2; cf. Deut.
2:12).151 The history of Israel proceeds by analogy with the history of its sur-
rounding peoples. This shows the universal power of Yhwh, who allots to each
149 The possible connection between the Rephaim and the netherworld is not discussed here.
See e.g. R. Liwak, ThWAT 7:625636.
150 For further details about these nations in the Old Testament and the Umwelt, see Hostet-
ter, Nations Mightier and More Numerous, 96111; Cees Houtman, Die ursprnglichen
Bewohner des Landes Kanaan im Deuteronomium: Sinn und Absicht der Beschreibung
ihrer Identitt und ihres Charakters, vt 52 (2002): 5165.
151 In Deut. 2:12, it is stated that the children of Esau destroyed the Horim and settled in
their place, as Israel has done ( )with the land of its , which Yhwh has given
them (). may be interpreted as a qatal with a future or declarative meaning (cf.
a.o. Deut. 1:8; 12:1): Yhwh has already given the land to them. The qatal , however,
can only refer to the past, since nowhere in Deuteronomy is it suggested that Israel has
already taken possession of the land, whereas in fact this still has to happen. It is possible
that Deut. 2:12 reflects the perspective of later times and looks back on the conquest of
Canaan as a whole. In the literary context, it can refer only to the conquest of Transjordan.
This may also be indicated by the use of ( see 3.2.2).
nation its territory (cf. Deut. 32:89; 3.2.1.1).152 Second, according to Houtman,
the information about the former population of Canaan and its surroundings
would provide a justification for their destruction. The designations Anakim
and Rephaim, as well as Amorites and Canaanites, would not primarily be
ethnic designations, but were intended to give a negative qualification. These
populations are frightening; they compete with God and therefore had to be
destroyed. Implicitly, this characterization would also apply to the nations of
Canaan and would justify their extermination.153
A number of objections may be raised, however, to the latter conclusion
that the characterization of the former population has to justify their (and the
Canaanites) destruction. First, it is doubtful whether the former inhabitants
of these areas are indeed qualified in a negative way. The peoples in Canaan
are called Anakim; they are said to have great cities, fortified to the heavens
(, Deut. 9:2). According to Houtman, this may be interpreted as an allu-
sion to the tower of Babel, the only other time in the Old Testament that a
building is said to reach to the heavens (Gen. 11:4). In this way, the Anakim
(as well as the Amorites, Deut. 1:28) would be characterized as people who
transgress the boundaries appropriate to creaturehood and who try to compete
with Yhwh.154 This interpretation, however, is questionable. The qualification
of a building with its top in the heavens is a conventional metaphor in the
Ancient Near East since the Old-Babylonian period. Both towers and cities are
characterized thus, for example in an inscription about Azeqah.155 Accordingly,
the expression may be read as a hyperbole for the immense greatness
and power of these buildings, and is not necessarily an allusion to Gen. 11:4.156
Therefore, it is also dubious whether the designation Anakim for the Canaan-
ite peoples intends to give a negative qualification. The Rephaim as well are
152 Cf. Neis, Vernichtet werdet ihr, 169178. According to Otto, Deuteronomium 111, 434437,
the notes about other nations are a message in opposition to the Achaemenid ideology
that the imperial deity Ahuramazda would have allotted to each nation its territory.
153 Houtman, Die ursprnglichen Bewohner, 58: Ihre bloe Gegenwart legitimiert bereits
die Liquidierung der Landesbewohner. Im Land soll das vollzogen werden, was bereits
zuvor stattgefunden hat.
154 Ibid., 55. Cf. Houtman, Der Himmel im Alten Testament, 356361.
155 Theodore Hiebert, The Tower of Babel and the Origin of the Worlds Cultures, jbl
126 (2007): 2958; Christoph Uehlinger, Weltreich und eine Rede: Eine neue Deutung
der sogenannten Turmbauerzhlung (Gen 11, 19), obo 101 (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1990), 236242.
156 In addition, is always used in the meaning of the firmament or the sky in Gen. 111,
never as a reference to Yhwhs dwelling place.
180 chapter 3
not characterized negatively in Deuteronomy. The only texts Houtman men-

tions to prove this are from other books and are about fearsome warriors from
the time of David (2Sam. 21:1522; 1Chr. 20:48). From this, however, it does
not follow that in Deuteronomy the Rephaim are viewed as people that have to
be destroyed ipso facto. In addition, the Horim and the Avvim are not called
Rephaim (Deut. 2:12,2223); the view that they have to be reckoned among
them on the basis of analogy is just an assumption.157
A second argument against Houtmans thesis is that in Deuteronomy the
designations for the former inhabitants of the regions around Canaan and for
the seven peoples in Canaan are clearly distinguished. The peoples outside
of Canaan mentioned in the historical notes (Deut. 2:1012,2023) are never
designated as one of the Canaanite peoples or as Anakim. The nations out-
side of Canaan are indeed compared with the Anakim, but this concerns only
their length (Deut. 2:10,21). If the author(s) of Deuteronomy intended to indi-
cate an analogy between (the reason for the destruction of) these nations
and (the reason for the destruction of) the nations of Canaan, one would
expect more similarities in designations.158 The other way round, designations
for the nations outside of Canaan are not applied to the Canaanite peoples.
The only possible exception is the remark that the Anakim were reckoned as
Rephaim (Deut. 2:11). The formulation ( nif., cf. Deut. 2:20), however, sug-
gests that Rephaim is used as a category, not as the name of a people. There-
fore, the negative characterization of the Anakim cannot be transferred to all
Rephaim. From the nations in Canaan, only Og and his land are connected
with the Rephaim. It is stated that Og is the last of the Rephaim (
, Deut. 3:11; cf. Josh. 13:12). Since Og is also called an Amorite, this
remark is another indication that Rephaim is used as a category in Deuterono-
157 See Houtman, Die ursprnglichen Bewohner, 6062. In order to connect the Avvim and
the Anakim, Houtman treats various data about their dwelling place as historical. This is
remarkable, since in general he does not consider the information about these nations as
historical (see the following footnote). If the only intention of an author would be to give a
qualification of these nations, without intending to pass on historical data known to him,
this qualification is rather complicated and indirect.
158 It is contradictory that Houtman, Ibid., 6263, leaves open the possibility that some names
refer to populations from the authors time (as Gerda Hoekveld-Meijer, Esau: Salvation in
Disguise [Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996], 1920 suggests; see 4.1.5), but seems to exclude the
possibility that they go back to historical data from earlier times. It is likely that the author
at least also intended to pass on historical data known to him (however these data are
assessed historically), since different names are used, which do not occur elsewhere and
which apparently do not have another function (as Houtman recognizes: Der Schreiber
selbst spielt nicht mit den Namen).
my.159 Deuteronomy, then, makes a clear distinction between the former inhab-
itants of the areas around Canaan and the indigenous population of Canaan.
A third argument against Houtmans thesis is the use of analogies or
Geschichtstypologie in Deuteronomy. Concerning the conquest of the land of
Canaan, the following analogies are used: (1) Yhwh will do to the nations of
Canaan as He did to Egypt (Deut. 7:18b19); (2) Yhwh will do to the nations in
Cisjordan as He did to Sihon and Og in Transjordan (Deut. 3:21; 31:4); (3) Yhwh
does to other peoples as He did to Israel (Deut. 2:12); (4) if Israel is disobedi-
ent, Yhwh will destroy them as He is destroying the nations (Deut. 8:20).160 In
the light of this Geschichtstypologie, it is noteworthy that any analogy between
the former population of Canaan and its surroundings (a) and the nations that
Israel has to destroy (b) is missing. Possible analogies would be: (1) as Yhwh
did to a, so He will do to b; (2) as the Moabites etc. did to a, Israel should do to
b; (3) as it happened to a, it will happen to b. A text that is most close to such
analogies is Deut. 2:12: as the children of Esau destroyed the Horim and settled
in their place, Israel has done with the land that Yhwh gave to them. This, how-
ever, is an analogy between two conquests of land, not an analogy between the
nations that are destroyed (cf. p. 178 n. 151 above). If Houtmans thesis would
be correct, it is remarkable that an analogy between the former population of
Canaan and its surroundings and the seven peoples is missing in Deutero-
nomy as an exhortation or an encouragement to Israel. In that case, Israel
would have to continue the work that Yhwh had already begun by means of
other nations.
In conclusion, the historical notes of Deut. 2:1012,2023 confirm Yhwhs
universal power. However, they do not give a motivation or justification of
the destruction of the former population of Canaan and its surroundings.
These texts do not contain a moral judgment about the nations that have been
destroyed, but only note that nations have been destroyed, and that Yhwh can
do so again. In Deuteronomy, however, these nations are of a different category
than the Canaanite peoples, so that these texts should not be interpreted as an
implicit justification of the extermination of the nations of Canaan.
3.2.3.4 Terminology
In the preceding sections, it has become clear which nations Deuteronomy
reckons to the nations of Canaan, namely the seven nations in Cisjordan and
159 Houtman, Die ursprnglichen Bewohner, 56.

160 Norbert Lohfink, Geschichtstypologisch orientierte Textstrukturen in den Bchern Deu-
teronomium und Josua, in Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature, ed. Marc Vervenne
and Johan Lust (Leuven: University Press, 1997), 140144.
182 chapter 3
(with a few differences) the people of Sihon and Og in Transjordan. Now, it is

time to discuss the terminology used for the treatment of these nations, in order
to determine whether Deuteronomy provides a consistent picture of Israels
attitude toward these nations.
Various terms are used in Deuteronomy for the required attitude. In the com-
mand to exterminate the Canaanites, the verb hif. is a central term (Deut.
7:2; 20:17).161 In addition, various other verbs are used for Yhwhs or Israels
actions. If both Yhwhs and Israels actions toward the nations of Canaan are
mentioned, Yhwhs actions always go first. The verb most frequently used is
. With a human agent, the qal of is always used (to inherit); with Yhwh
as the actor the hif. is used (to make inherit).162 In Deut. 11:23, both stems are
used together: Yhwh [ hif.] all these nations before you and you [ qal]
nations that are greater and mightier than you. Other verbs that are used in con-
nection with the Canaanite peoples are: hif. (to destroy), hif. (to exter-
minate), hif. (to make perish), hif. (to subdue), hif. (to defeat),
with a negation (not to spare), ( to devour), ( to chase), ( to expel),
( to give), and ( to throw into confusion).163 Besides, Yhwh instills fear
among the nations (, , Deut. 11:25).
The verbs that are used for the treatment of the Canaanite peoples almost
always indicate extermination or destruction. The only exceptions (, ,
)are rare in Deuteronomy and are followed immediately by verbs that do
have the notion of extermination (the only exception is Deut. 6:19; as for ,
see the exegesis of Deut. 7:1 in 2.4). The verb , which is used in other texts
concerning the nations of Canaan (see 3.3), is not used in Deuteronomy in this
context.164 The terminology used in Deuteronomy thus provides a consistent
161 Cf. Deut. 2:24; 3:6. See 2.4, Excursus: Meaning and function of .
162 Hif.: Deut. 4:38; 9:3,4,5; 11:23; 18:12. Qal: 9:1; 11:23; 12:2,29(twice); 18:14; 19:1; 31:3. In Deut. 7:17,
the hif. is used with the people of Israel as its subject; however, this text is a question
of Israel, which is possibly corrected (see the exegesis of Deut. 7:1718 in 2.4). For the
meaning of hif., see the exegesis of Deut. 7:17, pp. 108109.
163 hif.: Deut. 7:24; 9:3; 31:3,4; nif.: Deut. 7:23; 12:30. hif.: Deut. 12:29; 19:1. hif.:
Deut. 7:24 (their name); 8:20; 9:3; pi.: Deut. 12:3; cf. 7:20 (qal). hif.: Deut. 9:3. hif.:
Deut. 7:2. with a negation: Deut. 7:16. : Deut. 7:16. : Deut. 6:19; 9:4. : Deut.
7:1,22. : Deut. 7:2,23. : Deut. 7:23.
164 It is used in Deut. 33:27, parallel to hif.imp., but this text only speaks about an enemy
(). According to some authors, this text should be interpreted as an exhortation to
destroy the nations of Canaan (so Driver, Deuteronomy, 416; Labuschagne, Deuterono-
mium, iii:314315; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 335), because the verb is used with respect
to the nations of Canaan in Exod. 23 and 34 (see 3.3.3). An additional argument could be
the promise that Israel will live alone (verse 28). If this interpretation is followed, Deut.
picture of the required attitude toward the nations of Canaan. In addition,

the distribution of these verbs makes clear that the theme of Israels attitude
toward the Canaanites occurs throughout the book.
Another question that is relevant in this context is whether Deuteronomy
is also consistent in terms of content when speaking about the destruction
of the Canaanite peoples. In Deut. 9:3, it is stated that Yhwh will destroy
these nations ( hif.), and that He will do so quickly (). This seems
to contradict Deut. 7:22, which says that Yhwh will drive out the nations
little by little () .165 The relationship between these two texts may
be interpreted in two ways. First, the one indicates the ideal (Deut. 9:3), the
other the reality (Deut. 7:22). Second, a distinction is made between an initial
(quick) and a definitive (little by little) destruction.166 The latter explanation
is supported by the fact that Deut. 9:3 is about the situation immediately
after the crossing of the Jordan. In the context of Deut. 7:22, the reference to
those who are left (Deut. 7:20) may point to a complete conquest. Moreover,
the final completeness of the extermination is emphasized (verses 20,2324).
According to this interpretation, Deut. 7:22 and Deut. 9:3 do not exclude each
other.167 Since the speed of the destruction is mentioned only in those two
Deuteronomic texts, no conclusions may be drawn from the sequence of these
texts. The tension between a quick and a slow destruction continues in the
books of Joshua and Judges (cf. Josh. 10:42 with Josh. 11:18).168
Several expressions that are used for the treatment of the nations of Canaan
are also used with respect to Israel itself. If Israel is disobedient to Yhwh, it
will be affected by the same judgment as the Canaanite peoples. Even the verb
is used in this connection, albeit not with respect to Israel as a whole. If
an Israelite entices to serve other gods than Yhwh, he has to be killed (Deut.
33:27 indicates that the verb may have a meaning which is close to extermination.
However, since it is not indicated which enemy Israel has to destroy and since the context
contains no reference to the conquest of Canaan, this interpretation is uncertain.
165 Weinfeld, Ban on the Canaanites, 155 n. 39.
166 See Braulik, Deuteronomium, 1:74; Knig, Das Deuteronomium, 104 n.; Lohfink, Das Haupt-
gebot, 205206; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 97; Woods, Deuteronomy, 148.
167 If Deut. 7:22 and Deut. 9:3 are ascribed to different authors, the question of the relationship
between these texts still has to be solved. This question remains from the time that the
texts were included in the same collection. So rightly Otto, Deuteronomium 111, 878879.
According to him, the texts stem from different times, but are consciously left alongside
one another. In Deut. 9:3, a quick destruction would be mentioned in contrast to the
quick turning away of Israel in the history of the golden calf. According to Otto, the tension
is intentional and points to the paradox of Yhwhs love (cf. Deut. 7:78).
168 McConville, Deuteronomy, 161.
184 chapter 3
13:911). The verbs used in the direct context emphasize this command (
, , , ). If an Israelite town wants to go and worship
other gods, the whole town has to be destroyed ( hif.,
hif., Deut. 13:16). In that case, even the spoil has to be burnt, and the town
should never be rebuilt (Deut. 13:17). Other verbs used with respect to Israel are:
hif., , , and with a negation.169 If Israel serves the gods of these
peoples, Yhwhs anger will be kindled against them and He will destroy them
(Deut. 6:1415). Yhwh will blot out the name of one who worships other gods,
and will bring upon him all the curses of the covenant. The judgment on the
land is even compared to the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah (Deut. 29:17
23). Once, the judgment that may come upon Israel is explicitly compared with
the treatment of the nations of Canaan: Israel will perish like the nations Yhwh
has destroyed ( hif., Deut. 8:1920).
Thus, most of the verbs that are used for the treatment of the Canaanite
peoples in Deuteronomy are also used for what Yhwh will do to Israel if it is
disobedient to Him. The verb, however, that is most often used for the treat-
ment of the Canaanites, hif., is never used with respect to Israel. Whereas
qal is used concerning the land that Israel will take into possession (includ-
ing the repossession of Canaan, Deut. 30:5), the hif. is never used to describe
the expulsion of Israel from the land or Yhwhs actions against Israel.170 Other
verbs for expulsion from the land or for destruction are used with respect to
Israel.171 One could assume that has an overtone of definitive expulsion
or destruction, and that for that reason it was not used with respect to Israel.
This could also explain why the verb is never used with respect to Israel
as a whole. Deuteronomy not only mentions Israels future disobedience and
Yhwhs judgment on it, but also redemption after that (Deut. 4:2931; 30); thus,
it is not definitively destroyed.172
169 hif.: Deut. 4:3,26; 6:15; 7:4; 9:8,14,19,20,25; 28:20,24,45,51,61,63. : Deut. 4:26; 8:19,20;
11:17; 28:20,22,51,63; 30:18. : Deut. 9:14; 29:20 (cf. Deut. 25:19). with a negation: Deut.
13:9.
170 The only exception is Num. 14:12 (although the threat mentioned in this text is not
executed). The verb hif. is used more than 60 times in the Old Testament; some texts
are controversial, see N. Lohfink, ThWAT 3:956957.
171 Contra C.J.H. Wright, nidotte 2:548, who states that is part of the eschatological
vocabulary of the Old Testament. In the texts he refers to (Deut. 28:6364; 29:2528),
Israels disappearance from the land of Canaan is mentioned, but the verb hif. is not
used.
172 The absence of hif. for what Yhwh does to Israel is not signaled by N. Lohfink, ThWAT
3:953985; H.H. Schmid, that 1:778781; C.J.H. Wright, nidotte 2:547549.
3.2.3.5 Limitation
Finally, the question of whether Deuteronomy indicates a limitation of the
command to exterminate the Canaanite peoples is relevant. According to
Georg Braulik, the texts about the exile (Deut. 29:2127) and return of Israel
(Deut. 30:110) consciously do not speak negatively about other nations. The
command to exterminate the Canaanites would no longer apply for the return
from exile.173 The main indication for this, according to Braulik, are the differ-
ent descriptions of the conquest of Canaan in Deut. 7:1 and 30:5. Both texts
indicate that Yhwh brings Israel into the land and that Israel will take posses-
sion of it. In Deut. 7:1, this is followed by the promise that Yhwh will drive
out great nations before Israel () . In Deut. 30:5, it is fol-
lowed by the promise that Yhwh will make Israel prosperous and numerous
() . Instead of speaking about numerous nations, Yhwh
would make Israel itself numerous. Braulik interprets the formulation of Deut.
30:5 as a conscious contrast to Deut. 7:1.174
In order to evaluate Brauliks thesis, it should be considered how Deuteron-
omy speaks about the execution of the command to exterminate the nations of
Canaan. In Deut. 11:2223, the extermination is connected with keeping Yhwhs
commandments. Deuteronomy, however, expresses the expectation that Israel
will not keep the commandments (Deut. 31:1629). According to Deuteron-
omys expectation for the future (cf. 3.4.3), therefore, it may be assumed that
the nations of Canaan will not be completely destroyed, although this is not
stated explicitly. Accordingly, Brauliks thesis is possible, but it is not yet proven.
The fact that Deut. 2930 does not explicitly mention Israels attitude toward
the nations of Canaan may also be explained by the fact that these chapters
only deal with the judgment, the return and the inner change of Israel itself.
The perspective that at last Israel will be obedient to Yhwh and will keep his
commandments (Deut. 30:8) may even be interpreted as meaning that Israel
will also keep the command to exterminate the nations of Canaan.
The main objection against Brauliks thesis is that it is dubious whether
there indeed is a contrast between Deut. 7:1 and 30:5. The formulation with
respect to the conquest of Canaan is evidently similar ( /
) . It is not clear, however, why a contrast should be assumed between
the numerous nations ( , Deut. 7:1) and the promise that Yhwh will
make Israel numerous (, Deut. 30:5). The latter promise also occurs in
Deut. 7:13. The fact that Israel retakes possession of the land and that it becomes
173 Braulik, Die Vlkervernichtung, 37.

174 Ibid., 3536, 38: 30,5 setzt sich von seinem Schlsseltext [Deut. 7:1] sogar ausdrcklich ab.
186 chapter 3
numerous does not necessarily imply that the relationship with the remaining
Canaanite peoples has to be peaceful henceforth. Therefore, Brauliks thesis
that a terminus ad quem is indicated for the command to exterminate the
Canaanites, namely that the command no longer applies at the return from
exile, has not been proven.
The question has been raised whether the nations of Canaan have the possi-
bility of repentance according to Deuteronomy. Christa Schfer-Lichtenberger
has stated that the contrast between Israel and the Canaanite peoples is only
there because these nations do not worship Yhwh. If these nations would
go and serve Yhwh, the contrast would be removed. Thus, repentance would
be possible for the nations of Canaan.175 However, it is questionable whether
Deuteronomy deals with the question of the possibility of repentance for these
nations. Rather, it assumes that the Canaanites as a whole will maintain their
religious identity. Deuteronomy does not deal with conversion of individual
members of these nations; in Joshua, this appears to be possible for Rahab
(Josh. 2:914; 6:2225).176
In conclusion, when the nations of Canaan are discussed, Deuteronomy calls

for their extermination. The battle against Sihon and Og is described as the
prelude and the beginning of the destruction of these nations. The former
population of Canaan and its surroundings is clearly distinguished from the
seven nations. Deuteronomy does not indicate a terminus ad quem for the
command to exterminate the Canaanites.
3.2.4 Motives for the Command

In this section, I will investigate which motives are mentioned in Deuteronomy
for the negative attitude toward the nations of Canaan. In Deut. 7, an indirect
connection was made between the religion of these nations and the command
of their destruction (Deut. 7:910; see 2.6). In other Deuteronomic texts,
this connection is indicated more explicitly. First, I will deal with texts giving
motives for the destruction in a general sense ( 3.2.4.1). Next I will scrutinize
texts mentioning concrete practices of these nations ( 3.2.4.2).177

176 Houtman, Zwei Sichtweisen, 224.
177 For a discussion of Houtmans thesis that the designation of the Canaanites as Anakim
(Deut. 9:2) is a negative qualification and provides a justification of their destruction, see
3.2.3.3.
3.2.4.1 General Designations

In Deut. 20:1718, a direct connection is made between the command to destroy
the Canaanite peoples and the behaviour of these nations (for the context of
Deut. 20:1018, see 3.2.3.1). Israel should completely exterminate the nations
of Canaan (), so that they may not teach Israel the abhorrent things (
pl.) that they did for their gods, and make Israel sin against Yhwh. In Deut.
20:18 and 18:9, the verb is used in connection with the nations of Canaan.
It stands opposite learning the commandments of Yhwh (e.g., Deut. 4:1; 5:1).
Thus, the reason for the command to destroy these nations is that Israel should
be kept away from Canaanite religious practices. What is mentioned here is
is not the fact that the Canaanite peoples serve other gods than Yhwh (cf.
Deut. 4:19; see 3.2.1.1), but how they do so. In Deut. 20, it is not specified which
practices are meant.
The practices are characterized as , their abhorrent things. In Deu-
teronomy, this expression is often used in the combination . This
indicates that it is not human disapproval which is evoked, but Yhwhs (cf.
Deut. 12:31, what He [Yhwh] hates). The word is often used to charac-
terize the religious practices of the Canaanite peoples (cf. Deut. 12:31; 18:9,12).178
According to Jean lHour, the -texts in Deuteronomy originally formed a
separate corpus, directed against the Canaanite cult.179 An objection against
this thesis, however, is that some Deuteronomic texts do not make any con-
nection with the cult or with the nations of Canaan (e.g., Deut. 24:4; 25:16). The
commandments of Deut. 25:1316, dealing with dishonesty in trade, are not cul-
tic, but ethical in nature; the text provides no indications that it would refer to
specifically Canaanite practices.180 Thus, not all -texts may be connected
with the Canaanite cult and the resistance against it.
In Deut. 9:46, another motivation in a more general sense is given for the
command to exterminate the Canaanites. These verses emphasize that it is
not Israels righteousness that is the reason why Yhwh gives them the land of
Canaan (Deut. 9:4,5,6), but that He does so because of the wickedness of the
Canaanite peoples (Deut. 9:4,5) and because of his promise to the patriarchs
(Deut. 9:5). In the verses preceding this passage (Deut. 9:13), it is stated that
178 Cf. Paul Humbert, Le substantif tob et le verbe tb dans l Ancien Testament, zaw 72
(1960): 225226.
179 Jean LHour, Les interdits Toeba dans le Deutronome, rb 71 (1964): 481503.
180 To maintain his thesis, LHour has to assume that Israel would have learnt what fraud is
from the Phoenicians and the Canaanites; Ibid., 499500. For other objections, see Preu,
ThWAT 8:584; Preu, Deuteronomium, 118119.
188 chapter 3
Yhwh will destroy the nations of Canaan. However, this promise is not based
on any merit of Israel. Three times, it is stated that Yhwh does not bring Israel
into Canaan because of its own righteousness (or the uprightness of its heart,
Deut. 9:5). indicates faithfulness in the relationship toward Yhwh.181 The
three statements contain a climax: first it is stated that Israel should not think
that Yhwh does this because of its righteousness (Deut. 9:4); next that its
righteousness is not the reason of Yhwhs actions (Deut. 9:5); and finally it
becomes clear that Israels righteousness does not even exist, because it is a
stubborn people (Deut. 9:6; cf. 10:16; 31:27). This latter point is elaborated on
in a description of several moments in history when Yhwh was even about to
destroy Israel (Deut. 9:710:11). In this description, the same verb is used as in
Deut. 9:3 concerning the nations of Canaan ( hif., Deut. 9:8,14,19,25). This
might be a suggestion that Israel too may lose the land by its stubbornness.182
As in Deut. 7:7 and 8:17, Israel is warned here for feelings of superiority. Neither
Israels quantity (Deut. 7:7), nor its power (Deut. 8:17), nor its quality (Deut. 9:4
6) are the motive for Yhwhs actions. Moreover, Israel does not automatically
have a right to the land; Canaan is explicitly called the land of the Canaanite
peoples (, Deut. 9:5).
Yhwh will exterminate the nations of Canaan because of their wickedness
and because of his oath to Israels ancestors.183 Twice, the wickedness of these
nations is referred to, in an almost identical formulation: because of the
wickedness of these nations Yhwh destroys them before you (Deut. 9:45).
The formulation of Deut. 9:4b is remarkable, because Israel is referred to in the
second person (), in contrast to the first person in the quotation before.184
This makes it likely that Deut. 9:4b should be interpreted as an addition to
the quotation, not being part of the quotation itself.185 Deut. 9:5 is not just a
181 Tigay, Deuteronomy, 9798.

182 Cf. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ib:182. In Deut. 10:16, Israel is exhorted not to be stub-
born any longer.
183 For the oath to the fathers as a motive for Yhwhs actions, see the exegesis of Deut. 7:8,
2.4. Keil, Leviticus, Numeri und Deuteronomium, 434 makes a distinction between the
wickedness of the Canaanite peoples as the reason for their destruction, and Yhwhs oath
as the reason to give Canaan to Israel. In Deuteronomy, however, the destruction of the
nations of Canaan and the gift of Canaan to Israel belong inseparably together.
184 Deut. 9:4b (from )is missing in lxx-Vaticanus. Nielsen, Deuteronomium, 110;
Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua, 32 consider Deut. 9:4b as a gloss.
185 So also Christensen, Deuteronomy, 1:177; Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ib:179; Nelson,
Deuteronomy, 115; Veijola, Deuteronomium, 222. Another possibility is the suggestion of
Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 201 that Deut. 9:4b does belong to the quotation, das aber im
repetition of Deut. 9:4: the formulation in Deut. 9:5a is more extensive (see
above), and another motive is added (Yhwhs oath to the fathers).
The designation wickedness ( )as a motivation for the command to
exterminate the Canaanites is quite general. Elsewhere in Deuteronomy, the
root is used only in Deut. 9:27 (with respect to Israel, parallel to )and in
Deut. 25:12 (in a juridical context, in contrast to ). Some authors have made
a connection between the juridical use of and the battle with the nations
of Canaan; in the Ancient Near East, every war would be a Rechtsstreit.
From the victory in the battle with the Canaanite peoples, Israel could then
conclude that it is vindicated.186 An objection against this view, however, is
that Deut. 9:46 contains no reference to this idea, and that in Deut. 9:16 the
battle with the Canaanite peoples is mentioned only as the work of Yhwh.
Rather, is to be understood as a general characterization of (the practices
of) the nations of Canaan. By this designation, the Canaanite peoples are
characterized as guilty before Yhwh.187 The emphasis in this passage, however,
is on the warning against pride and self-righteousness for Israel. In Deut. 9:4
6, it is indicated why Yhwh is giving Canaan to Israel. In this motivation, Israel
has no place; negatively, the wickedness of the Canaanite peoples is mentioned;
positively the oath of Yhwh. It is not specified what the wickedness of the
Canaanite peoples entails. In this motivation, it resounds that apparently also
other nations than Israel are accountable to Yhwh.188
formelhaften Abschlu allmhlich schon wieder in die Rede des Redenden zurckgleitet.
The only parallel he mentions, Deut. 1:8, does have a change in person, but in a different
way. For that reason, the interpretation proposed above seems more likely. Otherwise
several commentaries that translate Deut. 9:4b as belonging to the quotation, thus in
fact emending in . So Braulik, Deuteronomium, 1:74; McConville, Deuteronomy,
176, 182; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 98; Wright, Deuteronomy, 131. Ehrlich, Randglossen, 2:276
interprets as a contraction of and , which would have been omitted at the
beginning of verse 5; so also Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 111, 406.
186 So Braulik, Deuteronomium, 1:74: Nach altorientalischer Vorstellung ist jeder Krieg ein
Rechtsstreit: Wer im Recht ist, gewinnt, wer im Unrecht ist, verliert. Die Geschichte ist
eine Art Gottesgericht.; Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 202.
187 According to Bchli, Israel und die Vlker, 55; Millar, Now Choose Life, 155, this is the only
place where the nations of Canaan are held guilty in Deuteronomy. Although the root
is not used elsewhere with respect to these peoples, this thesis is incorrect in terms
of content. See the remainder of this section.
188 Brueggemann, Deuteronomy, 115. Cf. 3.2.1.1.
190 chapter 3
3.2.4.2 Concrete Practices

In two passages in Deuteronomy, it is specified what the religious practices of
the Canaanites are (Deut. 12:2931; 18:914). In Deut. 18:12, an explicit connec-
tion is made between these practices and the extermination of these nations
by Yhwh.
Deut. 12:2931 is about the period after Yhwh has destroyed the Canaanite
peoples ( hif.; cf. Deut. 19:1) and Israel has taken possession of their land.
Since the text deals with nations that Israel is going to dispossess (), it
has to concern the nations of Canaan. Israel should not imitate their religious
practices. What the Canaanite peoples have done for their gods, Yhwh hates,
and it is abhorrent to Him. Deut. 12:2931 forms an inclusio with the beginning
of the chapter (Deut. 12:24). Around it, Deut. 12:1 and 13:1 form an inclusio,
urging Israel to keep Yhwhs commandments. At the beginning of Deut. 12,
Israel is called to destroy everything that is reminiscent of the Canaanite cult
(cf. Deut. 7:5). Israel should not serve Yhwh in the way the Canaanite peoples
served their gods (Deut. 12:24). Then the text elaborates on where and how
Yhwh wants to be served (Deut. 12:528). Deut. 12:2931, then, delivers another
warning regarding the Canaanite religion. At both the beginning and the end of
Deut. 12, the warning occurs: You must not do so for Yhwh your God (Deut.
12:4,31).189
In Deut. 12, the proper service of Yhwh is immediately connected with a
warning for the Canaanite religion and its temptation for Israel. Elsewhere
in Deuteronomy, this danger is always connected with the contact with these
nations (Deut. 7:4; 20:18). In Deut. 12:2931, however, this threat is also deemed
real for the time after the nations of Canaan have been destroyed. This is
explicitly stated ( , Deut. 12:30); moreover, the text deals with the
time that these nations have been dispossessed and Israel lives in their land
(Deut. 12:29). Israel should take care ( ) not to get into the same
snare.190 The rest of the clause (and that you do not inquire after their gods)
is grammatically parallel to the first subordinate clause with , but may be
viewed as an explanation of it in terms of content.
189 Cf. Christensen, Deuteronomy, 1:263; Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ii:43; Tigay, Deuteron-
omy, 127. According to McConville, Deuteronomy, 228, Deut. 12 as a whole is directed
against Canaanite practices.
190 The verb hif. is not used in this conjugation elsewhere in the Old Testament. It
is generally understood as a by-form of ;so already Targum Onqelos; cf. Deut. 7:16
;7:25 ;the only forms of in Deuteronomy. See halat, s.v. . Cf. 1 Sam.
28:9 hitp.; Ps. 38:13 pi. For the Versions, see McCarthy, Deuteronomy, 89*90*.
Otherwise Rashbam, Commentary on Deuteronomy, 90; Rashi, , 544, who
make a connection with the root ( to confuse) in Ps. 109:11; Dan. 5:6.
The snare is that Israel would inquire after the gods of the Canaanite peoples,
and would be willing to act in the same way as these nations (as these nations
serve their gods, so I will do it), possibly based on the idea that the way of
serving a god has to be taken over (cf. 2Kgs 17:26).191 The rest of Deut. 12:31
(You must not do so for Yhwh your God) makes clear that it is not serving
the gods of the Canaanite peoples which is meant, but serving Yhwh in the
way of these nations. Deut. 12:30 does not deal with the question who should
be served, but how ( ) Yhwh should be served.192 This interpretation
fits the whole of Deut. 12, which is all about the question how Yhwh is to be
served. The question of the legitimacy of serving other gods by other nations is
not at issue here; the question is what Israel has to do.
Finally, why Israel must not do so for Yhwh is grounded with a motivation.
Everything that is abhorrent to Yhwh () , what He hates (),
these nations have done for their gods (Deut. 12:31). Elsewhere in Deuteronomy,
the verb with Yhwh as its subject is used only in Deut. 16:22, which is
about setting up a sacred pillar or an Asherah. As the worst thing the nations of
Canaan have done (, even),193 it is mentioned that they burnt their children
to their gods (see below).
The message of Deut. 12:2931 is what Israel must not do for Yhwh. That
Yhwh is different from the gods of the Canaanites appears from the fact that
He wants to be served in one place, and not in the way these nations serve their
gods (Deut. 12:4,31).194 The nations of Canaan are characterized as completely
opposite to the norms of Yhwh. As an example and as the culmination of this,
the burning of children is mentioned. In this way, implicitly a motivation and
a justification for the extermination of these nations is given.195
In Deut. 18:914, Israel is likewise warned that it should not learn to do accord-
ing to the abhorrent things of the nations of Canaan. These nations is a
general designation, but in its context it refers to the nations of Canaan. The
motif that Israel learns to do according to the abhorrent things ( )of
the Canaanite peoples returns in Deut. 20:18, as a reason for the command to
191 Cf. Dillmann, Deuteronomium, 299; Driver, Deuteronomy, 150.

192 Cf. Dillmann, Deuteronomium, 299: Deutlich handelt es sich hier (wie v. 24) nicht
zunchst um die Eintauschung anderer Gtter fr Jahve, sondern um die bertragung
ihrer Cultusformen auf den Jahvecult (welche dann freilich auch den bergang zu den
Gttern selbst zur Folge hatte). So already Ramban, , 2:403404.
193 Driver, Deuteronomy, 150.
194 Rose, Der Ausschlielichkeitsanspruch Jahwes, 93.
195 Craigie, Deuteronomy, 219.
192 chapter 3
destroy these nations (see above). This general description is elaborated on in

Deut. 18:1011 in eight categories of persons that may not be found among Israel.
This concerns the one who makes his son or daughter pass through the fire
( hif.), and the one who is engaged in (seven forms of) divination and sor-
cery. First, I will discuss the forms of divination, then the child sacrifice and the
relationship between these two.
Such a comprehensive list of soothsayers occurs nowhere else in the Old Tes-
tament.196 The enumeration and the number of seven elements indicate that
this text is not about a number of different, clearly delineate forms of divina-
tion and sorcery, but about the whole: all forms of magic are forbidden.197 The
question of the exact meaning of the different elements may therefore be left
aside.198 Otto Bchli has noted that the forms of divination mentioned are all
general in nature or specific for Palestine, and that no forms are characteristic of
Mesopotamia, like inspecting the entrails (in particular the liver) of a sacrificial
animal or surveying the stars. From this, he draws conclusions about the origin
of Deuteronomy.199 If the enumeration of Deut. 18:1011 is meant to cover all
forms of magic, however, it is questionable whether such conclusions may be
drawn on the basis of the lack of some forms. It is true, nonetheless, that all ele-
ments mentioned fit the culture of Canaan.200 In Deut. 18:14, it is stated that the
nations of Canaan listen to soothsayers and diviners. In this verse, only the first
two elements from Deut. 18:1011 are mentioned, in reversed order, probably as
pars pro toto. None of these forms of divination occurs in Deuteronomy out-
196 Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua, 70.

197 Thus, the distinction made in Mesopotamia between legal (white) and illegal (black)
forms of magic does not exist in Deuteronomy; cf. Sefati and Klein, Law of the Sorceress,
178179. It is interesting only as a curiosity that Christensen, Deuteronomy, 1:411 is able to
enumerate as much as 52 forms of divination in English. His suggestion that this enumer-
ation shows that in Deut. 18:1011 not all forms of divination are meant is unconvincing.
198 See the lemmas in ThWAT and the commentaries, in particular Driver, Deuteronomy, 223
226.
199 Bchli, Israel und die Vlker, 50.
200 See for magic and divination in Canaan and its environment: J.F. Borghouts, Witchcraft,
Magic, and Divination in Ancient Egypt, in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, ed.
Jack M. Sasson, 4 vols. (New York: Scribner, 1995), 3:17751785 (Egypt); Walter Farber,
Witchcraft, Magic, and Divination in Ancient Mesopotamia, in Sasson, Civilizations
of the Ancient Near East, 3:18951909 (Mesopotamia); Gabriella Frantz-Szab, Hittite
Witchcraft, Magic, and Divination, in Sasson, Civilizations of the Ancient Near East,
3:20072019 (Anatolia); Jean-Michel de Tarragon, Witchcraft, Magic, and Divination in
Canaan and Ancient Israel, in Sasson, Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 3:20712081
(Syria-Palestine), and the literature mentioned there.
side this passage. The section concludes with the admonition that Yhwh has
not allowed Israel to do so ( , Deut. 18:14).201 Not only
the exercise of magical practices is prohibited (Deut. 18:1011), but also listening
to it (Deut. 18:14). The argument for this is not whether or not these practices
may work, but the will of Yhwh.202 Only Yhwh can and may dispose of the
future.203 After this section follows a passage about the prophet through whom
Yhwh does speak to Israel and to whom Israel should listen (Deut. 18:1522).
There clearly is a contrast between Deut. 18:14 and 18:15 (these nations versus
from among you, from your brothers; Yhwh has not allowed it versus to
him you shall listen, because he speaks the words of Yhwh).
A religious practice of the Canaanite peoples which is mentioned both in
Deut. 12:31 and in Deut. 18:10, is child sacrifice. In Deut. 12:31, it is called to burn
with fire ( ;) in Deut. 18:10 to make pass through the fire (
hif.). In both texts, this is connected with the abhorrent things ( pl.) of
the nations of Canaan, son and daughter are mentioned, and the expression
with/through fire ( )is used. Because of these similarities, it is highly likely
that both texts refer to the same practice.204 The formulation of Deut. 12:31
makes clear that not just a trial by fire or a dedication is meant, but a practice
which for the children resulted in death. This is also reflected in other texts
from the Old Testament.205 The expression to make pass through the fire is
201 In this context, has the meaning to permit, to allow; Keil, Leviticus, Numeri und
Deuteronomium, 480. Otherwise McConville, Deuteronomy, 300, who believes this clause
refers to the conditionality of the gift of Canaan: Yhwh has not given the land thus, or to
do this. A problem with this interpretation, however, is that the land, which would be the
object of , is not used after Deut. 18:9.
202 Rashbam, Commentary on Deuteronomy, 114 states that Yhwh is testing the Israelites,
precisely because these practices work. Cf. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 174.
203 Cf. Schmitt, Magie im Alten Testament, 342.
204 So already b. Sanh. 64b; Ramban, , 2:426. Contra Christensen, Deuteronomy,
1:265. Cf. Francesca Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions
of Historical Realities, bzaw 338 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), 141148.
205 See John Day, Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament, ucop 41 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1989), 1520; George C. Heider, The Cult of Molek: A Reassess-
ment, jsot.s 43 (Sheffield: jsot, 1985), 261268; McConville, Deuteronomy, 229. Otherwise
Moshe Weinfeld, The Worship of Molech and of the Queen of Heaven and Its Back-
ground, uf 4 (1972): 133154, who believes that the verbs and hif. indicate only
dedication. Later, the prophets would generalize and exaggerate this, making them speak
about killing. The interpretation as dedication also in Iodad de Merw, Commentaire
ExodeDeutronome, csco.s 80:123; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 465; Josef Tropper, Nekromantie:
Totenbefragung im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament, aoat 223 (Neukirchen-Vluyn:
194 chapter 3
supplemented in 2Kgs 23:10 by for Molech ( ). Elsewhere, to make pass

( hif., but without the addition of )sons and daughters for Molech
is also called ( Jer. 32:35). On the basis of the connections between the
expressions to make pass (through the fire), sons and daughters, , and
Molech, it may be assumed that also in Deut. 12:31 and 18:10 the service of the
god Molech is referred to.206 It is stated that Yhwh abhors child sacrifice, and
that He prohibits this practice to Israel. The historical questions concerning
child sacrifice and Molech will be discussed later ( 4.2.1).
A relevant question for the exegesis of Deut. 18:1011 is why child sacrifice
and various forms of divination are mentioned together. Some authors have
denied a connection between these practices.207 This is unlikely, however, since
in several other texts also, child sacrifice and divination are referred to side by
side (Lev. 20:26; 2Kgs 17:17; 21:6; 2Chr. 33:6). A more likely interpretation is
that all activities mentioned in Deut. 18:1011 are meant to obtain information
from or influence on the deity.208 Israel may not and cannot deal with Yhwh
Neukirchener Verlag, 1989), 235236. According to Karel Dronkert, De Molochdienst in het

Oude Testament (Leiden: Luctor et Emergo, 1953), 100101, there may have been differences
in practice depending on time and place. An objection against the interpretation as ded-
ication is the terminology used: ( Deut. 12:31), ( Ps. 106:38), ,
(Ezek. 16:2021). For the dedication of priests and Levites, the verb hif. is never used.
In addition, this interpretation is unlikely for Deut. 12:31, as the practice described is pres-
ented as the nadir of what the Canaanite peoples have done (see above). For a refutation
of Weinfelds interpretation, see also John E. Hartley and Timothy Dwyer, An Investiga-
tion into the Location of the Laws on Offerings to Molek in the Book of Leviticus, in Go
to the Land I Will Show You, ed. Joseph E. Coleson and Victor Harold Matthews (Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 8193; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus, AncB (New York: Doubleday,
19912000), 2:15521555.
206 So already Rashi, , 558.
207 So Mayes, Deuteronomy, 280. LHour, Les interdits Toeba, 491492. believes that Deut.
18:10a is a later insertion, since he deems this combination unlikely.
208 Heider, The Cult of Molek, 259. Cf. Driver, Deuteronomy, 222: to possess extraordinary
efficacy in averting calamity (cf. 2Kgs 3:27). Therefore, the service of Molech does not
need to have a predictive element, as Nelson, Deuteronomy, 233 assumes, suggesting that
the survival or death of a child may have indicated an affirmative or negative answer on
a question asked to the deity. Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ii:134 makes a connection
between Molech as the god of the dead and the netherworld, and the consultation of the
dead. However, this interpretation does not provide a connection with the other forms
of divination mentioned. Labuschagne also states that the service of Molech is about an
oracle concerning having children; by sending a child into the netherworld, people would
hope for an indication whether they would have more children; cf. Stavrakopoulou, King
Manasseh and Child Sacrifice, 286287. This view, however, is not supported by the texts.
in this way, but it should listen to what Yhwh speaks (cf. the following promise
of the prophet, Deut. 18:1522).
In Deut. 18:12, an explicit connection is made between the practices of the
nations of Canaan (child sacrifice and divination) and the fact that Yhwh
will destroy them. Whoever does these things is ; this is a warn-
ing for Israel not to imitate such practices. Israel should be blameless ()
before Yhwh. This is not a demand of moral perfection, but of undivided com-
mitment and loyalty to Yhwh alone.209 In Deuteronomy, the attention is not
focused on the Canaanite peoples as such; the message is always directed to
Israel.
In conclusion, the motive for the command to exterminate the nations of

Canaan is (the temptation of) the religion of these nations. This motive is not
mentioned for Israels attitude toward other nations ( 3.2.2). The Canaanite
peoples are not criticized for not serving Yhwh, but for the way in which
they served their own gods. An explicit connection is indicated between the
behaviour of the Canaanite peoples and their extermination (Deut. 18:12; 20:17
18). As concrete practices, divination and child sacrifice are mentioned.
3.2.5 Summary and Conclusion

This section has described how the book of Deuteronomy deals with the
nations of Canaan. In Deuteronomy, Yhwhs power over all the nations of the
earth is emphasized. He created all the nations and allotted to them a territory
and deities. He may also destroy nations or He may use them to execute his
will. In one text, possibly Yhwhs love for the nations is mentioned. The rela-
tionship between Yhwh and the nations, however, always is at the service of
his relationship with Israel. Among the nations, Israel has a unique position
as the people of Yhwh. This position is not due to any quality of Israel itself,
but only to the love and the oath of Yhwh. If Israel is obedient to Yhwh, the
nations will recognize this unique position and sing about it ( 3.2.1).
In Deuteronomy, an explicit distinction is made between Israels attitude
toward the Canaanite peoples and toward other peoples. However, there are
also differences between the various non-Canaanite peoples that are men-
tioned. The attitude toward Edom and Egypt is relatively positive, which is
remarkable within the Old Testament. Moab and Ammon are valued more neg-
atively. Amalek is put almost on a par with the nations of Canaan, although a
distinction remains (3.2.2).
209 Brueggemann, Deuteronomy, 194; Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ii:136.

196 chapter 3
As regards the Canaanite peoples, Israel is always called to exterminate

these nations. Not only is this indicated explicitly (Deut. 7; 20:1618), but it is
also clear from the verbs that are being used for Israels attitude toward these
nations. The battle against Sihon and Og during the conquest of Transjordan is
described as the prelude and the beginning of the extermination of the nations
of Canaan. The former population of Canaan and its surroundings, however,
is clearly distinguished from the Canaanite peoples. A terminus ad quem of
the command to exterminate the Canaanites is not indicated in Deuteronomy
(3.2.3).
The motives given for the command to exterminate the nations of Canaan
are exclusively religious in nature. This is not the case with the motives men-
tioned for Israels attitude toward other nations. In particular the way in which
the Canaanite peoples serve their gods is a motive for their destruction. An
explicit connection is made between the practices of these nations and their
extermination. As concrete examples of these practices, divination and child
sacrifice are mentioned. If the Canaanite peoples and their cult objects remain,
Israel runs the risk of going and serving other gods, or of serving Yhwh in the
way these nations serve their gods (3.2.4).
3.3 Comparison of Deut. 7 with Parallel Texts
In this section, the Deuteronomic command will be compared with parallel

texts. Scholars have frequently made a comparison between Exod. 23:2033,
Exod. 34:1116, and Deut. 7, because of the many similarities between these
texts.210 The most striking similarities are: a command to Israel concerning
the nations of Canaan, the religious motivation of this command, and an
enumeration of the nations in a list.
Because of the many similarities between Exod. 23:2033, Exod. 34:1116 and
Deut. 7, I will make a separate comparison between these passages; the other
texts concerning the nations of Canaan are investigated in the next section
(3.4).
In the Pentateuch, a list of nations in a comparable context also occurs in
Exod. 33:2. In this text, however, the reference to the nations of Canaan clearly
is a parenthesis. Moreover, the text does not contain a command to Israel;
only Yhwhs actions concerning the nations are dealt with. A motivation of
these actions is missing. Another text the Deuteronomic command has been
210 In this section, the designations Exod. 23 and Exod. 34 refer to these passages.
compared to is Num. 33:5056 (see 3.3.3). That passage, however, mainly is

about the destruction of the cult objects and the conquest of the land; only in
verse 52a, a command is given concerning the nations themselves. Moreover, a
motivation for this command and a list of nations are missing. Therefore, these
texts are not included in the comparison of this section, but will be discussed
later (3.4.1).
In the history of research, a wide range of views on the dating of Exod. 23 and 34
and on the relationship between these passages may be found. At the beginning
of the nineteenth century already, W.M.L. de Wette in his dissertation made a
short comparison between these passages.211 During the nineteenth century,
Exod. 23 and 34 were generally viewed as the sources of Deut. 7.212 Since the
beginning of the twentieth century, this order was often reversed, as Exod. 23
and 34 came to be viewed as late, deuteronomistic texts. The tendency to
attribute many texts in Genesis to Numbers to an author or redactor who was
influenced by Deuteronomy or the deuteronom(ist)ic literature is critized in
recent research.213 The views on the dating of Exod. 23 and 34, however, still
differ widely. Exod. 23:2033 is considered as pre-deuteronomistic by some
authors, by others as deuteronomistic.214 The dating of Exod. 34:1116 differs
even more widely, from early pre-deuteronomistic to post-deuteronomistic.215
211 W.M.L. de Wette, Dissertatio critica qva a prioribvs Devteronomivm Pentatevchi libris
diversvm alivs cvivsdam recentioris avctoris opvs esse monstratvr, in Opuscula theologica
(Berlin: Reimerus, 1830), 155156.
212 See Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 172.
213 See Hans Ausloos, The Need for a Controlling Framework in Determining the Relation-
ship between GenesisNumbers and the so-called Deuteronomistic Literature, jnwsl
24/2 (1998): 78. For the history of research, see Hans Ausloos, The Deuteronomists History:
The Role of the Deuteronomist in Historical-Critical Research into Genesis-Numbers, ots 67
(Leiden: Brill, 2015).
214 Pre-deuteronomistic: Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden, 2024 (except possibly Exod.
23:2324, which he considers as older than Deut. 7); Schwienhorst-Schnberger, Das
Bundesbuch, 410 (im Grundbestand). Deuteronomistic: Achenbach, Israel zwischen Ver-
heiung und Gebot, 258269; Martin Noth, Das zweite Buch Mose, Exodus, atd (Gttin-
gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959), 156. Both datings already occur in the middle of
the nineteenth century; Hans Ausloos, Deuteronomi(sti)c Elements in Exod 23,2033?
Some Methodological Remarks, in Studies in the Book of Exodus: RedactionReception
Interpretation, ed. Marc Vervenne, BEThL 126 (Leuven: University Press, 1996), 481482.
Ausloos questions the deuteronomistic character of Exod. 23:2033.
215 Pre-deuteronomistic: Crsemann, Die Tora, 141156; Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes, 483
503; F. Langlamet, Isral et lhabitant du pays: Vocabulaire et formules dEx., xxxiv, 11
198 chapter 3
Related to these datings, the views on the relationship between Exod. 23, Exod.
34 and Deut. 7 differ likewise. As the historical order, both Exod. 23Exod.
34Deut. 7, Exod. 34Exod. 23Deut. 7, and Deut. 7Exod. 23/34 have been
defended. In addition to these, more complex models of development have
been proposed.216
In this section, it is not necessary to discuss every proposal regarding the dat-
ing of Exod. 23 and 34. A comparison between Exod. 23, Exod. 34, and Deut. 7
is needed however. The goal of this comparison is twofold. First, in this way
the similarities and the differences between these commands concerning the
Canaanite peoples become clear. Second, it has to be investigated whether
there is a development as for the content of the command and/or whether
there is literary dependence between these texts.217 Deut. 7 is first compared
16, rb 76 (1969): 503507; Eckart Otto, Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments, ThW 3,2
(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1994), 211; Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden, 2430 (only verse 12);
Franz-Elmar Wilms, Das jahwistische Bundesbuch in Exodus 34, StANT 32 (Mnchen:
Ksel-Verlag, 1973), 176177. Crsemann dates the oldest layer of Exod. 34 (verses 12[with-
out a],14,15a,b,16, in his view) in the nineth century b.c. Wilms dates Exod. 34:1117
as a whole (j, in his view) in the time before or at the beginning of the monarchy.
Deuteronomistic: Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheiung und Gebot, 269283 (deuter-
onomistic and late-/post-deuteronomistic); Noth, Exodus, 215216. According to Michael
Konkel, Snde und Vergebung: Eine Rekonstruktion der Redaktionsgeschichte der hinteren
Sinaiperikope (Exodus 3234) vor dem Hintergrund aktueller Pentateuchmodelle, fat 58
(Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 305, part of Exod. 34:1116 is deuteronomistic (verses
12ab,14); part is post-deuteronomistic (verse 11); and part is uncertain (verse 13, probably
early deuteronomistic; verses 12c,1516, probably late- or post-deuteronomistic).
216 Exod. 23Exod. 34Deut. 7: Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 195203
(although he does not state that Exod. 34 is a source for Deut. 7). Exod. 34Exod. 23
Deut. 7: Crsemann, Die Tora, 153156; Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes, 147. Deut. 7Exod.
23/34: Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheiung und Gebot, 287. More complex are the
models that assume (the influence of) an older layer of one of these passages. So, e.g.,
Yuichi Osumi, Die Kompositionsgeschichte des Bundesbuches Exodus 20,22b23,33, obo 105
(Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991), 7475, 216; Seitz, Redaktionsgeschichtliche
Studien, 7779. Otto, Deuteronomium 111, 855857 assumes that the authors of the post-
exilic Fortschreibung of the core of Deut. 7 also used the sources of their sources. Not all
authors express themselves on the relationship between all three of the passages.
217 On the basis of Exod. 34:1126, David M. Carr, Method in Determination of Direction of
Dependence: An Empirical Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,1126 and its Parallels,
in Gottes Volk am Sinai: Untersuchungen zu Ex 3234 und Dtn 910, ed. Matthias Kckert
and Erhard Blum, vwgt 18 (Gtersloh: Chr. Kaiser, 2001), 107140 has investigated criteria
for determining the direction of dependence between texts. According to him, Exod. 34
with Exod. 23 (3.3.1), and next with Exod. 34 ( 3.3.2).218 Finally, the ques-
tion of whether there is a historical development in the attitude toward the
nations of Canaan is considered (3.3.3), and some conclusions are drawn
( 3.3.4).
3.3.1 Comparison with Exod. 23:2033
20Behold, I am going to send an angel before you

to guard you on the way
and to bring you
to the place that I have destined.
21Beware for his face
and listen to his voice.
Do not rebel against him,
for he will not pardon your transgression,
for my name is in him.
22But if you carefully listen to his voice
and do all that I say,
then I will be an enemy to your enemies
and an adversary to your adversaries.
In Exod. 23:2022, Yhwh promises to send an angel or messenger before

Israel. The fact that an angel is mentioned in Exod. 23 has been adduced as
evidence both for the archaic character of this text, and for its deuteronomistic
character.219 Both approaches have been criticized, however, since the com-
parison on the basis of a single word is too limited and lacks a controlling
framework.220
belongs to the latest parts of the Pentateuch. For criticism of his method, however, see
Konkel, Snde und Vergebung, 233234.
218 The comparison is presented as a description of similarities and differences. The alterna-
tive, a table, runs the risk that the attention is focused mainly on similarities in vocabulary.
The comparison in this section is restricted to a comparison of Exod. 23 and 34 with Deut.
7. Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden, 1314 also uses many texts from elsewhere in Deuteron-
omy in his table; this, however, blurs the comparison.
219 Ibid., 15 and Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheiung und Gebot, 260, respectively.
220 Ausloos, The Need for a Controlling Framework, 8486. Cf. Ausloos, Deuteronomi(sti)c
Elements in Exod 23,2033, 490495 as for ( Exod. 23:20); Ausloos, The Deuter-
onomists History, 321325.
200 chapter 3
These verses have no direct parallel in Deut. 7.221 In Deuteronomy, the

word is never used for a messenger of Yhwh (it is used in Deut. 2:26
for messengers of Moses). Nor is an angel mentioned in the Covenant Code,
except in Exod. 23:20,23. Therefore, the occurrence of an angel in Exod. 23 is
more remarkable than its absence in Deuteronomy. In Exod. 23, there is a close
relationship between Yhwh and the angel: in Exod. 23:2223 the third person
(the angel) passes into the first person (Yhwh), and Yhwhs name is said to be
in his messenger (Exod. 23:21). It seems, however, that there is a different task:
the angel will guard Israel on the way and bring them to Canaan; there, Yhwh
will fight for them against the enemies.222 If this interpretation is correct,
the absence of the angel in Deut. 7 fits the presentation in Exod. 23; in the
perspective of Deuteronomy, the journey is over and only the conquest of
Canaan is still waiting. Moreover, in a synchronic reading of the Pentateuch
the absence of the angel in Deut. 7 may be explained from Exod. 33:1617,
where Yhwh promises that He himself will go with Israel. For these reasons,
no conclusions about the relationship of Exod. 23 and Deut. 7 can be drawn
from the fact that the angel or messenger is not mentioned in Deut. 7.223
23My angel will go before you

and bring you
to the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites,
the Canaanites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites,
and I will annihilate them.
Exod. 23:23 states that the angel of Yhwh will go before Israel, which is not
explicitly stated in Deut. 7. It is said, however, that He is in their midst (Deut.
7:21); implicitly, it is indicated in the promise that He drives out the nations
before Israel and gives them over (Deut. 7:12). In Deut. 7:1, the same verb is
used as in Exod. 23:23, when it is said that Yhwh will bring ( hif.) Israel to the
land (not: to the nations).224 Exod. 23:23 ends with the promise that Yhwh will
221 The combination of hearing and doing (Exod. 23:22) is found in Deut. 7:11,12, but this is
too general to be called a parallel.
222 Ausloos, Septuagint Version, 101102 states that there are indications that the role of the
angel is restricted in lxx-Exod. 23.
223 Accordingly, it is not necessary to assume that Deuteronomy has another angelology than
the Covenant Code, as Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheiung und Gebot, 260; Schmitt, Du
sollst keinen Frieden, 15 assume. This is a hypothesis that cannot be verified due to lack of
data in both the Covenant Code and Deuteronomy.
224 For a discussion of the list of the nations, see 2.4, Excursus: Lists of the nations. For
annihilate ( hif.) these nations.225 This verb is not used in Deuteronomy;

it occurs six times in the Old Testament. It is used together with hif. (1 Kgs
13:34) and with the consequence that a nation no longer exists (Ps. 83:5). The
meaning to destroy, to kill is also possible, although it cannot be proven, in
2 Chr. 32:21 and Zech. 11:8. In the only other text, Job 20:12, the meaning has
to be in a rather different semantic domain. Therefore, the use of hif. for
Yhwhs actions with respect to the nations seems to indicate destruction.226
24You shall not bow down to their gods,

nor serve them,
nor replicate their images.
But utterly demolish them
and smash their sacred pillars in pieces.
The first two exhortations in verse 24, do not bow down to their gods, nor serve
them, correspond to the prohibition in the Decalogue (Exod. 20:5; Exod. 23:24
has instead of ).227 The third prohibition, , is
less clear. The noun may be interpreted as deeds. In that case, Israel is
warned not to act as the nations of Canaan (cf. 3.2.4).228 A difficulty, however,
is that the suffix of then should refer to the nations, as well as in ,
but in contrast to the immediately preceding , where it refers to the
deities of the nations. Another interpretation is that is a designation of
the images of the gods. In that case, the suffix of may refer to the gods
of the nations; thus, the suffix is not interpreted as a reference to the owner of
the image, but to the gods that are depicted or represented by it. A difficulty,
however, is that nowhere else is a designation for an idol. Nonetheless,
the lists of the nations in Exod. 23:23,28, see also Ausloos, Septuagint Version, 91100;
Ausloos, The Deuteronomists History, 326335.
225 Translation from Houtman, Exodus, 3:275. The suffix in the sg. refers to the collective of
the peoples mentioned, as well as in Exod. 23:29; cf. jm 150p.
226 Baruch J. Schwartz, Reexamining the Fate of the Canaanites in the Torah Traditions,
in Sefer Moshe: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical
Judaism, ed. Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz, and Shalom M. Paul (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
2004), 157 n. 13 states that the use of this verb is difficult to understand in its context.
Therefore, he considers it likely that is a scribal error for the name of a nation
(). However, he gives no argument or parallel for this reading.
227 Benno Jacob, The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus (Hoboken: Ktav, 1992), 733.
228 This interpretation in Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Com-
mentary, otl (London: scm, 1974), 446; Houtman, Exodus, 3:276; William H.C. Propp,
Exodus 1940, AncB (New York: Doubleday, 2006), 289.
202 chapter 3
because of the continuation in Exod. 23:24, dealing with the destruction of

objects, the interpretation of as images of idols or as cultic objects seems
the most likely one. This view is confirmed if Exod. 23:24 refers to Exod. 20:5,
since in the context of that verse images are also mentioned (
, Exod. 20:4).229 According to this interpretation, only the second of the
three prohibitions of Exod. 23:24a has a parallel in Deut. 7. Deut. 7:16 contains
the prohibition: You shall not serve their gods. In Deut. 7:4, serving other gods
is also mentioned, but that parallel is at most indirect. A prohibition to make
images of idols is missing in Deut. 7; Israel is warned, however, not to covet such
images nor to bring them into their houses (Deut. 7:2526).
In contrast to the prohibitions, two commands make clear what Israel
should do: demolish the (images of the) gods of the Canaanite peoples, and
smash their sacred pillars. The first command has no parallel in Deut. 7; the verb
used ( )is not found in Deuteronomy.230 The second command has a clear
parallel in Deut. 7:5 ( ;) the differences are the form of the suffix,
the sequence of object and verb, the number of the verb, and the absence of
the infinitive in Deut. 7. There seems to be no reason to think of direct borrow-
ing, but the content and combination of words are similar. The command in
Deut. 7:5 is more elaborate: besides the sacred pillars, three other cult objects
are mentioned which have to be destroyed. The command Israel receives in
Exod. 23:24 does not concern the nations of Canaan themselves, but only their
cult objects. Exod. 23:2324 does not make clear whether this command is con-
nected with annihilating the peoples by Yhwh, or that it refers to the time
after this.
25You shall serve Yhwh your God,

and He will bless your bread and your water,
and I will take sickness away from your midst.
Israel should not serve the gods of the Canaanites, but it should serve Yhwh
(Exod. 23:25). In Deut. 7, the verb is not used for serving Yhwh. The promise
that Yhwh will bless Israel is also found in Deut. 7:13, although other objects
are used. The promise that Yhwh will bless Israels bread and water occurs only
229 Cf. Keil, Genesis und Exodus, 497498.

230 Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden, 16 states that cannot be used for images, but only
for buildings, like temples or altars. The latter statement, however, is incorrect: in Exod.
15:7 is used with persons as its object (). There is no reason why it could not be
used for images or statues.
here in the Old Testament.231 In Deut. 7, the blessing is more abundant (seven
objects), and it is connected with living in the land of Canaan. The promise that
Yhwh will take away sickness from Israel has a parallel in Deut. 7:15. In both
texts, the verb hif. is used; Deut. 7:15, however, uses other words for sickness
(, )and connects those diseases with Egypt. Since Exod. 23 is situated in
the book of Exodus shortly after the exodus, such a connection would stand out
even more clearly in Exod. 23. It is unlikely, therefore, that Exod. 23 is dependent
from Deut. 7 at this point and would have left out the connection with Egypt.
26There will be no woman who miscarries or is

barren in your land;
I will fulfill the number of your days.
The first part of this verse has a parallel in Deut. 7:14. The sequence of the
promises concerning sickness and barrenness is different in Deut. 7:1415 and
Exod. 23:2526. Deut. 7:14 does not mention a miscarriage (), but it does
mention a barren woman (). In Deut. 7:14, this is extended to the promise
that there will also be no barren man, nor infertility among the livestock. The
promise that Israel will be blessed above all the nations (Deut. 7:14a) is missing
in Exod. 23:26.232 Exod. 23:26b has no parallel in Deut. 7.
27I will send my fear before you,

and will throw into confusion all the people
where you shall come.

I will make all your enemies turn their neck to you.
From Exod. 23:27, the nations of Canaan are dealt with. The fear for Yhwh is
not mentioned literally in Deut. 7, although it is alluded to in Deut. 7:21: Israel
should not be afraid, for Yhwh is in their midst, a great and awesome ()
God. The confusion Yhwh will send among the nations has a parallel in Deut.
7:23. In the latter text, there is no mention of all the people where Israel or the
fear of Yhwh will come (both may be the subject of in Exod. 23:27); from
the context, however, it is clear that all the nations of Canaan are meant (Deut.
7:22: these nations). The confusion is formulated more strongly in Deut. 7
(Exod. 23:27: ;Deut. 7:23: ) . In particular, however, it is
231 Osumi, Die Kompositionsgeschichte des Bundesbuches, 214.

232 For lxx-Exod. 23:26, which has the tendency to harmonization with Deuteronomy, see
Ausloos, Septuagint Version, 100101.
204 chapter 3
remarkable where the confusion leads. In Exod. 23:27, it leads to the defeat and
flight of the enemies; in Deut. 7:23, their destruction is explicitly envisaged (
).233
28And I will send hornets before you,

which shall drive out the Hivites, the Canaanites,
and the Hittites before you.
Yhwh will send hornets before Israel; this is stated likewise in Deut. 7:20.
In both texts, the same verb is used, but in a different conjugation (Exod.
23:28: qal; Deut. 7:20: pi.) and followed by a different preposition (Exod.
23:28: ;Deut. 7:20: ). Literary dependence is less likely, therefore, but
the similarity in content is noteworthy, also because hornets occur elsewhere
only in Josh. 24:12. As regards the result of the arrival of the hornets, there is a
remarkable difference between Exod. 23 and Deut. 7. In Deut. 7:20, the result
of sending the hornets is that those who are left of the Canaanite peoples are
destroyed () . In Exod. 23:28, the hornets will drive out the nations, as
is usually translated. The enumeration Hivites, Canaanites, and Hittites is
pars pro toto for all the nations of Canaan.234 To drive out may be interpreted
as driving out from hiding places (instead of driving out from the land), as may
be intended in Deut. 7:20. The continuation in Exod. 23:2930, however, clearly
refers to the expulsion from the land, which makes this interpretation unlikely
for Exod. 23:28.235
For the relationship between Exod. 23 and Deut. 7, the semantic value of the
verb pi. is important. This verb is not used in Deut. 7. In other texts, it is used
to indicate what happened to the nations of Canaan (Josh. 24:18; Judg. 6:9; 1 Chr.
17:21; Ps. 78:55; 80:9). In several texts, pi. clearly has the sense of to expel,
233 Weinfeld, Ban on the Canaanites, 150151.

234 This interpretation is confirmed by sp, which mentions all seven nations. Although the
text of sp is weak from a text-critical point of view, it indicates that the shorter list of mt
was interpreted as a reference to all the nations of Canaan. lxx inserts the Amorites as
the first name, and thus has four nations. Some manuscripts of lxx also add the Jebusites,
other manuscripts supplement the list to seven nations. s has only the Canaanites and the
Hittites.
235 Weinfeld, Ban on the Canaanites, 151 contrasts the statements about the hornets in Exod.
23 and Deut. 7. In Exod. 23, the hornets would be used for the complete expulsion of the
Canaanite peoples; in Deut. 7, the hornets would only have a function for those who hide
themselves. Weinfeld is right that the significance of the hornets is less in Deut. 7. Also in
Exod. 23:28, however, the hornet is only one of the means Yhwh uses.
to drive out, so that the one who is expelled may continue to live elsewhere.236
In some texts, the expulsion is connected with a situation of destruction (Ezek.
31:1112; Zeph. 2:4) and violence; parallels used are hif. (Num. 22:6), nif.
(Num. 22:11), and hif. (Deut. 33:27; the only text in Deuteronomy where
is found).
In Josh. 24:12,18, Yhwh is said to have expelled ( pi.) the two kings of
the Amorites and all the peoples of the land. This formulation is remarkable,
since the book of Joshua almost always declares that the resident peoples were
eliminated (see 3.4.2).237 This may indicate that the verb can also refer to
the removal of peoples in a general way, leaving aside the exact circumstances
(expulsion or destruction).
On the basis of the texts that do not deal with the nations of Canaan, it may
be concluded that pi. is usually used in the sense of to expel, to drive out,
but in a few texts it may have overtones of violence or even destruction.238
Although the use of this verb in itself does not exclude destruction, it most
likely refers to the expulsion of peoples.
29I will not drive them out before you

in one year,
otherwise the land becomes desolate
and the beasts of the field become too numerous
for you.
236 Gen. 3:24; 4:14; 21:10; Exod. 2:17; 6:1; 10:11; 11:1; Judg. 9:41; 11:2,7; 1 Kgs 2:27. In the Mesha
Inscription also (line 19), this meaning is likely.
237 The interpretation of the two kings of the Amorites is unclear. It may be a reference to
Sihon and Og. An argument in favour of this interpretation is that all other texts about the
two kings of the Amorites unambiguously refer to Sihon and Og (in Deut. 4:47; Josh. 2:10;
9:10, their names are mentioned; in Deut. 3:8, it is clear from the context and localization).
This interpretation of Josh. 24:12, however, is uncertain, both in terms of content and from
a text-critical point of view. Sihon and Og were already mentioned in Josh. 24:8; verse 11
deals with the crossing of the Jordan. Accordingly, the two kings possibly refers to the
two coalitions that Israel has fought against in Cisjordan. lxx mentions twelve kings.
Whether the text refers to Sihon and Og or to Cisjordan kings, however, other texts in
Deuteronomy and Joshua clearly refer to their extermination.
238 H. Jagersma, Exodus 2: 1940, vhb (Kampen: Kok, 2002), 9495 describes the meaning of
as gradual integration. He bases this meaning on the view that a gradual integration of
the Canaanite peoples has taken place. The semantic value of a word, however, cannot be
determined on the basis of the alleged historical reality, in particular since the command
concerning the nations of Canaan was not completely executed, according to the Old
Testament.
206 chapter 3
30Little by little I will drive them out before you,

until you become fruitful
and can possess the land.
Next, it is stated that Yhwh himself will drive out the nations of Canaan, but
He will do so little by little. These texts have a parallel in Deut. 7:22, where it is
added that Israel will not be able to make an end of them ( pi.) quickly. The
expression little by little ( ) corresponds; the verb used is different
(Exod. 23:30: ;Deut. 7:22: ). The first reason why Yhwh will not drive
out the nations quickly is absent in Deut. 7.239 The second reason is almost
literally the same (Deut. 7:22: qatal; Exod. 23:29: yiqtol).240 The end of
Exod. 23:30 (until Israel becomes fruitful and possesses the land) has no parallel
in Deut. 7. The motif of the gradual expulsion is more elaborate in Exod. 23
than in Deut. 7. In Deut. 7:22, Israels task in the removal of the nations is
explicitly indicated, and not only expulsion, but also destruction of the nations
is mentioned.
31I will set your border

from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines,
and from the wilderness to the River.
For I will give the inhabitants of the land into your
hand,
and you shall drive them out before you.
In Exod. 23:31, the territory Yhwh will give to Israel is described; in Deut. 7,
nothing is stated about the borders of the land. The promise that Yhwh will
give people into Israels hands is found in Deut. 7:24 only concerning the
kings of the Canaanite peoples. The expression , however, is used in
Deut. 7 (Deut. 7:2,23). The verb is not used in Deut. 7; the verb is used
concerning the nations of Canaan, with Yhwh as its subject and followed by
the adjunct . In Exod. 23:31, it is remarkable that Israel is the subject of ;
in verses 29 and 30, Yhwh was the subject (and in verse 28, the hornets). Some
of the Versions (sp, lxx, v) have a subject 1st person sg. (Yhwh) in verse 31 as
well, as in verses 29 and 30.241
239 It is present in lxx-Deut. 7:22; see 2.2.

240 For the increase of Israel, another verb is used than for the increase of the beasts ( and
;)Jacob, Exodus, 735.
241 Ibid., 736 states that the suffix is used only in poetry and indicates a connection
32You shall make no covenant with them and their

gods.
The prohibition to make a covenant has an almost verbal parallel in Deut. 7:2.
In Exod. 23:32, this is extended to the gods of the Canaanite peoples, which are
not mentioned in Deut. 7:2. In Deut. 7, the prohibition is elaborated on in a
prohibition of intermarriage.
33They shall not dwell in your land,

otherwise they will make you sin against me,
if you serve their gods;
for that will be a snare to you.
The section in Exod. 23 is closed by the remark that the Canaanite peoples
may not live in Israels land, which suggests that they could continue to live
elsewhere. The reference to the land as Israels land is not found in Deut. 7;
rather, in Deuteronomy Canaan is called their land (Deut. 4:38; 9:5; 12:29; 19:1).
The statement that the result of coexistence would be that Israel will go and
serve the gods of these nations, has a parallel in Deut. 7:4; the verb is
not used, however. The exhortation not to serve their gods, since that would
be a snare, has a parallel in Deut. 7:16. In that text, the command to devour
these nations and not to pity them is followed by a prohibition to serve their
gods, for that is a snare to Israel. In Deut. 7:16, the latter clause is a nominal
clause.242
The comparison above makes it clear that there are both similarities and
differences between Exod. 23 and Deut. 7. On the one hand, there are clear
similarities between both texts; in particular the list of the nations (Exod. 23:23;
Deut. 7:1), the command to smash the sacred pillars (Exod. 23:24; Deut. 7:5),
with Exod. 15. It is unlikely, however, that the form of a suffix indicates intertextual
relationships. Jacobs thesis that indicates intolerance against an individual lacks
evidence as well.
242 According to Osumi, Die Kompositionsgeschichte des Bundesbuches, 215, the reason for
the command in Exod. 23:33 to drive out the Canaanite peoples is the danger of serving
their gods. In Deut. 7:16, on the contrary, the command to destroy these nations would be
unrelated to the prohibition to serve their gods. However, in the context of Deut. 7:16 and
also in the verse itself (do not pity them is followed by you shall not serve their gods),
the connection between these two parts is clearly present. Therefore, it is incorrect to
contrast Exod. 23 and Deut. 7 at this point.
208 chapter 3
Yhwhs blessing with the promise that He will take away sickness and infertility
(Exod. 23:2526; Deut. 7:1315), the confusion Yhwh will throw among Israels
enemies (Exod. 23:27; Deut. 7:23), the hornets Yhwh will send (Exod. 23:28;
Deut. 7:20), the fact that the nations will disappear from Canaan only little by
little (Exod. 23:2930; Deut. 7:22), the prohibition on making a covenant (Exod.
23:32; Deut. 7:2), and the prohibition to serve their gods, since that is a snare
(Exod. 23:33; Deut. 7:16). An important correspondence in terms of content is
that in both passages the motive for the command concerning the Canaanite
peoples is religious in nature: the danger of being drawn into the idolatry of
these nations. The objective is also the same: no coexistence with the nations
of Canaan, but a life for Israel in a land where no Canaanites are living any more
and where everything that is reminiscent of their religion has been destroyed.
In Exod. 23:33, this goal is explicitly articulated; in Deut. 7 as well, it is clear that
the extermination of these nations is not a goal in itself, but a means to let Israel
serve Yhwh alone.243
On the other hand, there are clear differences between Exod. 23 and Deut. 7.
This is already clear from the fact that various elements from Exod. 23 have no
parallel in Deut. 7 and vice versa.244 However, the differences also concern the
content. In Exod. 23, the focus is on the work of Yhwh during the conquest
of Canaan; only twice, at the end of the pericope, is Israel the subject of
an action concerning the nations (verses 31b,32). In Deut. 7, there is much
more emphasis on the intended actions of Israel and Israels task is elaborated
on more broadly. In Exod. 23, what would happen if Israel lets the nations
of Canaan stay alive is touched upon briefly: that would be a sin against
Yhwh and a snare (Exod. 23:33). In Deut. 7, this danger and its consequences
are more extensively discussed (Deut. 7:4,1619,21,2526). References to Egypt,
which occur several times in Deut. 7 (Deut. 7:8,15,18), are completely absent in
Exod. 23. Finally, in Deut. 7 an additional motivation is given for the command
concerning the nations of Canaan. Israel is called a people holy to Yhwh. That
distinction from the other nations is based on the oath to the fathers and on the
character of Yhwh. These elements are absent in Exod. 23.
For the present study, the main question concerning the relationship between
Exod. 23 and Deut. 7 is whether there is a difference in view of what should
243 See 2.6. Cf. Jacob, Exodus, 733: The Torahs concern was not extermination, but the
elimination of idolatry and the danger which it posed for Israel.
244 The following verses from Exod. 23 have no parallel in Deut. 7: 23b,24a,b,25a, 26b,27a,
29b,30b,31a,33a. The following verses from Deut. 7 have no parallel in Exod. 23: 3,(4,)6
12,1719,(21,)2426.
happen to the nations of Canaan. The view of what should be done with the
cult objects of the nations corresponds (Exod. 23:24; Deut. 7:5), although this is
further elaborated on in Deut. 7. Concerning the nations themselves, however,
there seems to be a clear difference: a call to expulsion (Exod. 23) versus a call to
extermination (Deut. 7). This characterization of Exod. 23 should be nuanced,
however. On the one hand, the chapter seems to ask for expulsion of the nations
only. This is pointed out by the usual meaning of ( Exod. 23:28,29,30,31), by
the promise that the enemies will flee (Exod. 23:27), and by the end of verses 27
and 28 in comparison with the parallel in Deut. 7:20,23. On the other hand, the
beginning of the pericope speaks about annihilation ( hif., Exod. 23:23). The
text of Exod. 23 does not clarify how these verbs relate to each other; the focus
is on expulsion, but there is a hint of destruction.
As for Deut. 7, it has become clear that Israel is called to exterminate the
Canaanite peoples. Since this concerns the situation within Canaan, strictly
speaking expulsion of these nations is not prohibited or excluded. The com-
mand in Deut. 7, however, is much more focused on the extermination of the
nations of Canaan than the command in Exod. 23. This is clear in particu-
lar from the use of the verb ( Deut. 7:2) and the exhortation not to show
mercy to these nations, nor to pity them (Deut. 7:2,16; see the exegesis in 2.4).
The Deuteronomic command, therefore, is more radical than the command in
Exod. 23, and places more emphasis on the task of Israel. It is important to note,
however, that the message of Exod. 23 goes beyond expulsion only; moreover,
the religious motivation and the purpose of Exod. 23 and Deut. 7 (no coexis-
tence with the Canaanites) correspond.245
The preceding discussion was based on the canonical form of Exod. 23:20
33, but it may be useful to discuss briefly the view of Yuichi Osumi on the
history of origin of this passage. This view is relevant, since Osumi argues that
in this history a shift takes place in the requested attitude of Israel toward the
nations of Canaan.246 In the oldest part of Exod. 23, according to Osumi, no
military action is assumed at all, but coexistence of Israel and the Canaan-
ite peoples; Israel is only not allowed to make a covenant with them. When
verses 23b,2831a were inserted, the text would advocate expulsion of the
nations, but the only one acting is Yhwh. In verse 31b, it is stated that Yhwh
245 Cf. Houtman, Exodus, 3:271272.

246 According to Osumi, the oldest part of Exod. 23 consists of verses 2021a,21b,2223a,24,
32,33b (2P.Sg.Schicht). Next, verses 23b,2831a would have been inserted, and later
on verses 21b,25a,31b (2.P.Pl.Stze). Finally (after Deut. 7), verses 25a,25b26,27,
31b,33a,33b would have been added. See Osumi, Die Kompositionsgeschichte des Bun-
desbuches, 217.
210 chapter 3
gives over the nations to Israel. Only in the final redaction of this passage
would Israel come to play an active role in the expulsion. In short, in Exod.
23:2033 spiegelt sich die ganze Geschichte der Haltung Israels gegenber der
Urbevlkerung, die von dem Gedanken einer Koexistenz ohne Bndnis (so die
2.P.Sg.Schicht) bis hin zur totalen Vertreibung aus dem Land (so die Endredak-
tion) reichte.247
Since this paragraph is based on the canonical form of Exod. 23:2033, it
is not necessary to discuss Osumis detailed argumentation for his view on
the history of origin of this passage. However, even if one would adopt this
view, his thesis on the development of Israels attitude toward the nations
of Canaan is not yet proven. In particular Osumis view that the oldest part
of Exod. 23 assumes coexistence is questionable. In Exod. 23:22, it is stated
that Yhwh will be an enemy for Israels enemies and an adversary for Israels
adversaries. Osumis comment that this is not about enmity im kriegerischen
Sinne, is unconvincing in view of the terminology used (, /). Exod.
23:24, according to Osumi, only means that Israel should terminate the wor-
ship of other gods, which it has brought or taken over.248 The text, however,
speaks about their gods, which Israel may not serve, and their works and
sacred pillars, which Israel should destroy. The thesis that a picture is painted
of coexistence without battle is therefore untenable; even the oldest part of
Exod. 23 (in Osumis view) describes enmity between Israel and the nations of
Canaan.
Finally, the question of the literary relation between Exod. 23 and Deut. 7
should be discussed.249 According to several authors, Deut. 7 is literarily depen-
dent on Exod. 23. This hypothesis could explain the text of Deut. 7:5,1315,23 as
an elaboration of the parallels in Exod. 23. Others have argued that Exod. 23 is
literarily dependent on Deut. 7. This could explain the text of Exod. 23:24a,29 as
an elaboration of the parallels in Deut. 7. The latter hypothesis, however, also
provides a number of problems. It is difficult to explain why so many elements
from Deut. 7:5,1315 were left out in the parallel texts in Exod. 23. This objection
applies even more to the question why such large and substantively significant
parts of Deut. 7 (see above) do not return in Exod. 23.250 In my opinion, how-
247 Ibid., 216. This view on the origin of Exod. 23 has been adopted by Osumis supervisor,
Crsemann, Die Tora, 153154.
248 Osumi, Die Kompositionsgeschichte des Bundesbuches, 65.
249 For references to the different positions, see p. 198 n. 216 above.
250 Contra Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheiung und Gebot, 258269, 287, who states that
Exod. 23 is younger than Deut. 7.
ever, the similarities between the two passages are not so specific that they can
substantiate a hypothesis of literary dependence. It cannot be demonstrated
for any text in Exod. 23 or Deut. 7 that it is a quotation from or a clear allusion to
the other chapter; next to the similarities, there are always striking differences
as well.251 The many correspondences in content and vocabulary may best be
explained by the hypothesis that Exod. 23 and Deut. 7 go back to a common
tradition, which is elaborated in different ways.252
3.3.2 Comparison with Exod. 34:1116

Exod. 34:1116 is part of Exod. 34:1026, one of the most studied and most con-
troversial passages of the Old Testament. In this section, only the relationship
with Deut. 7 (and Exod. 23:2033) is dealt with.253
11Observe
what I command you today.
Behold, I am about to drive out before you

the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites,
the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.
In Exod. 34:10, it is told that Yhwh is making a covenant with Israel, and that He
will perform marvels. On the basis of this, Israel is called to observe everything
that Yhwh commands them. The call to observe Yhwhs commandments has
a parallel in Deut. 7:11. The subordinate clause what I command you today is
an independent object in Exod. 34:11 () . In Deuteronomy, this subordi-
nate clause is often used, but always as an adjective clause of a designation
for Yhwhs commandments, never as an independent object.254 Formally, a
connection is not expressed in Exod. 34:1011 between the exhortation to obe-
dience and the following promise that Yhwh will drive out the nations. Obe-
251 Literary dependence is assumed by Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 201;
Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden, 2021.
252 Cf. Childs, Exodus, 461; Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, 175176. This possibility is not considered
by Seitz, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien, 7778, who immediately states that Exod. 23
cannot be an original unity: Zu deutlich sind die Dubletten und das Nebeneinander von
auffallender hnlichkeit mit dtr Gut auf der einen und Unabhngigkeit von ihm auf der
anderen Seite.
253 See for the history of the older research: Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes, 1355; Wilms,
Das jahwistische Bundesbuch, 15135; for the more recent research: Konkel, Snde und
Vergebung, 1330.
254 Cf. Jacob, Exodus, 989.
212 chapter 3
dience is not mentioned as a condition for the promise.255 Since the call to
obedience is surrounded by two promises, however, implicitly a connection is
indicated.
Yhwh will drive out six nations before Israel.256 For driving out these
nations, the verb qal is used in Exod. 34:11; in Exod. 23, the pi. is used
(see 3.3.1). According to Frank Crsemann, the meaning of the pi. is sharper,
and that meaning is not to be read into this text. The qal, according to him,
means to outcast. This would assume a situation in which Israel and the
nations of Canaan live side by side, but are clearly distinguished.257 However,
the semantic value of qal is difficult to determine, since the verb is never
used in a context similar to Exod. 34. The ptc.pass. is used for a woman who
has been defiled by her man (Lev. 21:7,14; 22:13; Num. 30:10; Ezek. 44:22). The
only other text where qal is used is about a restless sea, tossing up mire
and dirt (Isa. 57:20). In all these texts, qal indicates a movement, which
may be described as to expel, to cast out. Although it is likely that there is
some difference between the meaning of the qal and the pi., and the latter may
be sharper indeed, the qal of also seems to indicate a movement. It is not
likely, therefore, that Exod. 34:11 would presuppose coexistence.258
12Take care
not to make a covenant
with the inhabitant of the land
which you are going in,
otherwise he will become a snare in your midst.
Israel is warned not to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, which
would be opposite to the covenant Yhwh has made with Israel (Exod. 34:10).
The formulation is not used in Deut. 7. The call not to make a covenant
with the inhabitants of Canaan has a parallel in Exod. 23:32 and Deut. 7:2. In
Deut. 7:2, this is an elaboration of the command to exterminate the nations of
Canaan.259 The inhabitant of the land in Exod. 34:12 refers to the list of nations
255 Cf. Houtman, Exodus, 3:720721.

256 For a discussion of the lists of the nations, see 2.4, Excursus: Lists of the nations. See also
Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes, 142146.
257 Crsemann, Die Tora, 151152.
258 The same is true for the view of Osumi, Die Kompositionsgeschichte des Bundesbuches, 75,
that is not to be understood militarily, but that it only indicates that Yhwh makes a
covenant with Israel alone.
259 Wilms, Das jahwistische Bundesbuch, 154, 191 states that Exod. 34:12 is about a vassal treaty,
in verse 11.260 This designation is not used in Deuteronomy for the Canaanite
peoples; it is used in Exod. 23:31 (in the plural). If Israel makes a covenant
with the nations of Canaan, they will be a snare for Israel. The warning of a
snare has a parallel in Exod. 23:33 and Deut. 7:16. Since the text speaks about a
snare in your midst, it is not likely that the snare in Exod. 34:12 refers to the
covenant with the nations. Rather, the subject of must be the inhabitant
of the land. The nations of Canaan themselves are the snare; this is further
elaborated on in verses 1516. In Exod. 23:33, and certainly in Deut. 7:16, not
the nations of Canaan themselves seem to be the snare, but the service of their
gods.
13But break down their altars,

smash their sacred pillars,
and cut down their Asherahs.
The command to destroy the altars, the sacred pillars, and the Asherahs of
the Canaanites has a clear parallel in Deut. 7:5, where the three cult objects
are mentioned in the same order. Concerning the altars and the sacred pillars,
the same verb is used in Exod. 34 and Deut. 7; as for the Asherahs, the verb is
different (Exod. 34:13: ;Deut. 7:5: pi.). In Deut. 7:5, after an introduction
(but thus you shall deal with them) and the three elements of Exod. 34:13,
a fourth element is added: burn their idols with fire. lxx of Exod. 34:13 also
has this element; this may be explained as a harmonization with Deut. 7:5,25;
12:3.261 It is remarkable that this element is missing in Exod. 34:13, because
Exod. 32:20 described how the golden calf was burnt. Finally, there are some
in contrast to a treaty between equal parties in Deut. 7. However, there are no indications
in Exod. 34:12 that a vassal treaty is meant, unless one interprets the combination as
a designation for a victory (in Deuteronomy, this expression is not used for Israels coming
into the land). In Deut. 7, however, a vassal treaty probably is intended; see the exegesis of
Deut. 7:2, pp. 7374.
260 Erhard Blum, Das sog. Privilegrecht in Exodus 34,1126: Ein Fixpunkt der Komposition
des Exodusbuches?, in Studies in the Book of Exodus: RedactionReceptionInterpre-
tation, ed. Marc Vervenne, BEThL 126 (Leuven: University Press, 1996), 352353, 364 states
that the expression is used here from the perspective before the conquest of the
land. Konkel, Snde und Vergebung, 199200 disputes this and believes that the expression
is used as a contrast with the owner of the land, namely Yhwh. Konkels idea that the
expression in verse 12 may have a broader reference than the nations of Canaan, if verse 12
is read separate from verse 11, may be left aside for this study.
261 Cf. 11qta ii, 78; Qimron, Temple Scroll, 11. In a quotation from Exod. 34:1016, the fourth
element from Deut. 7:5 is inserted after verse 13, together with Deut. 7:2526.
214 chapter 3
grammatical differences between Exod. 34:13 and Deut. 7:5 (the form of the
suffix, the paragogic nun, the use of ). From the cult objects of Exod. 34:13,
only the sacred pillars are mentioned in Exod. 23:24, together with another
object: (the images of) the gods. Because of the many similarities between
Exod. 34:13 and Deut. 7:5, it seems obvious to assume that one text is dependent
on the other. The most plausible explanation is that Deut. 7:5 is an elaboration
of Exod. 34:13. It is more likely that the enumeration was elaborated on to
make it as comprehensive as possible, than that the command to burn the
idols would have been left out, in particular since the golden calf was burnt just
before in the text of Exodus.262 In the elaboration in Deut. 7:5, (the tradition of)
Exod. 23:24 may also have played a role, since there it is commanded to destroy
( pi.) the works (images, see 3.3.1). Regarding the destruction of the cult
objects, the typological order of these texts thus seems to be: Exod. 23:24Exod.
34:13Deut. 7:5.
14For you shall worship no other god,

for Yhwhs name is jealous,
a jealous God He is.
Israel should destroy the cult objects of the Canaanite peoples. If these cult
objects would remain present, apparently together with the nations of Canaan
themselves (cf. verses 12,1516), the danger of serving other gods is considered
great. The call not to bow down to any other than Yhwh has a parallel in Exod.
23:24, where the plural is used (their gods), in contrast to the singular in Exod.
34:14 (another god). This is the only text in the Old Testament where the
combination is used in the singular. Deut. 7:4,16 also contains warnings
against serving other gods, but this is not a direct parallel.
The motivation for this prohibition in Exod. 34 is that Yhwh is jealous ().
The only other text where Yhwh is called in Exodus is in the Decalogue
(Exod. 20:5). It is possible, therefore, that Exod. 34:14, as well as the parallel
262 So also Osumi, Die Kompositionsgeschichte des Bundesbuches, 73. Otherwise Achenbach,
Israel zwischen Verheiung und Gebot, 277278; Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden, 27, who
on the basis of the change of number believe that Exod. 34:13 is derived from Deut. 7:5.
However, they do not give an explanation why the fourth element from Deut. 7:5 would
have been left out. Konkel, Snde und Vergebung, 191192 gives a possible explanation
why Exod. 34:13 could have left out the last element from Deut. 7:5: the suffix in the third
person sg. ( )would lead back to the Grundtext; the verb would be a conscious
counterpart of ( verses 12,15). Konkel himself, however, considers it more likely
that Exod. 34:13 is older.
Exod. 23:24, refers to the Decalogue. In Deut. 7, a characterization of Yhwh as

jealous is absent. The character of Yhwh is referred to, however, as a motivation
for keeping the commandments. In Deut. 7:910, it is stated that He is the
faithful God, who keeps the covenant and the faithful love with those who love
Him, and that He repays those personally who hate Him.263
15(Take care) you do not make a covenant

with the inhabitant of the land,
and they whore after their gods
and sacrifice to their gods,
and they invite you,
and you eat of his sacrifice,
In Exod. 34:1516, the consequences are discussed if Israel will live peacefully
together with the nations of Canaan. The beginning of verse 15 ( )refers
back to the warning from verse 12 () . Not to make a covenant with
the inhabitant of the land is a verbal repetition of verse 12. If Israel would
make a covenant, these nations would prostitute themselves with their gods
and sacrifice to their gods. In that case, it could happen that someone invites
an Israelite, and he would eat of the sacrifice. Israel thus should not make a
covenant due to its religious consequences, namely the apostasy from
Yhwh.264 The description of the religion of the Canaanites as prostituting
themselves ( )of course is a characterization from an Israelite perspec-
tive.265 In Exodus, the verb is used only in Exod. 34:1516; in Deuteronomy,
it is used only in Deut. 31:16 in a metaphorical sense. In Exod. 34 also, it seems
to be used in a metaphorical sense; there are no indications that certain sexual
practices are alluded to, which would have been characteristic for the Canaan-
ite cult.266 The subject of the verbs and in Exod. 34:15 are the nations of
263 Crsemann, Die Tora, 155156 states that a threat for Israel if it does not keep Yhwhs
commands is missing in Exod. 34, in contrast to Deut. 7. However, although this element
is more evident in Deut. 7, it is certainly present in the characterization of Yhwh as
( cf. verse 10: ) .
264 Thus, the reason for this command is not that the gods of the other nation have to be
called as witnesses in making the covenant. Cf. Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des
Pentateuch, bzaw 189 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1990), 372373; Blum, Das sog. Privilegrecht,
350.
266 Contra Crsemann, Die Tora, 148, who assumes a direct connection between the sacrificial
meals, sexual temptation in the sacrificial meals, and marriages resulting from this. Crse-
216 chapter 3
Canaan, not Israel. According to this verse, however, the danger exists that the
Israelites are invited to and participate in the sacrificial meals. In Deut. 7, this
concrete danger in the contact with the Canaanite peoples is not mentioned.
Exod. 23:33 (otherwise they will make you sin against me) may be considered
as a parallel in terms of content.
16and you take from his daughters for your sons,

and his daughters whore after their gods,
and make your sons whore after their gods.
Another danger of a covenant with the Canaanites is that it would lead to

mixed marriages and idolatry by the Israelites. Mixed marriages are also dealt
with in Deut. 7:3, where they are explicitly prohibited. Such a prohibition is
missing in Exod. 34:16. In Deut. 7:3, it is not only forbidden that a Canaanite
woman marries an Israelite man, but also vice versa. lxx-Exod. 34:16 (and s)
adds this possibility ( ). This is not
a quotation from lxx-Deut. 7:3, but it may be explained as a harmonization
with Deut. 7:3 in terms of content. Although Deut. 7:3 contains an explicit
prohibition on intermarriage and elaborates on this, it cannot be stated that
Deut. 7:3 goes beyond Exod. 34:16. Exod. 34 deals with the consequences of a
covenant with the nations of Canaan. Although intermarriage is not explicitly
prohibited, this is certainly assumed as an elaboration of the prohibition on
making a covenant.267 It is more likely that the prohibition of intermarriage
is explicated and elaborated on in Deut. 7:3 than that elements from Deut. 7:3
would have been left out in Exod. 34:16. In Exod. 23, mixed marriages with the
nations of Canaan are not discussed.
A result of mixed marriages would be that the Canaanite women make their
Israelite men whore after their gods. This has a parallel in Deut. 7:4, where it is
mentioned as a result of intermarriage that the Israelites would turn away from
behind Yhwh and would serve other gods. The following warning that in that
case the anger of Yhwh will be kindled and He will destroy them, is missing
in Exod. 34:16. The notion of Yhwhs anger against Israels idolatry is present
in the broader context of Exod. 3234, namely in the punishment of the sin of
the golden calf (Exod. 32:2728). At this point too, the typological order Exod.
34Deut. 7 is more likely than that the notion of Yhwhs judgment would have
been left out in Exod. 34.
manns thesis (Ibid., 154155) that the concreteness of Exod. 34 (sacrificial meals, sexual
temptation) has disappeared in Deut. 7, is therefore likewise untenable.
267 Konkel, Snde und Vergebung, 195196.
The comparison above shows both similarities and differences between Exod.
34:1116 and Deut. 7. The similarities are: the list of nations (Exod. 34:11; Deut.
7:1), the prohibition to make a covenant with the nations of Canaan (Exod.
34:12,15; Deut. 7:2), the warning for a snare (Exod. 34:12; Deut. 7:16), the com-
mand to destroy the altars, sacred pillars, and Asherahs (Exod. 34:13; Deut.
7:5), and the warning for mixed marriages because of the religious conse-
quences (Exod. 34:1516; Deut. 7:34). It should be noted that these parallels
mainly regard Deut. 7:15. A correspondence in terms of content is the reli-
gious motivation of the command concerning the Canaanite peoples: the only
reason mentioned is the danger that Israel is drawn into serving the gods of the
nations, and is thus drawn away from the service of Yhwh alone (Exod. 34:15
16; Deut. 7:4,16,2526).
Given the length of Exod. 34:1116, it is clear that there are significant dif-
ferences between this passage and Deut. 7. In Exod. 34, the emphasis is on the
prohibition to make a covenant with the nations of Canaan and on the reason
for that prohibition. A significant difference is that in Exod. 34 it is stated only
that Yhwh will drive out the nations (Exod. 34:11). Nothing is said about a pos-
sible task for Israel in the expulsion. Neither does Exod. 34 deal with the manner
or the speed of the expulsion, whereas both Exod. 23 and Deut. 7 dwell on
this. It may be deduced from the emphatic prohibition on making a covenant
and on intermarriage, however, that the expulsion of the nations apparently is
not immediately completed, according to Exod. 34.268 Another motif, which is
described in Exod. 23 and Deut. 7, but not in Exod. 34, is the blessing Yhwh
promises if Israel keeps his commandments (cf. Exod. 34:24). This is related to
the fact that the motivation for separation from the nations is mainly negative
in Exod. 34 (otherwise it will lead to idolatry), whereas in Deut. 7 a positive
motivation is also given. Elements that are unique in Exod. 34, compared to
Exod. 23 and Deut. 7, are the motivation from Yhwh as the jealous God (Exod.
34:14) and the warning regarding sacrificial meals (Exod. 34:15).
Little is said about the fate of the Canaanite peoples in Exod. 34. Yhwh will
drive out these nations before Israel. Since the verb qal is never used in
a similar context, it cannot be demonstrated whether the qal has a semantic
value significantly different from the pi. In Exod. 34, there are few data available
on the underlying idea of what should happen to the Canaanite peoples. In the
268 Konkel, Ibid., 130 states that there is a clear break between verses 11 and 12, because in
verse 11 the expulsion of the nations of Canaan is promised, while in verse 12 their presence
in the land is assumed. In analogy with the exegesis of Deut. 7:2 ( 2.4), this difference
may be interpreted as an indication that the expulsion apparently is not immediately
completed, or as an underlining of the absoluteness of the command.
218 chapter 3
direct context, Exod. 34:24 may be noted, where Yhwh says that He will destroy
( hif.) nations before Israel. The meaning of hif. has been discussed in
the exegesis of Deut. 7:17 (2.4). The only other text in Exodus where this verb
is used (Exod. 15:9, parallel to to draw the sword) confirms the meaning to
destroy. As for Exod. 34, as well as for Exod. 23, it may be concluded that the
command in Deut. 7 is more radical and more specific about the task of Israel.
Although destruction is mentioned in the direct context (Exod. 34:24), Exod.
34:1116 only mentions the expulsion of the resident peoples of Canaan, to be
executed by Yhwh. Israel is warned not to make a covenant with the nations,
and commanded to destroy their cult objects, but it is not called to any active
measure toward the nations themselves.
Finally, the question of the literary relation between Exod. 23, Exod. 34 and
Deut. 7 should be discussed.269 Some have argued that Exod. 34 is dependent
on Deut. 7. This hypothesis, however, encounters the objection that it is difficult
to explain why in Exod. 34:13,16 elements from the parallel in Deut. 7 have been
left out, and why many other elements from Deut. 7 are missing.270 Others
have stated that Deut. 7 is dependent on Exod. 34. This hypothesis will have to
explain why Exod. 34:14 has no parallel in Deut. 7. Some elements from Exod.
34:13,16 may be explained plausibly if the typological order Exod. 34Deut. 7 is
assumed. As for Exod. 34:13 in particular, it is a real possibility that Deut. 7:5 is
literarily dependent on it.
The relationship between Exod. 23 and Exod. 34 has been extensively dis-
cussed. Some authors argue that Exod. 23 is an elaboration of Exod. 34.271
269 Blum, Das sog. Privilegrecht, 359360 doubts whether something may be said about this:
Die Mglichkeit, aus solchen Gegenberstellungen eine gleichsam typologisch fundierte
relatieve Chronologie herzuleiten, bleibt jedoch () in Ermangelung einer hinreichenden
Datenbasis und tragfhiger Parameter fraglich.
270 Achenbach, Israel zwischen Verheiung und Gebot, 269283; Perlitt, Bundestheologie im
Alten Testament, 216232 argue that Exod. 34:1116 is adapted from Deut. 7:15. For Achen-
bach, this hypothesis implies that the command concerning the Canaanite peoples is
weakened. Das dtn. Vertragsverbot wird in [Exod. 34]v.15f. einseitig auf das Mischehen-
verbot hin interpretiert. (Ibid., 278) Achenbach even states that concerning the prohibi-
tion on mixed marriages, Exod. 34 is more rigid than Deut. 7. This hypothesis is unlikely,
however, because it does not make clear why in Exod. 34 all the emphasis is on the pro-
hibition to intermarry, which is tightened according to Achenbach, whereas the attitude
toward the Canaanite peoples as a whole would have been loosened.
271 Crsemann, Die Tora, 153156; Halbe, Das Privilegrecht Jahwes, 492; Osumi, Die Komposi-
tionsgeschichte des Bundesbuches, 219. This statement regards what these authors consider
to be the oldest phase of Exod. 34:1116.
Others, on the contrary, state that Exod. 23 is the source of Exod. 34.272 Others
again consider Exod. 23 and 34 to be independent from each other.273 It is
not possible to discuss all opinions here, partly because also Exod. 23:1419
and Exod. 34:1726, which are not treated here, play a role in this discussion.
In terms of content, it should be noted that various elements from Exod. 23
are missing in Exod. 34 (see above). At the same time, a number of elements
are elaborated on in Exod. 34, in particular the consequences if Israel would
coexist with the nations of Canaan (Exod. 23:33; 34:12,1516) and the command
to destroy the cult objects of these nations (Exod. 23:24; 34:13). Deut. 7 has more
similarities with Exod. 23 than with Exod. 34. However, there are also elements
from Deut. 7 that agree with Exod. 34, but that are missing in Exod. 23. This
concerns the destruction of altars and Asherahs (Exod. 34:13; Deut. 7:5) and
the religious consequences of mixed marriages (Exod. 34:1516; Deut. 7:34).
In view of these similarities and differences, it seems most likely that Deut. 7
builds on both the tradition that underlies Exod. 23 and the tradition that
underlies Exod. 34. Since there are hardly any formulations (except for Exod.
34:13; Deut. 7:5) that correspond to a large extent, this hypothesis is to be
preferred above any hypothesis of literary dependence.
3.3.3 Development in the Attitude toward the Nations of Canaan

This section deals with the question of whether there is a historical develop-
ment in the texts discussed on the Canaanite peoples. Some elements of this
question were already mentioned in the previous sections. In this section, these
elements come together and the conclusions from the comparison of Deut. 7
with Exod. 23:2033 and Exod. 34:1116 are confronted with the views of Moshe
Weinfeld and Frank Crsemann.
In an interesting article, Weinfeld has posited the thesis that there is a devel-
opment in the laws concerning the nations of Canaan. His thesis is based on
the canonical form of the texts. In the oldest phase (Exod. 23:2033; 34:1116),
Israel would have been commanded to expel ( )these nations. In a second
phase (Num. 33:5055), the verb hif. is used, which according to Weinfeld
may be interpreted as expulsion or as destruction. In the third phase (Deut. 7:2;
20:1617), total extermination of the nations of Canaan is commanded (
hif.). Thus, there would be a development from the Covenant Code via p to
272 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 195; Houtman, Exodus, 3:262263;
Konkel, Snde und Vergebung, 302. So already Bernardus D. Eerdmans, Alttestamentliche
Studien iii: Das Buch Exodus (Gieen: Tpelmann, 1910), 88.
220 chapter 3
Deuteronomy. Since not all Canaanite peoples were ever destroyed, the com-
mand to exterminate these nations, according to Weinfeld, is to be considered
as a utopian wish from the eighth or seventh century b.c. He argues that the
command to expel the nations may be situated at Gilgal in the time of Saul. The
rem would also fit in the time of Saul, but only in its original form (a vow).
Only in the time of Deuteronomy, however, was it applied to all the nations of
Canaan.274
Weinfeld has rightly pointed to differences between the commands con-
cerning the nations of Canaan in Exod. 23, Exod. 34 and Deut. 7, as has been
demonstrated earlier in this section. The way in which Weinfeld contrasts these
passages, however, should be questioned. Concerning Exod. 23, Weinfeld only
speaks about expelling ( pi.) the nations. This he contrasts with hif.
and hif. in other texts. However, he does not deal with the promise from
Exod. 23:23 that Yhwh will annihilate the nations ( hif., Weinfelds transla-
tion). Although Deut. 7 is more explicit about the extermination of the Canaan-
ite peoples, the picture in Exod. 23 is less straightforward than Weinfeld indi-
cates (see 3.3.1, pp. 204205).
In his conclusions, Weinfeld reckons both Exod. 23:2033 and Exod. 34:11
16 to the first phase of the command concerning the nations of Canaan. At
the same time, however, he signals a difference between these two passages. In
Exod. 34, social contact and mixed marriages are prohibited. Exod. 23 would not
deal with these matters, since all emphasis is on the expulsion of the Canaanite
peoples. A prohibition of intermarriage would be superfluous after the expul-
sion.275 Weinfeld, however, ignores the fact that it is extensively indicated in
Exod. 23 that the expulsion of the nations of Canaan will take place little by lit-
tle (Exod. 23:2930). Therefore, there is no reason to assume that a prohibition
of making a covenant and of intermarriage would be superfluous. Although a
prohibition of intermarriage is not present in Exod. 23, Israel is forbidden to
make a covenant with these nations (Exod. 23:32).
The historical setting of the command proposed by Weinfeld need not be
discussed here (see 4.3). It is remarkable, however, that Weinfeld situates both
274 Weinfeld, Ban on the Canaanites. See already Moshe Weinfeld, ,

, Zion 53 (1988): 135147, and an initial
impetus in Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 4648. Cf. Schwartz,
Reexamining the Fate of the Canaanites, 160164. Different from Weinfeld, Schwartz
does not attribute the passage from Num. 33 to p (or h). He considers Num. 33:52,5556 as
a later interpolation. Moreover, he considers the meaning of hif. too unclear to place
it in a historical development between Exod. 23, Exod. 34 and Deut. 7.
275 Weinfeld, Ban on the Canaanites, 145146.
the command to expel the nations of Canaan and the alleged original form of
the rem in the time of Saul. This relativizes his thesis of a historical devel-
opment. The only difference with the Deuteronomic rem would be that the
Deuteronomic command applies to all the nations of Canaan, whereas in the
time of Saul a concrete encounter with the Amalekites is in view.276 The story
of Sauls battle against Amalek (1Sam. 15), however, is about an extermination
which is commanded by Yhwh and for which Saul has to take the initiative.
Thus, the difference with the Deuteronomic command in Weinfelds view does
not concern the radicalness of the rem, but only its range.
In conclusion, there is a difference between the command concerning the
nations of Canaan in Exod. 23 and 34, on the one hand, and in Deut. 7, on
the other (see 3.3.1 and 3.3.2). This concerns mainly the radical nature of the
command and the task of Israel in its execution. This development, however, is
more complex than Weinfeld suggests.
Another view on the development of Israels attitude toward the nations of

Canaan has been proposed by Frank Crsemann. According to him, the histor-
ical sequence of the texts is: Exod. 34Exod. 23Deut. 7. He views a threefold
development in these texts. First, according to Crsemann, there is a radical-
ization. Exod. 34 would assume the situation that Israel and the Canaanite
peoples live in coexistence, but are clearly distinguished. In Exod. 23, violence
against these nations is mentioned, but only by Yhwh.277 In Deut. 7, their total
destruction is commanded. Second, according to Crsemann, there is a pro-
cess of historicizing. Exod. 34 would be a word of God to Israel in the present. In
Exod. 23, and even more strongly in Deut. 7, this is connected with the entrance
into the land of Canaan. The concrete situation would then retreat into the
background. Third, there would be a marginalization. In Exod. 34, the com-
mand concerning the nations of Canaan is part of the fundamental rules for
the worship of Yhwh. In Exod. 23, this command is moved to an appendix of
the Covenant Code. In Deut. 7, it would be totally unrelated to the concrete
laws in Deut. 1226, and therefore to the requirements for the present.278
276 In the other situations Weinfeld, Ibid., 157158, mentions, namely the Gibeonites and the
inhabitants of Nob, the root is not used.
277 Crsemann follows the view of Osumi, Die Kompositionsgeschichte des Bundesbuches, 65
68, 214215 on the composition of Exod. 23, which reckons the command to Israel to expel
the nations (Exod. 23:31b) to the latest redaction of the text (after Deut. 7). See also above,
pp. 209210.
222 chapter 3
Earlier in this section, it has already been demonstrated that Crsemanns

view on the sequence of Exod. 34, Exod. 23 and Deut. 7 may be questioned
at several points, and that his interpretation of the command in Exod. 23 and
Exod. 34 has serious flaws.279 Therefore, his view on the development of Israels
attitude toward the nations of Canaan is untenable.
3.3.4 Conclusion
There are both large similarities and clear differences between Exod. 23:20
33, Exod. 34:1116 and Deut. 7. The main similarity is that these texts have
the objective of the removal of the indigenous population from the land of
Canaan, in order to prevent any close contacts between them and Israel. The
motivation for the command concerning the nations of Canaan is exclusively
religious in nature. The main difference between these texts is that Deut. 7
asks more explicitly and more radically for the extermination of the Canaanite
peoples than is done in Exod. 23 and 34. In addition, Deut. 7 more explicitly
deals with the task of Israel in this extermination.280 However, Exod. 23 also
alludes to more than just expulsion and mentions Israels role. It is likely that
Deut. 7 builds on both the tradition that underlies Exod. 23 and the tradition
that underlies Exod. 34. Literary dependence between these passages cannot be
demonstrated, however. In the next section, the background of the radicaliza-
tion of the command in Deut. 7 is investigated (see 3.4.1; 3.4.5) and the devel-
opment of the relation between Israel and the Canaanites is sketched ( 3.4.7).
3.4 The Command of Deut. 7 in the Context of the Old Testament
This section examines how the attitude toward the nations of Canaan in Deut. 7
relates to the way in which these nations are treated in the rest of the Old
Testament. I will focus primarily on the literary work of Genesis to Kings, since
the nations of Canaan are mentioned mainly in these books. Only those texts
that explicitly refer to an activity of Yhwh or of Israel directed to the nations
of Canaan are discussed. Texts that may refer to practices of these nations, but
without explicit mention of the nations, are left aside. The relation between
the literary traditions and historical reality will be dealt with in chap. 4.
279 See the passage on Exod. 34:11 (3.3.2, p. 212) and the footnotes 46, 263 and 266 of this
chapter (pp. 151152, 215216).
280 Cf. Schwartz, Reexamining the Fate of the Canaanites, 159. Compare the difference
between Deut. 25, where Israel is the subject of the destruction of Amalek, and Exod. 17,
where Yhwh is the subject (3.2.2).
When this section refers to the nations of Canaan, this designates the
peoples that lived in the land of Canaan before Israel. The command in Deut. 7
is limited to nations in the land of Canaan. The Old Testament does not contain
any indications of or calls to exterminate the seven nations outside the land
promised to Israel. In addition to the seven nations mentioned in Deut. 7, some
other nations are mentioned in the Old Testament that would have lived in
Canaan before Israel.281 These nations, however, rarely occur in a list of nations.
It is likely that the seven nations of Deut. 7:1 represent the entire pre-Israelite
population of Canaan. The Amalekites and the Philistines are not reckoned to
the pre-Israelite population of Canaan.282 In the Old Testament, the Amalekites
are mentioned occasionally together with the nations of Canaan (Num. 13:29;
14:25,43,45), but they are clearly distinguished from these nations (cf. 3.2.2).
The five lords of the Philistines are mentioned together with the Canaanites,
the Sidonians, and the Hivites in Judg. 3:3, as the nations that Yhwh left
281 Gen. 10:1518; 15:1921. See for the nations apart from the seven mentioned in Deut. 7:1:
3.2.3.3 and Hostetter, Nations Mightier and More Numerous, 85113. In some enumer-
ations, nations outside of Canaan are mentioned in addition to the nations of Canaan
(Judg. 10:1113; Ezra 9:1). See the general considerations on the pre-Israelite population in
4.1.
282 See Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, 218219. As for the Philistines, Zeph. 2:5
seems to suggest a connection with the Canaanites. The text states that Yhwh will destroy
( hif.) all the inhabitants of the territory of the Philistines. The land of the Philistines
is designated as Canaan () . If the emendations some have proposed
are not followed, this designation is remarkable, since nowhere else in the Old Testament
is the land of the Philistines designated as Canaan. According to A.S. van der Woude,
Habakuk, Zefanja, pot (Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1978), 116, this obviously is a reference to
the tradition that the Canaanites once also lived in the southern coastal plain. However,
although the nations of Canaan are not mentioned in Zeph. 2:5, it may be considered
whether the designation Canaan is used due to the negative connotation, related to the
announced total destruction. This interpretation is hinted at by Hubert Irsigler, Zefanja,
HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2002), 235, 241243, who views Canaan as an addition, but
who does not make a connection with the extermination of the Canaanite peoples. The
interpretation that Canaan may be used as a negative characterization, connected to
destruction, may also be considered for Isa. 23:11, where Yhwh commands to destroy (
hif.) the fortresses of Canaan. It is generally accepted that Canaan refers to Phoenicia in
this text; so Wim A.M. Beuken, Jesaja 1327, HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2007), 299; Hans
Wildberger, Jesaja 139, bk (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 19721982), 2:877.
Also in the literature from the Umwelt, the designation Canaan is used in a broad sense;
this may point to the supposed relationship of the inhabitants of Tyre with the nations
of Canaan. It is also possible, however, that the characterization as Canaan in Isa. 23:11 is
used to qualify Tyre in a negative way.
224 chapter 3
to test Israel. However, the Philistines, as an external enemy, always remain

distinguished from the nations of Canaan, although they are living in the land
of the Canaanites (cf. Josh. 13:3).283
In this section, the nations of Canaan are usually referred to as a unity. This
is justified for the following reasons. First, in the Old Testament itself the pre-
Israelite population is often viewed as a unity. Several times, mention is made of
the nations that Yhwh destroyed before Israel (see 3.4.2). Second, multiple
lists of nations occur in the Old Testament. There is no fixed number of peoples;
only three times a list of seven nations occurs. Since a uniform selection
or sequence of the nations is missing, it may be assumed that the nations
mentioned in these lists (as defined in 2.4, Excursus: Lists of the nations) are
pars pro toto for the entire pre-Israelite population of Canaan. Third, the name
of one of these nations is sometimes used as a collective term to indicate the
totality of the Canaanite peoples. This is true for the Canaanites (cf. Exod. 13:11
with 13:5; Neh. 9:24 with 9:8), the Amorites (Josh. 24:15), and the Hittites (Josh.
1:4). In Exod. 23:28, the enumeration Hivites, Canaanites, and Hittites is used as
a pars pro toto for all the nations of Canaan (cf. Exod. 23:23). For these reasons, it
is justified to refer to these nations as a unity, unless there are clear indications
that a distinction is made between the various nations of Canaan. In this study,
however, no indications were found for such a distinction.
This section will address the following issues. First, it will discuss those
texts which, like Deut. 7, call for a certain treatment of the Canaanite peoples
(3.4.1). Next, the texts will be scrutinized in which this treatment is described
as having occurred (3.4.2). Then, the texts will be dealt with that indicate that
the extermination or expulsion of the Canaanite peoples is not completely exe-
cuted. The consequences of this and the integration of the nations into Israel
are also addressed (3.4.3). Fourth, I will discuss the motives mentioned for
Israels attitude toward the nations of Canaan ( 3.4.4). Finally, positive con-
tacts between Israel and the Canaanite peoples will be addressed. According
to some authors, the book of Genesis in particular shows a different attitude
toward these nations (3.4.5). In a separate section, Noahs curse of Canaan
(Gen. 9:25) and its relevance for this study will be investigated ( 3.4.6). The
section closes with a summary of the conclusions ( 3.4.7).284
283 It is remarkable that the Philistines are not reckoned to the Canaanite peoples, although
they are living in the land of Canaan, and moreover in the time of the monarchy were the
archenemies of Israel. Possibly, Deut. 2:23 may be interpreted as an indication that they
received their land from Yhwh, and therefore might not be destroyed. According to Gen.
10:14, the Philistines do not belong to the offspring of Canaan.
284 Sometimes, I will speak about the treatment of the Canaanite peoples, sometimes about
3.4.1 The Command to Defeat the Nations of Canaan

In Deut. 7, Israel is told to exterminate the nations of Canaan. In this section, I
will discuss other texts containing a command of Yhwh to Israel to expel or to
destroy the Canaanite peoples.
In the Old Testament, a direct command of Yhwh to Israel to expel or to
destroy the nations of Canaan occurs (outside of Deuteronomy) only in Exod.
23:31 and Num. 33:52.285 Exod. 23:31 has been discussed above ( 3.3.1). In Num.
33:52, Israel receives the command of Yhwh to wipe away ( hif.) all the
inhabitants of the land of Canaan, to destroy ( pi.) their images, and to
demolish ( hif.) their high places. This is followed by the command to take
possession of the land ( hif.), and to apportion it.286 If Israel does not destroy
( hif.) the inhabitants of the land, however, they will be hostile to Israel, and
Yhwh will do to Israel as He thought to do to them (Num. 33:5356). Num. 33
is situated at the border of Canaan, after the conquest of Transjordan; this
corresponds to Deut. 7 and differs from Exod. 23. The expression inhabitants
of the land ( ) corresponds to Exod. 23:31. The command to destroy
the cult objects of the nations of Canaan is essentially equivalent to Exod. 34:13;
Deut. 7:5 (cf. Exod. 23:24), but the words used in Num. 33:52 are different from
Exod. 23, Exod. 34 and Deut. 7. The verb hif. is not used to describe the
requested treatment of the nations in Exod. 23 and Deut. 7. Above, it has been
shown that this verb has the sense of to wipe away, to destroy (see the exegesis
of Deut. 7:17, 2.4). The contrast with verse 55 makes it clear that the Canaanite
peoples should no longer be in the land. The threat that Yhwh will do to Israel
their extermination, since this is the case in Deut. 7. Of course, the question of whether
extermination or expulsion is intended elsewhere in the Old Testament will have to be
addressed in discussing the texts. The investigation includes all texts that mention a
certain treatment of the nations of Canaan, not just texts about their destruction.
285 In the description of the conquest of Canaan, a number of times Israel is said to receive
a command to exterminate a certain city or area. In Num. 21:34, a command of Yhwh
to Moses is recorded to exterminate Og and his people, as was done to king Sihon. In
the capture of Jericho, Israel is told that the city and everything in it is rem for Yhwh,
which has the result that all humans and animals are exterminated ( hif.). A
sevenfold enumeration underlines the totality (Josh. 6:17,21). Israel should do to Ai as it did
to Jericho (Josh. 8:2). In the description of the division of the land, some tribes explicitly
receive the command to fight against the Canaanites ( hif., Num. 32:21; Josh. 17:18). In
all these cases, however, this concerns only a part of the population of Canaan, not the
pre-Israelite population as a whole.
286 Usually, the verb qal is used for taking possession of the land, and hif. has persons
as its object. The land or cities as the object of hif. also occurs in Num. 14:24; Josh. 17:12;
Judg. 1:27.
226 chapter 3
as He thought to do to the Canaanites, if Israel is disobedient, is also found in

Deuteronomy (Deut. 8:1920).
In sum, the command concerning the nations of Canaan in Num. 33:52 has
many similarities with Exod. 23:31 and Deut. 7 (extermination, destruction of
cult objects). As in Deut. 7, the extermination of the nations and the task of
Israel in this are explicitly mentioned. The formulation, however, is different;
therefore, there is no reason to assume literary dependence.287
Several texts do not themselves contain a direct command of Yhwh to Israel

to destroy the nations of Canaan, but they refer to such a command.288 In Josh.
9:24, it is said that the Gibeonites deceived Israel, because they were in fear
for their lives. They had been told for a certainty what Yhwh had commanded
to Moses, namely that he should give all the land to Israel, and that he should
destroy ( hif.) all the inhabitants of the land.289 Earlier, fear was already
mentioned in Jericho, because Sihon and Og would have been destroyed (Josh.
2:9); in Josh. 9, for the first time a command is mentioned to destroy all the
inhabitants of Cisjordan. This is the reason why Gibeon wanted to make a
covenant with Israel, in order to stay alive (Josh. 9:15,20,26).
In the summaries of Joshuas campaigns, reference is also made to a com-
mand of Yhwh. In Josh. 10:40, after a description of a campaign in the south, it
is said that Joshua defeated ( hif.) the whole land; no one remained, but he
287 According to Horst Seebass, Numeri 22,236,13, bk (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Ver-

lag, 2007), 388, Num. 33:52 is nowadays generally viewed as deuteronomistic. Schmitt, Du
sollst keinen Frieden, 42, 47; Weinfeld, Ban on the Canaanites, 146147, however, attribute
this passage to p (although Schmitt, Ibid., 42 n. 59 also states that Num. 33:52,5556
seems to be a later insertion with clear connections with Deuteronomy and the Holiness
Code).
288 Texts that may be understood as a possible reference to such a command, but are not
discussed, are Josh. 8:8; 14:12. In Josh. 8:8, Israel is called to set Ai on fire after the conquest
of this city. Then follows the command: You shall do according to the word of Yhwh;
behold, I have commanded you. This text, however, relates only to the conquest of Ai, not
to all the nations of Canaan. Therefore, it is more likely that the command to set Ai on
fire is referred to (cf. lxx: ). In Josh. 14:12, Caleb asks for an inheritance
in the land. He expresses the wish that Yhwh will be with him to destroy ( hif.) the
Anakim who are there, as Yhwh said. However, this text also does not refer to all the
nations of Canaan. It is more likely that Num. 14:24 is referred to, where Yhwh promises
to Caleb that He will bring him into Canaan, and that he will take possession of it (
hif.).
289 Since the infinitives (, )are preceded by a command of Yhwh to Moses, Moses
here is the subject of giving the land and destroying the inhabitants.
totally exterminated ( hif.) all that breathed, as Yhwh, the God of Israel,
commanded. The description emphasizes the totality of the destruction and
connects it with a command of Yhwh.290 In Josh. 11:1920, it is stated that not
a city (except Gibeon) made peace with Israel. This is explained as a work of
Yhwh, who hardened their hearts, so that they waged war against Israel, in
order that Israel would exterminate them completely ( hif.), show them no
mercy, but destroy them ( hif.), as Yhwh had commanded Moses. A few
verses earlier, it was already indicated that Moses passed on this command to
Joshua, and that Joshua carried it out exactly (Josh. 11:15). The double call for
eradication, surrounding the admonition to show no mercy (
) underlines that only extermination of the Canaanite peoples will suf-
fice. The end of this verse (as Yhwh had commanded Moses) makes clear
that Moses or Israel is the logical subject of the infinitives ( ,
,). According to this passage, therefore, the extermination of the
Canaanites is both a command of Yhwh to Israel, and the work of Yhwh him-
self, who hardens the heart of the nations.291
A more indirect reference to a command to destroy the nations of Canaan
is Judg. 2:2. An angel of Yhwh blames Israel for being disobedient to Yhwhs
command not to make a covenant with the inhabitants of Canaan and to tear
down their altars. Therefore, Yhwh will not drive out ( pi.) these nations.
Since in Judg. 1 it was indicated which nations Israel had not destroyed (
hif.), Judg. 2:2 contains an implicit reference to a command to destroy or to
expel these nations (cf. Judg. 2:21,23).
Finally, Ps. 106:34 refers to the command to Israel to destroy the nations
of Canaan. They did not destroy ( hif.) the peoples, what ( )Yhwh
had said to them. The subordinate clause refers to a command to destroy the
nations.292 Since Israel did not do that, the consequence is that it mingled with
290 The frequent use of is characteristic for the summaries in Joshua; Van Bekkum, From
Conquest to Coexistence, 163 n. 154.
291 Stone, Ethical and Apologetic Tendencies, 3334 sees an analogy with the hardening of
the heart of the Pharaoh at the exodus. Pharaohs doom is directly connected with his
own reaction on the work of Yhwh. According to Stone, the nations of Canaan too are
described in Joshua as increasingly resistant to the action of Yahweh. In Josh. 11:20, the
reaction of the Canaanite peoples and the command to Israel are connected, since both
are described as originating from Yhwh.
292 Thijs Booij, Psalmen iii (81110), pot (Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1994), 260261 n. 42 states that
verse 34b is a subordinate clause of . However, there is no contrast with other
nations Yhwh did not speak about, or with other nations Israel would have destroyed.
Therefore, it is likely that verse 34b refers to verse 34a as a whole, thus to a command
228 chapter 3
these nations, went to serve their idols and made Yhwhs anger be kindled
against Israel (Ps. 106:3541). The expressions used (snare, child sacrifice, idols
of Canaan) leave no doubt that the nations mentioned are the Canaanite
peoples.
Next to texts in which Israel is commanded to exterminate the nations of

Canaan, there are texts in which it is announced that Yhwh will do so, without
a specific command to Israel. Twice, it is stated that Yhwh will expel or destroy
the nations enumerated in a list (Exod. 33:2; Josh. 3:10). In Exod. 33:2, this is
a promise of Yhwh, who is introduced speaking in the first person, to expel
a number of nations. In this text, nothing more is said about the Canaanite
peoples. In the direct context, the emphasis is on the fact that Yhwh will not go
up with Israel to the land of Canaan; regarding the nations in Canaan, however,
He himself will act. For Yhwhs actions, the verb pi. is used; this verb
most likely indicates expulsion, although it is sometimes used in a context of
destruction (see 3.3.1). In the direct context, there are no further indications
for the exact meaning. Josh. 3:10 also contains a list of nations. Before the
crossing of the Jordan is recorded, Joshua says that Yhwh will destroy these
nations ( hif.; for its meaning, see the exegesis of Deut. 7:17, 2.4).
In two texts in Leviticus (Lev. 18:24; 20:23), Israel is warned not to exhibit the
same behaviour as the nations of Canaan.293 These nations Yhwh will cast out
of the land ( pi.). In addition, it is said that the land vomits them out (,
Lev. 18:25,28; 20:22), and that Yhwh abhors them (, Lev. 20:23). The verbs
used suggest the expulsion of the Canaanite peoples. If Israel takes over the
behaviour of these nations, Yhwh will punish it; in that context, destruction
is mentioned ( nif., Lev. 18:29).294 In Lev. 18 and 20, Israel does not have
an active role in the removal of the Canaanites. This may be explained by the
fact that the nations of Canaan are mentioned in a comparison with the fate
to destroy peoples. According to Booijs interpretation, Ps. 106:34 likewise alludes to a

command to exterminate.
293 In Lev. 20:23, mt has this nation (). One manuscript, sp and the Versions, however,
read a plural. The sg. in mt may be understood as a collective noun, also because of the
continuation in the pl. (, ;)cf. Milgrom, Leviticus, 2:1759. Therefore, there does not
seem to be a difference in terms of content between Lev. 18:24 (pl.) and 20:23 (sg.; cf. the
sg. in 18:28).
294 Cf. Schwartz, Reexamining the Fate of the Canaanites, 165167, 170. He states that only
the land is the subject of the expulsion of the Canaanite peoples. Yhwh would have no
task at all in this. The latter is incorrect, however, since in Lev. 18:24; 20:23, it was already
stated that it is Yhwh who casts out the nations.
which will befall Israel itself if it will behave like these nations (cf. 3.4.4.3 on
the structure of Lev. 18). In that context, emphasis on the task of Israel in the
removal of the Canaanite peoples is less likely.
In the description of the division of the land, it is said again that Yhwh will
destroy ( hif., Josh. 13:6) or expel (, Josh. 23:5) the nations before Israel.
Reference is made to the nations that have been destroyed already ( hif.,
hif., Josh. 23:4,9). This is another case of the Geschichtstypologie, already
signaled in Deuteronomy.295
It appears that an explicit command by Yhwh to Israel to destroy the nations of

Canaan is mentioned not just in Deut. 7, but elsewhere in the Old Testament.
Outside of Deuteronomy, a direct command is found only in Exod. 23:31 and
Num. 33:52. Exod. 23 is situated at mount Sinai, Num. 33 and Deut. 7 after the
conquest of Transjordan. In these commands, the following verbs are used to
indicate what should happen to the nations of Canaan: pi. (Exod. 23:31),
hif. (Num. 33:52), and hif. (Deut. 7:2; 20:17). It is noteworthy that in
Deuteronomy the extermination of these nations is mentioned more explicitly
and more radically.296 The references to a command to destroy these nations
use the verbs hif. (Josh. 9:24; 11:20; Ps. 106:34) and hif. (Josh. 10:40;
11:20). The explicit formulation on extermination in these references mainly
matches with Deut. 7:2; 20:17. Although the verb hif. corresponds with
Deut. 7, literary dependence of the text of Deut. 7 cannot be demonstrated.
In terms of content, however, there is a clear correspondence.
In texts from Genesis to Numbers, situated before the conquest of Canaan,
extermination of the Canaanite peoples is mentioned less explicitly than in
Deuteronomy.297 The verbs used in these books to indicate what will happen to
the nations of Canaan are pi. and pi., which rather indicate expulsion
(see for , 3.3.1). When reference is made to earlier confrontations with
these nations (Sihon, Jericho), however, extermination is mentioned. Usually,
the verb hif. is used, in Josh. 23:5 in combination with ( to drive out; cf.,
however, verse 4: hif.). The fact that the texts from Genesis to Numbers are
less explicit about extermination of the Canaanites than Deut. 7 corresponds
to the findings in Exod. 23 and 34 (3.3). As in Exod. 23, however, there are also
elements pointing to more than expulsion.
295 See 3.2.3.3; cf. Lohfink, Geschichtstypologisch orientierte Textstrukturen.

296 In this respect, Weinfeld, Ban on the Canaanites is right; see 3.3.3.
297 It is mentioned in Num. 24:8, where Bileam says that Israel will devour ( )nations, its
adversaries. The context, however, does not make clear whether the nations of Canaan are
meant.
230 chapter 3
Concerning the distribution of the texts discussed in this section, it is note-

worthy that only a few times is a direct command of Yhwh to exterminate the
nations of Canaan described. In the literary work of Genesis to Kings, Deut. 7
is both the most radical and the last command concerning the Canaanite peo-
ples (in Deut. 20, the attitude toward the Canaanites is described only as an
exception to other situations of war). In some other texts, this command is
referred to; this is the case in three texts from Joshua, one from Psalms, and an
implicit reference in Judges.298 It is noteworthy that in texts situated after the
conquest of Canaan, the command to destroy the nations of Canaan does not
reoccur; nor is a promise that Yhwh will exterminate or expel these nations
found. In several texts, Israel is warned about the practices of the nations of
Canaan; however, this is not connected with the (not executed) extermination
of these nations (see also 3.4.3).
In conclusion, a command of Yhwh to Israel to destroy the nations of
Canaan is mentioned several times in the Old Testament. Within the literary
work of Genesis to Kings, the texts situated before the conquest of Canaan
(Exodus to Numbers) ask for the expulsion of these nations, albeit with some
hints at destruction; the texts situated immediately before and after the con-
quest (Deuteronomy to Judges) explicitly mention their extermination, which
has to be executed by Israel. In texts situated after the conquest of Canaan, the
command to exterminate the Canaanite peoples or the promise that Yhwh will
do so is not repeated.
3.4.2 Reports of the Treatment of the Nations of Canaan

In this section, those texts will be scrutinized that mention the treatment of
the nations of Canaan as having occurred. References to the extermination
or expulsion of the Canaanite peoples are found, in the first place, in the
description of the conquest of the land of Canaan. In this case, it regards the
destruction of a city or of a part of the land. Even before the actual conquest of
Canaan, it is stated that Israel fights against the king of Arad and his people. The
first designation of the king of Arad is the Canaanite; later on, this designation
is repeated for him and his people (Num. 21:1,3). After a vow of Israel, Yhwh
gives over the population of Arad, and Israel exterminates them ( hif.).
The description of the actual conquest of Canaan begins with the battle in
Transjordan against Sihon and Og.299 The verbs used suggest that Sihon and
298 In 1Kgs 11:12; Ezra 9:1112, reference is made to the prohibition of making a covenant with
the nations of Canaan (cf. Exod. 34:11), but extermination or expulsion is not mentioned.
299 Usually, the battle against Sihon and Og designates the entire conquest of Transjordan. In
Og together with their peoples were killed.300 In several other texts, the battle
against Sihon and Og is referred to in retrospect. The verbs used in these texts
likewise point to the extermination of the Transjordanian population.301 After
the battle against Sihon and Og, it is recorded that part of the tribe of Manasseh
destroyed the Amorites in Gilead ( hif., Num. 32:39).
In the description of the conquest of Cisjordan, it is told that the population
of Jericho was exterminated, as well as the inhabitants of Ai.302 In the so-called
battle of Gibeon, five kings of the Amorites and their armies were destroyed
( hif., , Josh. 10:20), although a part of them managed to escape. In Josh.
10:2839, a campaign in the south of Canaan is described. The extermination
of Makkedah and Libnah is compared with the capture of Jericho; in a series of
following cities, the treatment of a city is always compared with the previous
city mentioned. The recurring remark that Joshua left none remaining (Josh.
10:28,30,33,37,39) makes clear that these cities were exterminated.303 In Josh. 11,
a similar campaign in the north of Canaan is described; there, extermination
until no one survived is also mentioned.304 The extermination of the nations
of Canaan as the usual practice is indirectly reflected in the saving of Rahab
(Josh. 6:17,25), and in particular in the covenant of Israel with the Gibeonites
(Josh. 9). The content of the covenant is that Israel will leave the Gibeonites
alive, in contrast to what usually happened to the Canaanite peoples (Josh.
9:15; cf. 9:18,24,26). In Judg. 1 as well, mention is made of battles with the
nations of Canaan, and of extermination of these nations.305 In the times of
the judges, the battle between (part of) Israel and Jabin, the king of Canaan
Num. 21:32, however, after the battle against Sihon, the capture of Jazer and the destruction
( hif.) of the Amorites who lived there is mentioned separately. In Josh. 13:21, the
victory over five leaders of Midian is mentioned, who were related to Sihon (in Num.
31:8, this battle is situated later). These texts reflect (memories or traditions of) a more
complex situation in Transjordan, which is usually summarized by a reference to Sihon
and Og.
300 hif.: Num. 21:24; hif., until he had no survivor left: Num. 21:35.
301 hif.: Josh. 2:10; hif.: Josh. 12:6; 13:12,21; Judg. 11:21; Ps. 135:9; 136:17; hif.: Josh. 13:12;
Judg. 11:23; : Ps. 135:10; 136:18.
302 Jericho: hif., followed by an enumeration, Josh. 6:21. Ai: hif., , ,
hif., Josh. 8:2129; cf. Josh. 8:7: hif.
303 For Hebron, cf. Josh. 15:14; Judg. 1:20. For the variation in the description of the conquest,
see Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, 304309, esp. 306 n. 225.
304 Josh. 11:8,14; cf. hif.: Josh. 11:11,12; hif.: Josh. 11:14.
305 hif.: Judg. 1:4,5,10,17; hif.: Judg. 1:8,25; hif.: Judg. 1:19,20; hif.: Judg.
1:17.
232 chapter 3
(Judg. 4:2,23,24) is described. This battle also ends in the destruction of Jabin
and his army.306 Finally, it is told that David strikes the Jebusites at the capture
of Jerusalem ( hif., 2Sam. 5:8; 1Chr. 11:6).
Next to references to the extermination of the Canaanites while the conquest

was in progress, other texts look back on the destruction of these nations in
the land as a whole.307 In the book of Joshua, a number of texts are looking
back on the conquest of Canaan. The emphasis is on Yhwh, who has fulfilled
all his promises. Yhwh gave over all the nations to Israel, so that none of
their enemies could withstand them (Josh. 21:44, although extermination is
not explicitly mentioned). He fought for Israel and destroyed the Canaanite
peoples before them ( hif., Josh. 23:9; hif., Josh. 24:8; pi., Josh.
24:12,18).308 However, it is also said of Joshua that he conquered the whole land,
left none alive, and exterminated everything that breathed ( hif., Josh. 10:40;
hif., Josh. 23:4).
In the book of Judges, the failure of Israel in exterminating the nations
of Canaan is often discussed (see 3.4.3.1). Once, however, reference is also
made to an extermination that would have taken place. In a prophetic message,
Yhwh says that He drove out ( pi., Judg. 6:910) the Amorites before Israel
and that He gave their land to Israel. A similar formulation is used in 1 Chr. 17:21,
a prayer of David. The uniqueness of Israel appears from the fact that Yhwh
redeemed Israel from Egypt, and that He drove out ( pi.) nations309 before
them.310
306 : Judg. 4:15; hif.: Judg. 4:23; hif.: Judg. 4:24; cf. : Judg. 5:31.
307 Exod. 15:1417 could also be mentioned here, where the inhabitants of Canaan are men-
tioned. However, these verses only deal with fear by which the nations will be seized (,
, nif., , , , ), until the moment that Israel has passed (verse 16b).
Thus, no lasting effects are mentioned, like expulsion or extermination, or anything that
Israel will do to the nations. Moreover, this fear not only seizes the inhabitants of Canaan,
but also Edom, Moab, and the inhabitants of Philistia; the nations of Canaan do not have
a special position in this context. When the settlement in the land is described (verse 17),
other nations than Israel are mentioned no more.
308 In Josh. 24:12, grammatically the hornets are the subject of pi.; however, it is Yhwh
who sends the hornets. For the question of who are meant with the two kings of the
Amorites (lxx: twelve kings) in Josh. 24:12, see above, p. 205 and n. 237. In any case, it is
clear that nations in the land of Canaan are meant.
309 There is a long adjunct between the verb and the object ;this occurs more often
in Biblical Hebrew, cf. jm 158u.
310 The parallel text in 2Sam. 7:23 is almost completely identical, but reads instead of :
. Since mt does not give a good sense in 2Sam. 7:23, almost all commentators emend
In the books of Kings, it is stated that some kings did according to (all)
the abhorrent things ( pl.) of the nations that Yhwh destroyed ( hif.)
before Israel.311 Ahab is said to act as the Amorites had done (1 Kgs 21:26),
and the northern kingdom is said to live according to the habits ( )of the
nations (2Kgs 17:8), in both cases with the addition that Yhwh destroyed (
hif.) before Israel. The meaning of the verb hif. in this subordinate clause
is not always clear. In 2Kgs 17:11, the nations are mentioned that Yhwh carried
away ( hif.; cf. 2Kgs 17:6,2628, where hif. is connected to hif., to
go and live elsewhere). In a similar subordinate clause about these nations
in 2Kgs 21:9 (cf. 2 Chr. 33:9), however, the verb hif. (to destroy) is used.
Possibly, the verb hif. is used in 2Kgs 17:11 to highlight the parallel between
the fate of the Canaanite peoples and the fate of the northern kingdom (2 Kgs
17:6,23). Finally, an indication for the extermination of the nations of Canaan is
the list of peoples who were left, whom Israel did not exterminate (1 Kgs 9:20
21: hif.; cf. 2Chr. 8:78: pi.). The suggestion then is that part of these
nations has been destroyed (and that this should have been done to the rest as
well).
It is noteworthy that there are not many references to (the practices of)
the Canaanite peoples in the books of Kings, but that they are present at
some crucial moments. In the description of the deportation of the northern
kingdom, an explicit causal connection is indicated with the fact that Israel
took over the way of life of the Canaanite peoples (2 Kgs 17:8,11,15,18). A similar
connection is made between the sin of Manasseh, who took over the practices
of the Amorites and even surpassed them, and the announcement of the
deportation of the southern kingdom (2Kgs 21:2,9,11). In other texts also, Israels
taking over of the way of life of the Canaanite peoples is connected with (the
announcement of) disaster for Israel (1Kgs 11:111; 14:2426; 21:2126; 2 Kgs 16:3
5). Thus, in the books of Kings a clear connection is made between disaster for
Israel (in particular the exile) and taking over the practices of the nations of
Canaan (cf. 3.2.4).312
the text of 2Sam. 7:23 to or , on the basis of lxx ( ) and the

parallel in 1Chr. 17:21; so, e.g., P. Kyle McCarter Jr., ii Samuel, AncB (New York: Doubleday,
1984), 234. Otherwise, however, Jan P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books
of Samuel: Volume iii: Throne and City (ii Sam. 28 & 2124), ssn 27 (Assen: Van Gorcum,
1990), 383, who follows the simpler solution, from a text-critical point of view, of M. Rehm,
by interpreting as a variant of ( hif.). Cf. Hans-Joachim Stoebe, Das zweite
Buch Samuelis, kat (Gtersloh: Gtersloher Verlagshaus, 1994), 233.
311 Rehoboam, 1Kgs 14:24; Ahaz, 2Kgs 16:3, cf. 2Chr. 28:3; Manasseh, 2 Kgs 21:2, cf. 2 Chr. 33:2.
312 Cf. Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice, 154. It is striking that in the descrip-
234 chapter 3
In the Later Prophets and the Writings, the extermination of the Canaan-
ite peoples is also mentioned. In the prophetic literature of the Old Testa-
ment, only one clear reference is found.313 In Amos 2:910, Yhwh says that
He destroyed (twice hif.) the Amorites before Israel, and that He made
Israel possess their land. In this passage, the power of the Amorites (they
were high as the cedars and strong as the oaks) and the totality of the exter-
mination (I destroyed his fruit above and his roots beneath) are empha-
sized.
Several psalms refer to the nations of Canaan, which would have been
destroyed.314 With his own hand, Yhwh destroyed nations ( hif., parallel
to ), and planted Israel (Ps. 44:3). Since these verses are about the conquest
of the land that Yhwh gives them and where Israel lives, it may be assumed
that nations is a reference to the nations of Canaan. In Ps. 47:45 as well,
subduing nations is directly connected with receiving the heritage (),
which Yhwh chooses. It is likely that (also) the Canaanite peoples are meant.315
For Yhwhs actions toward these nations, the verb hif. is used. This verb
occurs elsewhere only in Ps. 18:48, parallel to to give vengeance (cf. the parallel
2Sam. 22:48: hif.). According to Ps. 47:4, the nations are subdued by Yhwh
to Israel; what is further done to them is outside the perspective of the psalm. In
tion of the execution of the command in Joshua, reference is rarely made to the religion
of the nations of Canaan.
313 Cf. Obad. 20, where it is said in a prophecy that the exiles of Israel will possess what was
the Canaanites () . The text of mt is controversial; it is often assumed that
should be emended to ; cf. Johan Renkema, Obadiah, hcot (Leuven: Peeters,
2003), 213. In any case, the land of the Canaanites is mentioned in this text, but not what
should have happened or should happen to the Canaanites themselves.
314 Ps. 10:16 could also be mentioned, which declares that Yhwh is king for ever and ever, and
that nations perished from his land. The expression his land is used nowhere else in
Psalms. It is possible that this text refers to the extermination of the Canaanites. If this is
assumed, and Ps. 9 and 10 are connected (as is usually done, cf. lxx), also Ps. 9:67 might
be involved. However, because further indications are missing, it cannot be determined
with certainty whether Ps. 10 refers to the nations of Canaan. Other possible references to
the extermination of the Canaanite peoples are Ps. 68:13; 81:15; 149:79. Since in these cases
further details are missing, these texts are not discussed (for Ps. 149, see Peels, Vengeance of
God, 221 n. 495). In Ps. 105:44; 111:6, it is stated that Yhwh gives the land of (other) nations
to Israel, but nothing is said about the question of what would have happened to those
nations themselves.
315 So, e.g., Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen, 4th ed., bk (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Ver-
lag, 1972), 1:350; N.A. van Uchelen, Psalmen, pot (Nijkerk: Callenbach, 19711977), 2:50. This
interpretation does not exclude a broader application.
two psalms, it is stated that Yhwh drove out ( pi.) peoples to make room for
Israel (Ps. 78:55; 80:9). Lastly, the Canaanites are mentioned in two psalms that
look back on Yhwhs actions in the history of Israel. In Ps. 135:1011, it is sung
that Yhwh struck down ( hif.) large nations and killed ( )mighty kings.316
Then Sihon, king of the Amorites, Og, king of Bashan, and all the kingdoms of
Canaan are mentioned. Their land Yhwh gave as a heritage ( )to Israel. In
Ps. 136:1722, it is said that Yhwh killed great and mighty kings ( hif., ;)
next, Sihon and Og are called by name. An explicit reference to Cisjordan is
missing in Ps. 136.
Finally, a few references to the Canaanite peoples are found in Chronicles,
without a parallel in Samuel or Kings.317 In 1Chr. 5:25, the exile of the tribes in
Transjordan is explained by the fact that they served the gods of the nations
of the land, whom God had destroyed before them ( hif.). In some other
texts, it is stated that Yhwh destroyed the nations of Canaan ( hif., 2 Chr.
20:7), or that He gave them into the hand of Israel. In 1 Chr. 22:18, it is stated that
the land was subdued, but not what happened to the indigenous population.
In Neh. 9:24, it is said that Yhwh subdued the nations ( hif.) and that Israel
might do with them as they would (). The latter expression occurs twice
elsewhere in the Old Testament: Neh. 9:37 is about great distress, but not about
slaying people; Est. 9:5 is about killing people.
In the texts discussed above, stating that a punishment of the nations of

Canaan has taken place, the following terminology is used regarding the treat-
ment of these nations. The most frequent verb is hif., as in Deuteronomy
(see 3.2.3.4).318 It is not always clear whether this verb has to be interpreted as
to expel or as to destroy. Once, it is used in combination with hif. (2 Kgs
316 Due to the parallel with mighty kings, large nations probably is a better translation for
than many nations; cf. Deut. 7:1.
317 A text that could be mentioned in this context is 1Chr. 4:4041, where it is told that the
tribe of Simeon came into a territory (1Chr. 4:39, mt: Gedor; lxx: Gerara), where those
from Ham ( ) were living. The Simeonites exterminated them ( hif., hif.).
According to Edward Lewis Curtis, The Books of Chronicles, icc (Edinburgh: t&t Clark,
1910), 116, those from Ham probably were Canaanites. However, nowhere else in the Old
Testament is Ham used as a designation for the nations of Canaan, but (except as the
son of Noah) always for Egypt (Ps. 78:51; 105:23,27; 106:22). The use of the preposition to
indicate descent likewise would be very unusual, and rather assumes a location. For these
reasons, it is unlikely that 1Chr. 4:4041 is a reference to the Canaanite peoples.
318 Num. 21:32; 32:39; Josh. 13:12; 15:14; 23:9; Judg. 1:19; 11:2324; 1 Kgs 14:24; 21:26; 2 Kgs 16:3; 17:8;
21:2; 2Chr. 20:7; 28:2; 33:2; Ps. 44:3.
236 chapter 3
17:11), but this may be explained by the context (see above, p. 233). Other verbs
used together with or parallel to hif., however, do point to the meaning to
destroy.319 It is likely, therefore, that the meaning of hif. is closest to to
destroy.320 Two other verbs that are often used for Yhwhs or Israels actions
concerning the nations of Canaan are hif. (sometimes with ) and
hif.321 For these verbs, the meaning to kill, to exterminate is obvious (see
2.4., Excursus: Meaning and function of ). Other verbs used are: hif.,
, hif., hif., pi., , hif., , pi., hif. and . Some-
times, it is added that no one remained.322
Although some verbs are used more frequently for Yhwhs or Israels actions
with regard to the nations of Canaan, there is no fixed formula or fixed termi-
nology, but a large variation. In terms of content, it is striking that in almost all
texts stating how the Canaanite peoples have been treated, mention is explic-
itly made of killing or extermination. That meaning has been demonstrated
for the verb hif. The verb does not necessarily imply extermination,
but in Judg. 4:15 it has the adjunct , which does suggest it. Only in a
few texts, the extermination of the nations of Canaan is not explicitly stated.
Next to 2Kgs 17:11 ( hif.; however, see above for a possible explanation), this
concerns: 1Chr. 22:18, Neh. 9:24, and Ps. 47:45; in these texts, it is not explic-
itly indicated what happened to the nations. From the verbs used, only pi.
seems to indicate something other than extermination; it has been concluded
already (3.3.1) that pi. usually has the sense of to expel, to drive out, but
is sometimes used in a context of destruction. Nowhere in the Old Testament
is it indicated that the nations of Canaan would have been expelled to another
area, where they could continue to live. Although some texts are uncertain, it
may be concluded that the Old Testament tradition concerning the Canaanite
peoples is almost unanimous in speaking about extermination of these nations.
319 hif.: 2Kgs 21:9; 2Chr. 33:9; : Ps. 44:3; cf. Josh. 8:7: hif.; Josh. 8:2129: hif.,
, , hif.
320 See Lohfink, Bedeutungen von hebr. jr, 2633, and the exegesis of Deut. 7:17, 2.4
(pp. 108109); cf. pp. 229, 233.
321 hif.: Num. 21:35; Josh. 8:21,22,24; 10:10,20,26,33; 11:8; 12:1,6,7; 13:12,21; Judg. 1:45,10,17; 11:21;
2Sam. 5:8; 21:2; 1Chr. 11:6; Ps. 135:10; 136:17. hif.: Num. 21:24; Josh. 10:28,30,32,35,
37,39; 11:11,12,14; Judg. 1:8,25. hif.: Num. 21:3; Josh. 2:10; 6:21; 8:26; 10:28,35,37,39,40
(everything that breathed); 11:11,12; Judg. 1:17; 1Kgs 9:21.
322 hif.: Josh. 11:14; 24:8; 2Kgs 21:9; 1Chr. 5:25; 2Chr. 33:9; Amos 2:9 (twice). : Josh. 8:24;
10:20. hif.: Josh. 10:26; 2Sam. 21:1. hif.: Josh. 23:4; Judg. 4:24. pi.: Josh. 24:12,18;
Judg. 6:9; 1Chr. 17:21; Ps. 78:55; 80:9. : Judg. 4:15. hif.: Judg. 4:23; Neh. 9:24. : Judg.
5:31. pi.: 2Chr. 8:8. hif.: Ps. 47:4. : Josh. 8:24; Ps. 135:10; 136:18. No one remained:
Num. 21:35; Josh. 8:22; 10:28,30,33,37,39,40; 11:8,11,14.
Only occasionally, expulsion is mentioned, but there is no tradition assuming

that the nations of Canaan were only driven out of their land.
As for the agent of the extermination, there is likewise a clear similarity be-
tween the texts. In the description of the execution of the extermination
(mainly in Numbers and Joshua), Israel almost always is the agent, although
a number of times it is first stated that Yhwh gave over the nations to Israel
(Num. 21:3,34; Judg. 1:19; 11:21). When the extermination of the nations of
Canaan is reported, however, Yhwh always is the agent of the extermina-
tion.323 This is even emphasized in Ps. 44:34 and Amos 2:910. In Ps. 44:34,
it is first stated that Yhwh destroyed the nations with his own hand. Next,
it is underlined that not the sword or the arm of Israel delivered them, but
Yhwhs right hand, his arm, and the light of his face (three times suffix 2nd
sg.), because He wanted to. In Amos 2:910 also, Yhwhs redemptive work is
emphasized (twice ), in contrast to the sin of Israel (Amos 2:68). In these
texts, it is underlined that the extermination of the Canaanite peoples is not
due to Israels merit or achievement, but a gift of Yhwh (cf. Deut. 9:46; see
3.2.4.1). The relatively limited number of texts in which the extermination of
the Canaanites is commanded to Israel (3.4.1) confirms that in the tradition
concerning these nations, the emphasis is not on Israels activity, but on the
acts of Yhwh.
The tradition that the nations of Canaan have been (partly) exterminated is
broadly attested in the Old Testament. There are many references to it in the
books of Joshua to Kings, in Chronicles and Psalms. In the wisdom literature,
this theme is not found. Given the nature of wisdom, however, this is to be
expected; these books rarely refer to the history of Israel. It is remarkable,
however, that this tradition is almost absent in the prophetical books, despite
the many references to Yhwhs acts in the history of Israel and to the sins of
Israel. This requires an explanation, which will be discussed later ( 3.4.3.2).
The tradition concerning the extermination of the nations of Canaan is
reflected in texts of various genres. As might be expected, the historiographical
literature is in the majority (Num., Josh.Kgs, Chr.). However, this tradition is
also referred to in a description of the division of the land (Josh. 13:12,21), in
323 The only possible exception is Josh. 2:10, where Rahab tells that the inhabitants of Jericho
have heard that Israel destroyed Sihon and Og. This remark, however, is ascribed to
someone outside of Israel, a Canaanite woman. Moreover, this is only partly a reference
in retrospect, since the execution of the command to exterminate is still in progress then.
238 chapter 3
parenetic texts (Josh. 2324), in prayers (1Chr. 17:21; 2 Chr. 20:7; Neh. 9:24), in
poetry (Judg. 5; Ps.), and in prophetic texts (Amos 2:910).
In conclusion, in the Old Testament there is a tradition that the nations of

Canaan have been (partly) exterminated. The terminology used consequently
points in the direction of extermination, not just expulsion. This tradition
is broadly attested in texts from various books, genres and times. When the
extermination is described in retrospect, the agent of the extermination is
always Yhwh.
3.4.3 The End of the Extermination of the Nations of Canaan

This section will discuss the texts in which it is indicated that the extermination
or expulsion of the Canaanite peoples is not completely executed ( 3.4.3.1). It
will also address the consequences of this and the integration of the Canaanite
peoples into Israel (3.4.3.2). Finally, separate attention is paid to Zechariah 14.
In that chapter, it is stated that there shall no longer be a Canaanite in the
house of Yhwh (Zech. 14:21; 3.4.3.3).
3.4.3.1 The Nations of Canaan are Left Alive

In several texts, it is indicated that the extermination of the nations of Canaan
was not or not completely executed (cf. Deut. 31:1629).324 In the description of
the conquest of Canaan, this is already stated about Rahab and the Gibeonites.
As for Rahab, this concerns an individual with her immediate family. The moti-
vation to leave her alive is her help of the messengers (Josh. 6:25). Although a
covenant with the nations of Canaan was forbidden, according to Deut. 7:2, the
promise to Rahab is never condemned.325 By the story of her help of the mes-
sengers and by her recognition of Yhwh (Josh. 2:911), Rahab is characterized
as a Canaanite who sided with Israel.326 As for the Gibeonites, this concerns
324 Texts referring to the time before the conquest of Canaan, like Num. 13:2833, are outside
the scope of this section.
325 Cf. Earl, Reading Joshua as Christian Scripture, 125126.
326 See for Rahab and as her antitype Achan: Frank Anthony Spina, The Faith of the Out-
sider: Exclusion and Inclusion in the Biblical Story (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 5271.
According to Spina, these stories redefine who is inside and outside of Israel: The outsider
came in, and the insider was ousted (Ibid., 71). Rahab is even mentioned as an ancestor of
the Davidic royal line; Daniel I. Block, How Can We Bless Yhwh? Wrestling with Divine
Violence in Deuteronomy, in Wrestling with the Violence of God: Soundings in the Old Tes-
tament, ed. M. Daniel Carroll R. and J. Blair Wilgus, bbr.s 10 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
2015), 43.
not an individual, but an entire city. The reason to spare the Gibeonites is not
what they did for Israel or Yhwh, but the covenant made with them, owing to
their deception and the negligence of Israel. It is explicitly stated that the lead-
ers of Israel did not ask permission of Yhwh to make a covenant (Josh. 9:14). In
the end, the Gibeonites are going to serve as slaves in the sanctuary of Yhwh;
thus, the danger of idolatry is averted.327
In the description of the division of the land in Joshua, it is stated that
the Canaanite peoples continued to live in several cities, both in Transjordan
(Geshur and Maacath, Josh. 13:13) and in Cisjordan (Jerusalem, Josh. 15:63;
Gezer, Josh. 16:10; several cities of Manasseh, Josh. 17:1213). Every time, it is
mentioned that Israel did not destroy ( hif.) the Canaanite population of
these cities, or that it could not do so (Josh. 15:63; 17:12). When looking back,
a comparison of the nations that remain with the nations that have already
been cut off ( hif.), indicates that there are nations that still have to be
exterminated (Josh. 23:4).328 Thus, not only in Judges, but also in Joshua it is
indicated that the extermination of the nations of Canaan was not complete.329
Except in the case of the Gibeonites, this seems to be no reproach to Israel in
the book of Joshua. Although the continued existence of the Canaanites may
be interpreted as a negative signal, this is not explicated; rather, the book offers
an observation of the reality or of the impossibility to defeat these nations.330
The prologue of the book of Judges (Judg. 1:12:5) likewise contains an
enumeration of territories that have not (yet) been conquered by Israel. Every
time, the verb hif. is used, with Israel as its subject.331 In contrast to the
327 See for Josh. 9: Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, 243267.
328 Earl, Reading Joshua as Christian Scripture, 109111, 183189 rightly points out that in
Josh. 23 Israel is not called to continue the extermination itself. From this, however, his
conclusion does not follow that Israel receives an entirely passive role in the conquest
of the land, or that the verb is consciously avoided, in contrast to Deut. 7:15.
Nonetheless, the absence of any active role by Israel is noteworthy and may be interpreted
as a prelude to the turning point in Judg. 2:3 (see below).
329 By means of a comparison with Ancient Near Eastern conquest accounts, Younger, Ancient
Conquest Accounts, 197247 has demonstrated that Josh. 912 should not be read as a claim
that all the land of Canaan was subdued.
330 For the fate of the Canaanites in the book of Joshua, see also Nili Wazana, Everything Was
Fulfilled versus The Land That Yet Remains: Contrasting Conceptions of the Fulfillment
of the Promise in the Book of Joshua, in The Gift of the Land and the Fate of the Canaanites
in Jewish Thought, ed. Katell Berthelot, Joseph E. David, and Marc Hirshman (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2014), 1335.
331 A possible exception is Judg. 1:19, where both Yhwh and Judah may be the subject of not-
destroying.
240 chapter 3
texts about the Canaanite enclaves in Joshua, the prologue of Judges does
seem to be a reproach to Israel that the Canaanite peoples are still living in
their midst. K. Lawson Younger Jr. has demonstrated that the structure of the
prologue indicates Israels decline. In Judg. 1, the emphasis is not on Israels
impotence to destroy these nations, but on their unwillingness to do so; it
is noteworthy that the verb is not used in this chapter, unlike in Josh.
15:63; 17:12.332 The prologue of Judges ends with the conclusion that because
of Israels disobedience Yhwh will no longer drive out or destroy the nations
of Canaan, or that in any case He will not do so quickly ( pi., hif.). The
nations will stay as a temptation and a snare for Israel (Judg. 2:3,2123; cf. 3:1
4; Josh. 23:1213; see 3.4.3.2).333 This passage in Judg. 2 is the only place in the
Old Testament where Yhwh is the subject of not-exterminating the nations of
Canaan.334 This situation leads to Israel intermingling with these nations and
serving their gods (Judg. 3:56).
In 1Kgs 9:2021, it is stated that a number of nations have been left, whom
Israel was unable to exterminate. The list of nations is pars pro toto for the
indigenous population of Canaan that was left. It is remarkable that the expres-
sion used, + hif., is replaced by pi. in the parallel text in Chronicles
(2Chr. 8:78). This difference has been explained as a conscious avoidance of
the extreme verb by the author of Chronicles.335 An objection against this
332 K. Lawson Younger Jr., The Configuring of Judicial Preliminaries: Judges 1.12.5 and Its
Dependence on the Book of Joshua, jsot 68 (1995): 7592. Cf. Fishbane, Biblical Interpre-
tation in Ancient Israel, 203. In the book of Joshua, however, Israel also has to be exhorted
(Josh. 18:3). On the relationship of Israel to the nations of Canaan in the book of Judges, see
also A.H. van Zyl, The Relationship of the Israelite Tribes to the Indigenous Population
of Canaan According to the Book of Judges, in Die Ou Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in
Suid-Afrika: Papers Read at the 2nd Meeting Held at Potchefstroom 25 February 1959 (Pre-
toria: otwsa, 1959), 5160.
333 Cf. Walter Gro, Richter, HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2009), 176177: Was Israels verge-
hen war, wird nun Israels Strafe. In Judg. 3:3, the nations are mentioned by which Yhwh
will test Israel: the Canaanites, the Philistines, the Sidonians, and the Hivites on Mount
Lebanon. It is likely that in this text Canaanites is a reference to the entire pre-Israelite
population of Canaan. The combination of Canaanite and other, foreign nations is virtu-
ally unique in the Old Testament (for 1Kgs 11:1, see 3.4.3.2). This enumeration underlines
the severity of the temptation for Israel. Cf. Daniel I. Block, Judges, Ruth, nac (Nashville:
Broadman & Holman, 1999), 137139.
334 Cf. Josh. 23:1216, where this is announced under a condition, namely if Israel would go
and serve the gods of the Canaanite peoples.
335 Sara Japhet, i & ii Chronicles: A Commentary, otl (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox,
1993), 624.
explanation, however, is that the verb or noun is used as often in Chron-

icles as in Kings.336 Therefore, the explanation is more likely that by leaving
out the verb , more emphasis is placed on the guilt of Israel that it did not
exterminate the nations of Canaan (cf. Judg. 1:12:5).337 If this interpretation is
correct, in Kings Israels inability is emphasized, in Chronicles Israels disobe-
dience. In that case, the text from Kings corresponds with Joshua, the parallel
in Chronicles with Judges.
In the Psalms, it is once stated that Israel did not destroy ( hif.) the
nations of Canaan, as Yhwh had said to them (Ps. 106:34). The result is that
Israel has mixed with these nations, served their idols, and thus brought
Yhwhs anger on themselves (Ps. 106:3541).
The practices of the nations of Canaan are mentioned more often in the Old
Testament, but only in the texts mentioned above is this explicitly connected
with the fact that these nations have not (completely) been destroyed. In
particular in Joshua and Judges, a development is indicated. From the nations
of Canaan, first an individual is spared (Rahab), then a city (Gibeon), and in
the end various Canaanite enclaves continue to exist in Israel. The reason why
these nations are left alive is described as follows: a choice for Israel and Yhwh
(Rahab), deceit in combination with negligence of Israel (Gibeon), inability to
exterminate the nations (Josh. 15:63; 17:12), and unwillingness to do so (Judg. 1).
Thus, in Joshua and Judges a rapprochement is sketched between Israel and
the nations of Canaan, which is viewed as a sign of Israels disobedience
to Yhwh. In the end, this leads to the incorporation of these nations into
Israel.
3.4.3.2 Integration of the Nations of Canaan

In the literary work of Genesis to Kings, it is indicated that Israel does not
exterminate the nations of Canaan, but incorporates them in the end. Although
nowhere in the Old Testament is it explicitly stated that the command to
exterminate the nations of Canaan would no longer apply, it does fade into
the background. In this respect, a crucial text is the announcement of Yhwh
that, due to the unwillingness of Israel, He will no longer drive out or destroy
the nations of Canaan (Judg. 2:3,2123).338 In the canonical context, this is
a fulfilment of Josh. 23:1216. This announcement may be interpreted as a
336 1Kgs 9:21; 20:42; 2Kgs 19:11; 1Chr. 4:41; 2Chr. 20:23; 32:14.
337 Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 204.
338 Arie van der Kooij, And I Also Said: A New Interpretation of Judges ii 3, vt 45 (1995):
294306 has demonstrated that ( Judg. 2:3) refers to an earlier announcement
242 chapter 3
limitation of the possibility for Israel to destroy these nations. In this way, it is
implicitly indicated that the command to exterminate the Canaanite peoples
can and will no longer be executed. This interpretation is confirmed by the
fact that after the book of Judges, or after the description of the conquest of
Canaan, a command to exterminate the nations of Canaan, or a description of
the extermination is not found.339
In the description of the time of the judges up to and including the time of
king Saul, few references are found to Israels relationship with the nations of
Canaan. In the book of Judges, the extermination of the Canaanite peoples is
not mentioned after the prologue. There is a battle with Jabin, king of Canaan
(Judg. 4:2,23,24), but no extermination of the nations of Canaan is described. In
1Sam. 7:14, it is stated that in the time of Samuel there was peace between Israel
and the Amorites. Concerning the time of Saul, it is only mentioned that Saul
had tried to wipe out the Gibeonites (2Sam. 21:12: hif., hif.), although
Israel had sworn to spare them (cf. Josh. 9). The statement that the Gibeonites
belonged to the remnant of the Amorites, and the reference to Sauls zeal
( pi.) make it possible to assume that the background of this action was the
command to exterminate the nations of Canaan. This cannot be determined
with certainty, however, since in the narrative of Saul a description of his action
against the Gibeonites is missing, and since the root is not used elsewhere
with respect to king Saul.340
of Yhwh. He believes that Exod. 23:29 is referred to, where it is stated that Yhwh will
drive out the nations not in one year. According to Van der Kooij, in the prologue of
Judges Israel is not blamed for not exterminating the nations of Canaan, but for making
a covenant with them (cf. Exod. 23:32). That would be different from other texts (Num.
33:55; Josh. 23:13; Judg. 2:21). It is possible to interpret Exod. 23 as an implicit warning that
Yhwh may not drive out the nations if Israel does make a covenant with them. In my
opinion, however, Israel is reproached in the prologue of Judges that it did not exterminate
the Canaanite peoples (see 3.4.3.1), and Judg. 2:3 thus is indeed the announcement of a
punishment. Therefore, it is more likely that Judg. 2:3 refers (also) to Num. 33:55 and/or
Josh. 23:13 (cf. the noun which is used in all of these texts, but is missing in Exod. 23;
Van der Kooij opts for another vocalization of this word in Judg. 2:3). The interpretation of
Judg. 2:3 as a punishment is confirmed by the description that the angel of Yhwh departs
from Gilgal, the place of the covenant, the circumcision and the Passover, to Bochim
(weeping). This suggests a rift in the relationship between Israel and Yhwh.
339 So also Frank Crsemann, Gewaltimagination als Teil der Ursprungsgeschichte: Bannge-
bot und Rechtsordnung im Deuteronomium, in Religion, Politik und Gewalt: Kongress-
band des xii. Europischen Kongresses fr Theologie, 18.22. September 2005 in Berlin, ed.
Friedrich Schweitzer, vwgt 29 (Gtersloh: Gtersloher Verlagshaus, 2006), 356.
340 In 1Sam. 14:4748, a battle is mentioned against several nations, including Amalek (cf.
From the days of king David, no activity at all is recorded to exterminate

the nations of Canaan; rather, a gradual incorporation of these nations into
Israel is described in the Old Testament narratives.341 This is apparent from
three facts. First, descendants of the nations of Canaan are mentioned as the
kings servants. In the period before Davids kingship, a Hittite is found in
his company, Ahimelech (1Sam. 26:6). Later on, Uriah the Hittite, one of his
mighty men (1Chr. 11:41), serves in his army (2Sam. 11:3,6,17,21,24; 12:9,10; 23:39;
1 Kgs 15:5). At the end of Davids reign, the Jebusite Ornan or Araunah appears
to live in Jerusalem, whose threshing floor David buys (2 Sam. 24:16,18; 1 Chr.
21:15,18,28). According to 2Chr. 3:1, this is the place where the building of the
temple was started. The remarks that descendants of the nations of Canaan
lived amidst Israel and served in the army, assume a more or less peaceful
relationship. Since only a few names are mentioned, it is not possible to draw
conclusions from the fact that only Hittites and a Jebusite are mentioned.342
Second, it is reported several times that the nations of Canaan were subdued
by David or Solomon. This implies that they were not (or no more) extermi-
nated.343 The clearest indication is 1Kgs 9:2021 (cf. 2 Chr. 8:78), where five
Canaanite peoples are enumerated. It is stated that they did not belong to
the people of Israel, and that the Israelites were unable to exterminate them
( hif.; 2Chr. 8:8: pi.; cf. 3.4.3.1). Solomon imposed forced labour (
;cf. 2Chr. 8:8: )on those who were left of these peoples. Their position
is clearly distinguished from the position of the Israelites and is comparable
to the status of a slave (cf. 1Kgs 9:22: ).344 While according to Deut. 20:11,
forced labour was only intended for non-Canaanite peoples who made peace
with Israel (cf. 3.2.3.1), now also the remaining Canaanite peoples are treated
1Sam. 15). Since Amalek is distinguished from the nations of Canaan (see 3.2.2), however,
this is not relevant for the present study.
341 Cf. Fohrer, Israels Haltung, 67; Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden, 129.
342 Cf. A.H. van Zyl, Israel and the Indigenous Population of Canaan According to the Books
of Samuel, in Die Ou Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika: Studies on the Books of
Samuel; Papers Read at the 3rd Meeting Held at Stellenbosch 2628 January 1960 (Pretoria:
otwsa, 1960), 69. Van Zyl believes that a change takes place in the time of Saul and David,
because under their government non-Israelites occupy positions in Israel, which is not
mentioned at the time of Eli and Samuel. It should be remembered, however, that much
less is told about Eli and Samuel. In addition, such positions can hardly be expected when
something like a state can be spoken of to a much lesser extent.
343 According to 1Kgs 9:16, the Canaanites in Gezer were killed by the Pharaoh; it is reported
nowhere that Solomon did something similar.
344 Martin Noth and Winfried Thiel, Knige, bk (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1968), 217.
244 chapter 3
this way.345 In addition, the fact that Solomon does not as yet exterminate the
nations of Canaan is never evaluated negatively in the book of Kings. This is
different from the prologue of Judges, where the forced labour of the Canaan-
ite peoples (Judg. 1:28,30,33,35; cf. Josh. 16:10) is evaluated negatively. Although
Israel is increasingly warned for serving the gods and taking over the practices
of these nations, the fact that the nations have not been destroyed is apparently
accepted or tolerated in the books of Kings.
In 1Chr. 22:18, it is suggested that the Canaanite peoples were already sub-
dued in the time of David. It is stated that Yhwh has given his people peace
( hif.; cf. 1Chr. 23:25), that He has delivered the inhabitants of the land into
Davids hand, and that the land was subdued to Yhwh and his people.346 The
reference to the inhabitants of the land, who are distinguished from the peo-
ple of Yhwh, makes it likely that the nations of Canaan are meant. The impres-
sion is made that the conquest of Canaan is completed by the subjugation of
these peoples.347 There are no indications in this text that any further extermi-
nation should take place.
In the description of the census at the time of David it is reported that the
commanders of the army came to the fortress of Tyre and to all the cities of the
Hivites and Canaanites (2Sam. 24:7). It has been argued that the cities of the
Hivites and Canaanites is a reference to Canaanite enclaves within Canaan.
This would become clear from the end of the verse, where it is said that in
the end Beersheba in the south is reached.348 This interpretation assumes that
David subdued these enclaves, or in any case has the power to take a census. An
objection against this interpretation, however, is that the cities of the Hivites
and Canaanites are directly connected to Tyre. Only after this, a departure to
345 Simon J. DeVries, 1Kings, 2nd ed., wbc (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003), 133 character-
izes this as an attitude of permanent xenophobia, drawn upon to justify the wholesale
exploitation of peoples. However, in the context of Genesis to Kings it is not the forced
labour that is remarkable, but the fact that no extermination takes place.
346 According to Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, 230233, the book of Joshua
already suggests that Yhwhs promise to give the land of Canaan to Israel is fulfilled in
the time of David, since the border descriptions in Joshua would reflect the situation at
the time of king David.
347 This is confirmed by the fact that the formulation of 1 Chr. 22:18 suggests that Num. 32:22
(the land is subdued) and Deut. 3:20 a.o. (Yhwh gives rest) are now fulfilled. Cf. Pancratius
C. Beentjes, 1 Kronieken, vhb (Kampen: Kok, 2002), 190191 (who mentions only Num.
32:22).
348 Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, 181. Cf. Nadav Naaman, Borders and Districts
in Biblical Historiography: Seven Studies in Biblical Geographical Lists, jbs 4 (Jerusalem:
Simor, 1986), 4445, 5455.
the south is mentioned. It is also possible, therefore, that cities at the northern
border of Canaan are meant.349 Since it is unlikely that Tyre was reckoned
to the empire of David, it is not certain whether the cities of the Hivites and
Canaanites indicate the border of the country, or that they themselves still
belonged to the empire of David. In the latter case, this text would also mention
Canaanite peoples that were subdued to Israel.350
A text in which a more peaceful coexistence is also referred to, is Zech. 9:7.
In a comparison, it is stated that the Philistine city of Ekron shall be like the
Jebusites () , and that Yhwh will take away the idolatrous practices
of the Philistines. Those that remain for Yhwh, shall be like a clan in Judah,
and Ekron shall be like the Jebusites. The incorporation of Ekron into Israel is
thus compared to the integration of the Jebusites in Israel.351
Third, the gradual acceptance of the Canaanite peoples appears from the
fact that from the narratives of the monarchy, the prohibition to make a cov-
enant and to intermarry with the nations of Canaan is referred to several
349 Since the Hivites or Canaanites are not mentioned elsewhere in the books of Samuel, it
cannot be determined conclusively which interpretation is the most likely one. Naaman,
Borders and Districts, 194201 argues that the district system of 1 Kgs 4:719 was introduced
by David after the census of 1Sam. 24, and that the borders of the districts were sometimes
also determined by the presence of Canaanite enclaves.
350 In 1Sam. 27:89, mention is made of battles David fought before his kingship with Geshu-
rites, Gizrites (so Qere; Kethib, a few manuscripts and some Versions: Girzites), and Ama-
lekites. The text comments that these nations were the inhabitants of the land from of old.
David would have struck them ( hif.) and would have left no one alive. For a number
of reasons, this text is left aside. First, it is uncertain whether this passage deals with the
nations of Canaan. None of the seven nations from Deut. 7:1 is mentioned. Hans-Joachim
Stoebe, Das erste Buch Samuelis, kat (Gtersloh: Mohn, 1973), 474 mentions proposals for
emendation of to or . These proposals, however, are without any founda-
tion. The Geshurites are connected with the Philistines (Josh. 13:2), but both the Philistines
and Amalek are distinguished from the nations of Canaan in the Old Testament. Second,
the location of Davids raids is uncertain. Instead of from of old (), lxx has Telam,
a place name; so also C.J. Goslinga, Het eerste boek Samul, cot (Kampen: Kok, 1968), 447;
nrsv. Moreover, the area where David fights is distinguished from the territory of Judah
(1Sam. 27:10). Third, any reference to a motive that could point to a conscious extermina-
tion of the Canaanite peoples is missing. For these reasons, it is unlikely that 1 Sam. 27:89
is a reference to the extermination of the nations of Canaan. Otherwise Goslinga, Ibid.
351 George L. Klein, Zechariah, nac (Nashville: b & h Publishing, 2008), 267; Carol L. Mey-
ers and Eric M. Meyers, Zechariah 914, AncB (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 118; A.S. van
der Woude, Zacharia, pot (Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1984), 171172. For the historical back-
ground of the demise of the Philistine power, see Yosef Freund, And Ekron as a Jebusite
(Zechariah 9:7), jbq 21 (1993): 170177.
246 chapter 3
times, but the command to exterminate them is not. It is reported about king
Solomon that he had women from various nations, including Hittite women.
It is noted that Yhwh had said that Israel should not involve itself with these
nations because of the danger of idolatry (1Kgs 11:12). If the mention of the
Hittite women is intended as a reference to one of the Canaanite peoples,
only the prohibition to intermarry (Deut. 7:34) is quoted here, but not the
command to exterminate these nations.352 In that case, the prohibition on
mixed marriages with the nations of Canaan is extended to other nations as
well. In the description of Josiahs reforms, in which the content of (a part of)
the book of Deuteronomy apparently played a role, the removal of practices
that are associated elsewhere with the nations of Canaan is mentioned (2 Kgs
23:10,24), but not the destruction of these nations themselves.
In the book of Ezra, it is observed that Israel has not separated itself (
nif.) from the peoples of the lands () . Then follows a list of five
out of the seven nations of Canaan, to which the Ammonites, Moabites and
Egyptians are added.353 Marriages have been closed with women from these
nations (Ezra 9:12). This is considered as a violation of the prohibition to
intermarry with the indigenous population (Ezra 9:12,14). The formulations
used (not to give your daughters to their sons or vice versa, hitp.,
pl.) to a large extent correspond to those in Deuteronomy (Deut. 7:3; 18:9,12;
20:18).354 In Ezra 9:12, this is combined with the regulations concerning the
Moabites and Ammonites from Deut. 23:7 () . Thus, in Ezra 9
the prohibition to intermarry with the nations of Canaan is extended to and
352 It is also possible to understand as a reference to the neo-Hittite empire, as in

1Kgs 10:29 (cf. the other nations surrounding Israel in 1 Kgs 11:1). According to Mordechai
Cogan, 1Kings, AncB (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 326, however, in that case always the
plural is used. The reference to the prohibition to intermarry makes it likely that one of
the Canaanite peoples is intended in 1Kgs 11:1. This is also apparent in lxx, which adds
Amorite women after the Hittite. The fact that other nations than the seven peoples of
Canaan are mentioned here does not imply that the author applies Deut. 7 to all non-
Israelites in every period of history, as is stated by John Van Seters, The Terms Amorite
and Hittite in the Old Testament, vt 22 (1972): 68.
353 For a discussion of the list of nations in Ezra 9:1 with its problems, see Saysell, According
to the Law, 3542.
354 For Ezra 910 and Neh. 13 as interpretations of Deut. 7 (a.o.), see Csilla Saysell, Deuteron-
omy in the Intermarriage Crises in EzraNehemiah, in Interpreting Deuteronomy: Issues
and Approaches, ed. David G. Firth and Philip S. Johnston (Downers Grove: ivp Academic,
2012), 197208. According to Yair Hoffman, The Deuteronomistic Concept of the Herem,
zaw 111 (1999): 207208, the command in Deut. 7 is a polemical reaction against the nation-
alism of Ezra 9. For the background and an evaluation of this thesis, see 4.3.
combined with the regulations concerning other nations. On the one hand,
the peoples of the lands are not called Canaanites; on the other hand, their
practices are compared to those of the nations of Canaan and the prohibition
on intermarriage is applied to them. While a call to exterminate them is missing
again, this passage may be considered as an actualization of Deut. 7 and an
application to other nations as well.355 According to the book of Ezra, Israel
then separates itself from these nations ( nif.) by dissolving the mixed
marriages (Ezra 10:1011,16).356
In the book of Nehemiah, the prohibition to intermarry with the peoples
of the land ( , Neh. 10:31) is explicitly mentioned in the context of the
renewal of the covenant.357 Any reference, however, to extermination which
should have taken place or which would still have to be executed, is missing in
Ezra and Nehemiah.358 There is, however, no full acceptance; mixed marriages
remain taboo. Commercial contacts with these nations seem to be possible,
except on a sabbath or on a holy day (Neh. 10:32).359
355 See Saysell, Deuteronomy in the Intermarriage Crises, 202206; H.G.M. Williamson, Ezra,
Nehemiah, wbc (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985), 130.
356 According to Armin L. Lange, Your Daughters Do Not Give to Their Sons and Their
Daughters Do Not Take for Your Sons (Ezra 9,12): Intermarriage in Ezra 910 and in the
Pre-Maccabean Dead Sea Scrolls,bn 137 (2008): 1740; 139 (2008): 7998, the opposition to
mixed marriages in Ezra and Nehemiah corresponds to other Jewish texts from that time.
Forced divorce, however, would be unknown (except in Ezra) before the third century b.c.
357 In Neh. 13:1,23, mixed marriages with Moabites and Ammonites are reported at the time
of Nehemiah, but not with the nations of Canaan. As a motive for the opposition against
these mixed marriages, the danger of idolatry is mentioned (Neh. 13:26), which is men-
tioned in Deuteronomy concerning the nations of Canaan, but not concerning the Moab-
ites and Ammonites.
358 According to Saysell, According to the Law, 7477, the command is reinterpreted. Saysell
views the divorce as a form of in a metaphorical sense. However, the root is not
used in this context in Ezra and Nehemiah. It should be noted that under Persian authority,
Israel would not have had the authority to execute such an extermination. This does not
exclude the wish to exterminate the nations of Canaan, however.
359 In this context, Prov. 31:24 may also be mentioned. This text describes the ideal woman,
who makes garments and sashes, and sells them to the merchant (). Generally,
is interpreted as merchant, trader. lxx, however, translates as the Canaanites. If this
interpretation were to be followed, the text seems to presuppose a normal trade with these
nations. In the context, however, there are no indications at all that a nation is thought of.
Even if that would be the case, it is uncertain whether the respective Canaanite/merchant
would originate from the land of Canaan. Therefore, it is unlikely that the nations of
Canaan are referred to in this text.
248 chapter 3
The outlined development in Israels attitude toward the nations of Canaan

could also correspond to the message of the writing prophets. It is remark-
able that none of the writing prophets mentions the command to extermi-
nate the nations of Canaan (cf. 3.4.2). This silence is striking, since in the
prophetic writings Israel is admonished repeatedly for taking over practices
of the Canaanite peoples.360 If the interpretation is correct that, according to
the Old Testament traditions, the continued existence of the Canaanite peo-
ples seems to be accepted after the conquest of the land of Canaan, the silence
of the writing prophets would correspond to this. Israel is warned repeatedly,
however, against intermarriage, making a covenant and taking over Canaanite
practices.
Connected to sparing the Canaanite peoples and their incorporation into
Israel, an increasing influence of these nations on Israel is described (cf.
3.4.4.2). This then leads to Yhwhs judgment on Israel, as it was announced
in Deut. 7 and other texts. This judgment appears in the assessment of vari-
ous kings, whose actions are compared to the Canaanite peoples way of life.361
According to Genesis to Kings, the incorporation and the influence of the
nations of Canaan in the end leads to the exile of Israel and Judah.
In conclusion, the books of Joshua to Kings describe the gradual integration of

the nations of Canaan into Israel. A first indication is the announcement that
Yhwh will no longer destroy the Canaanite peoples (Judg. 2:3,2123). In the
books of Samuel and Kings, there are no indications at all of the actuality of the
command to exterminate the nations of Canaan. From the end of the time of
the judges or from the reign of David and Solomon, no attempt or command to
exterminate these nations is reported any more. The prohibition to intermarry
is referred to, but the command to exterminate is not. Although there are closer
contacts or integration of the Canaanite peoples into Israel (functions in the
army, trade contacts), sometimes an emphatic distinction is made between
these nations and the people of Yhwh (no mixed marriages). After the time
of the conquest of Canaan, however, the continued existence of the nations of
Canaan seems to be accepted or tolerated.362
360 Fohrer, Israels Haltung, 7072; Lohr, Chosen and Unchosen, 170.
361 1Kgs 11:111; 14:2426; 21:2126; 2Kgs 16:35; 17:8,11,15,18; 21:2,9,11.
362 For the way Judaism dealt with pagan practices in Canaan at the beginning of the Com-
mon Era, see David Flusser, Paganism in Palestine, in The Jewish People in the First Cen-
tury: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institu-
tions, ed. S. Safrai and M. Stern, cri, i (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976), 10881089. In Jewish
tradition, the biblical imperative to destroy idols is reread as an imperative to keep away
3.4.3.3 No More Canaanite (Zech. 14:21)

Finally, Zech. 14:21 has to be discussed. In this text, it is promised that on
that day () , there will no longer be a in the house of Yhwh.
The expression on that day is often used in Zech. 1214; it refers to the
eschatological battle, which is decided by Yhwh in his and Israels favour.363 In
those chapters, it is twice stated that at that time something will be no more
() . There will be no more , and there will be no more ( Zech.
14:11,21). Both designations are used in Deut. 7, and thus may be relevant for the
present study.
The interpretation of in Zech. 14:21 is controversial, however. Accord-
ing to various exegetes, the word should be interpreted as trader or mer-
chant. Historically, this meaning could be traced back to the Canaanites as
a people of merchants, but the ethnic meaning would no longer play a role
in Zech. 14. The translation trader is already found in the Targum, the Vul-
gate and Aquila.364 The following arguments have been adduced in favour of
this interpretation. First, exegetes have pointed to texts in which clearly
means trader, merchant, without any indications for an ethnic connotation
(Job 40:30; Prov. 31:24; Hos. 12:8; Zeph. 1:11). Second, they have pointed to the
context of Zech. 14:21. The universality of Yhwhs kingship and the call to all
the nations in Zech. 14 would make it unlikely that a particular nation would be
excluded from salvation. If is interpreted as trader, the meaning of this
verse would be that business around religion is over. There is no more greed, but
the sacrifices are made from a pure heart. There is no more place for traders in
the temple, or they are no longer needed, since there is an abundance of holy
things.365
from them; see Ishay Rosen-Zvi, Rereading herem: Destruction of Idolatry in Tannaitic
Literature, in The Gift of the Land and the Fate of the Canaanites in Jewish Thought, ed.
Katell Berthelot, Joseph E. David, and Marc Hirshman (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2014), 5065. For a contemporary Jewish-orthodox view, see Shalom Carmy, The Origin
of Nations and the Shadow of Violence: Theological Perspectives on Canaan and Amalek,
Trad. 39 (2006): 6870.
363 Zech. 12:3,4,6,8(twice),9,11; 13:1,2,4; 14:4,6,8,9,13,20,21.
364 Targum: ( no variants). Vulgate: mercator. Aquila: . This interpretation
is also mentioned in b. Pesa. 50a.
365 For this interpretation, see Mark J. Boda, Haggai, Zechariah, nivac (Grand Rapids: Zon-
dervan, 2004), 529; Klein, Zechariah, 428; Van der Woude, Zacharia, 267268. Cf. Henning
Graf Reventlow, Die Propheten Haggai, Sacharja und Maleachi, atd (Gttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 128; Wilhelm Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 18, Sacharja 914,
Maleachi, kat (Gtersloh: Mohn, 1976), 239; H.-J. Zobel, ThWAT 4:243.
250 chapter 3
However, a number of objections may be raised against this interpretation. It

is true that in a number of texts, means trader or merchant, without an
ethnic connotation. However, the theme of trade in the temple plays no role
at all in Zech. 1214. All indications for trade in the temple seem to originate
from later times, in particular from the description of Jesuss cleansing of the
temple (Mark 11:1518 parr).366 Any trade terms are missing in the context of
Zech. 14:21, in contrast to the other texts mentioned in which is interpreted
as merchant.367 The motifs of greed or offering sacrifices from a pure heart are
absent as well in Zech. 14. Therefore, the interpretation of as merchant
is unlikely in this text.368
The other possible interpretation is that in Zech. 14:21 is a gentilicium,
Canaanite. This translation is found in lxx and s.369 This interpretation fits
well with the context of Zech. 14. The universal, free access of all nations to
Yhwh in Jerusalem (Zech. 14:16) already makes it likely that a nation is referred
to in verse 21. The end of the chapter is full of radical reversals in the future.
Horses, a symbol of political and profane power which is in contrast to the
eschatological peace, will have bells with the inscription Holy to Yhwh, the
text of the plate or plaquette of the high priest (Exod. 28:36). Pots, a symbol
of the normal, non-sacral life, will be used in the temple and will be holy to
Yhwh.370 The total absence of the Canaanites, a symbol of everything that
threatens Israel as the people of Yhwh, would fit well with these radical
reversals. The only other texts in the Old Testament stating about people that
they will be there no more are about the wicked ( ;Ps. 37:10; 104:35). This
interpretation of Zech. 14:21 would also fit the general negative picture that is
painted of the Canaanites in the Old Testament, and it would match with the
command to exterminate them (). According to Zech. 14:11, there shall no
more be a either; apparently, this is no longer necessary. In Zech. 14, other
nations that do not want to serve Yhwh are punished (Zech. 14:1719). For the
366 The connection between these New Testament texts and Zech. 14:21 is not discussed here;
see, e.g., Cecil Roth, The Cleansing of the Temple and Zechariah xiv 21, nt 4 (1960): 174
181, who states that in the time of Jesus both interpretations of Zech. 14:21 (trader and
Canaanite) occurred.
367 Job 40:30: ( cf. Job 6:27); Prov. 31:24: ;Hos. 12:8: , ;Zeph. 1:11: .
368 In addition, according to Michael Tilly, Kanaaner, Hndler und der Tempel in Jerusalem,
bn 57 (1991): 32, the meaning merchant is not found in non-canonical early Jewish
literature, or in Philo and Josephus.
369 lxx: . lxx and s have no variants.
370 Klein, Zechariah, 426427; Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 914, 480, 482, 506507; Van der
Woude, Zacharia, 267.
internal threat, however, the Canaanites living in the midst of Israel and mixed
with it, this is not possible. However, they will no longer be there. Canaanites
will no longer be in Yahwehs house, because that which defines Canaanite
a culture in tension with Yahwismwill no longer exist.371 Thus, the holiness
of Yhwh is everywhere and is no longer threatened.
In conclusion, the interpretation of as Canaanite is the one most con-

sistent with the context in Zech. 14. According to this chapter, eschatologically
there will no longer be a , and there will no longer be Canaanites in the
house of Yhwh. Nothing in the restored Jerusalem will oppose the worship of
Yhwh.372 In the eschatological expectation of Zech. 14, the total absence of the
Canaanite has explicitly been given a place. In this text, Israel is not called to
exterminate the nations of Canaan. From the context of Zech. 14 as a whole,
it becomes clear that Yhwh will ensure that the Canaanites will no longer be
there; it is not explicated how He will do so.
According to a number of exegetes, Canaanites or merchants are also men-

tioned in Zech. 11:7,11. In both texts, mt reads )( . lxx, however, as the
only one of the Versions, translates Canaanites, and thus reads one word
)(.373 This reading is followed by several commentaries and translations.
In that case, two interpretations are possible. First, may be interpreted as
371 Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 914, 491; cf. 506. Meyers and Meyers add to this that it is
also possible that the Canaanites have been exterminated as yet. In Zech. 14, however, the
point is not whether or not the Canaanites have been exterminated, but that they will
no longer be there as Canaanites, as a power against Yhwh. Tilly, Kanaaner, Hndler
und der Tempel in Jerusalem, 36 n. 34 points out that the motif that there will no longer
be a stranger is used more often in Jewish and Christian eschatology. Konrad R. Schaefer,
The Ending of the Book of Zechariah: A Commentary,rb 100 (1993): 235238 has pointed
to other texts in which it is said that something will never again be there, to describe
the eschatological holiness of Jerusalem (Isa. 52:1; Nah. 2:1; Joel 4:17). These parallels
also demonstrate that it is not implied in Zech. 14:21 that previously there have been
Canaanites in the house of Yhwh.
372 This interpretation in Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 914, 489492; Al Wolters, Zechariah,
hcot (Leuven: Peeters, 2014), 473. For double entendre, according to which both mer-
chant and Canaanite would resonate, see Klein, Zechariah, 429; Rex Mason, The Use of
Earlier Biblical Material in Zechariah 914: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis, in Bringing
out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 914, ed. Mark J. Boda and Michael
H. Floyd, jsot.s 370 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 195196.
373 Although the other Versions translate somewhat differently, it is clear that only lxx has
this reading. Cf. Van der Woude, Zacharia, 210.
252 chapter 3
merchants. This would be in line with the reference to slaughtering, buying

and selling in Zech. 11:46.374 An objection against this interpretation, how-
ever, is that lxx does not translate merchants, but Canaanites. Second,
may be interpreted as a gentilicium, so that the text may be translated as: the
Canaanites among the sheep. In that case, Canaanites would be a designa-
tion of the sheep themselves. According to A.S. van der Woude, this designation
refers to the population of Samaria worshipping Yhwh.375 Only in this sec-
ond interpretation, Zech. 11:7,11 would be relevant for the present study. An
objection against this interpretation, however, is that in Biblical Hebrew a gen-
tilicium is never followed by a genitive.376 An objection against both interpre-
tations is that the reading of mt is already found in the Damascus Document
(cd xix, 9), so it is attested rather early.377 There is no plausible explanation
why the reading of mt would have originated.378 Because of these uncertain-
ties, Zech. 11:7,11 is not considered in this study as a reference to the Canaanites.
3.4.4 Motives for Israels Attitude toward the Nations of Canaan

In this section, I will scrutinize which motives are mentioned in the Old Testa-
ment for the negative attitude toward the nations of Canaan.379 In the inves-
374 So Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 914, 261262, 271; Rudolph, Haggai, Sacharja 18, Sa-
charja 914, Maleachi, 202.
375 Van der Woude, Zacharia, 210211, 214215.
376 Cf. jm 131no; 137b. This is not an objection against the first interpretation, if it is assumed
that was a common word for merchant, without an ethnic connotation. In the Old
Testament, the plural of is used only in Obad. 20; Neh. 9:24; as for the form, cf. jm
90b.
377 Broshi, The Damascus Document Reconsidered, 43. This part of the Damascus Document
was found in the Cairo Genizah; however, other parts of the document have also been
found in Qumran. Therefore, it is likely that this reading is rather old. cd xix, 9 is not a
citation of Zech. 11 (contra Wolters, Zechariah, 368; Van der Woude, Zacharia, 210), but it
probably is an allusion. It is said about a group of people that they are the poor of the
flock () . Wolters also refers to 4q163 21 7, but this text is rather fragmentary.
There is no text of Zech. 11:7,11 from Qumran.
378 For a defense of the reading of mt, see also Wolters, Zechariah, 368.
379 Some texts reflect a negative attitude without mentioning a motive. In Judg. 19:1112,
Jerusalem, the city of the Jebusites, is rejected as a place to spend the night, because it is a
foreign ( )city, which does not belong to the Israelites. This reflects a negative attitude,
but a motive is not mentioned. In Ezek. 16:3, it is stated that Israel originates from the land
of the Canaanite; your father was an Amorite, your mother a Hittite (cf. verse 45). In this
way, a connection is suggested between several practices of Israel, in particular idolatry
and child sacrifice (Ezek. 16:1721,36; cf. 20:28,31), and the nations of Canaan. Ezek. 16,
however, does not deal with Israels attitude toward these nations themselves.
tigation of these motives in Deuteronomy, it was concluded that the reasons

given for the command to exterminate the Canaanite peoples are religious
in nature. Apart from some general designations, concrete practices are men-
tioned in Deuteronomy, namely divination and child sacrifice ( 3.2.4). In this
section, I will first deal with general designations as a motive for the negative
attitude toward the nations of Canaan (3.4.4.1). Next, I will discuss the texts
in which divination and/or child sacrifice are mentioned ( 3.4.4.2). Finally,
another motive is investigated, which is not found in Deuteronomy, namely
certain sexual practices of these nations (3.4.4.3).
3.4.4.1 General Designations

In some texts, the judgment on the nations of Canaan is motivated in a general
way (Gen. 15:16; 1Kgs 21:2526; Ezra 9:11).
In the making of the covenant between Yhwh and Abram in Gen. 15, it is
said that Abrams progeny will reside outside the land of Canaan for a long
time. Only the fourth generation shall come back to Canaan, for the iniquity
( )of the Amorites is not yet complete (( )Gen. 15:16).380 It is likely that
the Amorites are pars pro toto for all the nations living in Canaan (cf. the list
of nations in Gen. 15:1921). The designation for the behaviour of these
nations is not used in Deuteronomy.381 It is not indicated in Gen. 15 what is
the form or content of their transgression. The formulation, however, suggests
that the iniquity of the Amorites is already there in Abrams time, but is not
yet complete. Only when this will be the case, Abrams offspring will return to
the land.382 This implies that at that time a judgment of the nations of Canaan
will take place; it is not indicated, however, what this will be.
In 1Kgs 21:2526, it is first announced that the judgment of Yhwh will come
on Ahab; next, a motivation for the judgment is provided. There was none like
Ahab; he did what was evil in the sight of Yhwh (cf. verse 20), and he acted
abominably ( hif.) in going after idols, according to everything what the
Amorites had done, whom Yhwh destroyed ( hif.) before the Israelites.
The comparison with the Amorites underlines the negative evaluation of Ahab.
380 Due to the motivation that follows, the fourth generation should be interpreted as only
the fourth generation. Cf. Claus Westermann, Genesis, bk (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukir-
chener Verlag, 19741982), 2:252.
381 The word is rarely used in Deuteronomy; only in Deut. 5:9; 19:15.
382 Willem Hendrik Gispen, Genesis, cot (Kampen: Kok, 19741983), 2:114: Nothing may be
lacking of the iniquity of the Amorite, would the entrance of the Israelites as a divine
judgment of his iniquity be justified. [my translation] Cf. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis,
wbc (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 19871994), 1:332.
254 chapter 3
What Yhwh did to the Amorites is impressed upon Ahab as a threat. As a con-
crete sin, only worshipping the idols is mentioned. The formulation according
to everything what the Amorites had done, however, suggests that there was
more. It is not elaborated on what this would be.
Another text in which a general designation is given for Israels negative
attitude toward the nations of Canaan is Ezra 9:11. Ezra 9 contains a prayer
of Ezra, in which he confesses Israels guilt about the marriages with foreign
women. In verse 11, reference is made to a judgment of Yhwh himself by his
prophets over the land of Canaan. The land is an impure land ( ) with
the impurity ( )of the peoples of the lands, with their abhorrent practices
( pl.; cf. verse 14: the peoples of these abhorrent practices), by which
they have filled it, with their uncleanness ( ;Ezra 9:11). This text contains
an explicit reference to the nations of Canaan. Elsewhere in the Old Testament,
the abhorrent practices of these nations and the uncleanness of Canaan are
also mentioned (Lev. 18:25,27). Only in Ezra 9, however, the impurity ()
is connected with the land. The chapter does not explicitly deal with the
extermination of the Canaanite peoples. The prohibition on intermarriage is
mentioned (Ezra 9:12), since mixed marriages are the occasion for Ezras prayer
(Ezra 9:12). Extermination is mentioned regarding Israel itself (Ezra 9:14). In
this passage, however, a negative attitude toward the nations of Canaan is
clear. The motive for this is the practices of these nations, which are valued
negatively from a religious point of view. It is not indicated what their deeds
are in practice.
Finally, in a number of texts the impression is given that the reason for
Israels extermination of the nations of Canaan is their hostile attitude toward
or their attack of Israel. This motive is not mentioned explicitly, but it is
suggested by the description of a peaceful Israel which is attacked. This is the
case with the battle against the king of Arad (Num. 21:13) and against Sihon
and Og (Num. 21:2125,3335; cf. Judg. 11:1924). This suggestion also resonates
with the description of some campaigns in Joshua (Josh. 9:12; 10:15; 11:15).383
In Josh. 11:1920, it is suggested that the hostile attitude of the Canaanites,
which is attributed to Yhwhs hardening of their hearts, was necessary in order
to make Israel destroy them.
383 Stone, Ethical and Apologetic Tendencies, 3334 states that in the book of Joshua all
battles of conquest after Ai are presented as defensive actions. Texts like Josh. 10:40; 11:20,
however, also point to other motives.
3.4.4.2 Divination and Child Sacrifice

In Deuteronomy, an explicit connection is made between divination and child
sacrifice of the nations of Canaan and their extermination (Deut. 18:12; see the
discussion in 3.2.4.2). Elsewhere in the Old Testament, these practices are also
referred to. The historical questions concerning child sacrifice will be discussed
later (4.2.1).
In the book of Kings, child sacrifice (and divination) is mentioned three
times. About king Ahaz of Judah it is told that he did not do what was right
( )in the eyes of Yhwh. He made his son pass through the fire, according
to the abhorrent practices of the nations whom Yhwh destroyed before Israel
( hif.). In addition, he sacrificed on the high places (2 Kgs 16:24; cf. 2 Chr.
28:24). On the basis of the expression to make pass through the fire (
hif.), in combination with the reference to the abhorrent practices ( )of
the Canaanite peoples, it may be assumed that the service of the god Molech
is referred to (see 3.2.4.2).
In 2Kgs 17, it is said about the northern kingdom that it lived according to
the customs of the nations whom Yhwh destroyed ( hif.; 2 Kgs 17:8). The
Israelites worshiped the idols, as the nations did whom Yhwh carried away
( hif.; 2Kgs 17:11; cf. 912,16). They went after the false idols (futility, )
of the nations around them, whereas Yhwh commanded Israel not to do so
(2 Kgs 17:15). It is not certain whether the latter formulation (the nations around
Israel) also refers to the nations of Canaan. Israel is also accused that they made
their sons and daughters pass through the fire and that they used divination
and omens. Two forms of divination are mentioned. The connection between
divination and child sacrifice has already been discussed ( 3.2.4.2). In this way,
Israel did evil in the sight of Yhwh. These practices are the reason for the exile
of the northern kingdom (2Kgs 17:1718).384
Finally, it is told about king Manasseh that he did evil in the sight of Yhwh,
according to the abhorrent practices of the nations whom Yhwh destroyed
( hif.; 2Kgs 21:2). He served the idols (2Kgs 21:35,7), made his son pass
through the fire, and used various forms of divination (three forms are men-
tioned). Manasseh did much evil in the sight of Yhwh (2 Kgs 21:6). There is
a climax in the formulation: Ahaz did not do what is right in the sight of
Yhwh, the northern kingdom did evil, Manasseh did much evil. In the com-
parison with the nations of Canaan, the comparative is used now: Manasseh
384 This passage from 2Kgs 17 has no parallel in Chronicles. This may be explained by the
fact that it deals with the northern kingdom, whereas Chronicles focuses on the southern
kingdom.
256 chapter 3
led Israel to do more evil than the nations whom Yhwh destroyed, and he him-
self did more abhorrent things than all that the Amorites did before him (2 Kgs
21:9,11; cf. 2Chr. 33:27, which mentions four forms of divination). Manasseh is
accused of more and more serious sins than all the kings before him; he is char-
acterized as a sinner of unparallelled dimensions.385 Therefore, the southern
kingdom is also struck by the judgment of Yhwh (2 Kgs 21:1215). Thus, child
sacrifice in particular is designated as the cause of the exile of the northern and
southern kingdom.386
In Ps. 106, the practices of the nations of Canaan are also referred to. Israel
did not destroy these nations, but they mixed with them and learned their
practices. This led to idolatry and sacrificing their children to the idols of
Canaan (, ) .387 This caused Yhwhs judgment on Israel (Ps. 106:35
41).
In the texts mentioned above, child sacrifice is referred to as one of the
practices of the Canaanite peoples adopted by Israel. This is always connected
with idolatry in general, and a few times also with forms of divination. The
emphasis always is on the sin of Israel and Yhwhs judgment that is provoked
by it. By means of the characterization of these practices as abhorrent ()
and evil in the sight of Yhwh, and by the reference to the destruction of the
nations of Canaan, a connection is implicitly made between these practices of
the nations of Canaan and their extermination.
385 Percy S.F. van Keulen, Manasseh through the Eyes of the Deuteronomists: The Manasseh
Account (2Kings 21:118) & the Final Chapters of the Deuteronomistic History, ots 38 (Lei-
den: Brill, 1996), 156. For the image of Manasseh in the book of Kings, see Ibid., 144156;
Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice, 2345. Stavrakopoulou believes that
the image of Manasseh in the Old Testament is consciously distorted in order to conceal
that child sacrifices were an original element of the cult of Yhwh. For this, see 4.2.1.
386 Armin L. Lange, They Burn Their Sons and Daughters. That Was No Command of
Mine (Jer 7:31): Child Sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible and in the Deuteronomistic Jeremiah
Redaction, in Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition, ed. Karin Finsterbusch,
Armin L. Lange, and K.F. Diethard Rmheld, NumBS 112 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 110. Van
Keulen, Manasseh through the Eyes of the Deuteronomists, 148152 points to the analogy
in description of the fall of the northern and southern kingdom, but not to child sacrifice
as the cause.
387 The word is used only here and in Deut. 32:17. In Deut. 32:17 as well, it is used in the
context of illegitimate sacrifices to other gods than Yhwh. The question whether
refers to demons (cf. lxx), and how this should be viewed from a religion historical and
a theological perspective, may be left aside here.
3.4.4.3 Sexual Practices

Next to general designations, divination and child sacrifice, the sexual practices
of these nations are also mentioned in the Old Testament as a motive for
the negative attitude toward the nations of Canaan, namely in Lev. 18 and
20 (cf. 1Kgs 14:24). In Deuteronomy, these practices are not mentioned as a
motive for the command. It is remarkable that the sexual practices of the
Canaanites are so extensively discussed only in Lev. 18 and 20, and that they are
mentioned only in these chapters as a motive for the expulsion or destruction
of these nations.388 The historical questions concerning the sexual practices of
the nations of Canaan will be discussed later (4.2.2).
Leviticus 18 and 20 flank the central chapter 19.389 The structure of Lev. 18
is chiastic.390 At the beginning and at the end of the chapter, Israel is called
to keep the decrees of Yhwh, and to keep away from the practices of the
Canaanite peoples (Lev. 18:15,2430). The centre part of the chapter contains
a series of prohibitions, in particular concerning illegitimate sexual relations
(Lev. 18:623).
The address of Yhwh to Moses in Lev. 18 marks the beginning of a new
section. The message Moses has to bring to the Israelites starts with the so-
called Selbstvorstellungsformel. This way, Yhwh presents himself as the only
God and as the only legislative authority for Israel.391 Next, Israel is called
not to act according to the works ( )or the decrees or customs ()
of Egypt and Canaan. Nowhere else in the Old Testament are the of
Egypt and Canaan mentioned (those of the nations are mentioned).392 Israel,
388 Cf. Baruch J. Schwartz, .( The Holiness Legis-

lation: Studies in the Priestly Code) (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999), 159.
389 Mary Douglas, Justice as the Cornerstone: An Interpretation of Leviticus 1820, Interp.
53 (1999): 341350; Mary Douglas, Leviticus as Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1999), 234238; Milgrom, Leviticus, 2:17651768. According to Milgrom, Lev. 19 even is the
centre of the entire Torah. For the origin of Lev. 18 and 20 and the relationship between
these chapters, see, e.g., Schwartz, Holiness Legislation, 135144.
390 Cf. Milgrom, Leviticus, 2:15161517; Schwartz, Holiness Legislation, 131134.
391 Cf. Thomas Hieke, Levitikus, HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2014), 2:661662. The Selbstvor-
stellungsformel is used six times in Lev. 18 (verses 2,4,5,6,21,30), fifteen times in Lev. 19
(verses 3,4,10,12,14,16,18,25,28,30,31,32,34,36,37), and three times in Lev. 20 (verses 7,8,24).
According to Douglas, Justice as the Cornerstone, 348 (who does not mention Lev. 18:2;
20:24), this division underlines the centrality of Lev. 19.
392 Klaus Grnwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 1726: Ursprngliche Gestalt, Tradition
und Theologie, bzaw 271 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999), 210. In Exod. 23:24, the works
( )of the nations of Canaan are mentioned, but this probably refers to images of
idols (see 3.3.1).
258 chapter 3
on the contrary, should act according to the laws of Yhwh (, ;)

by this, man shall live. In verse 5, the call to keep Yhwhs commandments
is repeated. The contrast between the laws of Canaan and those of Yhwh
is underlined by the fronted object in verse 4 (my decrees you shall do, my
laws you shall keep), by the repetition in verse 5 and by the double formula
I am Yhwh (verses 4,5). Thus, in Lev. 18:15 the exclusive loyalty between
Yhwh and Israel is emphasized and protected against other nations (and their
gods).393 This introduction already suggests that the practices prohibited in
verses 623 occurred in the nations of Canaan and Egypt.394
In Lev. 18:623, an enumeration follows of various forms of incest, homosex-
uality, and bestiality, which are prohibited. The giving of children to Molech is
also mentioned in this context (verse 21; for child sacrifice, see 3.2.4.2; 3.4.4.2).
The combination of child sacrifice and illicit sexual relations is noteworthy (see
also below on Lev. 20). The most likely explanation for this connection is that
both are called abhorrent ( )and both are a reason for the extermina-
tion of the Canaanite peoples (and of Israel, if it takes over these practices). The
location of the prohibition on child sacrifice after verse 20 may be explained by
the repetition of and in verses 20 and 21.395
In the last part of Lev. 18, it is stated that the nations of Canaan did all
of the abhorrent things ( pl.) mentioned (Lev. 18:27; cf. verses 24,30).
By these, both the nations themselves and the land have become unclean
(verses 24,25,27,28).396 Apparently, the land too has to be cleansed (cf. verse 25:
393 Cf. Ibid., 209210.

394 Cf. Schwartz, Holiness Legislation, 155.
395 Ibid., 196200. For other explanations and for the relation between the other prohibi-
tions in Lev. 18, see Hartley and Dwyer, An Investigation into the Location of the Laws;
Milgrom, Leviticus, 2:15581559; Doug C. Mohrmann, Making Sense of Sex: A Study of
Leviticus 18, jsot 29 (2004): 5779; Adrian Schenker, What Connects the Incest Prohibi-
tions with the Other Prohibitions Listed in Leviticus 18 and 20?, in The Book of Leviticus:
Composition and Reception, ed. Rolf Rendtorff and Robert A. Kugler, vt.s 93 (Leiden: Brill,
2003), 162185. Schenker views Lev. 18:1923 as an attempt to preserve the human capac-
ity of procreation and giving birth in its original purpose and to keep it away from what is
certainly a barren use (Ibid., 168169). This explanation is unsatisfactory, however, since
the fruit of the procreation is not mentioned at all in Lev. 18, except in verse 21.
396 Grnwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz, 215 states that in this passage, the land seems to be
guilty, instead of the inhabitants. This statement is not complete, however. The guilt of
the nations of Canaan appears from the reference to the abhorrent things they did, from
the consequences for these nations (mentioned first in verse 24), and from the warning to
Israel not to act as these nations did.
Yhwh will punish its iniquity; Ezra 9:11).397 The consequence of that pollution
is that the Canaanite peoples will disappear from the land. It is first stated that
Yhwh drives them out ( pi., verse 24), then that the land vomits them
out ( qal/hif., verses 25,28).398 The land is personified in this verse, and it
is presented as actively involved in the expulsion of the nations of Canaan.
Outside Lev. 18 and 20, the motif of vomiting out inhabitants is not found in
the Old Testament.399 If Israel takes over the practices mentioned, it will be
vomited out as well (verse 28), or those who do such things will be destroyed
( nif., verse 29). In verse 28, the warning is directed to the people as a whole,
in verse 29 to individual Israelites () .400 Finally, Israel is called again to
keep far away from these practices and to keep the commandments of Yhwh
(verses 26,30). This call is closed with the formula I am Yhwh, as a motivation
of the preceding exhortations.
In the framework of Lev. 18, emphasis is placed on the distinction there
should be between Israel and the nations of Canaan. In the context of the
Pentateuch, the provisions of Leviticus are situated between Israels stay in
Egypt and the conquest of Canaan.401 The text, however, mainly looks to the
future. Egypt is once referred to (verse 3), whereas Israel is warned seven times
for the practices of the nations of Canaan (verses 3 (twice),24,26,27,29,30).402
397 In the Holiness Code (and elsewhere in the Old Testament), the land of Canaan is called
clean, but not holy, as the tabernacle or the temple; Jan Joosten, People and Land in the
Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 1726,
vt.s 67 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 178179; Milgrom, Leviticus, 2:15721573.
398 The forms of may be either qal or hif., since in the verbs , there is no difference
between qal and hif. in the forms of the yiqtol. In this case, it may be a so-called pseudo-
Hifil; cf. jm 54f.; 81c. The form at the end of verse 28 is a qal (). The Masoretic
accentuation with the accent on the last syllable points to a participle. This would cor-
respond with the participle of pi. in verse 24. Since it is unusual that the subject of a
participle is omitted, it has been proposed to place the accent of on the first syllable,
thus reading it as a qatal; so Milgrom, Leviticus, 2:1582; Hieke, Levitikus, 2:693. However,
although it is rare, the subject of a participle is sometimes omitted, in particular if the
referent has just been mentioned, as is the case in Lev. 18:28; see jm 154c; Waltke and
OConnor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 624.
399 Schenker, What Connects the Incest Prohibitions, 176.
400 B. Maarsingh, Leviticus, pot (Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1974), 159160.
401 Cf. Schenker, What Connects the Incest Prohibitions, 180. If in verse 28 is read as a
qatal, this may be conceived as an indication that the removal of the Canaanite peoples
has already taken place; see, however, n. 398.
402 Milgrom, Leviticus, 2:1520; Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, nic (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1979), 250.
260 chapter 3
In the present text of Lev. 18, this refers to the sexual relations mentioned
(verses 623). Apparently, the prohibitions mentioned are supposed to be
known to the nations of Canaan, and are considered binding for them.403 In
sexual morality, Israel has to distinguish itself from these nations.
In Lev. 19, Israel is warned twice against forms of divination (verses 26,31).
Elsewhere, this kind of divination is presented as a practice of the nations of
Canaan (cf. Lev. 20:6; Deut. 18:10). These nations are not mentioned in Lev.
19, however; the chapter as a whole does not seem to be directed against the
Canaanites.
In Lev. 20, Israel is first warned not to be involved with child sacrifice for Molech
or with forms of divination (Lev. 20:26). After a general call to keep the statutes
of Yhwh (verses 78) then follows a series of regulations concerning incest,
homosexuality, and bestiality (verses 1021). Most of these offences are deemed
punishable by death. To a great extent, these prohibitions are similar to those in
Lev. 18:623. It is not clear why the prohibition on child sacrifice and divination
is mentioned first here, and, in contrast to the parallel in Lev. 18, separate from
the illicit sexual relations. The warning against divination is repeated at the
end of Lev. 20 (verse 27). At the end of the chapter, Israel is called to keep
the commandments of Yhwh, that the land may not vomit them out (
qal/hif., verse 22; cf. Lev. 18:25,28). Israel shall not live according to the laws
or customs ( )of the nation that Yhwh drives out before them ( pi.).
The continuation in the plural (, )makes clear that nation should be
interpreted as a collective for the nations of Canaan. These nations have done
all these things, wherefore Yhwh detested them (). In the context of the
chapter, all these things refers to the prohibitions in verses 923 (cf. verse 8,
), and possibly also to those in verses 26. Israel has to live differently,
because Yhwh separated ( hif.) it from the peoples. Therefore, it has to
separate the clean animals from the unclean, and it should be holy to Yhwh,
for He is holy.
As in Lev. 18, certain sexual practices of the Canaanite peoples are referred
to in Lev. 20. The connection with their expulsion or extermination is less
explicitly stated than in Lev. 18; this connection, however, is certainly present
by the mention of Yhwhs detestation (verse 23) and the threat for Israel
(verse 22).
Possibly, 1Kgs 14:24 also contains an allusion to sexual practices of the na-
tions of Canaan as a motive for their extermination. In that passage, next to
403 Cf. Schenker, What Connects the Incest Prohibitions, 177.

the sin and idolatry of Judah under king Rehoboam, it is also stated that there
was prostitution (). It follows that the Israelites did according to all the
abhorrent things ( pl.) of the nations that Yhwh destroyed ( hif.)
before the Israelites. Asa would have put all these things away (1 Kgs 15:12;
cf. 22:47). It is controversial, however, whether refers to cultic prostitution,
as has often been thought, or only to cultic service.404 If (cultic) prostitution
is referred to, the sexual practices of the nations of Canaan would also be
mentioned in this text as a motive for their extermination, next to idolatry.
In Lev. 18 and 20, and possibly in 1Kgs 14:24, the sexual practices of the Canaan-
ite peoples are mentioned as a motive for their expulsion. These texts are not
about mixed marriages, but about illicit sexual relations.405 Child sacrifice to
Molech is also mentioned in this connection. An explicit connection between
the sexual practices and the service of the gods of the Canaanites is not found.
3.4.4.4 Conclusion
In a number of texts, the motives for the negative attitude toward the nations
of Canaan are indicated in general terms. Mention is made of the sin or the
uncleanness of the nations, without a concrete statement about what they
did. In other texts, this is expressly stated. One of the practices of the nations
of Canaan, which Israel would have adopted, is child sacrifice. In the Old
Testament, this is always connected with idolatry, and a number of times also
with forms of divination. A new motive, compared to Deuteronomy, concerns
certain sexual practices of the Canaanite peoples. In this connection, reference
is also made to child sacrifice. A further connection with the service of the gods
of these nations, however, is missing.
As for the motives for the command to expel or to exterminate the Canaan-
ites, a few concrete practices are mentioned specifically (child sacrifice, cer-
tain sexual practices). These deeds are characterized as abhorrent to Yhwh; in
addition, they are a temptation for Israel. In Deut. 7, the main motive for the
command to exterminate the Canaanites was the danger that Israel would go
and serve their gods, and would thus invoke the anger of Yhwh on themselves;
this was not connected to concrete practices of these nations. It is noteworthy
404 The interpretation of as cultic prostitution still, e.g., in Douglas, Leviticus as Litera-
ture, 236. More critical are Cogan, 1Kings, 387; H. Ringgren, ThWAT 6:12001201.
405 In its present form, these chapters explicitly refer to these sexual practices, not just
to practices of the Canaanite peoples in general, as is suggested by Baruch A. Levine,
Leviticus, jpstc (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 118; Mohrmann, Making
Sense of Sex, 7576.
262 chapter 3
that the danger of idolatry, separate from the concrete practices mentioned, is
not found elsewhere in the Old Testament as a motive for the extermination.
The nations of Canaan are characterized negatively. Sometimes, these char-
acterizations are very general (all these things they did; Lev. 18:27; 20:23). In
this way, the Canaanite peoples become a symbol of evil in some places in the
Old Testament (see 5.4.3.2).
3.4.5 The Nations of Canaan in Genesis

In this section, positive contacts between Israel and the Canaanite peoples
are addressed. The book of Genesis in particular shows an attitude toward
these nations that seems to be rather different from Deuteronomy. According
to various scholars, there is a contrast between Deuteronomys attitude, on the
one hand, and Genesiss, on the other.406 Therefore, it is necessary to separately
discuss the attitude toward the nations of Canaan in the book of Genesis. The
seven nations of Canaan enumerated in Deut. 7:1 are all mentioned in Genesis
too (for the genealogy of Gen. 10, see 3.4.6.2).407 Next to these, other peoples
living in the land are mentioned (Gen. 14:57; 15:1921).
In Genesis, as a rule there are peaceful relations between Abraham and his
offspring, and the nations of Canaan. The observation that the Canaanites
were in the land when Abram arrived in Canaan (Gen. 12:6) only seems to
indicate that the land was already occupied. In Gen. 13:7 too, the phrase that at
that time the Canaanites and the Perizzites were dwelling in the land may be
interpreted neutrally, though it can also be understood as a warning not to let
any disagreement exist between Abram and Lot amid these nations.408 After
406 Frank Crsemann, Abraham und die Bewohner des Landes: Beobachtungen zum kano-
nischen Abrahambild, EvTh 62 (2002): 345 (Gegenbild); Houtman, Zwei Sichtweisen,
228: Die Genesis bietet eine gnzlich eigene Sichtweise von der Position Israels hin-
sichtlich der Bewohner des Landes; Knierim, Task of Old Testament Theology, 320 (anti-
story). Cf. Robert L. Cohn, Before Israel: The Canaanites as Other in Biblical Tradition,
in The Other in Jewish Thought and History: Constructions of Jewish Culture and Identity, ed.
Laurence J. Silberstein and Robert L. Cohn (New York: New York University Press, 1994),
75. So already Hermann Samuel Reimarus, Apologie oder Schutzschrift fr die vernnftigen
Verehrer Gottes, ed. G. Alexander ([Frankfurt am Main]: Insel Verlag, 1972), 1:482.
407 Robert L. Cohn, Negotiating (with) the Natives: Ancestors and Identity in Genesis, HThR
96 (2003): 151 also deals with the Philistines (cf. Gen. 20; 21:2232; 26) and the Egyptians
as native peoples, because in Genesis no distinction would be made between these
nations and the Canaanite peoples. Since the present study deals with the attitude toward
the nations of Canaan, the attitude toward other, non-Canaanite peoples in the book of
Genesis is left aside.
408 Cf. Wenham, Genesis, 1:296.
the departure of Lot, it is told that Abram lives by the oaks of the Amorite
Mamre. Mamre, Eshcol and Aner are allies of Abram ( , Gen. 14:13).
The fact that according to Gen. 14, Abram takes the initiative for the battle
against Chedorlaomer and that he defends the interests of his allies in the
conversation with Melchizedek (Gen. 14:14,24), suggests that Abram has the
lead in this alliance. In the contact between Abraham and the Hittites about
the purchase of a grave, there seems to be mutual respect. Abraham is called
a prince of God ( , Gen. 23:6). On the other hand, his request to
acquire a piece of land is initially not granted. It cannot be determined with
certainty whether the price Abraham pays in the end for Ephrons land is
very high, as has been suggested.409 Later on, Jacob buys a piece of land from
the Hivites from Shechem (Gen. 33:19). All of these data point to a peaceful
relationship.
The nations of Canaan are not presented as idolaters in the book of Genesis.
An eventual threat or temptation of the religion of these nations for Israel is not
mentioned either. This is noteworthy, since in Deuteronomy this is the main
motive for the separation of Israel and the extermination of the Canaanite
peoples. The sin and immorality of Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned,
but not their idolatry (see below). Images of idols are mentioned only as the
property of Jacob and his family (Gen. 31:19,34; 35:14).410
Opposite these data, however, there are other texts showing a less positive atti-
tude toward the nations of Canaan. First, there are some texts in which the
sin of the Canaanite peoples is mentioned. The curse on Canaan (Gen. 9:25)
and the remark that the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete (Gen.
15:16) are discussed elsewhere (3.4.6; 3.4.4.1). Very grave sin is ascribed to
Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 13:13; 18:20; 19:15); the guests of Lot are not safe
there (Gen. 19:5). Therefore, these cities are destroyed by Yhwh ( pi., ,
Gen. 19:13,25). It is controversial, however, whether Sodom and Gomorrah are
viewed as belonging to the territory of the nations of Canaan in Genesis. This
depends on the question whether the word in the description of the bor-
ders of Canaan (Gen. 10:19) should be interpreted as in the direction of or as
as far as. In the first case, Gerar and the area of Sodom and Gomorrah do not
409 Cf. Crsemann, Abraham und die Bewohner des Landes, 343344; Wenham, Genesis,
2:127129. The purchase of the land is referred to in Gen. 25:910; 49:2932; 50:13.
410 For the preceding two paragraphs, see Houtman, Zwei Sichtweisen, 225227. See also
David Frankel, The Land of Canaan and the Destiny of Israel: Theologies of Territory in the
Hebrew Bible, Siphrut 4 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 268337, esp. 282301.
264 chapter 3
belong to the territory of Canaan; in the second case they do.411 The inhabitants
of Sodom and Gomorrah are not designated as belonging to one of the nations
of Canaan. However, even if Sodom and Gomorrah are reckoned to the terri-
tory of the Canaanite peoples, these cities are not presented as representative
for all the nations of Canaan. Only the sin of these cities and their surround-
ings are mentioned (Gen. 18:20; cf. Gen. 13:13).412 At the same time, if these cities
belong to Canaan, their destruction is a negative signal concerning the nations
of Canaan, since cities of these nations become synonymous with total deprav-
ity.413
Second, in several texts marriages or close connections with the nations of
Canaan are presented in a negative way. In Gen. 24, it is told that Abraham
sends his servant to Mesopotamia to search a wife for Isaac. The servant has
to swear by Yhwh that he will not take a wife for Isaac from the daughters
of the Canaanites () , among whom Abraham dwells (Gen. 24:3,37).
This prohibition is not expressly motivated. In the context of Genesis, however,
a connection with Yhwhs promise to Abraham is obvious, especially since
Isaac is not allowed to go back to Mesopotamia either (Gen. 24:68).414 One
generation later, Esau appears to have two Hittite wives. Immediately after this
is told, it is stated that this is bitter for Isaac and Rebekah (Gen. 26:3435).
An explanation is not given, but the description of the reaction of Isaac and
Rebekah does suggest a negative attitude toward a marriage with someone
from the nations of Canaan. In view of the negative image of Esau in Genesis
from a religious point of view, it may be implied that the motive for this
411 For the first view: Cohn, Before Israel, 7778; A. van Selms, The Canaanites in the Book
of Genesis, in Studies on the Book of Genesis, ed. Berend Gemser et al., ots 12 (Leiden:
Brill, 1958), 192. The second view has been strongly defended by Umberto Cassuto, A
Commentary on the Book of Genesis, ppfbr (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1964), 2:213216. A middle
position is taken by Crsemann, Abraham und die Bewohner des Landes, 338340,
who views the area of Sodom and Gomorrah as a borderland, which is, however, closely
connected with Canaan.
412 Otherwise K. Renato Lings, Culture Clash in Sodom: Patriarchal Tales of Heroes, Villains,
and Manipulation, in Patriarchs, Prophets and Other Villains, ed. Lisa Isherwood (London:
Equinox, 2007), 190, 204, who states that Sodom represents the Canaanites.
413 Cf. Deut. 32:32; Isa. 1:10; 3:9; Jer. 23:14; Lam. 4:6; Ezek. 16:46,48,49,53,55,56.
414 According to Van Selms, The Canaanites in the Book of Genesis, 203, the argument for
this command is not so much abhorrence of the nations of Canaan, but rather a preference
to marry within the family. Apart from the question whether this is likely, viewed from the
position of a small minority in a foreign environment, this view is contradicted by the
explicit motivation in Gen. 24:3,37.
attitude was religious in nature.415 This negative attitude toward a marriage

with someone from the nations of Canaan also emerges when a wife for Jacob
has to be found. Rebekah detests (, cf. Lev. 20:23) the Hittite women, the
daughters of the land (Gen. 27:46). Isaac as well does not want Jacob to marry
a Canaanite woman (Gen. 28:1,6,8; apparently, is synonymous with
, Gen. 27:46). The repeated explicit indication that a marriage with the
daughters of the Canaanites is not desired gives a negative signal concerning
these nations.
The worst moment in the contacts with the nations of Canaan, accord-
ing to the stories in Genesis, is the history of Dinah and the inhabitants of
Shechem (Gen. 34). The opening verse of this chapter already gives a negative
signal: Dinah goes out to see the daughters of the land (cf. Gen. 27:46).416 In
the contacts after the rape of Dinah, the Hivites from Shechem want to inter-
marry with Jacob and his family ( hitp., Gen. 34:9). In this way, they will
become one people (Gen. 34:16,22). According to the description in Genesis,
their aim also is to obtain the possessions of Jacob and his family (Gen. 34:23).
Intermarriage is prevented, however, by the slaughter of all the males of the
city after their circumcision. The motive for this slaughter, according to the
text, is not that Shechem was a Hivite, but the fact that he had defiled Dinah
( pi., Gen. 34:13,27; cf. 31). In the chapter, Jacob plays a remarkably passive
role; only at the end is he said to be anxious for the requital of the Canaan-
ites and Perizzites, the inhabitants of the land (Gen. 34:30). Later on, Simeon
and Levi are said to be cursed because of their anger and wrath (Gen. 49:5
7).
According to the book of Genesis, intermarriage with the nations of Canaan
takes place in Jacobs sons: both Judah (Gen. 38:2; cf. 1 Chr. 2:3) and Simeon
(Gen. 46:10; cf. Exod. 6:14) are said to have a Canaanite wife.417 Concerning
Judah, it is stated that he saw and took a daughter of a Canaanite (,
, Gen. 38:2). Since the combination of these verbs is often used in Genesis
for taking something that is not allowed, this formulation may indicate some
distance.418 An explicit rejection, however, is missing. Finally, it is stated in Gen.
415 Cf. Gen. 28:9; 36:2; for this, see Wenham, Genesis, 2:214, 336.
416 Cohn, Negotiating (with) the Natives, 155.
417 Van Selms, The Canaanites in the Book of Genesis, 206, 211 states that all wives of Jacobs
sons that we know were Canaanite. The third generation would have dropped the aversion
to a mixed marriage. However, the origin of (one of) their wives is recorded only for Judah
and Simeon, making the evidence for these theses too weak.
418 So Wenham, Genesis, 2:366. Cf. Gen. 3:6; 6:2; 12:15; 34:2. Cohn, Before Israel, 84 points out
that by his marriage with a Canaanite woman, the tribe of Judah was nearly eradicated.
266 chapter 3
48:22 that Jacob took a piece of land from the Amorites with his sword and his
bow. This formulation suggests that it was taken by force. The interpretation
and background of this verse are controversial, however.419
The data above show that the attitude toward the nations of Canaan in
Genesis is clearly different from Deuteronomy. In general, the stories describe
a peaceful coexistence between Abraham and his offspring and the indigenous
population of Canaan. The Canaanite peoples are not presented as idolaters.
Although religious or moral reasons are not explicitly given, intermarriage with
these nations is expressly avoided and rejected.420 The fulfilment of Yhwhs
promises to (the forefathers of) Israel may not be threatened by a lasting bond
with the nations of Canaan.421
Finally, the question deserves attention how this difference in attitude toward
the nations of Canaan may be explained. C. Houtman has pointed out that in
the structure of the Pentateuch as a whole, the turning point is the covenant at
Sinai.422 In the description of the covenant at Sinai, the relationship between
Israel and the nations of Canaan is explicitly addressed (Exod. 23:2033). From
that moment, the relationship between Yhwh and Israel becomes different;
nationalism and exclusivity would now prevail. After the turning point at
Sinai, the focal point is Deuteronomy, according to Houtman. By means of
this structure of the Pentateuch, the anti-Canaanite voice would have been
given primacy. This is reflected in the early Jewish interpretation of Genesis,
in which positive statements about the nations of Canaan are ignored and the
Canaanites are presented as idolaters. Houtman argues that both voices should
419 See Jrgen Ebach, Genesis 3750, HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2007), 560563.
420 Cf. Cohn, Before Israel, 8284. Houtman, Zwei Sichtweisen, 226 (cf. Van Selms, The
Canaanites in the Book of Genesis, 203204) states that a marriage with someone from
the nations of Canaan is not excluded, but that a marriage within the family is preferred.
In particular in Gen. 24:3,37; 28:1,6,8, however, it is not a question of preference, but such
a marriage is explicitly rejected.
421 Cohn, Before Israel, 8687: The ancestors forge no lasting bonds of kinship or alliance
with the Canaanites despite their apparent moral and religious decency. Cf. Cohn, Nego-
tiating (with) the Natives, 161162.
422 According to Crsemann, Abraham und die Bewohner des Landes, 346, the turning
point is the confrontation with the nations of Canaan in Gen. 34 and the removal of
the idols in Gen. 35. An objection against this view, however, is that after this moment,
Judah and Simeon marry a Canaanite woman, which is not explicitly rejected. In addition,
Gen. 3435 do not deal with a fundamentally different attitude toward the nations of
Canaan.
be heard.423 The latter point relates to the question of how the structure and the
final redaction of the Pentateuch have to be valued in theology. Those questions
will be discussed later (chap. 5, see esp. 5.3.3).
In conclusion, there is a clear difference between Genesiss and Deuteronomys

attitude toward the nations of Canaan. In the structure of the Pentateuch, the
turning point in the attitude toward the Canaanite peoples is the covenant at
Sinai. In Genesis, the forefathers of Israel in general live peacefully together
with the indigenous population of Canaan. This appears also from the fact that
these nations are not expressly distinguished from other nations in Genesis, in
contrast to Deuteronomy. The nations of Canaan are not blamed for idolatry or
moral depravity (except perhaps Sodom and Gomorrah). However, although
the religion or the morality of these nations is not mentioned as a motive, very
close contacts by mutual intermarriage are avoided or rejected. Thus, Genesis
does not display an exclusively positive attitude toward the nations of Canaan.
In addition, the first occurrence of Canaan in the book of Genesis is the curse
on him (Gen. 9:25), which gives a signal for the perspective of the book as a
whole (cf. Gen. 15:16). This will be discussed in the next section.424
3.4.6 The Curse of Canaan (Gen. 9:25)

This section will discuss Noahs curse of Canaan. The reason for this separate
treatment is that Gen. 9:25 is the first occurrence of the name of one of the
Canaanite peoples in the Old Testament. In addition, Canaans role in this
passage is rather controversial.
In Gen. 9:1827, it is told that after the flood Noah plants a vineyard. From
the wine he becomes drunk and he uncovers himself in his tent. It is likely
that hitp. has a reflexive meaning in this passage (to uncover oneself), not
a passive one (to be uncovered).425 In the latter case, one would expect an
explicit indication of who was guilty of this, especially since the interpretation
that Noah was uncovered in his sleep would discharge Noah, who is pictured as
a righteous man in the preceding chapters (Gen. 6:9,22).426 Next, it is told that
423 Houtman, Zwei Sichtweisen, 227231.

424 Accordingly, the attitude toward the nations of Canaan is less positive than is stated by
Crsemann, Abraham und die Bewohner des Landes; Houtman, Zwei Sichtweisen;
Van Selms, The Canaanites in the Book of Genesis. The designation philo-Canaanite
(Houtman, Ibid., 228; Van Selms, Ibid., 212) is inadequate in my opinion.
425 A passive meaning in Hermann Gunkel, Genesis, hk (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup-
recht, 1902), 69; Westermann, Genesis, 1:644: lag entblt.
426 According to Walter E. Brown, Noah: Sot or Saint? Genesis 9:2027, in The Way of Wisdom,
268 chapter 3
Ham sees Noahs nakedness and tells his brothers outside. In this passage, Ham
is mentioned twice; both times, he is designated as Ham, the father of Canaan
(Gen. 9:18,22), which is unnecessary in the literary context. Hams brothers,
Shem and Japheth, then take a garment and cover Noah with it. It is emphasized
that they do not see Noah. When Noah awakes, he comes to know what his
youngest son has done.427 Then he pronounces a curse: Cursed be Canaan,
may he be a servant of servants to his brothers (Gen. 9:25). Shem and Japheth
receive a blessing, which both times ends with: may Canaan be his servant
(Gen. 9:26,27).
The literature on this pericope is abundant.428 In this section, it is not
possible to deal with all the questions concerning this passage; my focus will be
the curse on Canaan.429 First, I will discuss the reason for the curse ( 3.4.6.1),
next the object of the curse (why is Canaan cursed?) ( 3.4.6.2), and finally the
ed. James I. Packer and Sven Soderlund (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 3660, the
picture of Noah remains entirely positive in Gen. 9:2027. Noah would not be described
as drunk, but as saturated with the blessings of Yhwh. The nakedness would only be
wrong by what Ham does. It is true that is not per se interpreted negatively in the Old
Testament; nakedness, however, is not valued positively (cf. Gen. 3:7,10,11). In the context
of Gen. 9:2027, the drinking and uncovering of Noah are at least considered as dangerous.
Accordingly, Browns thesis that the description is entirely positive is untenable.
427 It is not told how he comes to know this. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan adds that Noah knew
this by a dream () .
428 For the history of exegesis and the Wirkungsgeschichte, see, e.g., David H. Aaron, Early
Rabbinic Exegesis on Noahs Son Ham and the So-Called Hamitic Myth, jaar 63 (1995):
721759; Katell Berthelot, The Original Sin of the Canaanites, in The Other in Second
Temple Judaism, ed. Daniel C. Harlow, Karina Martin Hogan, and Matthew Goff (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 4966 (early Jewish interpretations); David M. Goldenberg, The
Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Princeton: Prince-
ton University Press, 2003); David M. Whitford, The Curse of Ham in the Early Modern Era:
The Bible and the Justifications for Slavery, sasrh (Surrey: Ashgate, 2009). For a modern
interpretation, see Gunther H. Wittenberg, Let Canaan Be His Slave. (Gen 9:26): Is
Ham Also Cursed?, jtsa 74 (1991): 4656, who states that the descendants of Ham are not
ethnic groups, but a socio-political system; in South Africa, the children of Ham would
thus be the white population.
429 For the place of Gen. 9:1827 within Gen. 111, see, e.g., Philip R. Davies, Sons of Cain, in A
Word in Season, ed. James D. Martin and Philip R. Davies, jsot.s 42 (Sheffield: jsot Press,
1986), 3556; Robert W.E. Forrest, Paradise Lost Again: Violence and Obedience in the
Flood Narrative, jsot 62 (1994): 318; Devora Steinmetz, Vineyard, Farm, and Garden:
The Drunkenness of Noah in the Context of Primeval History, jbl 113 (1994): 193207;
Anthony J. Tomasino, History Repeats Itself: The Fall and Noahs Drunkenness, vt 42
(1992): 128130.
content of the curse (3.4.6.3). The discussion is based on the text of Gen. 9:18
27 in its canonical form.430
3.4.6.1 The Reason for the Curse

Noahs curse seems to be occasioned by the fact that Ham sees the nakedness
of his father and tells his brothers (Gen. 9:22). It is controversial, however, what
is meant by seeing in this context. In the history of research mainly four views
have been defended.431
The oldest interpretation is that it literally is a matter of seeing Noahs
nakedness by Ham. Thus the Septuagint and Targum Onqelos translate as to
see. This interpretation is also found in the book of Jubilees (Jub. 7:78) and
in Philo and Josephus.432 However, a number of objections have been raised
against this interpretation. First, the remark that Noah perceives what his
youngest son has done to him (, Gen. 9:24) would imply that something
more happened than seeing and speaking. Second, a literal interpretation
would not explain why such a severe curse is pronounced. In the Ancient Near
East, there would not be a taboo on seeing the nakedness of a parent. Third,
it does not become clear why the curse is pronounced on Canaan, instead of
on Ham.433 Because of these objections, three other interpretations have been
defended, which all assume that seeing is a euphemism for something else.434
Thus, the second interpretation is that Noah has been castrated. This view
is mainly found in the Jewish exegetical tradition. In the Babylonian Talmud,
a discussion is reported between Rab and Samuel (early third century a.d.).
According to one of them, Ham castrated Noah; according to the other, he
430 Otherwise, e.g., Gene Rice, The Curse That Never Was (Genesis 9:1827), jrt 29 (1972):
527.
431 For these four views, see also John Sietze Bergsma and Scott Walker Hahn, Noahs Naked-
ness and the Curse on Canaan (Genesis 9:2027), jbl 124 (2005): 2540; Walter Vogels,
Cham dcouvre les limites de son pre No (Gn 9,2027), NRTh 109 (1987): 554573.
432 Philo, qg 2,70; Josephus, a.j. 1,141. Cf. Albert I. Baumgarten, Myth and Midrash: Genesis
9:2029, in Christianity, Judaism and Other Greco-Roman Cults, ed. Jacob Neusner, sjla 12
(Leiden: Brill, 1975), 65. For the rendering of this episode in Jubilees, see J.T.A.G.M. van
Ruiten, Primaeval History Interpreted: The Rewriting of Genesis 111 in the Book of Jubilees,
jsj.s 66 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 262287.
433 So, e.g., Bergsma and Hahn, Noahs Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan, 2627; Gunkel,
Genesis, 6970.
434 Cassuto, Genesis, 2:150151; Walther Zimmerli, 1. Mose 111: Die Urgeschichte, 3rd ed., zbk
(Zrich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1967), 356 suggest that an older version of the story possibly
intended more than literally seeing, but that this is no longer the case in the present
version.
270 chapter 3
had a homosexual relation with Noah (b. Sanh. 70a). In rabbinic literature and
the Targumim, the view that castration would have taken place is referred to
several times.435 The earliest reference to this interpretation is found in the
Christian theologian Theophilus of Antioch (late second century a.d.). He says
that some call Noah a eunuch.436 Theophilus apparently refers to an existing
interpretation; moreover, he knew Jewish exegesis. This interpretation may
have its origin in the fact that it is not told that Noah became the father of
more children, in contrast to the other persons mentioned in Gen. 5; 11:1025. In
addition, there were other stories about castration in the Ancient Near East (see
Kumarbi, Hesiod, Philo of Byblos).437 Albert I. Baumgarten has demonstrated,
however, that differences with these alleged parallels make it unlikely that
castration is meant in Gen. 9:2029. He plausibly argues that this interpretation
originated in the second century a.d. in order to solve certain problems in
Genesis.438 In the context of Gen. 9:2029 itself, an objection against this
interpretation is that it is not clear how covering Noah, as Shem and Japheth
do, could be an adequate response to castration.
The third interpretation of Hams seeing is that the text euphemistically
refers to Hams sexual intercourse with his father. This interpretation is already
found in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Sanh. 70a; see above).439 The main argu-
435 Allusions in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 9:24 (Ham would be the cause that Noah
did not have a fourth son); Gen. Rab. 36:7 (Chanoch Albeck and Julius Theodor, eds.,
Midrash Bereshit Rabba: Critical Edition with Notes and Commentary, 2nd ed. [Jerusalem:
Wahrmann, 1965], 1:340342); Tan. Noah 15 (Enoch Zundel,
[ Jerusalem: Lewin-Epstein, 1960],
17) / Tan. (Buber) Noah 21 (Salomon Buber, Midrasch Tanchuma: Ein agadischer Com-
mentar zum Pentateuch von Rabbi Tanchuma ben Rabbi Abba [Wilna: Wittwe & Romm,
1885], 2:49); Pirqe R. El. 23 (Dagmar Brner-Klein, Pirke de-Rabbi Elieser, nach der Edition
Venedig 1544 unter Bercksichtigung der Edition Warschau 1852, sj 26 [Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 2004], 253). Rashi, , 40 also follows this interpretation.
436 Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum 3:19; Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum, ed.
Robert M. Grant, oect (Oxford: Clarendon, 1970), 124. Cf. Baumgarten, Myth and Mid-
rash, 66.
437 Baumgarten, Myth and Midrash, 58, 6365.
438 Ibid., 6371. See also David M. Goldenberg, What Did Ham Do to Noah?, in The Words of
a Wise Mans Mouth Are Gracious (Qoh 10,12), ed. Mauro Perani, sj 32 (Berlin: De Gruyter,
2005), 261264 (261262 n. 11).
439 According to Baumgarten, Myth and Midrash, 6566, this is possibly, but not certainly,
implied in the Greek translations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion. According to
Goldenberg, What Did Ham Do to Noah, 260261, this interpretation originated from
the use of the verb , which sometimes has a sexual connotation.
ment for this interpretation is the combination of seeing ( )the naked-

ness ( )of a human being, which occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament
only in Lev. 20:17.440 From the context of that text (Lev. 18; 20), it is clear that
sexual intercourse is meant. By raping his father, and so humiliating him, Ham
would try to seize power. This would also explain why he promptly informs
his brothers. According to several authors, there is a connection with other
passages in the Pentateuch (Gen. 6:14; 19:3038).441 However, a number of
objections may be raised against this interpretation. First, there is only one
parallel for the combination of and ( Lev. 20:17). In that text, the
verb is used parallel to pi., which is much more often used with
(cf. Lev. 18:619; 20:11,1721, where this combination is used 23 times). It is
difficult to draw firm conclusions on the basis of one parallel.442 Second, in
describing homosexual relations other expressions are used in the Old Tes-
tament. Third, neither in the Old Testament nor in the Ancient Near East
can a parallel be found of homosexual intercourse with the father as a way
to take over his power. Therefore, the supposed motive of Hams deed falls
away.443
The fourth interpretation states that there was heterosexual intercourse,
namely with Noahs wife. The main argument for this exegesis is that the
expression the nakedness of the father always refers to heterosexual contact.
In several texts, uncovering the nakedness of the father is explained as having
intercourse with his wife (Lev. 18:7,8; 20:11; cf. 18:16; 20:20,21).444 Several authors
have hypothesized that Canaan was the fruit of Hams intercourse with Noahs
440 The combination of and is used more often, but in those cases with a land or a
people as the object (Isa. 47:3; Lam. 1:8; Ezek. 16:8,37), or with a different meaning (Gen.
42:9,12; Deut. 23:15).
441 See Bergsma and Hahn, Noahs Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan, 3032; Steinmetz,
Vineyard, Farm, and Garden, 198199.
442 Cf. Allen P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of the Book of
Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988), 214215.
443 Bergsma and Hahn, Noahs Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan, 34, 37. Contra Gagnon,
The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 66, who claims Ancient Near Eastern parallels.
444 Bergsma and Hahn, Noahs Nakedness and the Curse on Canaan, 35 assume that Noah
wanted to procreate, but that Ham intervened. For the hypothesis that Noah wanted
to procreate, they point to the fact that he had drunk and uncovered himself. In that
context, it would be possible to read the Kethib ( Gen. 9:21) as her tent (so E. Koffi,
Rethinking the Significance of the Black Presence in the Pentateuch for Translation and
Bible Studies: Part i, BiTr 51 [2000]: 322), instead of his tent with the Qere and the
Versions.
272 chapter 3
wife. That would explain why Canaan was cursed, and why Ham is designated
every time as the father of Canaan. In addition, there would be parallels in
the literature of the Ancient Near East that sexual intercourse with the wife
of the father is part of a seizure of power (cf. 2 Sam. 16:22).445 A number of
arguments, however, argue against this interpretation. First, it is not clear why
Ham would try to seize power, and why this would have failed. Second, the
hypothesis of Canaans origin still does not explain why Canaan was cursed,
and not the perpetrator of the incest, Ham. In addition, it is unlikely that
Canaan was cursed immediately in that case, as Gen. 9:2425 suggests.446 Third,
it remains unexplained why the origin of Canaan is referred to in such a veiled
way, whereas the scandalous origin of other nations is much more openly
described (cf. Gen. 19:3038). Such an origin would surely confirm the negative
view on the Canaanites.447 Finally, it is difficult to explain how covering Noah
with a garment can be a response to the sexual intercourse of Ham with Noahs
wife.448
The latter three interpretations understand the verb to see as a euphemism

for castration or sexual intercourse with Noah or his wife. However, there are
convincing arguments in favour of the interpretation that to see is not a
euphemism.
First, there is a clear contrast in Gen. 9:2027 between the actions of Ham,
on the one hand, and of Shem and Japheth, on the other. No less than five
verbs are used for the actions of Shem and Japheth. This receives even more
emphasis by an interruption of the series of wayyiqtols.449 Ham is said to
see the nakedness of his father and to tell his brothers outside (Gen. 9:22).
Shem and Japheth cover the nakedness of their father and do not see his
nakedness (Gen. 9:23). Emphasis is placed on the latter by the comment that
445 This interpretation in Frederick W. Bassett, Noahs Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan:
A Case of Incest?, vt 21 (1971): 232237; Bergsma and Hahn, Noahs Nakedness and the
Curse on Canaan, 3439. Koffi, Rethinking the Significance of the Black Presence, 328
329 assumes that Canaan was the one who wanted to rape Noahs wife; see 3.4.6.2.
446 Lothar Ruppert, Genesis: Ein kritischer und theologischer Kommentar; 1. Teilband: Gen 1,1
11,26, FzB 70 (Wrzburg: Echter Verlag, 1992), 424.
447 Cf. Rice, The Curse That Never Was, 1213.
448 The hypothesis of Bassett, Noahs Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan, that a redactor did
not understand the idiom any more and that verse 23 is a later insertion is unconvincing
and does no justice to the present text.
449 Marc Vervenne, What Shall We Do with the Drunken Sailor? A Critical Re-Examination
of Genesis 9.2027, jsot 68 (1995): 48.
they walk backward and that their faces are turned backward (twice ).
It is not stated that they speak. Thus, Hams seeing and telling is contrasted
with Shem and Japheths not seeing, keeping silent and covering. The emphasis
on Shem and Japheths not seeing in contrast to Hams seeing makes it
likely that Hams seeing is meant literally. The fact that covering Noah with a
garment450 seems to be an adequate reaction to Hams deed also argues for this
interpretation.451
Second, contrary to what has been stated, looking at anothers nakedness
really was a grievous crime in the Ancient Near East (cf. Exod. 20:26). David
M. Goldenberg has pointed to omens from Mesopotamia that make clear that
seeing anothers nakedness was viewed as undermining his power. This would
also explain the content of the curse: in contrast to gaining mastery and control
by looking at someones genitals is the loss of mastery and control, namely
servitude.452 Against the interpretation that literal seeing is meant, it has
been objected that the reference to what has been done (, Gen. 9:24)
and the severity of the curse would assume that more has happened than
seeing Noahs nakedness. In view of the cultural context mentioned above,
however, this objection is unconvincing. As an aside, an argumentum e silentio
may be mentioned. Since one of the motives mentioned for the extermination
of the Canaanite peoples are their sexual practices, one would expect that a
sexual offence as the reason for the curse on Canaan would have received more
emphasis.
In conclusion, according to the text of Gen. 9:1827, the reason for Noahs
curse is the fact that Ham sees Noahs nakedness and tells about it. The most
likely interpretation is that a literal seeing of Noahs nakedness is meant, which
450 Garment has a definite article (). According to Gunkel, Genesis, 6970; Allen
P. Ross, Studies in the Book of Genesis, Part 1: The Curse of Canaan, bs 137 (1980): 231,
this would indicate that Noahs garment was taken off or taken outside. This interpre-
tation, however, is unnecessary. In Biblical Hebrew, the article may be used even if an
object is not mentioned or known before (cf. Gen. 8:78); see Cassuto, Genesis, 2:162; jm
137mo.
451 The exegesis of Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 67, that in contrast to Hams
seeing (as a euphemism for homosexual intercourse, according to him), Shem and
Japheth do not even want to literally view Noahs nakedness, is an unconvincing expla-
nation of the contrast in the text.
452 Goldenberg, What Did Ham Do to Noah, 259260. Cf. Herodotus, Historiae i,10:
,
(For among the Lydians, as among most other foreign peoples, to be seen
naked, even for a man, is considered great shame.).
274 chapter 3
was viewed as a grave offence.453 Objections against this interpretation and

alternative proposals appeared to be unconvincing.454
3.4.6.2 The Object of the Curse

The next question to be discussed is the object of Noahs curse. The question
of why precisely Canaan is cursed is relevant for this study. According to Gen.
10:6 (cf. 1Chr. 1:8), Canaan is a son of Ham. Since he is mentioned last, it may be
assumed that he is the fourth and youngest son. It is remarkable that Canaan
is cursed. In the response to Noahs nakedness, Ham is contrasted with Shem
and Japheth; in the curse and blessing Noah pronounces, Hams position is
occupied by Canaan, who is contrasted with Shem and Japheth.455 This is all
the more striking since Canaan does not play any active role in Gen. 9:18
27. Canaan, however, clearly has a place in this passage, because he is cursed
and because Ham is characterized every time as the father of Canaan (Gen.
9:18,22). The question of why Canaan was cursed, whereas it was Ham who
acted wrongly, is already posed by Philo.456 In modern research, this question
is answered mainly from three different perspectives: the perspective of Ham,
of Canaan, and of Canaans descendants, the Canaanites.457
453 This interpretation is also defended by Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters
117, nic (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 322323; Ross, Studies in the Book of Genesis,
228231; John H. Walton, Genesis, nivac (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 346; Wenham,
Genesis, 1:200; Westermann, Genesis, 1:653. According to Walton, Genesis, 350, more may
have occurred, so that this action of Ham was the straw that broke the camels back.
However, the text contains no indication at all for this hypothesis. The assumption that
Hams action would not be sufficient reason for a curse is incorrect in the context of the
Ancient Near East (see above).
454 Next to the interpretations discussed, there are the views of Cohen and Vogels. According
to H. Hirsch Cohen, The Drunkenness of Noah, JStS 4 (Alabama: University of Alabama
Press, 1974), 1416, Noah would have had intercourse with his wife, and Ham would have
seen this. In this way, Ham would have attempted to obtain Noahs potency. This view,
however, is highly speculative and has no support in the text. Vogels, Cham dcouvre les
limites opts for a symbolic interpretation. According to him, the passage is about a child
who discovers that his father has weaknesses. Hams error would be that he speaks about
it. Shem and Japheth would already know that their father is imperfect. However, there
are no indications that nakedness is merely a metaphor for imperfection in Gen. 9:18
27.
455 Vervenne, What Shall We Do with the Drunken Sailor, 5152.
456 Philo, qg 2,77. Philo responds that Ham and Canaan had the same disposition and that a
father suffers most if he sees his son being punished for his sin.
457 lxxMss read Ham instead of Canaan in Gen. 9:25. This reading is also found in various
First, it has been attempted to explain the curse on Canaan from the position
of Ham. Three views have been developed. (1) The first explanation is that
Ham himself could not be cursed, since he was already blessed by Yhwh (Gen.
9:1). This exegesis already occurs in a commentary on Genesis from Qumran
(4q252), and is also found in early Jewish and Christian commentaries.458
However, it raises the question of whether a blessing is inalienable. One could
refer to the blessing of the firstborn received by Jacob, which apparently could
not be revoked (Gen. 27). However, the blessing of Ham was not pronounced by
Noah. Moreover, the question remains unanswered as to why Canaan is cursed,
and not other or all sons of Ham. (2) The second view is that Noah does not
curse Ham because of proximity in kinship. A father could not curse his own
child. This view is found in Josephus.459 Evidence for this thesis, however, is
lacking, and the fact that Jacob does curse (the anger of) Simeon and Levi (Gen.
49:7) seems to speak against it. Anyway, cursing a concrete person is quite rare
in the Old Testament. (3) The third view is that Ham, who as the youngest son
(cf. Gen. 9:24) mocked his father, now is afflicted in his youngest son.460 In
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (on Gen. 9:2425), this is connected with the rabbinic
exegesis that Ham castrated Noah. Ham would be the cause that Noah did not
have a fourth son. Therefore, Canaan is cursed, who is his [Hams] fourth son.
A problem with this interpretation is that there are no other examples in the
Old Testament where a child is punished for the fathers offence, while the
father goes free; therefore, it remains speculative.461 In addition, it does not
explain why a son is cursed instead of Ham himself.
Second, the curse on Canaan has been explained from an action of Canaan
himself. Since he is cursed, it seems likely that he has done something wrong.
(western and eastern) church fathers; see Goldenberg, Curse of Ham, 340 n. 1. This reading,
however, clearly is an attempt to solve the tension in the text.
458 4QCommGen a 1 ii,67 (djd 22:198); Gen. Rab. 36:7 (Albeck and Theodor, Midrash Bereshit
Rabba, 1:340342); Tan. Noah 15 (Zundel, , 17) / Tan. (Buber) Noah 21
(Buber, Midrasch Tanchuma, 2:49); Ephrem the Syrian, Sancti Ephraem Syri in Genesim et
in Exodum Commentarii, ed. Raymond-M. Tonneau (Leuven: Secrtariat du corpusSCO,
1955), csco.s 71:6465 (translation: csco.s 72:5152).
459 Josephus, a.j. 1,142. So also Benno Jacob, Das Buch Genesis (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1934),
264.
460 So Gispen, Genesis, 1:309; Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 111:26, nac ([Nashville]: Broad-
man & Holman, 1996), 419.
461 Jacob, Genesis, 263; Koffi, Rethinking the Significance of the Black Presence, 326; Rice,
The Curse That Never Was, 10. Koffi calls this mirroring punishment. According to
Jacob, in that case one would expect that Ham experienced the same behaviour from his
son, not just that Canaan became a slave.
276 chapter 3
In addition, the phrase that Noah perceives what his youngest son ( ,
Gen. 9:24) has done is peculiar. This should relate to a son of Noah, since he
is the subject of the preceding clause. The sequence in which Noahs sons are
mentioned, however, always is ShemHamJapheth (Gen. 5:32; 6:10; 7:13; 9:18;
10:1; 1Chr. 1:4); this gives the impression that Ham is not the youngest son. In
addition, it is striking that after Noah awakes, the name of Ham is mentioned
no more.462 The designation his youngest son, combined with the fact that
not Ham, but Canaan is cursed, has given rise to the assumption that Canaan
(also) did something. Many authors suppose that the words from Gen.
9:22 did not belong to the original text, which makes Canaan the subject of
seeing and telling about Noahs nakedness.463 It is often assumed that there
also existed a tradition that Canaan was the third son of Noah, but further
evidence for that assumption is absent.464 The hypothesis that did not
belong to the original text of Gen. 9:22, lacks any basis in the textual witnesses.
Other proposals assume that Canaan played a personal role alongside Ham.
According to some Jewish exegetical traditions, Canaan saw Noahs nakedness
first.465 Other authors presuppose that Canaan castrated Noah, that he raped
Noahs wife, or that he made public Noahs nakedness.466 A problem with all
these proposals, however, is that they lack any basis in the text.
Several authors have proposed to translate differently, namely as
younger son, grandson or inferior son.467 Although these translations are
462 H. Jagersma, Genesis 1:125:11, vhb (Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1995), 120.

463 So, e.g., Gunkel, Genesis, 69; Otto Procksch, Die Genesis, kat (Leipzig: A. Deichertsche
Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1924), 72; Gerhard von Rad, Das erste Buch Mose: Genesis, atd
(Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972), 102; Rice, The Curse That Never Was, 8
9; Ruppert, Genesis, 406407; Wittenberg, Let Canaan Be His Slave, 47. Rice mentions 54
authors since Wellhausen who defended this thesis.
464 Cf. Westermann, Genesis, 1:647.
465 So Philo, qg 2,70. According to Gen. Rab. 36:7 (Albeck and Theodor, Midrash Bereshit
Rabba, 1:340342); Tan. Noah 15 (Zundel, , 17) / Tan. (Buber) Noah 21
(Buber, Midrasch Tanchuma, 2:49), Canaan was the one who told them (the sons of Noah,
apparently). Rashi, , 39 mentions that some authors say that Canaan saw it
and told his father.
466 Castration: Pirqe R. El. 23 (Brner-Klein, Pirke de-Rabbi Elieser, 253). Rape: Koffi, Rethink-
ing the Significance of the Black Presence, 328329. Make public: Philo, Leg. 2,62.
467 Younger son: lxx, v. Grandson: Koffi, Rethinking the Significance of the Black Presence,
327. Koffi acknowledges that this meaning is not found elsewhere in the Old Testament,
and that his translation is contextual. Inferior son: Jacob, Genesis, 264265; Rashi,
, 40. Ephrem the Syrian, In Genesim et in Exodum Commentarii, csco.s 71:6465
(translation: csco.s 72:5152) only states that his youngest son refers to Canaan.
not impossible, they are not the most plausible.468 Moreover, it is not impossi-
ble that Ham was indeed considered the youngest son of Noah. In Gen. 10:2,6,21
the sequence JaphethHamShem is used.469 The fact that Shem is mentioned
last in that passage may be explained from the fact that from Gen. 11 onwards,
the history of the lineage of Shem is told. It occurs more often in Genesis that
first the history of one lineage is closed, and then attention focuses on the other
lineage (cf. Gen. 4:1724; 25:1218; 36).470 Therefore, it is possible that in Gen.
9:24 the sequence ShemJaphethHam is presupposed (cf. Gen. 10:21). As for
the usual sequence ShemHamJapheth, Umberto Cassuto comments that in
Hebrew it is preferred to place shorter words before the longer ones.471 The fact
that after Hams deed, his name is mentioned no more in the text may be inter-
preted as an implicit negative assessment of his person. In any case, the text
of Gen. 9:1827 gives no reason to hypothesize that Canaan himself committed
some evil act.
Third, the curse on Canaan has been explained from the actions of his
descendants, the Canaanites. The same disposition that is displayed in Hams
action would be reflected in Canaan and his posterity. Usually, this is connected
with the sexual practices of the nations of Canaan that are mentioned in the
Old Testament (see 3.4.4.3).472 Depending on the position of the exegete, this
explanation may be called prophetic or etiological. A starting point for this
view is already found in Targum Neofiti, where Ham is called the father of
the Canaanites, instead of the father of Canaan (Gen. 9:18,22). Similar to this
interpretation is the explanation of the curse as an etiology for the submission
of the nations of Canaan. In this interpretation, the question is often raised
whether it is possible to situate the submission of Canaan historically. If the
468 See Cassuto, Genesis, 2:164.

469 Cf. Jacob Hoftijzer, Some Remarks to the Tale of Noahs Drunkenness, in Studies on the
Book of Genesis, ed. Berend Gemser et al., ots 12 (Leiden: Brill, 1958), 2324.
470 Cf. Wenham, Genesis, 1:201, 227.
471 Cassuto, Genesis, 2:164165. Different from most of the modern exegetes, Cassuto under-
stands Gen. 10:21 to mean that Japheth would be the eldest son.
472 See Randall C. Bailey, Theyre Nothing but Incestuous Bastards: The Polemical Use of
Sex and Sexuality in Hebrew Canon Narratives, in Reading From This Place, ed. Fernando
F. Segovia and Mary Ann Tolbert (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 135137; Cassuto, Genesis,
2:155; Jacob, Genesis, 264; Keil, Genesis und Exodus, 110; Procksch, Die Genesis, 7374;
Ross, Studies in the Book of Genesis, 233234; Ruppert, Genesis, 423; Nahum M. Sarna,
Genesis, jpstc (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 64; Bruce K. Waltke and
Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001), 149150;
Wenham, Genesis, 1:201; Zimmerli, 1. Mose 111, 358361. Wenham also refers to Egypt in
this connection.
278 chapter 3
present story is an etiology for the submission of the Canaanites, it could

provide information about the time of origin of this tradition. However, there
are very different views on the time in which the situation described in Gen.
9:2527 would be the reality.473 The datings proposed range from the second
millennium b.c. or the time of the battle described in Gen. 14, until the time of
the conquest of Canaan, the time of David (and Solomon) and the time of Ezra
and Nehemiah.474 Several authors have pointed out that a total submission of
the Canaanites was never achieved. Dating Gen. 9:2527 on the basis of the
fulfilment of the curse and the blessing is therefore difficult or impossible.475 A
problem with a purely etiological explanation is that it leaves unanswered the
question of why in Gen. 9:1827 Canaan is cursed for Hams offence. If the only
aim of this story would be to provide a basis for the behaviour of or the curse
on the Canaanite peoples, one would expect that this deed was not ascribed
to Ham, but to Canaan. In addition, it is curious that nowhere else in the Old
Testament is the curse of Canaan referred to.
The interpretations that Canaan and his descendants have the same reprehen-
sible sexual morals, or that the curse on Canaan should explain the submission
of the Canaanite peoples are not satisfactory. Nevertheless, it is necessary to
further examine the significance of the curse on Canaan for the Canaanite peo-
ples. Indeed, it is noteworthy that the first occurrence of Canaan in the Old
473 This is partly connected with divergent views on the question of who are the descendants
of Japheth.
474 Second millennium b.c.: Gunkel, Genesis, 7174. Genesis 14: Cassuto, Genesis, 2:168170;
Devora Steinmetz, From Father to Son: Kinship, Conflict, and Continuity in Genesis, lcbi
(Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991), 145147. Time of the conquest: David Neiman,
The Date and Circumstances of the Cursing of Canaan, in Biblical Motifs: Origins and
Transformations, ed. Alexander Altmann (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966),
113134 (at the conquest ca. 1230 b.c. or the time of Deborah ca. 1190 b.c.); Sarna, Genesis,
64. Time of David and Solomon: Procksch, Die Genesis, 74; Rice, The Curse That Never
Was, 1517 (during Davids reign in Hebron); Wittenberg, Let Canaan Be His Slave, 53
54. Cf. John Skinner, Genesis, 2nd ed., icc (Edinburgh: t. & t. Clark, 1930), 186. Contra this
dating: Westermann, Genesis, 1:656. Time of Ezra and Nehemiah: suggested by J. Alberto
Soggin, Das Buch Genesis: Kommentar (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
1997), 163, who himself rejects this dating.
475 Neiman, The Date and Circumstances of the Cursing of Canaan, 120; Ross, Studies in
the Book of Genesis, 237. Cf. Jacob, Genesis, 268269. According to Ross, the Canaanites
survived until the destruction of the colony of Carthage in 146 b.c. This view, however,
ignores the fact that the Old Testament command concerning the nations of Canaan is
restricted to the land of Canaan.
Testament is found in a curse on him. The first sin after the flood ends in
the curse on Canaan. Thus, at the level of the present text of Genesis or the
Pentateuch, a negative signal is given concerning the nations of Canaan. Two
arguments support this interpretation.
First, in Gen. 111 it is described how things are in the beginning. The
Urgeschichte indicates the fundamental principles governing life on earth and
provides the framework for the history of Israel (from Gen. 12). It is striking that
already in these chapters, mention is made of Canaan. Noahs curse suggests
that something is wrong with Canaan already since his ancestor. What Ham
did has consequences for Canaan: he is cursed. The fact that the curse on
Canaan has its place in these chapters suggests an effect on the later history of
Israel. The ancestor and his descendants merge in the perspective of the text.
The relationship between the forefather and his progeny is confirmed by
the genealogy following in Gen. 10. This genealogy also shows that Canaan
and Israel are not brethren. They have only Noah, from whom all human
beings descend, as their common ancestor. Thus, the genealogy creates dis-
tance between Canaan and Israel.476
As a person, Canaan only occurs in the genealogy of Gen. 10 (cf. 1 Chr. 1). In
that genealogy, most space is given to the lineage of Ham (Japheth: Gen. 10:25;
Ham: Gen. 10:620; Shem: Gen. 10:2131).477 As descendants of Ham, first Sidon
is mentioned, then five of the seven nations of Canaan, and then five other
names (Arqa, Sin, Arvad, umur, Hamath). Sidon and the last five names are
Phoenician cities.478 Finally, the territory of the Canaanites, probably meaning
all descendants of Canaan, is described.479 Of course the Canaanites are not
mentioned in the genealogy of Gen. 10; only the Perizzites are missing from
the seven peoples (Deut. 7:1).480 The lists of nations that are found in the
description of the conquest of Canaan implicitly refer to the genealogy in Gen.
10 (and perhaps to the curse on Canaan in Gen. 9:1827).481
476 Cf. Thomas Hieke, Die Genealogien der Genesis, HBibS 39 (Freiburg: Herder, 2003), 9497.
477 Eugene H. Merrill, The Peoples of the Old Testament according to Genesis 10, bs 154
(1997): 10.
478 See, e.g., Sarna, Genesis, 7577; Wenham, Genesis, 1:225226; Westermann, Genesis, 1:695
698.
479 In Gen. 10:18, it is stated that the clans of the Canaanites dispersed ( nif.). According to
Merrill, The Peoples of the Old Testament, 13, in view of Gen. 11:9 this implies violence.
Gen. 11:9, however, is not only about the Canaanites. There is no reason to view Gen. 10:18
as an implicit announcement of the destruction of the nations of Canaan.
480 The Perizzites are never mentioned in a genealogy in the Old Testament.
481 Cf. Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, 128129.
280 chapter 3
Second, the analogy with Moab and Ammon (Gen. 19:3038) is relevant.
There are several parallels between this passage and Gen. 9:1827. Both texts
are about the only survivors after a major disaster, much wine is drunk, and
the offence against the father has consequences for the descendants. In Gen.
19:3038, the conception of Moab and Ammon is described as the result of the
incest of Lot with his daughters. Although an explicit judgment is missing, it
is likely that this description is meant negatively. This imposes the doom of
a wrong origin on these nations. As for Moab and Ammon, the cause of this
characterization is likewise not an action of themselves, and later on their
origin is not explicitly referred to.482 The analogy with the origin of Moab
and Ammon confirms the interpretation of the curse on Canaan as a negative
judgment on Canaan, characterizing them as cursed in their origin. On the
basis of the analogy with Gen. 19, the fact that Canaan himself is not portrayed
as guilty, and that the curse on Canaan is not referred to elsewhere in the Old
Testament, need not be an objection.
3.4.6.3 The Content of the Curse

Finally, the content of the curse on Canaan is relevant. The curse is: Cursed
be Canaan, may he be a servant of servants to his brothers (Gen. 9:25). The
blessings of Shem and Japheth both close with: May Canaan be his/their
( )servant (Gen. 9:26,27). As a plural, the preposition may refer to his
brothers from verse 25.483 However, it is more likely that is used as a
singular, so that it refers to Shem and Japheth respectively, who are mentioned
separately in these verses.484 In any case, it is stated three times that Canaan
will be a servant. This repetition and the formulation in verse 25 (servant of
servants) amplify the curse.485 Earlier in Genesis, only the serpent, the ground
and Cain were cursed (Gen. 3:14,17; 4:11).
482 Cf. Scheiber, Lots Enkel, 97103; Wenham, Genesis, 2:6062.

483 According to Hoftijzer, Some Remarks, 2223, his brothers does not necessarily refer to
Shem and Japheth, but may also be used in a general sense for others.
484 Sometimes, albeit rarely, is used for ;cf. Isa. 35:8; 44:15; jm 103 f. Otherwise Keil,
Genesis und Exodus, 111, who interprets as a plural, which would make it refer not to
the personal relationship with Shem and Japheth, but to their posterity. However, it is
not clear why a plural reference to a person should be understood as a reference to his
posterity.
485 Cf. Wenham, Genesis, 1:203: unusually emphatic. In Gen. 9:2627, Targum Neofiti uses
the same expression as in Gen. 9:25. Thus, the servitude of Canaan is emphasized even
more.
Thus, the content of the curse on Canaan is that he will be a servant or slave
(). According to Benno Jacob, in the Old Testament (Neh. 2:10,19) and in
rabbinic literature this is a very heavy invective. He calls it the strongest and
most comprehensive curse imaginable.486 The curse on Canaan thus implies
that he will be subjected to others. Extermination is not mentioned in this
passage, but the prediction that Canaan will be a slave is clearly intended as
a severe judgment.
If Canaan is cursed for an action of Ham, it can be asked what this curse
means for Ham and his other descendants. Some authors believe that the curse
on Canaan in fact is a curse on Ham and all his posterity.487 Ephrem states that
Ham shared neither in the blessing, nor in the curse.488 Other authors argue
that the limitation of the curse to one of Hams descendants is a moderation
of judgment or an evidence of Yhwhs grace.489 An objection against the
interpretation that Ham was also cursed is the fact that Ham hardly plays a
role in the Old Testament.490 At most, it can be said that Ham may implicitly
share in Canaans curse, as he appears to be the father of a slave.
In the context of the present study, the effect of the curse on Canaan is rel-
evant. It is remarkable that Noahs curse is not referred to later in Genesis, nor
elsewhere in the Old Testament. In Gen. 15:16, only the iniquity of the Amor-
ites (mentioned together with the Canaanites in Gen. 15:21) is mentioned, not
Noahs curse. In most other texts, not servitude, but expulsion or extermination
of the Canaanite peoples is the focus of attention (see 3.4.2).491 The inhabi-
486 Jacob, Genesis, 271272. Goldenberg, What Did Ham Do to Noah, 262265 makes a
connection between servitude and death. Servitude would be considered as social death.
This connection indeed seems to be present in Roman society, but Goldenberg does not
convincingly demonstrate this for rabbinic literature.
487 According to some medieval Jewish exegetes, Gen. 9:25 has to be interpreted as: Cursed be
[the father of] Canaan; see Meira Polliack and Marzena Zawanowska, God Would Not
Give the Land, but to the Obedient: Medieval Karaite Responses to the Curse of Canaan
(Genesis 9:25), in The Gift of the Land and the Fate of the Canaanites in Jewish Thought, ed.
Katell Berthelot, Joseph E. David, and Marc Hirshman (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2014), 117118 (cf. 114119); Sarna, Genesis, 66. For the development of this thought, see
Goldenberg, Curse of Ham, 160. So also Keil, Genesis und Exodus, 111.
488 Ephrem the Syrian, In Genesim et in Exodum Commentarii, csco.s 71:6465 (translation:
csco.s 72:5152).
489 O. Palmer Robertson, Current Critical Questions Concerning the Curse of Ham (Gen
9:2027), jets 41 (1998): 182; Robert I. Vasholz, Genesis 9:1925, Presb. 26 (2000): 3233.
490 The name Ham occurs (except in Gen. 910 and 1Chr. 1) in 1 Chr. 4:40; Ps. 78:51; 105:23,27;
106:22. In Psalms, Ham is a reference to Egypt. For 1Chr. 4:40, see above p. 235 n. 317.
491 Cf. Jacob, Genesis, 269. In the time after the Old Testament, the curse of Canaan is con-
282 chapter 3
tants of Gibeon are enslaved (Josh. 9:23; cf. 16:10), but this is described as an
unintended exception. Solomon is said to have imposed forced labour on the
indigenous population that was left (1Kgs 9:2021), but a reference to Noahs
curse is absent.
Although it is not possible to give a satisfactory answer to all questions, it

is justified to draw the following conclusions. The reason for Noahs curse is
the fact that Ham sees Noahs nakedness and tells his brothers. In the text of
Gen. 9:1827, there are no indications for some evil act by Canaan. In the Old
Testament, there is no direct link between Hams action or the curse on Canaan
and the (sexual) practices or the fate of the Canaanite peoples. However, it is
striking that the first occurrence of Canaan in the Old Testament is a curse on
Canaan. Thus, on the level of the present text of Genesis or the Pentateuch,
a negative signal is given concerning the Canaanites. From the beginning,
Canaan is cursed and this is connected with a sexual offence. The prediction
of slavery is intended as a severe judgment; the Deuteronomic command,
however, is even more radical.
3.4.7 Summary and Conclusion

In this section, it was described how the attitude toward the nations of Canaan,
as prescribed in Deut. 7, relates to the rest of the Old Testament. Not only in
Deut. 7, but also more broadly in the Old Testament, there appeared to be an
explicit command of Yhwh to Israel to exterminate the nations of Canaan
(3.4.1).
It appeared that there is a broadly attested tradition in the Old Testament
that the nations of Canaan have been (partly) exterminated. The terminology
used consequently points in the direction of extermination, not just expul-
sion. This tradition is broadly attested in texts from various books, genres and
times (3.4.2).
From the book of Joshua, it is described how the nations of Canaan are
kept alive and are gradually incorporated into Israel. After the announcement
nected with the fate of the Canaanites; see Menahem Kister, The Fate of the Canaanites
and the Despoliation of the Egyptians: Polemics among Jews, Pagans, Christians, and
Gnostics; Motifs and Motives, in The Gift of the Land and the Fate of the Canaanites in
Jewish Thought, ed. Katell Berthelot, Joseph E. David, and Marc Hirshman (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2014), 6869. In Tan. (Buber) Noah 20 (Buber, Midrasch Tanchuma,
2:48), even the exile of the northern empire of Israel is viewed as a result of Noahs drunk-
enness (not in Tan.). Cf. Tan. (Buber) Noah 21 (Ibid., 2:51); Gen. Rab. 36:4 (Albeck and
Theodor, Midrash Bereshit Rabba, 1:338).
of Yhwh that He will no longer expel or destroy the nations (Judg. 2:3), no
command or attempt to exterminate the nations of Canaan is described any
more. On the one hand, the Canaanite peoples are incorporated into Israel;
on the other hand, in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah there still is a clear
separation and a prohibition of intermarriage. The book of Zechariah closes
with an eschatological prophecy (Zech. 14:21), in which the total absence of the
Canaanite has explicitly been given a place (3.4.3).
Usually, the command to exterminate the Canaanites is motivated in a
general way with a reference to the sin or the abhorrent practices of the
nations of Canaan. Sometimes, this sin is further elaborated on, and concrete
practices are mentioned: child sacrifice, always connected with idolatry, and
less frequently with forms of divination. These motives were also mentioned
in Deuteronomy (see 3.2.4). A motive that is absent in Deuteronomy, but
appears in Lev. 18 and 20, is the condemnation of certain sexual practices of
the Canaanite peoples. This latter motive is combined with child sacrifice, but
not with serving the gods of these nations (3.4.4).
The attitude toward the nations of Canaan in the book of Genesis is clearly
different from the Deuteronomic one. According to Genesis, the ancestors of
Israel mostly were living peacefully together with the original inhabitants of
Canaan. No idolatry or moral depravity is attributed to these nations. However,
close contacts and intermarriage are avoided or rejected. Thus, Genesis does
not display an exclusively positive attitude toward the nations of Canaan. In the
structure of the Pentateuch, the turning point is the covenant at Sinai ( 3.4.5).
The first occurrence of Canaan in the Old Testament is Noahs curse on
Canaan. The reason for this is the fact that Ham, the father of Canaan, sees
Noahs nakedness and speaks about it. Although no connection is made in
the Old Testament between this episode and the practices or the fate of the
Canaanite peoples, it is remarkable that the first occurrence of Canaan con-
cerns a curse on him, because of a sexual offence. Thus, at the level of the
present text a negative signal is given concerning the Canaanites ( 3.4.6).
In the literary work of Genesis to Kings, the relationship between Israel and
the nations of Canaan is described as follows. The first occurrence of Canaan
is Noahs curse on Canaan. In this way, Canaan is characterized as evil from the
beginning, in its origin (cf. Gen. 15:16). In the book of Genesis as a whole, how-
ever, it is described how the ancestors of Israel are living peacefully together
with the nations in Canaan, although close contacts are avoided. These nations
are not characterized as idolaters or as morally corrupt. A turning point in the
attitude toward the Canaanites is the covenant at Sinai. At that time, Israel is
commanded not to make a covenant with these nations (Exod. 23:2033). In
284 chapter 3
texts situated before Israel is at the border of Canaan, mainly the expulsion of
these nations is asked for, although there are some hints at destruction. How-
ever, both the destruction and Israels role in this are not emphasized.
The command in Deut. 7 is more explicit and more radical than earlier texts
in its demand for extermination of the nations of Canaan; in addition, Israel is
assigned an active role. Although the objective (the removal of the indigenous
population) and the motivation (which is religious in nature) are in line with
Exod. 23:2033 and Exod. 34:1116, the Deuteronomic command clearly shows
a radicalization in the attitude toward these nations.
In the book of Joshua, it is described how the command is executed. At the
same time, it increasingly becomes clear that the command is not completely
executed. The nations of Canaan are kept alive and are gradually incorporated
into Israel. This situation appears to be accepted or tolerated. After the con-
quest of Canaan, Israel is warned repeatedly against making a covenant and
against intermarriage; however, the command to exterminate the nations is not
repeated. The result of this integration is that Israel takes over the practices of
the nations of Canaan (in particular child sacrifice). This eventually leads to
the judgment of Yhwh and the exile of Israel and Judah, according to the Old
Testament narratives. Thus, Israels relationship with the nations of Canaan is
an important theme in Genesis to Kings.492
3.5 Conclusions
In this chapter, the command to exterminate the nations of Canaan (Deut.

7) has been read in its immediate and wider literary context. The place of
Deut. 7 in the structure of the book of Deuteronomy underlines the impor-
tance attached to the chapter. The extermination of the Canaanite peoples is
regarded as a prerequisite for living with Yhwh. By the context of Deut. 7, a
close connection is made between serving Yhwh and the command to destroy
the indigenous population of Canaan. The extermination is not a goal in itself,
but a means to keep Israel at the service of Yhwh alone.
492 Cf. Hans-Christoph Schmitt, Das sptdeuteronomistische Geschichtswerk Genesis i

2 Regum xxv und seine theologische Intention, in Congress Volume Cambridge 1995, ed.
John Adney Emerton, vt.s 66 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 266270. Schmitt argues that the motif
of the distance between Israel and the nations has a structuring function in Genesis to
Kings. His thesis that also the number and sequence of the nations in the lists of nations
will have a meaning, however, is unconvincing.
In Deuteronomy, a clear distinction is made between Israels attitude toward

the nations of Canaan and toward other nations. The former population of
Canaan and its surroundings is also distinguished from the seven peoples of
Canaan. Concerning the Canaanite peoples, in Deuteronomy Israel is always
called to exterminate them.
The Deuteronomic view of the fate of the Canaanites is no Fremdkrper in
the Old Testament. There is a broadly attested tradition that the nations of
Canaan have been (partly) exterminated; some texts only ask for expulsion
of these nations. The texts correspond, however, in the objective to remove
the indigenous population from the land of Canaan. In a number of texts, a
command of Yhwh to Israel is mentioned to exterminate them.
The motives mentioned for the command to destroy these nations, are
religious in nature. An explicit connection is established between the way in
which the nations of Canaan serve their gods, and their extermination. As
concrete examples, in particular divination and child sacrifice are mentioned,
and less often the alleged sexual practices of these nations. These motives for
the extermination are often found in a parenetic context: if Israel follows these
practices, it will suffer the same fate. The motive mentioned in Deut. 7, namely
the danger of idolatry, independent of the concrete practices mentioned, is
not found elsewhere in the Old Testament as a motive for the command to
exterminate the Canaanite peoples.
In Genesis to Kings, a development is described from peaceful coexistence
with the nations of Canaan, via increasing distance, to the command to exter-
minate these nations. After this, these nations are said to be spared and to
be gradually incorporated into Israel. It is noteworthy, however, that in Israels
eschatological expectation, the total absence of the Canaanite still has explic-
itly been given a place.
Within the spectrum of texts concerning the nations of Canaan, Deut. 7 has
the following characteristic features: (1) the emphasis on the radical nature
and the totality of the extermination of the Canaanites (verses 2,16,2324);
this concerns both the nations themselves and their cult objects (verses 5,25
26); (2) the motive of the religious danger of the Canaanites, which threatens
Israels identity as the people of Yhwh (verses 4,16); the behaviour of these
nations is only hinted at (verse 10); (3) the contrast between Israels smallness
and the nations greatness (verses 1,7,17); (4) the close connection between the
command to exterminate the nations of Canaan and the character and actions
of Yhwh (verses 610); (5) the promise of Yhwhs blessing if Israel keeps his
commandments, and his curse if Israel follows the Canaanites (verses 4,1215).
chapter 4
Historical Setting
Against the backdrop of the Old Testament traditions concerning the nations
of Canaan (chap. 3), this chapter discusses the historical background and date
of these traditions in three parts. The first will investigate what information
may be derived from extra-biblical sources on the seven nations mentioned
in Deut. 7 (4.1). The second will explore whether the practices attributed to
these nations in the Old Testament, namely child sacrifice and certain sexual
practices, did actually occur in Canaan (4.2). The third will discuss the dating
of the command to exterminate the Canaanites, as well as the consequences for
its interpretation. In that context, I will also deal with the question of whether
the command should be interpreted in a metaphorical way ( 4.3). Finally,
some conclusions are drawn (4.4).
4.1 The Seven Nations of Canaan in the Ancient Near East
This section will investigate data from extra-biblical sources on the seven
nations mentioned in Deut. 7. After some introductory remarks, the Hittites
(4.1.1), Amorites (4.1.2), and Canaanites (4.1.3) will be discussed separately,
and the other four nations together (4.1.4). The section closes with some
conclusions (4.1.5).
In the Old Testament, the seven nations represent the entire pre-Israelite
population of Canaan. This indigenous population is usually treated as a col-
lective in the Old Testament (see the introduction of 3.4). The tradition of six
or seven nations, however, shows an awareness of diversity within the popula-
tion of Canaan. This diversity is confirmed by Egyptian sources, which likewise
mention several peoples in Canaan, and by archaeological data.1
1 Egyptian sources: Keith N. Schoville, Canaanites and Amorites, in Peoples of the Old Testa-
ment World, ed. Alfred J. Hoerth, Gerald L. Mattingly, and Edwin M. Yamauchi (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1996), 166. According to Killebrew, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity, 93148, a distinction
can be made between the Canaanites and the Israelites on the basis of the archaeological
data. From these data, in particular diversity in burial customs and cultic structures, it would
also appear that the population of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age consisted of various ethnic
groups (Ibid., 138).

historical setting 287
In the Late Bronze Age, Canaan consisted of various city states or small
kingdoms, although it is not certain how many of these units existed.2 It cannot
be determined whether the citizens of every city state viewed themselves as a
separate people, or whether some city states felt connected with each other.
Accordingly, it is very well possible that more peoples were distinguished in
Canaan than the seven (in some texts more) peoples mentioned in the Old
Testament lists; and it is not clear why these particular nations are mentioned
in these lists.3
The distinction between the seven nations of Canaan is not found in this
form outside the Old Testament. Since original textual material from the
Canaanite peoples themselves is almost entirely missing, we only have the
point of view of outsiders on these nations.4 Therefore, we should keep in mind
that the classification and assessment of the nations of Canaan is also deter-
mined by the context of those who were writing about them. Another relevant
aspect is that ethnic identity was much less precisely defined in ancient times
than in our times. In addition, peoples may merge, divide, migrate, or receive
another name. Modern conceptions of ethnicity should not be projected on
the Ancient Near East.5
4.1.1 Hittites
In the Old Testament, the designation Hittites usually refers to a population
in Canaan. In Gen. 23, the Hittites are situated in or near Hebron, later on in
the hill country (Num. 13:29; Josh. 11:3). Some texts, however, refer to a people
outside Canaan, the neo-Hittite empire in the north (1 Kgs 10:29; 2 Kgs 7:6; 2 Chr.
2 Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, 577578 mentions a minimum of 12 (cf. Ibid., 551
554); Killebrew, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity, 99100, following N. Naaman, speaks about at
least 25 city states. According to John C.L. Gibson, Observations on Some Important Ethnic
Terms in the Pentateuch, jnes 20 (1961): 217, due to the many migrations in the second
millennium b.c., it is to be expected that the population of Canaan is a kaleidoscopic mixture
of races.
3 Hostetter, Geographic Distribution of the Pre-Israelite Peoples states that these seven
nations are mentioned because of their geographic distribution: their territories would indi-
cate the borders of the land.
4 The only material that might be relevant, are the Amarna Letters. Data from the literature of
Ugarit cannot simply be applied to Canaan, as is generally recognized in recent research; cf.
Killebrew, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity, 93, 139 n. 1.
5 Cf. Sparks, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel, 22: [E]thnic identities are highly fluid. See
broader Ibid., 1622; for the place of ethnicity in Israels Umwelt, Ibid., 2393. According to
Sparks, ethnicity played only a small role in the national identity of the peoples surrounding
Israel. Cf. W. von Soden, ThWAT 6:189.
288 chapter 4
1:17; possibly 1Kgs 11:1). In the latter case, the plural is always used; for the
population in Canaan, the plural is never used.6
In the Ancient Near Eastern texts, the gentilicium Hittite is used for three
different groups of people. First, there is the original population of Asia Minor,
which lived there around 2000 b.c. Second, the Indo-European intruders who
invaded Asia Minor around 2000 b.c. are called Hittites. Around the capital
attua, the Hittite empire arose from about 1700 b.c. Third, after the collapse
of this empire (ca. 1180 b.c.), there were neo-Hittite kingdoms in Syria during
the first half of the first millennium b.c.7 Next to these groups of people,
from the ninth/eighth century b.c., the name atti is used as a designation for
the entire area west of the Euphrates.8 An ethnic group within Canaan called
Hittites is not found in extra-biblical texts.
For the present study, the question is whether a connection can be made
between the Hittites in Anatolia and Syria, and the population group in Canaan.
The armies of the Hittites never campaigned further south than Damascus;
thus, there has been no direct influence from the Hittites in Canaan.9 Various
proposals have been made for possible migrations of a Hittite population from
Anatolia to Canaan, but no convincing evidence has been found to justify these
proposals.10 Another objection against such a hypothesis is that all Hittites in
the Old Testament have Semitic names.11 At the same time, typically Hittite
features, like the hieroglyphic script and cremation burial, are not found in
the archaeological data from Canaan.12 Admittedly it is possible that a group
of immigrants assimilates to the new environment so quickly that barely any
6 Cogan, 1Kings, 326; Philip E. Satterthwaite and David W. Baker, Nations of Canaan, in
Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, ed. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003), 602.
7 See, e.g., Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, 129131; Harry A. Hoffner Jr., The
Hittites and Hurrians, in Peoples of Old Testament Times, ed. D.J. Wiseman (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1973), 197200.
8 Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, 130; Singer, The Hittites and the Bible Revis-
ited, 735736.
9 Hoffner, Ancient Israels Literary Heritage, 177.
10 Singer, The Hittites and the Bible Revisited, 727736 discusses the following proposals:
the time of the patriarchs, the treaty concerning Kurustuma (a city in Anatolia, from which
a group of people departs to Egypt); the peace between the Hittite and the Egyptian
empire after the treaty of 1258 b.c.; the time after the collapse of the Hittite empire.
11 Harry A. Hoffner Jr., Some Contributions of Hittitology to Old Testament Study, TynB 20
(1969): 32. According to him, in groups of Hittites abroad there would always be a number
of Hittite names.
12 Singer, The Hittites and the Bible Revisited, 754.
traces of their origin can be found. However, in combination with the fact that
there is no evidence for a migration of Hittites to Canaan, such a hypothesis
remains speculative. There are indications for cultural influence of the Hittites
on Israel, but this may be explained by other contacts (for example the contact
between David and the neo-Hittite state of Hamath, 2 Sam. 8:910). This is not
enough basis to assume the existence of a Hittite population within Canaan.13
On the basis of the available Ancient Near Eastern data, it is not possible to
establish a direct link between the Hittites in Anatolia or Syria and the Hittites
in Canaan. It is remarkable, however, that in the Old Testament the Hittites are
mentioned as one of the nations of Canaan; and no other major powers of the
Ancient Near East are situated in Canaan. Another possibility is that there is no
connection with the Hittites from Anatolia, but that the gentilicium Hittite in
the Old Testament is derived from the designation Hittites for the entire area
west of the river Euphrates (cf. Josh. 1:4). Outside the Old Testament, however,
the use of this designation for Canaan is found only in neo-Assyrian and neo-
Babylonian times.14
According to some authors, the Hivites, Perizzites and Girgashites originated
from Anatolia as well (see 4.1.4). On the basis of this, it has been assumed
that all the nations in Canaan (except for the Canaanites and the Amorites)
originated from the Hittite empire.15 As for the Jebusites, however, there are no
indications for this.
13 Otherwise R. Lebrun, Hittites et Hourrites en Palestine-Canaan, Trans 15 (1998): 153163.

For a discussion of cultural parallels, see in particular Hoffner, Ancient Israels Literary
Heritage; Singer, The Hittites and the Bible Revisited. In this 2004 article, Hoffner states
that cultural influence of the Hittite empire on Israel is demonstrable not only in the first
millennium b.c. (as he had stated in previous publications), but already has to be assumed
at the end of the second millennium b.c.
14 Cf. Singer, The Hittites and the Bible Revisited, 755756. According to Meik Gerhards,
Die biblischen Hethiter, WOr 39 (2009): 158160, this explanation is not possible, since
the authors of the later texts of the Old Testament would still know that the Hittites
lived north of Israel. Gerhards himself assumes that from the seventeenth to the fifteenth
century b.c. there was an upper layer of the population which had affinity with the empire
of Mitanni on a political and cultural level. This would explain some Hurrian names
in Canaan (see 4.1.4 on the Jebusites). When the empire of Mitanni was taken by the
Hittites, this group would have become Hittites in the view of outsiders. This hypothesis,
however, is not sufficiently substantiated.
15 So, e.g., Nadav Naaman, The Conquest of Canaan in the Book of Joshua and in History,
in From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel, ed.
Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Naaman (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994), 239
243.
290 chapter 4
4.1.2 Amorites
In the Old Testament, the Amorites are mainly situated in Transjordan and
in the hill country of Cisjordan (Num. 13:29; Deut. 1:7; Josh. 10:6). Sometimes,
the designation Amorites is used for the entire pre-Israelite population of
Canaan.16
The gentilicium Amorite is derived from the Akkadian Amurrm (Sumerian
mar.d). Amurru has the general meaning of the west as one of the four car-
dinal directions. The designation also refers to a group of Semitic immigrants
in Mesopotamia, coming from the (north)west. This use of the designation
Amorite is attested since the middle of the third millennium, into the second
millennium b.c. Amurru is also used to designate a specific area in the south
of Syria. From the end of the fifteenth century b.c. (perhaps even earlier) until
the beginning of the twelfth century b.c., a kingdom Amurru existed in this
area. Finally, from the ninth/eighth century b.c., the name Amurru is used to
designate the entire area of Syria-Palestine (from the seventh/sixth century dis-
placed by atti).17
It is not easy to make a connection between the population groups men-
tioned above and the Amorites from the Old Testament. A first possibility is
to assume that a migration of Amorites has taken place from Syria to Canaan,
either at the end of the third or the beginning of the second millennium b.c.,
or after the collapse of the kingdom Amurru at the end of the second millen-
nium b.c. There are indications for Amorite presence in Canaan during the
second millennium b.c.;18 however, there is no evidence for an Amorite migra-
tion to the south at the beginning of the second millennium b.c. or earlier.19
The dating of a possible migration at the end of the second millennium b.c.
is supported by the fact that the name Amurru probably lived on after the
collapse of the kingdom in Syria, also further to the south.20 In the eleventh
century b.c., there is at least someone in the south of Lebanon who calls him-
self king of Amurru.21
16 Josh. 10:56; 24:15; 2Sam. 21:2, cf. Josh. 9:7; 1Kgs 21:26; 2 Kgs 21:11.
17 See Ishida, History and Historical Writing, 1315; M. Liverani, The Amorites, in Peoples of
Old Testament Times, ed. D.J. Wiseman (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973), 100133; Van Seters, The
Terms Amorite and Hittite, 6466.
18 See William T. Koopmans, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative, jsot.s 93 (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1990), 448449.
19 See Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, 133134.
20 See for this dating Hostetter, Nations Mightier and More Numerous, 53.
21 On two arrowheads from the eleventh century b.c., the text occurs: zkrbl // mlk mr;
Robert Deutsch and Michael Heltzer, New Epigraphic Evidence from the Biblical Period
A second possibility to make a connection between the Old Testament and

the extra-biblical sources is that the designation Amorite in the Old Testament
derived from the use in neo-Assyrian texts. An objection against this hypoth-
esis, however, is that in neo-Assyrian texts the territory of Moab and Edom is
also designated as Amurru, whereas the Old Testament consistently makes a
distinction between Israels territory and the territory of Moab and Edom.22
Unfortunately, it is not possible to get beyond hypotheses, since further data
on the origin of the Amorites as a pre-Israelite population are lacking.
4.1.3 Canaanites
In the Old Testament, the Canaanites as one of the seven nations are localized
by the seacoast (Num. 13:29; Josh. 5:1), in the valley of Jezreel (Josh. 17:16),
and in the Jordan valley (Num. 13:29; Deut. 11:30; cf. 3.2.3.2). In addition, the
designation Canaanites is sometimes used as a collective designation for
the pre-Israelite population of Canaan (e.g., Gen. 12:6; 50:11; Exod. 13:11; Neh.
9:24).
The oldest extra-biblical text about the Canaanites is a letter from Mari
(eighteenth century b.c.), in which mention is made of thieves and Canaan-
ites. The oldest Egyptian text is a stela of Amenhotep ii; the booty of a cam-
paign undertaken by him includes 640 Canaanites. Next to these, Canaan and
the Canaanites are mentioned in texts from Alalakh, Amarna, attua, and
Ugarit,23 all dating from the second millennium b.c.24 In texts from the first
millennium, Canaan and the Canaanites are almost never mentioned. Only on
coins from the Hellenistic period does Canaan occur again, but as a desig-
nation for Phoenicia.25 In the sources from the second millennium b.c., the
(Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center Publication, 1995), nr. 12, 29. Nothing more is known
about this king Zakarbaal. See Ibid., 2526, 28; Johannes C. de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism:
The Roots of Israelite Monotheism, 2nd ed., BEThL 91 (Leuven: University Press, 1997),
194.
22 Cf. Hostetter, Nations Mightier and More Numerous, 5657.
23 As for Ugarit, there are two texts: ktu 4.96:7 and rs 20.182 b 6,8; for the text, see Anson
F. Rainey, Who Is a Canaanite? A Review of the Textual Evidence, basor 304 (1996): 5.
In the first text, the name of a Canaanite is mentioned ( yl knny). In the second text, the
sons of Canaan are contrasted with the sons of Ugarit.
24 See Killebrew, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity, 9496; A.R. Millard, The Canaanites, in
Peoples of Old Testament Times, ed. D.J. Wiseman (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973), 2952; Nadav
Naaman, The Canaanites and Their Land: A Rejoinder, uf 26 (1994): 398406; Rainey,
Who Is a Canaanite. Schoville, Canaanites and Amorites, 158 mentions a name from
Ebla (2250 b.c.) as the possibly (but controversial) oldest reference.
25 Lemche, The Canaanites and Their Land, 5362; Christoph Uehlinger, The Canaanites
292 chapter 4
designation Canaan refers to a clearly defined territory, which overlaps with

the Egyptian province of this name.26
This view is contested by Niels Peter Lemche. He believes that the extra-
biblical references to Canaan do not clearly indicate which territory is meant.
The northern and eastern border of Canaan would be unclear, and the people
living in Canaan would not consider themselves as Canaanites. In the Old
Testament, according to Lemche, the designation Canaanites refers to the post-
exilic opponents of the official Jewry, which may have been the precursors of
the Samaritans.27 Lemches view, however, has been convincingly refuted by
Nadav Naaman and Anson F. Rainey. They have demonstrated that Lemche
wrongly takes his starting point in an obscure text from El Amarna (ea 151).
Moreover, he does not do justice to the many texts that are clear. The fact that
precise border descriptions of Canaan are often missing may be explained by
the aim of the sources. The Egyptians, however, did have good geographical
knowledge.28
For the present study, it is relevant that the gentilicium Canaanite unam-
biguously refers to inhabitants of the Egyptian province of Canaan. Thus, this
gentilicium may also have been used to refer to the pre-Israelite population
of this area. It is striking that this use is limited to texts from the second mil-
lennium b.c. As biblical and extra-biblical texts refer to the same area and the
same period, the occurrence of the Canaanites in the Old Testament could indi-
cate an ancient tradition.29
4.1.4 Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, and Girgashites

In contrast to the Hittites, Amorites and Canaanites, the four other names of
the seven nations are not found as gentilicia in Ancient Near Eastern texts. It
is noteworthy that these four nations seem to have another position in the Old
Testament as well. Outside of the lists of nations, they are mentioned much
less than the first three; in these lists, they are usually mentioned only after the
Hittites, Amorites and Canaanites.
and Other pre-Israelite Peoples in Story and History (Part ii), FZPhTh 47 (2000): 181182.
Before the Hellenistic age, there is only one extra-biblical text from the first millennium
in which Canaan is mentioned: an Egyptian text, probably from the 22nd dynasty (tenth
to eighth century b.c.).
26 Naaman, The Canaanites and Their Land, 406.
27 Lemche, The Canaanites and Their Land, 152155, 165, 168169.
28 See in particular Naaman, The Canaanites and Their Land; Rainey, Who Is a Canaanite.
The Perizzites are situated in the hill country of Cisjordan in the Old Testa-
ment (Josh. 11:3; 17:15).30 Several times, they are mentioned in the combination
Canaanites and Perizzites (Gen. 13:7; 34:30; Judg. 1:4). In Josh. 17:1516, the Per-
izzites occur in combination with the Rephaim, and together they are called
Canaanites.
The name Perizzites has been explained in three ways. First, a connection
has been made with the land Pirindu, in the west of Cilicia. If the Hivites
originated in the region uwe in Cilicia (see below), this could explain the
connection between the Perizzites and Hivites in the lists of nations.31 This
hypothesis, however, does not explain the connection between this region in
Cilicia and an ethnic group in Canaan. Second, scholars have pointed to a
personal name. A messenger of the Hurrian empire of Mitanni has the proper
name Pirizzi. This could point to a connection with the Hurrians, of whom it
is known that they also lived in Canaan in the fourteenth century b.c. One
proper name, however, is very little to substantiate this hypothesis.32 Third,
a connection has been assumed with , a designation for an inhabitant of
the countryside or for someone who is outside.33 In that case, the Perizzites
would originally not be a people, but a social category. As arguments for this
thesis it may be mentioned that the Perizzites do not occur in the genealogy
of Gen. 10 and that the combination Canaanites and Perizzites is used several
times for the entire pre-Israelite population of Canaan.34 Since the Perizzites
are often followed by the Hivites and the Jebusites in the lists of nations,
30 See Erasmus Ga, PerisiterHiwiterJebusiter: Gentilizia in Zentral- und Nordpals-

tina, in Studien zum Richterbuch und seinen Vlkernamen, by Walter Gro and Erasmus
Ga, sbab 54 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2012), 323326.
31 Andr Lemaire, Hiwwites, Perizzites et Girgashites: Essai d Identification Ethnique, in
Stimulation from Leiden: Collected Communications to the xviiith Congress of the Interna-
tional Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Leiden 2004, ed. Hermann Michael
Niemann and Matthias Augustin, beat 54 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2006), 220222;
as a question already in Manfred Grg, iwwiter im 13. Jahrhundert v. Chr., uf 8 (1976):
5355. Lemaire also gives a linguistic justification of the possible development Pirindu >
Piriddu > Perizzi.
32 Franz Marius Theodor Bhl, Kanaaner und Hebrer: Untersuchungen zur Vorgeschichte
des Volkstums und der Religion Israels auf dem Boden Kanaans, bwat 9 (Leipzig: J.C. Hin-
rich, 1911), 66; Hostetter, Nations Mightier and More Numerous, 81.
33 Hermann Michael Niemann, Das Ende des Volkes der Perizziter: ber soziale Wandlun-
gen Israels im Spiegel einer Begriffsgruppe, zaw 105 (1993): 233245 has demonstrated
that it refers to someone who is outside from the perspective of the speaker (Auen-
bevlkerung). This need not be limited to the countryside.
34 Ibid., 252.
294 chapter 4
one could assume that the designation Perizzites may have been used for
the smaller nations of Canaan together. The combination Canaanites and
Perizzites would then represent the larger and the smaller nations.35 Another
argument for this interpretation is that a few times lxx translates as
Perizzite (Deut. 3:5; 1Sam. 6:18). An objection against the interpretation that
Perizzites was derived from , however, is that the Masoretic vocalization
indicates a clear distinction; moreover, the occurrence of the Perizzites in the
lists of nations suggests that the designation was considered as a gentilicium,
at least in those contexts.36
The Hivites are localized, according to the Old Testament, under mount Her-
mon (Josh. 11:3; cf. Judg. 3:3), but also in Shechem (Gen. 34:2) and Gibeon
(Josh. 9:7; 11:19).37 Three options have been suggested to connect the Hivites
with other data from the Ancient Near East. First, it has been stated that
would be a spelling-variant or confusion for . Some texts in lxx would
point to this.38 The text-critical support for this hypothesis, however, is very
weak. Second, it has been assumed, on the basis of the transcription of the
name Hivites in the Vetus Latina (Euhei), that the initial vowel of Hivites
has fallen out. The original name would have been Aivi. The Hivites then
should be identified with the Ahhijawa from Hittite texts, the Akaiwaa/Ekwe
from Egyptian texts, and the Achaioi from Greek texts.39 It is unlikely, however,
that the initial vowel would have disappeared. These two proposals, there-
fore, are scarcely followed. Third, a connection has been made between the
Hivites and the region Quwe/uwe in Cilicia.40 An objection against this view
35 Originally, this would go back to the contrast between the city (Canaanites) and the
countryside (Perizzites). Cf. Ishida, History and Historical Writing, 2526, who, however,
considers this to be unlikely.
36 Cf. Ga, PerisiterHiwiterJebusiter, 341343.
37 See Ibid., 326330. In 2Sam. 24:7, the cities of the Hivites and Canaanites are mentioned;
if this text refers to cities inside the land of Canaan, this combination would comprise the
entire non-Israelite population of Canaan. It is uncertain, however, whether 2 Sam. 24:7
refers to cities inside Canaan; see 3.4.3.2 (pp. 244245).
38 Robert North, The Hivites, Bib. 54 (1973): 4362. Cf. Gibson, Observations on Some
Important Ethnic Terms, 227229. To these texts in lxx, one could add manuscript 5b1 of
s, in which Horites (mt) is consequently translated as Hivites; Gen. 14:6; 36:20,21,29,30.
39 Othniel Margalith, The Hivites, zaw 100 (1988): 6070.
40 Grg, iwwiter im 13. Jahrhundert v. Chr.; Andr Lemaire, Maison de David, maison
de Mopsos, et les Hivvites, in Sefer Moshe: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East,
Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism, ed. Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz, and Shalom M. Paul
(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 310312; Naaman, The Conquest of Canaan; Singer,
is that this region is mentioned in the Old Testament, but spelled as ( 1 Kgs
10:28). In addition, it is not clear how a connection could be made between
the inhabitants of this region and the population in Canaan (see 4.1.1 on the
Hittites).
A few times, the Jebusites are connected with the hill country in the Old
Testament (Num. 13:29; Josh. 11:3), but otherwise almost exclusively with the
city of Jerusalem (Josh. 15:8,63; Judg. 1:21).41 The name Jerusalem is found in
execration texts from Egypt (nineteenth/eighteenth century b.c.), the Amarna
letters (fourteenth century b.c.), neo-Assyrian inscriptions and many later
texts.42 In the Old Testament, the name Jebus is also used (Judg. 19:1011; 1 Chr.
11:45), always in combination with Jerusalem. Since the name Jebus does not
occur outside the Old Testament, it may be assumed that it is derived from
the gentilicium Jebusite, possibly in order to emphasize, by means of another
name, the discontinuity between the original inhabitants of Jerusalem and
the Israelites.43 The only name of a Jebusite that occurs in the Old Testament,
Araunah, is possibly Hurrian (ewri-ne, lord, king).44 The same is true for the
name Abdi-epa, the king of Jerusalem known from the Amarna letters. These
two names may point to Hurrian influence in Canaan, but are insufficient
evidence to conclude that (the majority of) the population of Jerusalem would
be of Hurrian origin.45
Some scholars have made a connection between the name Jebusites and
some Amorite names from Mari (Ya-bu-s-um, Ya-ba-si-dDagan).46 On this
The Hittites and the Bible Revisited, 735. Cf. Ga, PerisiterHiwiterJebusiter, 343
347. For references to relevant texts, see Hostetter, Nations Mightier and More Numerous,
7475. Lemaire also gives a linguistic justification of the possible shift between q and .
41 See Ga, PerisiterHiwiterJebusiter, 331335.
42 See Ulrich Hbner, Jerusalem und die Jebusiter, in Kein Land fr sich allein: Studien zum
Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel/Palstina und Ebirnri, ed. Ulrich Hbner and Ernst Axel
Knauf, obo 186 (Freiburg: Universittsverlag, 2002), 34.
43 Ibid., 3537. According to Hbner, the author in this way wanted to obscure the ethnic
and cultural continuity. Accordingly, the Pentateuch would never use the name Jerusalem,
but Salem (Gen. 14:18). Since this name is used only once in the Pentateuch, however, this
cannot prove the thesis that the name Jerusalem was consciously avoided.
44 The origin of this name is controversial, however; see Ga, PerisiterHiwiterJebu-
siter, 349353.
45 Cf. Hbner, Jerusalem und die Jebusiter, 3233. Billie Jean Collins, The Hittites and
Their World, sblabs 7 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 202 leaves open the
possibility of a Hurrian origin of (the leading class of) the Jebusites.
46 Hbner, Jerusalem und die Jebusiter, 32.
296 chapter 4
basis, it has been assumed that Jebusites was the name of an Amorite clan
in Jerusalem.47 Evidence for this, however, is lacking.
The Girgashites occur only in the genealogy of Gen. 10 and in the lists of nations
in the Old Testament.48 A connection has been proposed with the city of
Karkia in the west of Anatolia.49 Even if this proposal is followed, however,
it remains unclear how there could be a connection between this city and a
population group in Canaan. In Ugaritic and Punic texts, the proper name grg
occurs.50 Nothing is known, however, about the Girgashites as a people.
4.1.5 Conclusion
In the Old Testament, the pre-Israelite population of Canaan is described
as a collective of usually six or seven nations. Three of them, the Hittites,
Amorites and Canaanites, are known from extra-biblical texts. Usually, these
three nations are mentioned first in the lists of nations in the Old Testament. In
addition, each of these names is sometimes used as a collective for the entire
pre-Israelite population of Canaan. As for the Hittites and the Amorites, it is
not possible to make a direct connection between the data from the Ancient
Near East and an ethnic group in Canaan. It is noteworthy, however, that from
the beginning of the first millennium b.c., both names are being used as a
designation for the entire area of Syria-Palestine. As for the Canaanites, the
connection between the biblical and extra-biblical sources is the clearest. In
the light of the extra-biblical sources, Canaanite is a common designation for
the inhabitants of the Egyptian province of Canaan. This use is limited to texts
from the second millennium b.c., however. The other four names of the nations
(Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, and Girgashites) are not found as a gentilicium
47 Edward Lipiski, Itineraria Phoenicia, ola 127, StPho 18 (Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 502.
48 Hostetter, Geographic Distribution of the Pre-Israelite Peoples; Hostetter, Nations Might-
ier and More Numerous, 63 assumes that the Girgashites have to be localized in Galilee,
since none of the other nations lived there. This would correspond to some manuscripts
of Matt. 8:28; Mark 5:1; Luke 8:26,37. In none of these texts, however, is Gergesenes the
most likely reading.
49 Naaman, The Conquest of Canaan, 240. According to Lemaire, Hiwwites, Perizzites
et Girgashites, 222224, this is probably to be identified with krk in Aramaic texts.
According to this hypothesis, the territory of the Hivites, Perizzites and Girgashites would
be mentioned together in the neo-Babylonian chronicle of Neriglissar (Hume, Pirindu and
Ludu).
50 The name grg in Ugaritic texts: ktu 4.50:14; 4.187:3; 4.194:1; 4.214:iii:21. Cf. bn grg: ktu
4.123:15; 4.377:9 (bn grgs: ktu 4.33:29; 4.51:9). For the Punic texts, see Benz, Personal Names
in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions, 103, 299.
in the literature of the Ancient Near East. As for the Perizzites, Jebusites, and
Girgashites, the name does occur as a persons proper name. For the Perizzites,
Hivites, and Girgashites, a possible origin from Anatolia has been proposed.
These data have been explained in various ways. First, according to several
authors the names of the Canaanite peoples only have a rhetorical function,
namely to indicate the distinction between Israel and (the practices of) other
nations. The names would have been used to give the stories an appearance of
antiquity.51 An objection against this interpretation, however, is that it does not
explain the correspondences between the use of some names of the nations in
the Old Testament and in Ancient Near Eastern texts. Nor does it become clear
why the names of nations are mentioned that do not occur in extra-biblical
texts.
Second, the designation Hittites and Amorites has been explained by a
reference to their use in neo-Assyrian (and neo-Babylonian) texts. From the
beginning of the first millennium b.c., these names refer to the entire area of
Syria-Palestine. This would correspond with their use in the Old Testament.
The sometimes negative assessment of Hittites in the Ancient Near East would
fit this interpretation.52 An argument against this interpretation, however, is
the fact that the Old Testament use of the names Hittites and Amorites does
not entirely correspond to the neo-Assyrian use. In the Old Testament, both
names usually refer to one of the nations of Canaan, not to the area as a whole.
In addition, the southern part of Transjordan is explicitly not reckoned to the
territory of the Amorites in the Old Testament, whereas that area does belong
to the neo-Assyrian Amurru.53
Finally, the view has been defended that the names of the nations probably
go back to an old tradition. In the light of the extra-biblical data, it is likely that
the gentilicium Canaanite goes back to a tradition from the second millennium
51 So, e.g., Lemche, The Canaanites and Their Land, 8491; Van Seters, The Terms Amorite
and Hittite, 81; Sparks, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel, 260261; Uehlinger, The
Canaanites and Other pre-Israelite Peoples ii, 187189. An attempt to explain the names
has been made by Hoekveld-Meijer, Esau, 1920. Her interpretation, however, is isolated
and has major objections. Nowhere in the Old Testament is a play on the names of
the Canaanite peoples alluded to. The explanation of the name Hivites (Eve-people,
disobedient, guilty people), for example, presupposes that Eve is a model of disobedience,
which is not the case in the Old Testament. In addition, the proposed derivations ignore
several significant phonetic differences (e.g., in deriving the name Canaanites from ).
52 See Collins, The Hittites and Their World, 207.
53 Cf. Hostetter, Nations Mightier and More Numerous, 139140; Koopmans, Joshua 24 as
Poetic Narrative, 444449.
298 chapter 4
b.c. Moreover, the frequent reference to a composite population of Canaan

and to well-known peoples (Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites) should have made
some sense to the authors and readers. It is noteworthy that in the lists of
nations Israels enemies from the first millennium b.c. are missing (Philistines,
Egyptians, Assyrians).54 The fact that several gentilicia are not found in extra-
biblical texts is noteworthy. Due to the scarcity of our sources (see the intro-
duction of this section), however, it cannot be concluded from this that these
names are therefore an authors own invention.55 Rather, the fact that the ety-
mological derivation is controversial and that the names themselves have no
function in the Old Testament (the names are not played with) argue against
such an assumption.56 Possibly, these four names (Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites,
Girgashites) refer to smaller people groups within the region.57
In sum, the most likely explanation is that the names of the nations from
Deut. 7 in one way or another go back to an older tradition.58 This view does
not exclude later additions or schematization, but it is likely that this tradition
(at least partly) dates from the period of the end of the second millennium
b.c.59
54 Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, 406407; Singer, The Hittites and the Bible
Revisited, 755756.
55 Stern, Biblical erem, 90 points out that Thucydides mentions several Greek peoples about
whom likewise nothing else is known. He gives no references, however.
56 See Ga, PerisiterHiwiterJebusiter, 340, 354355.
57 Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, 406407 suggests that an author may have
added elements to the list to make it look antique. It may be questioned, however,
whether a list with more names or with unknown names gives the appearance of antiquity.
In addition, Van Bekkum states that the lists do not offer an accurate ethnographic
description of the racial relations of the Southern Levant during the Late Bronze Age,
since any Hurrian or Egyptian influence is not mentioned, while that influence was
present in Canaan in the second half of the second millennium b.c. Although the absence
of any reference to Egyptian or Hurrian influence is indeed striking, it may be questioned
whether this influence could be evident from a list of nations.
58 Collins, The Hittites and Their World, 205207 states that there may have been continuity in
the scribal tradition between Canaan and Israel. By continuity in the formation of scribes,
there would be a collective memory of the Late Bronze Age.
4.2 Child Sacrifice and Sexual Practices of the Nations of Canaan
This section will explore the Canaanite peoples practices mentioned in the
Old Testament.60 Two particular practices are mentioned as a motive for Israels
attitude toward these nations, namely child sacrifice and illicit sexual practices
( 3.2.4; 3.4.4).61 I will investigate whether and to what extent these practices did
actually occur in Canaan according to extra-biblical sources. This is relevant,
since according to some authors the image of the nations of Canaan in the
Old Testament is entirely determined by the polemic with these nations and
is therefore historically unreliable.62 This thesis has to be tested.
4.2.1 Child Sacrifice

In this section, I will first investigate the question of whether child sacrifice
did occur in the Umwelt of Israel and in Canaan itself. Next, the relationship
between child sacrifice and the god Mlk or Molech will be dealt with. Finally,
I will discuss whether child sacrifice was actually practiced by the Canaanite
peoples.
The extent to which the sacrifice of humans and children did occur in the
Umwelt of Israel is controversial.63 Cultic child sacrifice did occur in Carthage
and other Phoenician colonies in the west.64 In North Africa, many graves
60 Richard S. Hess, Because of the Wickedness of These Nations (Deut 9:45): The Canaan-
itesEthical or Not?, in For Our Good Always: Studies on the Message and Influence of
Deuteronomy in Honor of Daniel I. Block, ed. Jason S. DeRouchie, Jason Gile, and Ken-
neth J. Turner (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 1737 describes Canaanite ethics on
the basis of West Semitic literature. He concludes that this ethic was not so far removed
from that of the surrounding cultures. (Ibid., 36) Hesss description, however, is rather
general and does not specifically deal with the practices mentioned in the Old Testa-
ment.
61 In addition to these practices, several forms of divination are attributed to the nations
of Canaan. Divination, however, is mentioned much less often than child sacrifice as a
motive for the command to destroy these nations. Moreover, it is not debated that forms
of divination occurred in Canaan, in contrast to child sacrifice and the sexual practices
mentioned. See De Tarragon, Witchcraft, Magic, and Divination in Canaan and Ancient
Israel.
62 Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice, 314: [T]he biblical portrayal of Ca-
naanites and other foreign peoples is tendentious, polemical and historically unreliable.
63 For Mesopotamia, see Heider, The Cult of Molek, 93174. For Egypt, see Herman te Velde,
Human Sacrifice in Ancient Egypt, in The Strange World of Human Sacrifice, ed. Jan
N. Bremmer, shar 1 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 127134.
64 According to Susanna Shelby Brown, Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice and Sacrificial
300 chapter 4
with urns of young children have been found. Archaeological investigation has
demonstrated that these children have been burnt. In addition, it has become
clear that there are much more graves of children than one would expect on
the basis of natural mortality. These archaeological data point to a practice of
child sacrifice in North Africa between the eighth and the first century b.c.
No Phoenician or Punic texts on child sacrifice have been preserved. Apart
from quotations of the Phoenician writer Sanchuniathon in later authors, all
descriptions originate from classical authors. In some graves (mainly from
the sixth century b.c. onwards), however, stelae have been established with
inscriptions and iconography. In the votive inscriptions, the Punic word mlk
is often used as the designation of a type of sacrifice.65 In the iconography, the
sacrifice itself is not displayed, but objects connected with the ritual are. The
combination of archaeological, textual and iconographic data makes clear that
in the Phoenician colonies in North Africa cultic child sacrifice did occur.66
Because of the amount of graves, it does not seem to have been a question
of an occasional child sacrifice in times of crisis, but a regular practice, which
was presumably connected with the Phoenician religion.67 A lot of uncertainty,
however, remains about the exact reason for these child sacrifices and how they
were executed.68
Monuments in Their Mediterranean Context, jsot.m 3 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,

1991), 168, the Phoenicians are unique compared to the other Mediterranean peoples in
their choice for children as sacrifice.
65 For this meaning of mlk, including sources and literature, see Jacob Hoftijzer and Karel
Jongeling, Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions, ho 21 (Leiden: Brill, 1995),
2:640644.
66 See Michaela Bauks, Jephtas Tochter: Traditions-, religions- und rezeptionsgeschichtliche
Studien zu Richter 11,2940, fat 71 (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 2434; Brown, Late
Carthaginian Child Sacrifice, esp. 1375, 171176; Heider, The Cult of Molek, 185222; Stavra-
kopoulou, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice, 215239. This conclusion, however, is de-
bated. According to Joseph J. Azize, Was There Regular Child Sacrifice in Phoenicia and
Carthage?, in Gilgame and the World of Assyria: Proceedings of the Conference Held at
Mandelbaum House, The University of Sydney, 2123 July 2004, ed. Joseph J. Azize and Noel
K. Weeks, anes.s 21 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 185205; Weinfeld, The Worship of Molech
and of the Queen of Heaven, 133134, the sacrifices of children in Carthage and other
Phoenician colonies were exceptions and the references to child sacrifice in classical
authors and in the Old Testament would be entirely determined by polemic.
67 See Brown, Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice, 171176; Ed Noort, Child Sacrifice in Ancient
Israel: The Status Quaestionis, in The Strange World of Human Sacrifice, ed. Jan N. Brem-
mer, shar 1 (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 118119; Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and Child
Sacrifice, 226.
68 Cf. Brown, Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice, 175176; Heider, The Cult of Molek, 407408.
It is less certain whether cultic child sacrifice also occurred in Phoenicia

itself or elsewhere in Syria-Palestine. Some archaeological, textual and icono-
graphic data have been adduced as evidence for the existence of these prac-
tices. The main archaeological data are funerary monuments and urns in Tyre,
which were found outside of the ordinary cemetery. Artefacts found and the
iconography on the stelae are similar to the material from North Africa. It is
not certain, however, whether this specifically concerns child sacrifice.69 The
same uncertainty applies to burial precincts found elsewhere in Syria-Palestine
and for the human remains from a temple in Amman.70
The texts mentioned as evidence for the occurrence of child sacrifice in
Syria-Palestine are the following. First, in a text from Ugarit a pledge is made
to Baal to devote something to him in response for his help (ktu 1.119:31:
dkr bl . n[q]d). It is very uncertain, however, whether a child is meant.71
Second, a Phoenician text from the third or second century b.c. has been
found near Ashdod, which contains the term mlk. This text, however, is so
damaged that it gives no further information on the nature of the sacrifice.72
Third, according to some authors a description of a child sacrifice is found
in the texts from Deir Alla (combination ii).73 According to this interpreta-
Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice, 235236 gives a reconstruction of the
mlk-sacrifice, but she has to admit this is partly speculative.
69 Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice, 223224, who cautiously dates these
graves between the ninth and the sixth century b.c.
70 Lange, They Burn Their Sons and Daughters, 122124; Bennie H. Reynolds, Molek:
Dead or Alive? The Meaning and Derivation of mlk and , in Human Sacrifice in
Jewish and Christian Tradition, ed. Karin Finsterbusch, Armin L. Lange, and K.F. Diethard
Rmheld, NumBS 112 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 148150; Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and
Child Sacrifice, 224225. In Gezer, burnt skeletons of children have been found. It is
dubious, however, whether these may be connected to the cult of Molech; so still Schoville,
Canaanites and Amorites, 171 n. 55, who cites a personal communication of R. Bullard;
much more cautious is Alberto Ravinell Whitney Green, The Role of Human Sacrifice in the
Ancient Near East, asords 1 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975), 152156.
71 Lange, They Burn Their Sons and Daughters, 122 translates firstborn, and thus probably
reads bkr; cf. Heider, The Cult of Molek, 144145. The reading of ktu, however, is dkr, male,
so that it may also refer to an animal. The context contains no indications which confirm
Langes interpretation.
72 Heider, The Cult of Molek, 181185; Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice,
225226.
73 Hackett, The Balaam Text from Deir All, 8085; followed by Lange, They Burn Their
Sons and Daughters, 114115; Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice, 261
272. Stavrakopoulou connects this interpretation with the dyn from da i and several Old
302 chapter 4
tion, the word nqr in da ii 5 would be related to Hebrew , with the mean-
ing scion. In the direct context, the verb br is used, as well as other words
connected with death (mdr, firepit; mkb, grave; da ii 58). Moreover, the
word mlk is found (da ii 9). Two objections, however, may be mentioned
against this interpretation. First, the interpretation of nqr as scion is contro-
versial. The direct context contains no other indications that this text would
deal with offspring.74 Second, it is obvious that in this text mlk is not the
designation of a sacrifice, but means advice, counsel (it is parallel to h).75
Even if one accepts the interpretation that the text deals with the death of
a child, however, it contains no indications for the interpretation as a sacri-
fice.
Finally, some have pointed to Egyptian reliefs depicting campaigns to Pales-
tine (nineteenth dynasty). On these, it is depicted how (dead?) children are
thrown over the walls from a sieged Canaanite city.76 From these reliefs, how-
ever, it cannot be deduced whether the children are or were sacrificed. More-
over, even if throwing children over the wall would be a way of sacrifice, it is
not yet clear whether this is an incident or a more regular practice.77
In conclusion, there are no clear archaeological, (extra-biblical) textual or
iconographic data demonstrating that child sacrifice occurred on a regular
basis in Syria-Palestine. In the Phoenician colonies in the west, it seems likely
that child sacrifice did regularly occur.
As for the relationship between child sacrifice and the god Mlk or Mo-
lech, the word mlk is used not only as a designation for a type of sacrifice,
but also as the name of a god. In the Old Testament, the deity Molech occurs.
The name is used only a few times in the Masoretic text (Lev. 18:21; 20:2
5; 2Kgs 23:10; Jer. 32:35).78 In these texts, the name clearly refers to a dei-
Testament texts about and ( )( Ibid., 272282; cf. Hackett, The Balaam Text
from Deir All, 8589). She believes there is a connection between these adday-gods
and child sacrifice.
74 For the text, see Hoftijzer and Kooij, Aramaic Texts from Deir Alla, 174 and for another
interpretation of nqr, see Ibid., 237.
75 Cf. Ibid., 228229. It is remarkable that Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice,
266267 first acknowledges this meaning of mlk, but nevertheless adduces this word as
possible evidence for the interpretation as child sacrifice (Ibid., 282).
76 Lange, They Burn Their Sons and Daughters, 120122.
77 Bauks, Jephtas Tochter, 3438.
78 In the Masoretic text of 1Kgs 11:7, is likewise mentioned, but as the god of the
Ammonites. It is likely that here, as well as in verse 5, is meant. The way in which
ty.79 It is also likely that the service of Molech is referred to in other texts (see
3.2.4.2). The Old Testament unanimously attributes the origin of this cult in
texts from various genres and originating from various times to the nations
of Canaan.80 The cult of Molech is always connected with child sacrifice.81 In
Deuteronomy and elsewhere, it is stated that Yhwh (in contrast to the gods
of the Canaanite peoples) detests this practice and forbids it to Israel (Deut.
12:31; 18:1012; Jer. 7:31; 19:5; 32:35).82 In the Old Testament, child sacrifice is
Molech is translated in lxx is complex; see Johan Lust, Molek and , in Phoenicia
and the Bible: Proceedings of the Conference Held at the University of Leuven on the 15th and
16th of March 1990, ed. Edward Lipiski, ola 44, StPho 11 (Leuven: Peeters, 1991), 193208;
Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice, 244247.
79 This becomes particularly clear from Lev. 20:5, which speaks about whoring after Molech.
In the Old Testament, the expression is always used for the service of other
deities than Yhwh; see Day, Molech, 914; Heider, The Cult of Molek, 282301; Milgrom,
Leviticus, 2:15551558. Contra Otto Eissfeldt, Molk als Opferbegriff im Punischen und Hebr-
ischen und das Ende des Gottes Moloch, brga 3 (Halle: Niemeyer, 1935), 3640, 6671,
who understands mlk in the Old Testament in all cases as the designation of a type of
sacrifice, as in Punic (see above). Eissfeldts interpretation is followed by H.-P. Mller,
ThWAT 4:957968; Klaas A.D. Smelik, Moloch, Molekh or Molk-Sacrifice? A Reassess-
ment of the Evidence Concerning the Hebrew Term Molekh, sjot 9 (1995): 133142;
Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice, 240261, who all acknowledge, how-
ever, that in the Masoretic text of the Old Testament, Molech is meant as the name
of a god. However, this would be a (conscious or not) misinterpretation of the original
meaning. Another interpretation is suggested by Thomas Hieke, Das Verbot der ber-
gabe von Nachkommen an den Molech in Lev 18 und 20: Ein neuer Deutungsversuch,
WOr 41 (2011): 147167; Hieke, Levitikus, 2:679687. On the basis of lxx-Lev. 18:21 and
found seals, he wants to interpret lmlk as for the king. This would be a code or chiffre
for collaboration with the Persian occupation. According to Hieke, some Jews may have
given over their children in the service of the Persians. Since priests could not openly
criticize this, it would have been hidden behind this designation, which could also be
interpreted as a reference to the older polemical ideas about child sacrifice. This hypoth-
esis, however, lacks positive evidence and does not fit the other texts from the Old Testa-
ment.
80 Day, Molech, 2931; Heider, The Cult of Molek, 404405.
81 According to Day, Molech, 4655; Heider, The Cult of Molek, 383400, Molech was a god
of the netherworld. Ibid., 394400 views a connection between Molech and the Rephaim;
Day, Molech, 4950 denies this.
82 When Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice, 149 states: The practice of
child sacrifice is thus condemned not because it is ethically untenable, but because it
is foreign, she ignores these texts. According to several authors, child sacrifice would
originally (possibly) have been part of the cult of Yhwh. This would explain the emphasis
on Yhwhs aversion to this practice. A possible form of child sacrifice would be the
304 chapter 4
therefore attributed to other nations, namely to the nations of Canaan, to Moab

(2Kgs 3:2627) and the Sepharvites (2Kgs 17:31), or to kings who are valued very
negatively (see 3.4.4.2).
In extra-biblical texts as well, a god Mlk occurs. Texts and personal names
from Ebla, Mari and Ugarit make clear that in the area of Syria-Palestine, at
least a millennium before Israel settled in Canaan, a god Mlk (Malik) was
worshiped.83 The question is whether there is a connection between child
sacrifice and the god Mlk. In the Old Testament, the god Molech is clearly
connected with child sacrifice (see 3.2.4.2; 3.4.4.2). It is controversial, however,
whether there is a connection between Molech from the Old Testament and
Mlk. Nowhere is the deity Mlk connected with child sacrifice.84 This need not
be a decisive objection, however, since the material about Mlk is limited and
since the function and cult of a god may change.
Finally, the question has to be addressed whether child sacrifice did occur in the
land of Canaan. After all, it is possible that these acts were wrongly attributed to
the nations of Canaan. In that case, the description of child sacrifice would not
have a historical, but only a polemical background, intended to demonstrate
how inhumanly the Canaanite peoples behaved, and to justify their extermi-
sacrifice of a first-born, which only in later times would have been replaced by an animal.
So, e.g., Eissfeldt, Molk als Opferbegriff, 4855, 66; Lange, They Burn Their Sons and
Daughters; Noort, Child Sacrifice in Ancient Israel (Noort deems it possible, but is
cautious); Stavrakopoulou, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice, esp. 179206. According to
Stavrakopoulou, in the late Persian period was deliberately transformed to the name
of a deity, because the connection of Yhwh with child sacrifice became theologically
problematic (Ibid., 252, 310316). An objection against this thesis, however, is that the cited
examples of child sacrifice in the cult of Yhwh are very different from the Molech cult,
which is unanimously rejected in the Old Testament. A difference between the sacrifice for
a first-born and the Molech cult, for example, is that the sacrifice for a first-born was only
offered for a son; regarding the Molech cult, always sons and daughters are mentioned.
Moreover, there are no indications that the child sacrifices particularly concerned the first-
born; cf. Houtman, Exodus, 2:165166; Noort, Child Sacrifice in Ancient Israel, 122. The
strong rejection of a connection between Yhwh and child sacrifice need not necessarily
point to an earlier practice in the Yhwh cult, but may also indicate that many Israelites
did not see any objection in serving both Yhwh and Molech; cf. Milgrom, Leviticus, 2:1563
1565.
83 See Day, Molech, 914; Heider, The Cult of Molek, 93149, 409419; G.C. Heider, ddd, 581
583; H.-P. Mller, ThWAT 4:965. Contra Reynolds, Molek: Dead or Alive; Stavrakopoulou,
King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice, 207215, who deny the existence of a god Mlk.
84 Noort, Child Sacrifice in Ancient Israel, 117.
nation.85 According to the Old Testament, child sacrifice also occurred in Israel
and Judah in the monarchic period (2Kgs 16:3; 17:17; 21:6; 2 Chr. 33:6; Ezek. 20:31).
As indicated above, archaeological or extra-biblical textual evidence is yet lack-
ing that child sacrifice did regularly occur in Syria-Palestine. However, the Old
Testament statements that child sacrifice took place in Israel and Judah itself,
despite the strong condemnation of this practice, makes it likely that child sac-
rifice did occur, at least incidentally.86 Because the Old Testament unanimously
attributes the origin of this practice to the nations of Canaan, and because it
is known from the Phoenician colonies in North Africa that cultic child sac-
rifice was found in a related culture, it may be considered plausible that this
practice did also occur in the nations of Canaan; no material evidence for this
has been found, however.87 On the basis of the available material, it cannot be
determined whether these child sacrifices did occur incidentally or more often.
4.2.2 Sexual Practices

In Lev. 18 and 20, several illicit sexual relations are attributed to the nations
of Canaan (see 3.4.4.3). I will examine whether these sexual practices did
occur in these nations according to extra-biblical sources. In the Old Testament,
apart from the texts mentioned, the sexual practices of the Canaanite peoples
are not or rarely referred to.88 Since in Lev. 18:3, Egypt is also mentioned, one
could point to marriages between close relatives, which incidentally occurred
in Egypt.89 The emphasis in Lev. 18, however, is on the practices of the nations
85 So, e.g., Katell Berthelot, Jewish Views of Human Sacrifice in the Hellenistic and Roman
Period, in Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition, ed. Karin Finsterbusch,
Armin L. Lange, and K.F. Diethard Rmheld, NumBS 112 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 154155.
86 Cf. Bauks, Jephtas Tochter, 56; Noort, Child Sacrifice in Ancient Israel, 120; Stavrako-
poulou, King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice, 293.
87 According to Day, Molech, 55, it would mainly be a cult of the Jebusites, because of the
connection with the valley of Hinnom. Green, The Role of Human Sacrifice in the Ancient
Near East, 179187; Grnwaldt, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz, 188189 raise the possibility that the
practice of child sacrifice to Molech would originate from Assyria, since according to
the Old Testament child sacrifice did occur in Israel since Assyrian times. An objection
against this view, however, is that the Old Testament always attributes this practice to the
Canaanite peoples, not to the enemy Assyria, and that there are much more indications
for child sacrifice in Canaanite than in Assyrian culture.
88 One could point to the events in Sodom (Gen. 19:49); for this, see 3.4.5. In Judg. 19, it
appears that not the Canaanite city of Jebus, which is avoided as a foreign city, but the
Israelite city of Gibeah is the place of sexual perversion.
89 For this, see Paul John Frandsen, Incestuous and Close-Kin Marriage in Ancient Egypt and
Persia: An Examination of the Evidence, cni Publications 34 (Copenhagen: Museum Tus-
306 chapter 4
of Canaan. The available data from the Ancient Near East are very scarce and
extra-biblical juridical texts from Canaan itself are completely lacking. It has
been stated, therefore, that the sexual immorality of the Canaanites is greatly
exaggerated in the texts from Leviticus. This stigmatization would serve to keep
Israel away from these nations and their practices.90
From the data that are available, it becomes clear that the practices men-
tioned in Lev. 18 and 20 did occur in the Ancient Near East. In laws from
Mesopotamia, such practices are mentioned, albeit rarely; the fact that they are
mentioned, however, is an indication that they occurred. In the Middle Assyr-
ian Laws (1920), some homosexual practices are considered punishable. In
Hittite legal texts, a man who has sexual relations with a cow, sheep, pig, or
dog is considered punishable by death, although the king may grant him par-
don (Hittite Laws, 187188, 199). In contrast, sexual relations with a horse or
a mule are not considered an offence; nevertheless, this man is considered rit-
ually impure (200a). The reason for the distinction between several forms of
bestiality is unclear.91 It seems that homosexuality was not proscribed among
the Hittites.92 Bestiality may occur in a text from Ugarit (ktu 1.5:v:1821), where
it is said about the almighty Baal (line 17):
18 yuhb . glt . b dbr . prt

19 b d . lmmt . kb
20 mnh . b . l bm
21 tly . mn . l mnym
culanum Press, 2009); Lise Manniche, Sexual Life in Ancient Egypt (London: Routledge,
1987). Frandsen concludes: Throughout the almost 3000 years of Pharaonic history the
evidence for the practice of incest among the populace is almost non-existing, and even
within the royal family next-of-kin marriages were extremely limited. (Ibid., 126). This sit-
uation changed substantially in the Graeco-Roman period, when brother-sister marriages
were much more common.
90 So Milgrom, Leviticus, 2:1520; Schwartz, Holiness Legislation, 155162, esp. 159162. Cf.
Bailey, Theyre Nothing but Incestuous Bastards, who does not deal with Lev. 18 and 20,
however. For the data from the Ancient Near East, both Milgrom and Schwartz seem to
base themselves almost completely on an (unpublished) ma Thesis of D. Nussbaum, The
Priestly Explanation of Exile and its Bearing upon the Portrayal of the Canaanites in the
Bible (University of Pennsylvania 1974), which was not available to the present author.
91 See Harry A. Hoffner Jr., The Laws of the Hittites: A Critical Edition, dmoa 23 (Leiden: Brill,
1997), 224, 227.
92 Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 4456; Harry A. Hoffner Jr., Incest, Sodomy
and Bestiality in the Ancient Near East, in Orient and Occident, ed. Harry A. Hoffner Jr.,
aoat 22 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973), 8190.
He loves a heifer in the field, a cow

in the field of lmmt.93 He lay down
with her 77 times,
she made (him) go up 88 times.
This then leads to pregnancy and birth (line 22). The intercourse of Baal with
an animal is not disapproved of. It should be noted, however, that this text
describes a practice in the divine realm and that Baal himself is often portrayed
as a bull. It is dubious, therefore, whether anything can be deduced from this
text about the actual occurrence or acceptance of bestiality in Ugaritic culture.
Apart from these texts, there are no other extra-biblical sources pointing
to the occurrence of these sexual practices among the nations of Canaan. In
the Old Testament, only in Lev. 18 and 20 are the illicit sexual practices of the
Canaanite peoples mentioned as a motive for their extermination; these texts
give a rather general picture. Although it is clear that some of the practices
mentioned did occur in the world of the Ancient Near East, there is insufficient
extra-biblical material to provide a clear picture of the sexual life and the sexual
morality of the nations of Canaan.94
4.2.3 Conclusion
It cannot be determined with certainty to what extent the practices attributed
to the nations of Canaan did actually occur. It is plausible that child sacrifice
did occur in Canaan, at least incidentally. There are insufficient extra-biblical
sources to determine whether and to what extent incest, homosexuality or
bestiality did occur among the nations of Canaan. It is clear that the Old
Testament does not attempt to give a balanced and representative picture of
the nations in Canaan. It does not follow, however, that the picture of the
Canaanite peoples in the Old Testament merely originates from polemical
motives and is historically fictitious.
93 Possibly, lmmt is a place name. Several other interpretations have been proposed, but
the exact meaning of the word is not relevant here. See Del Olmo Lete and Sanmartn,
Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language, s.v.
94 Cf. Levine, Leviticus, 118. Contra popular presentations like Clay Jones, We Dont Hate Sin
So We Dont Understand What Happened to the Canaanites: An Addendum to Divine
Genocide Arguments, PhChr 11 (2009): 5566, who gives a very negative but unfounded
picture of the morality of the Canaanites.
308 chapter 4
4.3 Dating of the Command to Exterminate the Canaanites
This section will discuss the dating of the command to exterminate the nations
of Canaan. This question is closely related to the interpretation of the com-
mand. From the Old Testament and the archaeology of the southern Levant
it appears that the pre-Israelite population of Canaan was never completely
exterminated (see 3.4.3). This still leaves open the possibility that a partial
eradication has taken place. Several proposals for the interpretation and dat-
ing of the command are described and evaluated ( 4.3.1 and 4.3.2). Finally, the
question is discussed whether the intention of the command to exterminate
the Canaanites actually was an extermination of people, or whether this com-
mand should be interpreted in a metaphorical way ( 4.3.3).
4.3.1 Ways of Interpretation

Since the dissertation of W.M.L. de Wette (1805), the vast majority of Old Tes-
tament scholars connected the origin of (part of) Deuteronomy with the refor-
mation of king Josiah (2Kgs 2223). In more recent research on the origin and
provenance of Deuteronomy, however, this connection between Deuteronomy
and the reformation of Josiah is loosened. The datings proposed for (parts of)
Deuteronomy vary widely (see 1.2.2).
The proposals for the dating of Deut. 7 likewise vary widely. According to
Gtz Schmitt, Deut. 7 in itself would fit very well in the time of the conquest
or the judges; however, he considers this dating not possible, due to the rest of
Deuteronomy.95 Datings proposed for Deut. 7 are the monarchic period,96 the
exilic period,97 and the post-exilic or Persian period.98
It is not possible to extensively discuss the genesis and the dating of the
book of Deuteronomy. Moreover, in the context of this study it is not pri-
marily relevant when the text of Deut. 7 received its present form, but rather

96 Stern, Biblical erem, 103: the time of king Uzziah.
97 Schfer-Lichtenberger, jhwh, Israel und die Vlker. According to Otto, Deuteronomium
111, 860861, the command of Deut. 7:2 stems from exilic times, and was taken over in the
Fortschreibung in post-exilic times.
98 Hoffman, The Deuteronomistic Concept of the Herem, 205208; Von Rad, Der Heilige
Krieg im alten Israel, 76; Thomas C. Rmer, Cult Centralization in Deuteronomy 12:
Between Deuteronomistic History and Pentateuch, in Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pen-
tateuch und Deuteronomistischem Geschichtswerk, ed. Eckart Otto and Reinhard Achen-
bach, frlant 206 (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004), 173; Uehlinger, The
Canaanites and Other pre-Israelite Peoples ii, 193.
when the tradition about an extermination of the nations of Canaan origi-

nated. This tradition may be older than the present form of Deut. 7. For an
investigation of this tradition, it is not the occurrence of certain formula-
tions that is decisive (for example, the verb ), but content. In many texts
about the extermination of these nations, the verb is not used, whereas
extermination is clearly referred to (not just expulsion; see 3.4.2). Next to
the idea of extermination, the motivation is relevant for the present study:
not xenophobia or territorial expansion by Israel, but the religion of these
nations.
Some authors separately discuss the dating of the tradition of the extermina-
tion of the nations of Canaan. On the basis of the connections between Josh. 9
and 2Sam. 21:114 (Sauls bloodguilt to the Gibeonites), Koert van Bekkum
argues that the prohibition to make a covenant should antedate the seventh
century b.c., and may even antedate the monarchy or the time of the Israelite
settlement in Canaan. According to him, a command to exterminate the
nations of Canaan is presupposed in Josh. 913, which he dates in the late tenth
or ninth century b.c. This dating would be confirmed by the Mesha Inscription,
which also uses the verb . If this is correct, the tradition of a prohibition to
make a covenant with these nations and of a command to exterminate them
would antedate the tenth or ninth century b.c.99 According to Moshe Weinfeld,
an anti-Canaanite ideology originated in the time of king Saul. He situates the
command to expel the nations of Canaan and an original form of the rem (a
vow) in that period as well. In Deuteronomy, however, the rem has become
a command, which is applied to the entire pre-Israelite population of Canaan.
According to Weinfeld, this is a wish originating in the eighth or seventh cen-
tury b.c. (for his view, see also 3.3.3).100 Frank Crsemann situates the oldest
layer (in his view) of Exod. 34:1216 in the ninth century b.c., but the elabora-
tion in Deut. 7 at the end of the monarchic period, after the fall of the northern
empire (for his view, see also 3.3.3).101 According to Philip D. Stern, the com-
mand in Deut. 20 to exterminate the Canaanite peoples originated in the (early)
period of Jeroboam ii. Deut. 7 would be slightly later, possible from the time of
Uzziah.102 According to Yair Hoffman, finally, the command to exterminate the
Canaanites originated in the sixth or fifth century b.c. According to him, Exod.
23 and 34 are older, but those passages would not contain an exhortation to
99 Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, 385389, 413416, 589590.

100 Weinfeld, Ban on the Canaanites, 151158; cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 111, 377380.
102 Stern, Biblical erem, 98103, 121.
310 chapter 4
exterminate the nations of Canaan (on this, see 3.3).103 The views of Stern
and Hoffman are discussed in more detail below.
The dating of the command to exterminate the Canaanites (Deut. 7 or an

underlying tradition) is important for its intention and its interpretation. If
the tradition about the extermination of the Canaanite peoples is dated in
the seventh century b.c. or later, it is a construction created afterwards. It is
clear that the peoples mentioned in Deut. 7 no longer existed independently
in that time, but were largely incorporated into Israel. Accordingly, since the
command would refer to an enemy that no longer existed, this would imply,
according to several authors, that the command was never executed.104 From
this, other authors conclude that the actual extermination of human beings
was never even intended.105 Thus, the dating and the interpretation of the
command are directly interconnected (see 1.2.2).
If the Deuteronomic command did not intend the actual extermination
of people, this raises the question of what was the (original) intention of
the command. Several opinions have been proposed. First, it has been stated
that the command to exterminate the nations of Canaan sheds light on the
history of Israel. The command would give an explanation for the Babylonian
exile: Israel should have eradicated the nations of Canaan, but failed to do so;
therefore, it apostatized from Yhwh and was finally taken into exile.106 Related
to this is the view that the pre-Israelite population of Canaan represents Israels
history before the exile. The command to destroy the Canaanites then indicates
that Israel should become totally different after the exile.107
Second, it has been stated that the Deuteronomic command calls for a cer-
tain attitude toward other nations or groups. According to this interpretation,
the intention of the command is not the actual extermination of people, but
103 Hoffman, The Deuteronomistic Concept of the Herem, 203209.

104 So Lemaire, Le rem, 8692; Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden, 8: Das Gebot ist so
wie die Darstellung in Jos 1112 eine nachtrglich aufgestellte Konstruktion, ein Stck
geschichtliches Utopia; Weinfeld, Ban on the Canaanites, 154155.
105 Braulik, Die Vlkervernichtung, 47; Crsemann, Die Tora, 283284; Lohfink, ThWAT
3:211; Stern, Biblical erem, 102103. Otherwise Dillmann, Deuteronomium, 272273, who
on the basis of the same argumentation concludes that the command should antedate the
time of David and Solomon, since otherwise it would be gegenstandslos.
106 So, e.g., Braulik, Die Vlkervernichtung, 47; Houtman, Zwei Sichtweisen, 221223;
Labuschagne, Deuteronomium, ib:108109.
107 So Otto, Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments, 200; Otto, Deuteronomium 111, 855; this
option also in Schmitt, Heilige Krieg, 55.
it does call for a negative attitude toward others. The command would refer to
the submission of the citizens who opposed the reforms of king Josiah,108 or to
the struggles of the returned exiles with the people who had remained in the
land.109
Related to this is the more psychological explanation offered by William
Morrow. According to him, in pre-exilic times there already existed a tradition
that opposed Canaanite practices. The traumatic experience of the Babylo-
nian exile, which threatened to annihilate Israels own identity, then led to rad-
icalization and a genocidal imagination. The enemy would be fictive, however,
since in reality it was an internal social conflict. The genocidal imagination of
Deut 7*, therefore, represents an attempt to defend the community against an
increased threat of ethnocide or cultural annihilation.110
Third, some have defended the opinion that Deut. 7 does not call for battle,
but that the message of the chapter is rather pacifying and anti-nationalist.
The command to exterminate seven specific nations that no longer existed
would implicitly prohibit to make war with other nations. The actual message
of Deut. 7 was that the extermination should be restricted to the nations of
Canaan, and to those nations only.111 This view has been defended by Philip
D. Stern and Yair Hoffman. They have a different opinion, however, on the
setting of Deut. 7. Stern establishes a close link between the Deuteronomic
command (Deut. 7 and 20) and the rem mentioned in the Mesha Inscription
(ca. 830 b.c.; see 2.4 Excursus: Meaning and function of , 4). The memory
108 So Mark G. Brett, Genocide in Deuteronomy: Postcolonial Variations on Mimetic Desire,

in Seeing Signals, Reading Signs: The Art of Exegesis, ed. Mark A. OBrien and Howard
N. Wallace, jsnt.s 415 (London: t&t Clark, 2004), 83; Lori L. Rowlett, Joshua and the
Rhetoric of Violence: A New Historicist Analysis, jsot.s 226 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1996), 183; Yoshihide Suzuki, A New Aspect of in Deuteronomy in View of
an Assimilation Policy of King Josiah, ajbi 21 (1995): 327. According to Schmitt, Heilige
Krieg, 51, the Canaanite cult is a chiffre for no longer desired elements from the cult of
Yhwh.
109 So Uehlinger, The Canaanites and Other pre-Israelite Peoples ii, 191193.
110 William Morrow, Deuteronomy 7 in Postcolonial Perspective: Cultural Fragmentation
and Renewal, in Interpreting Exile: Displacement and Deportation in Biblical and Modern
Contexts, ed. Brad E. Kelle, Frank Ritchel Ames, and Jacob L. Wright, sblail 10 (Leiden:
Brill, 2012), 275293 (290).
111 Stern, Biblical erem, 102: [T]he framers of the laws wanted to eliminate the possibility
of using the against others [than the seven nations mentioned]. Cf. Lohfink, ThWAT
3:211: Im Grunde wird also durch das Gesetz, das den erm zu gebieten scheint, der
erm fr die wahren Adressaten des Gesetzes (Josia und seine Zeitgenossen) gerade
verboten.
312 chapter 4
of the extermination of Israelites by king Mesha of Moab would have had a

long impact in Israel. Some time later, under king Jeroboam ii, Israel would
have viewed a retaliation war against Moab a real possibility. In this time,
according to Stern, Deut. 20 originated (Deut. 7 would be slightly later). By
restricting the command for the rem to the seven nations in Canaan, the
author(s) would have attempted to discourage Jeroboam ii from retaliating
against Moab, which is not mentioned among the seven nations.112 Hoffman
dates Deut. 7 in later times, between the end of the seventh and the first half
of the fifth century b.c. The Canaanite peoples no longer existed in that time;
moreover, according to the book of Joshua they would have been completely
destroyed already. Hoffman considers it unlikely that a hostile attitude toward
other nations was hidden under the names of nations that no longer existed.
Therefore, the message of Deut. 7 should not be read as nationalist, but as a
protest against nationalism. The most likely period for such a protest, Hoffman
argues, is the sixth or fifth century b.c. Deut. 7 would be a protest against the
prohibition on mixed marriages from the time of Ezra (Ezra 9:12,1012). Since
the nations of Canaan no longer existed, the message of Deut. 7 would be that
this prohibition on mixed marriages is anachronistic and groundless.113
4.3.2 Evaluation
When evaluating the above interpretations of the command to exterminate the
nations of Canaan, the following observations may be made. The fact that Israel
did not completely destroy the Canaanite peoples plays an important role in
the Old Testament explanation of the exile, in particular in the literary work
of Genesis to Kings (see 3.4.2). This is the truth of the interpretation that the
Deuteronomic command indirectly gives an explanation of the exile, and thus
contains a message for the time that (the relevant parts of) the great literary
work of Genesis to Kings was composed. This still leaves open the possibility,
however, that the command goes back to an older tradition.114
112 Ibid., 9194, 101103. Stern sometimes mentions the time of Jeroboam ii (Ibid., 103),
sometimes the early period of Jeroboam ii (Ibid., 121). His formulations, however, are
cautious: Whatever the intent, the effect of the laws was to prohibit or discourage a king
such as Jeroboam ii from retaliating against Moab (Ibid., 93).
113 Hoffman, The Deuteronomistic Concept of the Herem, 203210.
114 Crsemann, Gewaltimagination als Teil der Ursprungsgeschichte, 346348 does not
want to base himself on a certain date, since Deut. 7 is included in the canon and its
message therefore cannot be restricted to a single moment. He does not reckon with the
possibility of an older tradition, however, but takes as his starting point the late monarchic
period to the Persian age.
According to some authors, the interpretation that the actual extermination

of people was never executed or was never even intended would mitigate
the Deuteronomic command. It seems less serious if concrete eradication of
people never took place.115 It has been rightly pointed out, however, that the
idea that the real Israel was different does not provide a solution. In that case
as well, Israel is exhorted in the name of God to exterminate other nations,
according to a canonical text. The questions regarding what consequences this
has for the view of God and ethics, for example, although they may become
slightly different, still remain (see 5.3.1).116
The dating of the command to exterminate the Canaanites in the seventh

century b.c. or later and the corresponding interpretation that this command
did not intend the actual eradication of people, however, has a number of
important objections. These objections are (1) the message of Deut. 7 itself;
(2) the tradition about the extermination of the nations of Canaan in the Old
Testament; (3) the dating of some texts.
First, in the text of Deut. 7 there are little or no indications for the interpre-
tations mentioned. An objection against the interpretation that the Deutero-
nomic command only attempts to give an explanation for the exile is the fact
that an eventual punishment of Israel receives little emphasis in Deut. 7. A
departure from the land of Canaan is never alluded to. Twice it is briefly men-
tioned that Yhwh will punish Israel if it adopts the practices of the Canaanite
peoples (Deut. 7:4,2526; cf. 10). The emphasis in the chapter, however, is on
Yhwhs command to destroy these nations and their religion. This is men-
tioned multiple times (Deut. 7:2,5,16,2526); other ways of dealing with the
nations of Canaan are expressly prohibited (Deut. 7:23,16,25); the command is
motivated (Deut. 7:4,611); and objections are answered (Deut. 7:1721). In addi-
tion, not the punishment, but Yhwhs blessing and help are broadly elaborated
on if Israel keeps his commandments (Deut. 7:1215,1924). Taken together, this
makes it is less likely that Deut. 7 only looks back on what has gone wrong in
the past. The tone of the chapter has rightly been described as recruiting and
hopeful.117 Moreover, the context of Deut. 7 makes it unlikely that its message
would mainly be to show that the rem is inoperative. The surrounding chap-
ters (Deut. 611) deal with the enduring foundations of the covenant between
115 See, e.g., Eric A. Seibert, Disturbing Divine Behavior: Troubling Old Testament Images of God
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2009), 178180.
116 Houtman, Zwei Sichtweisen, 220221 n. 24; Lake, Did God Command Genocide, 910;
Talstra, Identity and Loyalty, 7476.
314 chapter 4
Yhwh and Israel, which suggests that these chapters are relevant in a positive
way for present and future generations.118 An objection against the interpreta-
tion that the names of the Canaanite peoples refer to nations or groups from
later times is the fact that the text of Deut. 7 does not contain any indication
in that direction.119 In addition, an exhortation to eradicate people would be
curious if only submission was intended.
The interpretations of Philip D. Stern and Yair Hoffman, that the message
of Deut. 7 would be pacifying and anti-nationalist, encounter the following
objections. According to this interpretation, the exhortation to exterminate the
Canaanites should be read as a call not to exterminate (any other) nations. The
text of the chapter, however, does not contain any indications at all for this
interpretation. In view of the strong emphasis on the command to eradicate
people, this interpretation is unlikely. Moreover, it may be questioned whether
there existed an important anti-nationalist, pacifist movement in Israel in the
late monarchic period or after the exile. Finally, the argument that according to
the book of Joshua the nations of Canaan would have been completely exter-
minated already, is based on a misinterpretation of the book. In Joshua, it is
already indicated that the extermination of the Canaanites was not completed
(see 3.4.3.1). Since the text of Deut. 7 contains little or no indications for the
interpretations mentioned, they should be considered unlikely. These views
always are a result of the (late) dating of Deut. 7 and its underlying traditions.
Second, the broadly attested tradition in the Old Testament that the nations
of Canaan have been (partly) exterminated (see 3.4.2) is another objection
against the interpretation that the Deuteronomic command would not aim
at the actual destruction of people, but is a late, deuteronomistic construc-
tion. The occurrence of this tradition in Joshua to Kings could be explained
by the influence of the supposed deuteronomistic view. The extermination
of the Canaanite peoples, however, is referred to in Chronicles, Psalms and
Amos as well. These texts almost unanimously mention the extermination of
these nations, not just expulsion. Of course, one could assume that all texts
dealing with the extermination have been influenced by the deuteronomistic
view mentioned. This hypothesis, however, should be substantiated for all rel-
evant texts. In order to prevent circular reasoning, the tradition concerning
the nations of Canaan then should not be the only argument. The hypothesis
that all texts about the extermination of the Canaanites are deuteronomistic,
118 R.W.L. Moberly, Old Testament Theology: Reading the Hebrew Bible as Christian Scripture
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 67. See also 3.1.
119 So rightly Hoffman, The Deuteronomistic Concept of the Herem, 205.
however, is implausible. The broad distribution of this tradition over the Old
Testament, in texts from various genres, makes it unlikely that the extermina-
tion of the nations of Canaan would just be a deuteronomistic construction,120
or that the extermination would be a deuteronomistic radicalization of an
older command to expel these nations.121
Third, the dating of some texts (Amos 2; Judg. 5) argues against the inter-
pretations mentioned. A number of texts about the destruction of the nations
of Canaan are dated in the monarchic period (Ps. 78; 80)122 or after the exile
(Chron.; Ps. 135; 136).123 It is likely, however, that some texts about the extermi-
nation of the nations of Canaan are older than the seventh century b.c. First,
this might be the case for Amos 2:9. It is quite generally assumed that the begin-
ning of Amos (Amos 12) goes back to the eighth century b.c. A part of Amos 2
(Amos 2:1012) is sometimes considered a later insertion, but Amos 2:9 is usu-
ally not reckoned to this. If this view is correct, Amos 2:9 is a text from the
eighth century b.c. which mentions the extermination of the Canaanite peo-
ples.124 Second, Judg. 5 is relevant. The Song of Deborah is generally regarded
as very old.125 It is clear that Judg. 5 is not about a general extermination of
120 So Schmitt, Heilige Krieg, 212: Der rem-Krieg ist ein theologisches Konstrukt der Deute-
ronomisten und als historisch gebte Praxis im alten Israel selbst nicht greifbar.
121 So Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden, 1324.
122 Ps. 78: Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalmen 51100, HThKAT (Freiburg: Her-
der, 2000), 426 date between the late eighth and late sixth century b.c. Kraus, Psalmen,
2:540541 opts for a post-exilic dating. Ps. 80: Hossfeld and Zenger, Psalmen 51100, 457
believe that the psalm is a reaction on the fall of the northern empire and that the
redaction has taken place in the time of Josiah. Kraus, Psalmen, 2:556557 considers the
time of Josiah a possibility. In the history of research, datings from the tenth to the second
century b.c. have been defended for both psalms.
123 Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalmen 101150, HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder,
2008), 663664, 676677 date Ps. 135 in the fourth century b.c. and Ps. 136 after 400 b.c.
124 Wilhelm Rudolph, Joel, Amos, Obadja, Jona, kat (Gtersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1971), 100102
considers only Amos 2:12 a later insertion. According to Hans Walter Wolff, Joel, Amos, bk
(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 137, 172, this is the case for Amos 2:10
12. Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Amos, AncB (New York: Doubleday,
1989), 141144, 327 see no reason to consider (a part of) Amos 2:912 a later insertion.
According to all of these authors, therefore, Amos 2:9 (almost) goes back to the time
of Amos. Otherwise Jrg Jeremias, Der Prophet Amos, atd (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1995), 2425, who believes that Amos 2:9 does not go back to the historical
Amos.
125 See, e.g., Gro, Richter, 344349; De Moor, The Rise of Yahwism, 267; cf. Johannes C. de
Moor, The Twelve Tribes in the Song of Deborah, vt 43 (1993): 483494. De Moor dates
the Song of Deborah around 1100 b.c.
316 chapter 4
the nations of Canaan. It does describe, however, a hostile attitude between

Israel and Canaan. At the beginning of the song, Israel is mentioned (Judg.
5:2,3,5).126 Only once are its adversaries explicitly mentioned, namely as the
kings of Canaan ( , Judg. 5:19).127 The song ends with the wish that so
all enemies of Yhwh may perish (, Judg. 5:31).128 Although the Song of Deb-
orah does not describe a general extermination of the nations of Canaan, nor
does it contain an exhortation to do this, it is about a conflict between Canaan
and Israel, which is described in a cosmic-universal way (Judg. 5:1921,31). In
addition, the contrast between Israel and Canaan is interpreted in terms of
religion.129 If this interpretation is correct, one should not exclude the possi-
bility that Judg. 5 contains an allusion to a negative attitude toward the nations
of Canaan that appears more clearly in later texts. Accordingly, the possibility
should be seriously considered that some texts, and therefore (the beginning
of) the tradition about the extermination of the Canaanite peoples as well, are
older than the seventh century b.c.
On the basis of these arguments, the interpretation that an actual (partial)
extermination of the nations of Canaan has not occurred, or was not even
intended, should be considered unlikely. Accordingly, it is unlikely as well that
the tradition of the command to exterminate these nations originated only in
the seventh century b.c. or later.130
126 For the identity of Israel in the Song of Deborah, see Sparks, Ethnicity and Identity in
Ancient Israel, 117120. In the description of the battle (Judg. 5:1922), Israel does not play
an active role, but only the forces of nature are mentioned.
127 In Judg. 5:20, Sisera is mentioned, without qualification. The alternating references to the
kings and Sisera in Judg. 5:1922, however, make clear that the kings of Canaan and Sisera
are viewed as a unity. Cf. Gro, Richter, 326.
128 In the prose account of Judg. 4, Jabin is called the king of Canaan several times (Judg.
4:2,2324). The contrast between Israel and Canaan, however, does not have a more
prominent place in Judg. 4 than in Judg. 5. This argues for the originality of the contrast in
Judg. 5. It is controversial whether the wish that all enemies of Yhwh may perish (Judg.
5:31) did belong to the original text of the Song of Deborah. The fact that such a wish is
not found in Judg. 4 argues for the antiquity of this motif.
129 Gro, Richter, 346347; Sparks, Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel, 109121. Cf. Robert
B. Chisholm, Yahweh versus the Canaanite Gods: Polemic in Judges and 1 Samuel 17, bs
164 (2007): 167170, who describes Judg. 5 as a contest between Yhwh and (the gods of)
the nations of Canaan.
130 According to Schmitt, Heilige Krieg, 5253, the influence of Assyrian war propaganda, to
which Deut. 20 for example would be a reaction, is overestimated. He assumes a reaction
to the war practice of that time in general.
4.3.3 Metaphorical Interpretation

Related to the interpretations discussed above, we now have to deal with the
question of whether the command to exterminate the nations of Canaan was
intended in a metaphorical way. According to this interpretation as well, exter-
mination of these nations was not intended, but the argumentation does not
depend on the dating of this tradition; rather it depends on the interpreta-
tion of the command itself. Some authors argue that the verb in Deut. 7
should be interpreted as a metaphor. This metaphor would express faithfulness
to Yhwh; it is the negative counterpart of the love for Yhwh. The intention
of the command would not be that people be killed, but the rem would be
expressed in the prohibition of mixed marriages and the destruction of reli-
gious objects.131 The following arguments have been mentioned to support this
interpretation. (1) It is plausible that Deut. 7 is a command for a longer period
of time, since Deut. 6 and 8 as well do not deal with the conquest only, but with
life in the land of Canaan. If extermination of the nations of Canaan would be
intended, however, it is only relevant during the conquest of the land. (2) The
lists of the nations of Canaan are an ideological construction. They emphasize
the power of the nations, but do not give a historically accurate picture. (3)
The prohibition of intermarriage (Deut. 7:3) implies that the nations are not
killed, since otherwise this prohibition would be superfluous. (4) A metaphor-
ical interpretation of the command reduces the differences with the parallels
in Exod. 23 and 34. (5) In several other texts, intermarriage is prohibited, but no
human beings are killed.132
131 Cf. Nicholas Wolterstorff, Reading Joshua, in Divine Evil? The Moral Character of the
God of Abraham, ed. Michael Bergmann, Michael J. Murray, and Michael C. Rea (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2011), 249252, who states that according to the text of the book
of Joshua, God did not command extermination. This view is based on the thesis that the
expression to strike (a city) with the sword was a fixed literary formulation to describe a
conquest; in addition, according to Joshua and Judges, a complete eradication would not
have occurred. This view is followed and elaborated by Copan and Flannagan, Did God
Really Command Genocide, 76124, who argue that the account in Joshua should be read
as hagiographic hyperbole.
132 Earl, Reading Joshua as Christian Scripture, 94112; MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the
Meaning of Monotheism, 108122; Moberly, Toward an Interpretation of the Shema, 134
137; Moberly, Old Testament Theology, 4174, esp. 5371. Cf. Jerome F.D. Creach, Violence
in Scripture, Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2013), 97112; Schmitt,
Heilige Krieg, 81. This interpretation also in Lake, Did God Command Genocide, 169230.
Lake describes the as a hyperbole. He believes that no literal eradication is intended,
but hatred to the sin of the Canaanites. In this interpretation of hyperbole, there is
hardly any difference with the metaphorical interpretation of . Accordingly, Lakes
318 chapter 4
In response to these arguments, the following observations can be made.

(1) It is true that Deut. 7 is a command for the conquest of Canaan (Deut.
7:1). At the same time, it is made clear that the extermination will take a
longer period of time (Deut. 7:22). In that respect, there is no contrast with the
surrounding chapters (see also 3.1). (2) Concerning the names of the nations
of Canaan, it has become clear that these probably go back to an old tradition
(4.1). Even if the lists would be an ideological construction, however, this is
not an argument for the metaphorical interpretation of the verb . (3) The
relation between the command to exterminate the Canaanite peoples and the
prohibition of intermarriage is controversial. The most likely interpretation
is that the prohibition of making a covenant and of intermarriage are an
elaboration of the command to exterminate. Thus, the prohibition of mixed
marriages underlines the absoluteness of the Deuteronomic command (see
the exegesis of Deut. 7:2, 2.4). (4) As for the differences between Deut. 7, on
the one hand, and Exod. 23 and 34, on the other, there may be a development
in Israels attitude toward the nations of Canaan (see 3.3). Therefore, these
texts cannot be used as an argument for a metaphorical interpretation, since
this excludes a possible development beforehand. (5) The same possibility of
a development is true for other texts in which intermarriage is prohibited, but
without people being killed (cf. 3.4.3.2).133
In addition to the fact that the arguments adduced for a metaphorical inter-
pretation are unconvincing, there are other objections against this view. First,
this interpretation ignores the meaning of the verb , which is in the seman-
tic domain of destruction and devastation (see 2.4, Excursus: Meaning and
function of ). Especially, it remains unclear why this verb should be read
metaphorically in Deut. 23, as well as in other texts that explicitly mention
killing human beings (Deut. 13:16; 20:1617).134 Second, in this interpretation it
is unclear how one could explain the broadly attested tradition in the Old Testa-
ment that the nations of Canaan have been (partly) exterminated (see 3.4.2).
In conclusion, therefore, the interpretation of as a metaphor expressing
faithfulness to Yhwh is unconvincing.135
arguments do not relate to the dating of the command. In addition, he states that a literal
interpretation is ruled out by its immorality (cf. 5.3.1).
133 See for criticism of the interpretation of as a metaphor also Lohr, Chosen and
Unchosen, 167172.
134 Christian Hofreiter, Genocide in Deuteronomy and Christian Interpretation, in Inter-
preting Deuteronomy: Issues and Approaches, ed. David G. Firth and Philip S. Johnston
(Downers Grove: ivp Academic, 2012), 260.
135 Earls thesis that the rem in Joshua should be interpreted symbolically and that Joshua
4.3.4 Conclusion
The intention of the command in Deut. 7 is the actual extermination of the
nations of Canaan. On the basis of the broadly attested tradition in the Old
Testament, it may be considered likely that extermination of the Canaanites
did occur. At the same time, it is clear that this extermination has never been
completed (see 3.4.3). On the basis of these conclusions, it is implausible that
the Deuteronomic command would be a deuteronomistic construction from
the seventh century b.c. or later, according to which a concrete extermination
did not occur or was not even intended.
If these conclusions are correct, the view that the extermination of the
nations of Canaan or the command to exterminate them goes back to a tradi-
tion that is older than the seventh century b.c. should be considered seriously.
The following arguments are in favour of this hypothesis. First, in the Old Tes-
tament there is a widely found tradition that peoples have been destroyed
during the conquest of Canaan. Some texts from this tradition are probably
older than the seventh century b.c. Second, it is plausible that the names of the
seven nations mentioned in Deut. 7 go back to an older tradition, which prob-
ably (partially) dates from the late second millennium b.c. (see 4.1). These
names are used almost exclusively in connection with the extermination of
these nations and Israels conquest of their land. Third, an earlier dating of the
tradition of the command to exterminate these nations would correspond to
the development in the relation between Israel and the Canaanite peoples, as
described in the Old Testament. The silence of the writing prophets on the com-
mand to exterminate the Canaanites would correspond to this development as
well (see 3.4.3.2).
Deut. 7 contains insufficient evidence for a precise dating of (the tradition
of) the command, let alone for answering the question of when it was written
down or of when Deut. 7 received its present form. It is likely, however, that
the command to exterminate the Canaanites and the resistance against their
religion go back to an older tradition.136 Correspondingly, it is likely that, in
keeping with this tradition, an actual eradication of the nations of Canaan was
should be read as a correction to Deut. 7, therefore is unconvincing as well; Earl, Reading

Joshua as Christian Scripture, 197201. For criticism of this view, see also the reaction of
Christopher J.H. Wright in Earl, The Joshua Delusion, 139148.
136 Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, 590 states that an early dating is confirmed by
the parallel of the Mesha Inscription, which likewise uses . However, since this is the
only extra-biblical parallel, and since there are some differences with the Old Testament
(see 2.4, Excursus: Meaning and function of , 4), not too much can be derived from
this.
320 chapter 4
intended and has (partly) occurred. This does not exclude the possibility of a
formulation in later times, or a message for (post-)exilic times as well.
4.4 Conclusions
In this chapter, the historical background and date of the command to exter-
minate the Canaanites have been investigated. From the seven nations, only
the Hittites, Amorites and Canaanites are known from extra-biblical texts. As
for the Hittites and Amorites, it is not possible to make a direct connection
between the data from the Ancient Near East and a pre-Israelite population in
Canaan. The gentilicium Canaanite is used in biblical and extra-biblical texts
(from the second millennium b.c.) for the same area. The other names of the
nations (Perizzites, Hivites, Jebusites, and Girgashites) are not found as a gen-
tilicium in the literature of the Ancient Near East. The most likely explanation
for the data about the seven nations is that the names of these nations in one
way or another go back to an older tradition, which probably (partially) dates
from the period of the late second millennium b.c.
In the Old Testament, the nations of Canaan are blamed for two particular
sins, namely child sacrifice and illicit sexual practices. It cannot be determined
with certainty to what extent these practices did actually occur. It is plausible
that child sacrifice has occurred in Canaan, but its frequency cannot be deter-
mined. There are insufficient extra-biblical sources to draw conclusions about
the sexual morality of the nations of Canaan.
The dating and interpretation of the Deuteronomic command are directly
interconnected. On the basis of the widely found tradition in the Old Testament
about the extermination of the Canaanites, it is likely that an extermination
has (partially) occurred. The view that the command originated only in the
seventh century b.c. or later, with the implication that a concrete eradication
has not taken place or was not intended, is implausible. The interpretation as
a metaphor, expressing faithfulness to Yhwh, is likewise unconvincing. The
Deuteronomic command aims at the actual extermination of the nations of
Canaan. The command probably goes back to a tradition that is older than the
seventh century b.c. These conclusions evoke significant theological and moral
questions, which have to be discussed in the next chapter.
chapter 5
Theological Evaluation
5.1 Introduction
In the preceding chapters, the command to exterminate the nations of Canaan

has been investigated from a literary and historical perspective. In the course of
this investigation, Deut. 7 has emerged as a text of great contrasts. The chapter
describes Israels special position as a people holy to Yhwh and Yhwhs love
for his people (Deut. 7:68). Opposite Yhwhs love for Israel, however, is his
dislike of the nations of Canaan. According to Deut. 7, these nations and their
cult objects should be totally destroyed (Deut. 7:23,5,2526). Any compromise
or possible compassion from the side of Israel is rejected beforehand (Deut.
7:16). This contrast raises the question of how Yhwhs love for Israel is related
to his command to exterminate the nations of Canaan.
This question is heightened when Deut. 7 is read within the context of the
book of Deuteronomy. The place of chapter 7 in the book of Deuteronomy
indicates the great importance that was attached to this command ( 3.1).
The command, however, only applies to the seven nations of Canaan, not
to other nations. It can be asked how Deuteronomys positive attitude toward
other nations (cf. 3.2.2) and toward strangers (Deut. 10:19) can be reconciled
with the extremely negative attitude toward the Canaanites. Within the Old
Testament as a whole, the command to exterminate the nations of Canaan is
not a Fremdkrper (cf. 3.4.1; 3.4.2). Moreover, it appeared that the command
was not intended as a metaphor, but aimed at the actual extermination of
people (cf. 4.3). This evokes significant theological questions concerning the
view of God that emerges from the Bible (see 5.2.2).
These questions deserve further theological consideration. Therefore, this
chapter offers a biblical-theological evaluation of the command to exterminate
the Canaanites. This theme is connected with the wider issue of war and
violence in the Old Testament; of course, this whole issue cannot be dealt with.
I will focus on Yhwhs command to Israel to destroy the nations of Canaan.
After examining some theological interpretations of the command, I will offer
my own proposal on the question of how this command may be interpreted
theologically in the context of the Old and New Testament.
This chapter will first indicate the framework of a theological evaluation
of the command to exterminate the Canaanites ( 5.2). Next, it will describe
some contemporary models for a theological evaluation of the command and

322 chapter 5
examine their strengths and weaknesses (5.3). Finally, it will identify the
contours of my own biblical-theological interpretation of the Deuteronomic
command (5.4). The conclusions aim to provide an answer to the problems
defined and to describe my own view of the command ( 5.5).
5.2 Framework of a Theological Evaluation
This section describes the framework for a theological evaluation of the Deuter-
onomic command. First, it describes in more detail the importance of this eval-
uation (5.2.1). Next, it defines the problems which modern readers encounter
when reading Deut. 7 and similar texts (5.2.2). Finally, it identifies the per-
spective from which these questions are discussed ( 5.2.3).
5.2.1 Importance
The exegesis of Deut. 7 naturally leads to the question of how the Deutero-
nomic command should be valued theologically. The literary-historical re-
search asks for a theological evaluation. This evaluation is particularly impor-
tant for at least three reasons: (1) because this command has sometimes been
the immediate cause for rejecting the Old Testament in its entirety; (2) because
history bears witness to an appeal to this command in order to legitimize vio-
lence; (3) because for many modern readers of the Old Testament this com-
mand in particular is a very controversial issue.1
First, the Old Testament has been attacked and rejected precisely because of
the command to exterminate the Canaanites. Authors from the first centuries
of our era until our times have considered the Old Testament (in whole or in
part) as dangerous, or have even rejected it because of this command or its
implied view of God.
Marcion (second century a.d.) contrasted the God of the Old Testament and
the God of the New Testament, partly due to the violence that God permits and
commands in the Old Testament.2 Manicheans like Adimantus and Faustus
(third century a.d.) followed this line of thinking. According to the rendering
of Augustine, Adimantus explicitly contrasted the command to exterminate
1 Cf. Talstra, Identity and Loyalty, 7476.

2 Irenaeus, Haer. 1.27,2 (Irenaeus of Lyon, Epideixis: Adversus Haereses i, 318320); Origen, Hom.
Jes. Nav. 12 (Origen, Homlies sur Josu, 294303). Origen mentions Marcion et Valentinus ac
Basilides ceterique cum ipsis haeretici (Ibid. 12,3; ed. Jaubert, 300). Valentinus and Basilides
are considered as gnostics.
theological evaluation 323
the nations of Canaan (Exod. 23:2224) with the command of Christ to love
ones enemies (Matt. 5:44).3 It is notable that this criticism did not emerge from
outside, but from reading the Scriptures.4
Together with those in the early church, the Old Testament has been sharply
attacked in the age of the Enlightenment. For example, the German freethinker
Hermann Samuel Reimarus (16941768) evaluated Joshua in the following way:
wie ein reissendes Raubthier, so fllt er sie, ex jure bestiali, an, ohne da er eine
Ursache dazu angiebt.5 According to Reimarus, one could better exterminate
other nations als die unschuldigen Cananiter, welche nach allen Datis ein weit
besseres praktisches Erkenntni von Gott gehabt haben mgen, als die zur
Abgtterey gewhnte und stets geneigte Israeliten.6 In addition, the biblical
report on the destruction of the Canaanites could be used to attack other
nations as well, according to Reimarus.7
In our times, Richard Dawkins describes the God of the Old Testament as
a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, inter alia. This characterization is
partly based on the command to exterminate the nations of Canaan.8 Paul
3 Augustine, Faust. 22,5 (Augustine, Contra Faustum, ed. I. Zycha, csel 25/1 [Prague: Tempsky,
1891], 595) and especially Augustine, Adim. 17 (Augustine, Contra Adimantum, ed. I. Zycha,
csel 25/1 [Prague: Tempsky, 1891], 164). In all probability, Adimantus was influenced by Mar-
cion. There is, however, a difference in their view of the Old Testament: Marcion viewed
the Old Testament as the correct rendering of the actions of the inferior god; Adiman-
tus viewed the Old Testament as a deliberate distortion and therefore considered the Old
Testament as misleading and dangerous. The views of Adimantus had influence until the
time of Augustine; for this reason, Augustine extensively disputes them. For Adimantus, see
Nicholas Baker-Brian, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire: A Study of Augustines Con-
tra Adimantum (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 2009); Jacob Albert van den Berg, Biblical Argu-
ment in Manichaean Missionary Practice: The Case of Adimantus and Augustine, nhms 70
(Leiden: Brill, 2010) (see Ibid., 113114 for a reconstruction of Adimantuss thesis, which
Augustine disputes). Mani (according to Epiphanius, Pan. 66,83,2) uttered the accusation
that the good God of the Law expelled Amorites, Girgashites, and other nations in order
to give their land to Israel, whereas He had prohibited to covet; Epiphanius, Epiphanius 3:
Panarion haer. 6580. De fide, ed. K. Holl, 2nd ed., gcs 37 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1985),
124.
4 Cf. Hofreiter, Genocide in Deuteronomy and Christian Interpretation, 244.
5 Reimarus, Apologie, 1:482.
6 Ibid., 1:483.
7 Ibid., 1:484. For other authors from this time, see Cees Houtman, Josua im Urteil einiger
Freidenker, in The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology, ed. J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten and
Jacobus Cornelis de Vos, vt.s 124 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 339354; Reinke, Ueber das Recht der
Israeliten an Canaan, 273280.
8 Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Mariner Books, 2008), 51. Later, he elaborates
324 chapter 5
Cliteur considers the Old Testament, and even monotheism as such, as intoler-
ant.9 According to him, these writings have a large potential for violence; they
would be open to interpretations that legitimize violent behaviour.10 Old Tes-
tament scholars as well have qualified the book of Deuteronomy as intolerant,
nationalist, and xenophobic, due to the command concerning the Canaanites.11
on the Old Testament, mentioning the Deuteronomic command, among other things
(Ibid., 269283).
9 Cliteurs thesis is part of a wider debate about the possible connection between monothe-
ism and violence. Following Jan Assmann, some have defended the view that monotheism
would lead to violence; so Paul B. Cliteur, Het monothestisch dilemma, of De theologie
van het terrorisme (Amsterdam: Arbeiderspers, 2010); Cliteur, Religion and Violence;
Schwartz, The Curse of Cain. A recent article of Assmann, however, is more nuanced than
earlier publications; Jan Assmann, Monotheismus und die Sprache der Gewalt, in Das
Gewaltpotential des Monotheismus und der dreieine Gott, ed. Peter Walter, qd 216 (Freiburg:
Herder, 2005), 1838. An inherent connection between monotheism and violence is con-
tested by, e.g., Rainer Albertz, Monotheism and Violence: How to Handle a Dangerous
Biblical Tradition, in The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology, ed. J.T.A.G.M. van
Ruiten and Jacobus Cornelis de Vos, vt.s 124 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 373387; McConville, God
and Earthly Power, 1229; Miroslav Volf, Christianity and Violence, in War in the Bible and
Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, ed. Richard S. Hess and Elmer A. Martens, bbr.s 2
(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 117; Erich Zenger, Gewalt als Preis der Wahrheit?
Alttestamentliche Beobachtungen zur sogenannten Mosaischen Unterscheidung, in Reli-
gion, Politik und Gewalt: Kongressband des xii. Europischen Kongresses fr Theologie, 18.
22. September 2005 in Berlin, ed. Friedrich Schweitzer, vwgt 29 (Gtersloh: Gtersloher
Verlagshaus, 2006), 3557. The debate is analyzed from a philosophical perspective by
Govert J. Buijs, Monotheism and Political Violence: Reflections on the Argumentative
Sustainability of a Causal Claim, in Violence in Civil Society: Monotheism Guilty?, ed. Ale-
jandra Vanney, Religion and Civil Society 6 (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 2013), 1936.
10 Cliteur, Het monothestisch dilemma, 37, 175, and passim. Cliteur mentions Deut. 7 in
passing (Ibid., 224226), but discusses particularly the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen. 22). A
reference to the command to exterminate the Canaanites would reinforce his argument,
however, since according to the Old Testament the latter has been (partly) executed, in
contrast to the sacrifice of Isaac.
11 Peter Altmann, Erwhlungstheologie und Universalismus im Alten Testament, bzaw 92
(Berlin: Tpelmann, 1964), 15; Herbert Breit, Die Predigt des Deuteronomisten (Mnchen:
Chr. Kaiser, 1933), 66; Mullen, Narrative History and Ethnic Boundaries, 65; Michael Prior,
The Bible and Colonialism: A Moral Critique, BiSe 48 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1997), 34; Siwiec, La guerre de conqute, 4344. Cf. Von Rad, Der Heilige Krieg im alten Israel,
68: Deuteronomy is vom ersten bis zum letzten Kapitel durch und durch gesttigt von
einer ausgesprochenen Kriegsideologie, deren Herkunft und theologischer Gestalt uns
viel mehr zum Problem werden msste.
Second, a theological evaluation of the Deuteronomic command is necessary

because of the Wirkungsgeschichte of Deut. 7 and similar texts. In the course of
history, this command has been used as an argument to suppress or to destroy
other nations. In the sixteenth century, Thomas Mntzer, the leader of the
Anabaptists, appealed to Deut. 7 in an exhortation to kill his enemies.12 Peo-
ple have appealed to the command in order to legitimize the colonization of
Latin America,13 the extermination of the Native Americans in North Amer-
ica,14 and the suppression of the black population in South Africa.15 Conversely,
indigenous populations have also appealed to the command in order to expel
their colonizers. This is shown by the example of Te Kooti, one of the leaders of
the Maori in New Zealand in the nineteenth century, who viewed the Maori as
the Israelites and the colonizers as the Canaanites.16 Finally, Naim Ateek men-
tions an example of a comparison between the Palestinians in the state of Israel
and Amalek.17 Some authors add other examples of the Wirkungsgeschichte of
12 Thomas Mntzer, Schriften und Briefe: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, ed. Gnther Franz, qfrg
33 (Gtersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1968), 260263; Thomas Mntzer, Briefwechsel, ed. Siegfried
Bruer and Manfred Kobuch, Thomas-Mntzer-Ausgabe: Kritische Gesamtausgabe 2,
qfsg, 25 ii (Leipzig: Schsische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2010), 410413 (= Mntzer,
Schriften und Briefe, 454456). For Mntzer and his followers, see Schmitt, Heilige Krieg,
184189.
13 Prior, The Bible and Colonialism, 4870, esp. 56, 68.
14 Conrad Cherry, ed., Gods New Israel: Religious Interpretations of American Destiny, 2nd ed.
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1998), 191: He [God] emptied out its former
inhabitants who melted away as the Canaanites before Israel (Benjamin M. Palmer). Cf.
Ibid., 230; Roland Herbert Bainton, Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace: A Historical
Survey and Critical Re-Evaluation (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1961), 167169. In Cherrys
anthology, the parallel between America and Israel is often mentioned, but (contrary to
the claims of Prior, The Bible and Colonialism, 282) only occasionally the parallel between
the indigenous population of America and the nations of Canaan, and never with the
exhortation to destroy them.
15 Ferdinand E. Deist, The Dangers of Deuteronomy: A Page from the Reception History of
the Book, in Studies in Deuteronomy, ed. Florentino Garca Martnez et al., vt.s 53 (Leiden:
Brill, 1994), 1329; Prior, The Bible and Colonialism, 71105, esp. 8182.
16 David M. Gunn, Colonialism and the Vagaries of Scripture: Te Kooti in Canaan (A Story
of Bible and Dispossession in Aotearoa/New Zealand), in God in the Fray, ed. Tod Linafelt
and Timothy K. Beal (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 138141.
17 Naim Stifan Ateek, Justice, and Only Justice: A Palestinian Theology of Liberation (Mary-
knoll: Orbis Books, 1989), 8485; cf. Bernhard J.G. Reitsma, Who Is Our God? The Theo-
logical Challenges of the State of Israel for Christian ArabsFaith and Ethnicity in the
Middle East, in Faith and Ethnicity, ed. Eddy A.J.G. van der Borght, Dirk van Keulen, and
Martien E. Brinkman, SRTh 67 (Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2002), 1:182185. Prior, The Bible
326 chapter 5
Deut. 7, but without concrete evidence or without a real appeal to this com-
mand in the situations they describe.18 From the examples mentioned, how-
ever, it becomes unmistakably clear that the command of Deut. 7 has been
used to legitimize violence and suppression. It is not so much relevant whether
the appeal to this command was the only or the actual reason for the violence,
or that it has only been used to legitimize it afterwards.19 A condemnation of
this violence does not undo the fact that Deut. 7 did play a certain role in this.
For that reason, the Wirkungsgeschichte raises the question of the legitimacy
of this appeal to Scripture and of the consequences of these texts for the Old
Testament view of God.20
Third, the Deuteronomic command should be evaluated theologically because

many readers have great difficulty with Deut. 7 and similar texts. In the chapter,
Israel receives Yhwhs command to exterminate other nations, while these
nations have not hurt Israel in any respect. One wonders why even the children
should be exterminated. Apparently, there is no possibility of salvation for
the Canaanites. If this had to happen at Gods command, what then does his
and Colonialism, 106173 has a chapter about Colonialism and Palestine, but he offers no
examples of an appeal to the command to exterminate the Canaanites.
18 E.g., Prior, The Bible and Colonialism, 39; Christopher J.H. Wright, The God I Dont Under-
stand: Reflections on Tough Questions of Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 74. In
several publications (e.g. Susan Niditch, War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of
Violence [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993], 34), a sermon is quoted, held by Cotton
Mather in 1689 at the beginning of a war against the Indians. Based on Niditchs render-
ing, the content of this writing has been characterized as urging genocide against the
indigenous Native American population on the authority of the Old Testament; Nelson,
erem, 39. However, nowhere does Mather compare the Indians with the Canaanites.
The only time he makes an explicit comparison between the war in his days and the war
against the nations of Canaan it concerns the thesis that in both wars people from all
ranks and positions were involved; Cotton Mather, Souldiers Counselled and Comforted: A
Discourse Delivered unto Some Part of the Forces Engaged in the Just War of New-England
Against the Northern & Eastern Indians (Boston: Samuel Green, 1689), 2.
19 In some cases, the appeal to the Deuteronomic command was not so much the occasion to
use violence, but rather a justification afterwards; cf. Prior, The Bible and Colonialism, 82
84. It may seem that those cases cannot be used as an illustration of these texts potential
for violence. However, this is only partly the case; a justification afterwards may give rise
to new violence or it may maintain a situation of suppression.
20 According to Eckart Otto, Krieg und Frieden in der Hebrischen Bibel und im Alten Orient:
Aspekte fr eine Friedensordnung in der Moderne, ThFr 18 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1999),
152156, the Gottesverstndnis decides whether or not a religion fosters peace. Cf. Prior,
The Bible and Colonialism, 264266.
love mean? Is it possible to believe in a God and to love Him, if He not only
permits the extermination of peoples, but even commands extermination?
Doesnt this make any distinction between good and evil meaningless? How
is it possible that such a horrible and morally repulsive command is attributed
to God himself? Is the God who commands Israel to exterminate other nations
the same one as the Father of Jesus Christ, who gave himself up to death in
order to save the lost? For contemporary readers of Deut. 7, these questions
about the view of God are huge and fundamental.21
5.2.2 Problems
A theological evaluation of Deut. 7 should deal with two issues, which form the
actual (theological) problem of the command to exterminate the Canaanites.
First, the view of God should be discussed, as it emerges from Deut. 7. What
consequences does it have for our thinking about the nature of God, if this text
mentions his command to radically exterminate the nations of Canaan? How
can such a devastating judgment be compatible with Gods love? Why should
entire nations be destroyed indiscriminately? Does that fit with the view of God
as presented elsewhere in the Old and New Testament? After all, the actual
problem is not that violence does occur in the Old Testament, or that human
beings commit violence, but that this violence is commanded by God himself.22
Second, the commands potential for violence should be dealt with. As
demonstrated above, Deut. 7 has been used in history to legitimize violence or
suppression. This Wirkungsgeschichte raises the question of whether such an
appeal to the command is legitimate, and especially if anybody could appeal
to this text in our times in order to legitimate any form of violence.
5.2.3 Perspective
In a theological evaluation, the position of the researcher will always play a role,
even more so than with the discussion of literary and historical questions. It is
important to be aware of the perspective from which one reads the Deutero-
nomic command. My perspective is one of a Western man at the beginning of
the twenty-first century, who never experienced a war or comparable violence,
and one of a Christian theologian in the Reformed tradition.
21 Cf. James Barr, Biblical Faith and Natural Theology: The Gifford Lectures for 1991, Delivered
in the University of Edinburgh (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), 207220; Cowles et al., Show
Them No Mercy (esp. Cowles, in Ibid., 100); Peter C. Craigie, The Problem of War in the Old
Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 919; Seibert, Disturbing Divine Behavior, 15
34.
22 Brueggemann, Revelation and Violence, 7.
328 chapter 5
Someone who did not experience extreme forms of violence will probably
think and speak differently about violence than someone who has experienced
it. Victims will read a call for retribution different from other people. It is
important to realize this, in order to prevent passing a superficial judgment.23
As a Christian theologian, I am dealing with the perspective of the Old
Testament. This is the starting point for theological questions and reflection.
A different approach is advocated by Robert A. Warrior. He proposes that one
read the exodus and the conquest of Canaan from the perspective of a Native
American. According to Warrior, the Native Americans can identify with the
Canaanites, who already lived in the promised land. In his view, the Canaanites
should be put in the center of Christian theological reflection. Their voices
should be heard too.24 However, a reconstruction of the potential perspective
of the nations of Canaan is highly speculative; we have no texts or other data
representing the Canaanites perspective on Israels attitude toward them. Even
if the Old Testaments perspective is different from the Canaanite one, and
even if the requested attitude toward the nations of Canaan was the view of a
religious minority in Israel only, the Old Testament is the text that is the starting
point for theological reflection.25
As a Christian theologian in the Reformed tradition, I do not read the Old
Testament as another Ancient Near Eastern text, but as an authoritative text,
together with the New Testament, in which God reveals himself in human
words. Someone in this position runs the risk of only defending the Old Tes-
tament. At the same time, this position can prevent rejecting too quickly those
texts that provoke resistance in modern readers. If the Old Testament is read
23 See especially the work of the Croat Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological
Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), who
after the wars in former Yugoslavia writes about reconciliation. Cf. Baumann, Gottesbilder
der Gewalt, 17, 7983, 157; Walter Dietrich and Christian Link, Die dunklen Seiten Gottes
1: Willkr und Gewalt, 4th ed. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002), 201204.
This is not to adopt Baumanns thesis that violence attributed to God may be sufficiently
explained as the handling of violence that people experienced.
24 Robert Allen Warrior, A Native American Perspective: Canaanites, Cowboys, and Indians,
in Voices from the Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the Third World, ed. R.S. Sugirtharajah
(Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1991), 287295. Cf. Musa W. Dube, Postcolonial Feminist Inter-
pretation of the Bible (St. Louis: Chalice, 2000), 6468; Knierim, Task of Old Testament
Theology, 317318; Seibert, The Violence of Scripture, 100103.
25 The question of the theological and practical meaning of texts of violence is never asked
concerning other Ancient Near Eastern texts. Cf. Oliver ODonovan, The Desire of the
Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1996), 2729.
as an authoritative text, this makes the theological questions concerning the

Deuteronomic command all the more urgent.
For a theological evaluation of Deut. 7, we must take into account that we are
reading this text in a Western cultural context at the beginning of the twenty-
first century. An important aspect of this cultural context is its view on violence
in general. However, the experience and assessment of violence is not a univer-
sal constant and the Deuteronomic command was not always experienced as a
great moral and theological problem (see e.g. 5.3.2). Sociologists have pointed
out how much our sensitivity to cruelty and inflicting pain has increased in the
course of history.26 In Antiquity and the Middle Ages, for example, killing peo-
ple was considered much less a problem than in our times.27 Concerning the
perception of violence, the well-known sociologist Norbert Elias speaks about
a historical change in emotional life since the Middle Ages.28 In Humanism,
Enlightenment, and Romanticism, the infinite value of the human individual
was increasingly emphasized. The individual has been given (ontological and
moral) primacy.29 In combination with the excessive violence in the twentieth
century, increased individualization has led to Westerners great sensitivity to
experienced violence or to violence inflicted on others.30
For this study, it need not be described how the experience and assessment
of violence have developed. It is important, however, to be aware of our own
26 Hans Achterhuis, Met alle geweld: Een filosofische zoektocht (Rotterdam: Lemniscaat,
2008), 5768 (58) [my translation].
27 For instance, Augustine argues that the real evil in a war is not the death of people, since
they will soon die in any case; Augustine, Faust. 22,74 (Augustine, Contra Faustum, 672).
According to Hubert Junker, Der alttestamentliche Bann gegen heidnische Vlker als
moraltheologisches und offenbarungsgeschichtliches Problem, TThZ 56 (1947): 79, the
Old Testament ban was hardly considered as a theological problem in the Middle Ages,
since it went without saying that heretics were to be killed.
28 Norbert Elias, ber den Prozess der Zivilisation: Soziogenetische und psychogenetische Un-
tersuchungen, 2nd ed. (Bern: Francke, 1969), 1:263283 (282). The original edition dates
from 1936. Since World War ii, the sensitivity to violence has undoubtedly increased; cf.
Baumann, Gottesbilder der Gewalt, 73.
29 See Frits de Lange, De verzachting der zeden: Modernisering, agressie en religieus ge-
weld, in Kruis en zwaard: Terugblik op de kruistochten 10961996, ed. Auke Jelsma and
G.J. van Klinken (Zoetermeer: Meinema, 1996), 135154 (142147). De Lange disputes the
thesis of Elias that the continuing civilization has led to a decrease in violence. The
causes of the development mentioned, which are partly rooted in Christian faith, are not
discussed here; it is the development itself which is relevant.
30 Achterhuis, Met alle geweld, 61.
330 chapter 5
sensitivity to violence. This sensitivity is reflected in our ethical views and view
of God (see 5.4.1). Violence in the name of religion is a very controversial
issue, especially since the attacks of September 11, 2001.31 It should be noticed
that these observations do not pretend to provide a solution; rather, they only
outline part of the problem. After all, even if our questions would be the
product of a society in relative peace and prosperity, this makes them no less
urgent for us.32
5.3 Models of Interpretation
In this section, I will describe and assess some contemporary models of dealing
with the theological questions evoked by the command to exterminate the
Canaanites.33 The strengths and weaknesses of these models will be pointed
out on the basis of the research in the previous chapters. Building on the
strenghts and avoiding the weaknesses, I will then attempt to develop my own
view (5.4).
The following approaches may be distinguished: (1) denial: it is denied that
the Deuteronomic command was given by God or that it was ever executed
(5.3.1); (2) justification: the command to exterminate the Canaanites is a
divine command, but it can be explained why this command was justified
(5.3.2); (3) correction: the command is neutralized by other texts from the
Old or New Testament (5.3.3).34
31 Cf. Gerrit G. de Kruijf, Give Place unto Wrath!, in Christian Faith and Violence, ed. Dirk
van Keulen and Martien E. Brinkman, 2 vols., SRTh 1011 (Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2005),
2:115129.
32 Achterhuis, Met alle geweld, 68.
33 The present study cannot provide an overview of the history of reception of the command.
For the early reception history (Qumran, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testa-
ment, the New Testament, and rabbinic literature), see Versluis, The Early Reception His-
tory. For an overview of the later reception, see Thomas R. Elner, Josua und seine Kriege
in jdischer und christlicher Rezeptionsgeschichte, ThFr 37 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008);
Lake, Did God Command Genocide. Cf. Schmitt, Heilige Krieg, 171207. Elner describes the
early Jewish and Christian reception history of Joshua and his wars; however, he only deals
with texts mentioning Joshua, not with all texts about the nations of Canaan. The study
of Lake is methodologically weak and is based too little on research of primary sources.
34 Various models are also juxtaposed in Cowles et al., Show Them No Mercy; Eryl W. Davies,
The Immoral Bible: Approaches to Biblical Ethics (London: t&t Clark, 2010); Hofreiter,
Genocide in Deuteronomy and Christian Interpretation. Cf. Michael Bergmann, Michael
5.3.1 Model 1: Denial

A connection between the Deuteronomic command and God is denied in two
ways: (a) on the basis of historical arguments: the extermination of the nations
of Canaan would never have taken place, or only to a very limited extent, and
theological conclusions are then drawn from this historical view; (b) on the
basis of theological arguments: it is stated that the command to exterminate
cannot have been issued by God.
a Denial on the Basis of Historical Arguments

Several authors have stated that the extermination of the nations of Canaan
did not take place historically, or only to a very limited extent. According to
some, the extermination of people was never even the intention of the authors
of Deut. 7. These views have already been discussed from a historical point of
view (4.3). Sometimes, however, theological consequences are connected to
these historical views; this aspect is discussed here.
The view that historically no mass extermination occurred is often related
to the dating of the command to exterminate the Canaanites in the seventh
century b.c. or later. Since the nations of Canaan did not exist at that time,
there could be no actual eradication (see 4.3). According to Walter Dietrich,
the extermination is only a phantom in the writers heads. He believes that
the care for Israels identity thus gets fast wahnhafte Zge.35 Since actual
eradication was no longer possible, the intention of the command would be
to reflect on Israels history, or to evoke negative attitudes toward other nations
or groups. The stories would merely be narratives, not a call to violence.36
According to Richard S. Hess, the violence toward the nations of Canaan was
very limited. It would only concern killing the leaders of the Canaanites and
destroying their cult. This is based on the view that Jericho and Ai were not
cities, but fortresses, implying that only soldiers would have perished, but no
citizens.37
J. Murray, and Michael C. Rea, eds., Divine Evil? The Moral Character of the God of Abraham
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 512; Seibert, Disturbing Divine Behavior, 6988.
35 Dietrich and Link, Die dunklen Seiten Gottes 1, 195201 (196, 201).
36 Baumann, Gottesbilder der Gewalt, 98. According to Schmitt, Heilige Krieg, 209, they do
not concern Kriegstheologie, but Gesetzestheologie.
37 Richard S. Hess, War in the Hebrew Bible: An Overview, in War in the Bible and Terrorism
in the Twenty-First Century, ed. Richard S. Hess and Elmer A. Martens, bbr.s 2 (Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 2930; Markus Zehnder, The Annihilation of the Canaan-
ites: Reassessing the Brutality of the Biblical Witness, in Encountering Violence in the
Bible, ed. Markus Zehnder and Hallvard Hagelia, bmw 55 (Sheffield: Phoenix, 2013), 263
332 chapter 5
The common element in these views is that a theological interpretation

of the command is connected to the historical question of whether mass
extermination has taken place. If this genocide never occurred, that would
mitigate the theological and moral questions evoked by the command. After
all, violence that never occurred does not need to be justified.38
In this model, attention is rightly drawn to the historical reality. For the nations
of Canaan at the time of the conquest, it would have been a crucial difference
whether or not violence has taken place. In 4.3, I have argued that it is likely
that the command of Deut. 7 did intend the actual extermination of the nations
of Canaan, and that this has (partly) occurred.39 Literary and archaeological
data, however, make clear that the desired destruction was never completed.
Another element that is rightly pointed out in this model is that Deut. 7 and
similar texts also functioned to strengthen Israels ethnic identity and to keep
it from mixing with other peoples.40
However, these historical data do not imply that the theological and moral
problems of the Deuteronomic command decrease. First, the text of the Old
Testament presents the command to exterminate the nations of Canaan as
290. Hess is followed by Paul Copan, Yahweh Wars and the Canaanites: Divinely-Man-
dated Genocide or Corporate Capital Punishment? Responses to Critics, PhChr 11 (2009):
7985; Copan, Is God a Moral Monster, 175177, according to whom a total destruction was
not intended (Ibid., 182). Zehnder admits that lethal actions are prescribed and described,
but consequently attempts to downplay the scale; moreover, the command would in effect
be conditional, since the main reason disappears if the Canaanites did not cling to their
religious identity. The Old Testament, according to Zehnder, mainly calls for a mass expul-
sion; since there is no dehumanization of the adversaries and since any indulgence in the
use of violence is absent, he even states that one can hardly speak of a genocide. (Ibid.,
289).
38 Antonius H.J. Gunneweg, Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments: Eine Religionsge-
schichte Israels in biblisch-theologischer Sicht (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1993), 94: Vieles
von dem vergossenen Blut flo also sozusagen nur sagenhaft und nicht gar so blutig; Sei-
bert, Disturbing Divine Behavior, 178180.
39 It cannot be excluded that our moral questions influence the historical reconstruction.
As Schwartz, The Curse of Cain, 61 has pointed out, all reconstructions of the conquest of
Canaan present it as less violent, less oppressive, and less morally repugnant than the
version in the biblical narrative.
40 Crouch, The Making of Israel, 105225 provides a reading of Deuteronomy as Identity For-
mation Project, in which she attempts to identify various identity formation mechanisms
on the basis of archaeological and anthropological studies. She situates this in the long
seventh century, a period in which there was increased cross-cultural interaction in the
Southern Levant.
a concrete command to Israel, not as a reflection or a narrative only.41 In

addition, it is described how this command was partly executed. The fact
that the destruction was not or not completely executed does not mitigate
the theological problems, since Israel is blamed for this negligence, which is
considered as guilt and disobedience.
Second, it is the text of the Old Testament that has received a canonical
status, not the history of Israel. In every historical reconstruction, therefore,
the theological problem remains that in the text of the Old Testament Israel
is called in the name of God to exterminate other peoples. If an actual exter-
mination of people was never intended or has never occurred, this makes the
question of why the text does suggest so all the more urgent. Moreover, it is this
text that had influence in history and to which people have appealed in order
to legitimize violence (see 5.2.1).
Similar objections apply to an allegorical interpretation of the Deuteronomic

command. Here the battle against the nations of Canaan is interpreted as a
symbol of the spiritual warfare against sin.42 A variant of this is the view of
Douglas S. Earl, who states that the genocide in Joshua only has a symbolic or
literary function, and does not intend to give a description or a command.43
Above (4.3.3), I have already argued why a metaphorical interpretation of
the command to exterminate the Canaanites is implausible. However, even in
a metaphorical or allegorical interpretation the theological problem remains
that the text of the Old Testament suggests that Israel was called in the name
41 The view that the command was only intended to distance themselves from their own
pre-history has rightly been characterized as a form of allegoria; Elner, Josua und seine
Kriege, 309310.
42 So, e.g., Origen, Hom. Jes. Nav. 1,7 (Origen, Homlies sur Josu, 110), who identifies the
nations of Canaan with human vices: Intra nos etenim sunt omnes gentes istae vitiorum
() Intra nos sunt Chananaei, intra nos sunt Pherezaei, hic sunt Iebusaei. Cf. Origen,
Hom. Jes. Nav. 12; 15 (Ibid., 294303, 330357); Augustine, Faust. 22,92 (Augustine, Contra
Faustum, 698699). Origen offers the figurative or allegorical interpretation next to a
literal or historical one. Since the eighth century a.d., the seven nations (Deut. 7:1)
were generally identified with the seven cardinal sins in the Western church, according
to Douglas S. Earl, The Christian Significance of Deuteronomy 7, jti 3 (2009): 51.
43 Earl, Reading Joshua as Christian Scripture, 197211. For his description of the rem, see
4.3.3. Earl also believes that Joshua was interpreted not in a historical, but in a symbolic
or allegorical sense throughout most of the history of the church; Earl, The Joshua Delusion,
152. However, he does not demonstrate the latter statement. Earl seems to exclude that a
literary motif may also refer to historical events. Moreover, he does not make clear why
this literary motif was chosen.
334 chapter 5
of God to exterminate other peoples and that such a destruction has (partly)
occurred (unless the entire Old Testament is interpreted exclusively in an
allegorical sense).
For these reasons, the interpretation that the extermination of the nations
of Canaan did not occur historically does not provide a satisfactory answer
to the theological and moral questions evoked by the command. James Barr
rightly stated: [T]he problem is not whether the narratives are fact or fic-
tion, the problem is that, whether fact or fiction, the ritual destruction is com-
mended.44
b Denial on the Basis of Theological Arguments

In this interpretation, it is stated that the command to exterminate the Canaan-
ites was not given by God, but is only a human view. The authors of Deut. 7 did
believe that God wanted eradication, it is argued, but they wrongly projected
their own thoughts on God. The motivation of this thesis differs. C.H.W. Brekel-
mans comes to believe this on the basis of his analysis of the development of
the rem. In his view, the rem had its place in the early history of Israel. In
the progress of the history of revelation, however, the rem had to make way
for more perfect views. The motif of the depravity of the nations of Canaan
and the danger of syncretism is the result of a later development, according
to Brekelmans, whereas originally the rem was about the possession of their
land. The command to exterminate the nations should not be considered as a
command given directly by God.45 Sam Janse reaches the same conclusion on
the basis of the continuous line he views in the Old and New Testament. He
states that God does not desire the extermination of human beings. If some
writers of Old Testament texts have suggested this, they have mixed their own
small-human thoughts with what they had discovered about God and his plan
of salvation.46
44 Barr, Biblical Faith and Natural Theology, 209. Cf. Talstra, Identity and Loyalty, 7476;
Wright, The God I Dont Understand, 8485: It was not allegorical Israelites who attacked
or allegorical Canaanites who died.
45 Brekelmans, De erem, 171183. Cf. ONeill, Biblical Truth and the Morality of rem, 260.
46 Sam Janse, De tegenstem van Jezus: Over geweld in het Nieuwe Testament, be (Zoetermeer:
Boekencentrum, 2006), 23 [my translation]. Cf. Siwiec, La guerre de conqute, 60: Dans
son radicalisme religieux, lauteur du Dt interprte la dfense du culte paen comme un
ordre dextermination des peuples cananens. This view sometimes leads to a rejection of
the Old Testament, in line with Marcion. So Dwight Van Winkle, Canaanite Genocide and
Amalekite Genocide and the God of Love, Winifred E. Weter Faculty Award Lecture (Seattle:
Pacific University, 1989), 3441, who himself sides with Marcion.
Others deny that God commanded the destruction of the Canaanites on

the basis of a more philosophical argument. A morally good God by definition
could never command one to exterminate peoples.47 The arguments given in
the Old Testament of why the Canaanites should be destroyed are insufficient
to justify genocide.48 In addition, killing so many people would have had a soul-
destroying effect on the perpetrators.49
Last, some authors argue that a literal interpretation of the Deuteronomic
command should be rejected because this interpretation is too problematic
theologically and morally.50 Thus, they also start from the assumption that
God cannot have commanded the extermination of peoples, but then choose
a metaphorical interpretation of the command (see 4.3.3).
The interpretation that God did not command the destruction of the nations
of Canaan gives a clear response to the question of how the Deuteronomic
command relates to the view of God in the Old and New Testament. Accord-
ing to this interpretation, the command does not fit within this view of God,
but only tells us something about human ideas. The theological problem thus
moves to a different level: the Deuteronomic command raises questions not so
much concerning the justice and love of God, but all the more concerning the
47 Edwin Curley, The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in Divine Evil? The Moral Character
of the God of Abraham, ed. Michael Bergmann, Michael J. Murray, and Michael C. Rea
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 5878; Evan Fales, Satanic Verses: Moral Chaos
in Holy Writ, in Bergmann, Murray, and Rea, Divine Evil, 91108; Wesley Morriston, Did
God Command Genocide? A Challenge to the Biblical Inerrantist, PhChr 11 (2009): 726;
Randal Rauser, Let Nothing That Breathes Remain Alive: On the Problem of Divinely
Commanded Genocide, PhChr 11 (2009): 2741. Cf. Evan Fales in Bergmann, Murray, and
Rea, Divine Evil, 313: [I]f the story of Joshua is false, then its authors have a morally corrupt
imagination and an untrustworthy understanding of God; if the story is in its essentials
true, then God is neither to be trusted nor worshippedlet alone obeyed.
48 Morriston, Did God Command Genocide. Morriston mainly uses this conclusion to
attack the idea of biblical inerrancy.
49 Rauser, Let Nothing That Breathes Remain Alive, 3537. Copan, Is God a Moral Monster,
190 states, apparently in reaction to Rauser: There is no evidence that Israelite soldiers
were internally damaged by killing the Canaanites. Concerning both views, however, it
should be stated that assumptions about the psychological conditions of the Israelites are
pure speculation. Moreover, they are completely based on our current Western morality.
Rauser gives his argument a strong emotional charge by speaking almost exclusively about
bludgeoning babies (cf. a society founded on the dashed brains of Canaanites babies;
Ibid., 3336).
50 Lake, Did God Command Genocide, 169226; Seibert, Disturbing Divine Behavior, 127128.
336 chapter 5
nature of the Old Testament. The fact that the command to exterminate the
Canaanites is described as a command of God himself is now interpreted as
an evil and fallible human interpretation. Human ideas are legitimized by pro-
jecting them on God himself. The Deuteronomic command in fact amounts to
self-justification that is religiously couched. The consequence of this interpre-
tation, however, is that some parts of the Old Testament cannot be considered
as a trustworthy witness to Gods acts. After all, the conquest of the land and the
extermination of the Canaanite peoples are not found at the margins of the Old
Testament, but are an important theme in the historiographical literature of
the Old Testament (see 3.4.2).51 In addition, nowhere in the Old Testament is
the Deuteronomic command corrected or rejected (see 5.3.3). Israel is blamed
for not having completed the destruction. If the extermination of the nations of
Canaan is described as having occurred, it is always attributed to Yhwh. Thus,
the interpretation that God did not command destruction has consequences
for the view of the Old Testament as such.52
The argument that God cannot have commanded destruction, merely be-
cause a morally good God by definition could not do this, also encounters
objections. First, in this interpretation one either has an exegetical problem
with the many Old Testament texts that suggest that God did command exter-
mination, or a problem with the nature of the Old Testament as a reliable
witness to Gods acts. Second, this view presupposes a specific, contemporary
view on Gods goodness and on morality. This interpretation does not take into
account the unique situation in which Israel found itself according to the Old
Testament and the difference between the Old and New Testament. It does not
seem to be considered whether there may be a development in the history of
Gods acts and of his revelation.
5.3.2 Model 2: Justification

According to this interpretation, God commanded the extermination of the
nations of Canaan, but this command was justified, which can be explained.
Authors have attempted to justify the command in three ways: (a) because
Gods acts are always just; (b) because of the sins of the Canaanite peoples; (c)
because of Gods accommodation to the views or the morality of Israel. These
approaches may complement each other.
51 Cf. Stephen N. Williams, Could God Have Commanded the Slaughter of the Canaanites?,
TynB 63 (2012): 165.
52 Cf. Wright, The God I Dont Understand, 8283.
a Gods Justice
Several authors have explained the Deuteronomic command by stating that
a divine command is just by definition. This interpretation is already found in
Augustine (354430) and is followed by John Calvin (15091564) and some con-
temporary authors. For Augustine, the fact that God commanded the extermi-
nation of the Canaanites is a sufficient justification. If Moses had commanded
this spontaneously, he would have sinned severely.53 If God commands so, how-
ever, it is just and people should obey.54 After all, it is impossible that He inflicts
undeserved suffering.55 It follows that the nations of Canaan deserved this
judgment.
Calvin raises the question whether the Deuteronomic command is not cruel
and inhumane.56 If the Israelites had killed the Canaanites on their own initia-
tive, this would have been the case, but if God commands it, this is the end of
all discussion. Gods glory is more important than the life of all human beings.57
God is always just.58 Moreover, He had four hundred years of patience with the
nations of Canaan (cf. Gen. 15:13,16).59 Calvin believes that it is just that the
53 Augustine, Faust. 22,72 (Augustine, Contra Faustum, 670): si Moyses sua sponte jussisset,
aut hoc Hebraei sua sponte fecissent, profecto peccassent. In this passage, Augustine
not only discusses the extermination of the Canaanites, but he deals more generally
with the many cruel things that Moses commanded in the Old Testament, according
to Faustus. Augustine takes into account a development in Gods revelation: sed eam
rerum dispensationem ac distributionem temporum ordo poscebat; Faust. 22,76 (Ibid.,
674). For Augustines view, see also Hofreiter, Genocide in Deuteronomy and Christian
Interpretation, 245249.
54 Cf. Augustine, Faust. 22,73 (Augustine, Contra Faustum, 671): si te inritat uelut humana
facientis improbitas, diuina terreat iubentis auctoritas.
55 Augustine, Faust. 22,72 (Ibid., 669): et solus neminem quicquam incongruum perpeti
sinit; 22,75 (Ibid., 673674); 22,91 (Ibid., 697): nihil nisi iustissime iubentis.
56 Calvin, Comm. Deut. 7:2 (co 24:550); Serm. Deut. 7:14 (co 26:495496). Cf. Serm. Deut.
7:1619 (co 26:545): [I]ls [Gods judgments] sont quelques fois comme des abysmes: mais
cependant ils ne laissent pas destre iustes.
57 Calvin, Serm. Deut. 7:14 (co 26:498): [L]e service de Dieu ne nous doit-il pas estre plus
precieux, que la vie de tous les hommes du monde? Cf. Ibid. (co 26:502): [M]ais il faut
que nous ayons ceste consideration-la, de faire ce que Dieu nous commande, sans estre
esmeus daucune passion charnelle.
58 Calvin, Comm. Deut. 7:2 (co 24:550551); Serm. Deut. 7:14 (co 26:495499); Comm. Josh.
6:20 (co 25:468469); Comm. Josh. 7:24 (co 25:479480); Comm. Josh. 10:18 (co 25:502):
Caeterum quia sic voluit, acquiescere oportet eius sententiae, nec inquirere fas est cur
tam severus fuerit.
59 Calvin mentions this argument almost always when he deals with the command to
338 chapter 5
children of the Canaanite peoples also perished, because their progeny was
cursed and rejected.60
Some contemporary authors also defend the view that a divine command
is just by definition.61 Eugene H. Merrill states: The issue, then, cannot be
whether or not genocide is intrinsically good or evilits sanction by a holy God
settles that question.62 Mark C. Murphy argues that there is no rational basis
to state that God acted wrongly by letting the inhabitants of Jericho be killed,
for example, because God and man do not belong to the same dikaiological
order. In his view, however, this is different when God cooperates with man.
Therefore, Murphy states: The slightest breach of promise or smallest lie to the
Israelites by God would have been a divine injustice, and would have morally
discredited God; the total destruction of the Jerichoites was not, and did not.63
In this model, authors are rightly cautious to condemn the Old Testament
on the basis of our moral convictions. However, this interpretation also has a
number of problems. If an appeal to Gods justice is the end of all questions,
it does not seem to matter why God comes to his judgment, and if there
should be a reason at all, apart from the fact that God commands so. In the
Old Testament, however, the command to exterminate the Canaanites is never
justified solely with an appeal to Gods justice. On the contrary, it is repeatedly
motivated by an explanation of why the Canaanites should be destroyed (see
3.2.4; 3.4.4). The question of whether Gods acts are just is likewise repeatedly
asked, for example in Abrahams prayer on behalf of Sodom (Gen. 18:2332).
Last, this interpretation does not provide an answer to the question of how
the Deuteronomic command relates to the love of God and his revelation in
Jesus Christ, nor to the question of whether there may be a difference between
exterminate the Canaanites; Calvin, Comm. Deut. 7:2 (co 24:550); Serm. Deut. 7:14 (co
26:496497); Serm. Deut. 7:1619 (co 26:546); Serm. Deut. 20:1018 (co 27:625626).
60 Calvin, Comm. Josh. 6:20 (co 25:469): quia maledicta erat ac reproba soboles, iusto peri-
isse. For Calvins view on the extermination of the Canaanites, see also Wolterstorff,
Reading Joshua, 243248.
61 For similar views in the time between Augustine and Calvin, see Junker, Der alttesta-
mentliche Bann, 7981. So also Reinke, Ueber das Recht der Israeliten an Canaan.
62 Merrill in Cowles et al., Show Them No Mercy, 93. Merrill also states that the Deuteronomic
command was necessary to punish the sins of the Canaanite peoples, to protect Israel
from idolatry, and to teach Israel and other peoples who God is (Ibid., 8588). Apparently,
however, he considers a divine command as a sufficient justification already.
63 Mark C. Murphy, God Beyond Justice, in Divine Evil? The Moral Character of the God of
Abraham, ed. Michael Bergmann, Michael J. Murray, and Michael C. Rea (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2011), 165. Cf. Richard Swinburne, What Does the Old Testament Mean?,
in Bergmann, Murray, and Rea, Divine Evil, 223225.
the Old and New Testament. For those reasons, it remains unclear whether
God may again command the extermination of peoples.64 On these points, this
approach is inadequate.
b Sins of the Nations of Canaan

Another way authors have explained the command to exterminate the Canaan-
ites is by emphasizing the depravity of the nations of Canaan. Morally, these
nations would have been totally corrupt and therefore deserved Gods judg-
ment.65 According to Paul Copan, the extermination of the children of the
Canaanites may be justified as well: death would be a mercy for them, since
they would then be with God and spared the influences of a morally decadent
culture.66
The emphasis on the sins of the Canaanite peoples is already found in the
Old Testament and increases in intertestamental literature.67 However, this
explanation suggests that the nations of Canaan were morally worse than
other peoples. The latter, however, is never stated in the Old Testament (cf.
5.4.3). There are insufficient textual and archaeological sources to compare
the morality of the Canaanites with other peoples (see 4.2). It cannot be
demonstrated, therefore, that the nations of Canaan were totally depraved, and
that this would morally justify a command to exterminate them.
c Gods Accommodation to Israel

The third way authors have attempted to explain the Deuteronomic command
is by pointing to Gods accommodation to the (moral) level of the Israelites.
Gods real will would be different, but He would accommodate himself to
the limited views of Israel, because they could not yet meet a higher moral
64 This possibility is left open by Daniel R. Heimbach, albeit under strict conditions; Daniel
R. Heimbach, Crusade in the Old Testament and Today, in Holy War in the Bible: Christian
Morality and an Old Testament Problem, ed. Heath A. Thomas, Jeremy Evans, and Paul
Copan (Downers Grove: ivp Academic, 2013), 192200. Otherwise Calvin, who points
out that we are not allowed to kill people in the name of God with an appeal to the
Deuteronomic command; Calvin, Comm. Exod. 34:11 (co 24:548); Serm. Deut. 7:14 (co
26:502); Serm. Deut. 20:1018 (co 27:627); Serm. Deut. 20:1620 (co 27:629).
65 Jones, We Dont Hate Sin So We Dont Understand What Happened to the Canaanites,
5566. Cf. Paul Copan, Is Yahweh a Moral Monster? The New Atheists and Old Testament
Ethics, PhChr 10 (2008): 2526: incorrigible wickedness of Canaanite culture.
66 Copan, Is Yahweh a Moral Monster, 26. These sentences are not included in the elabora-
tion of this article in Copan, Is God a Moral Monster, 188189.
67 Especially in Wis. 12 and the book of Jubilees; see Versluis, The Early Reception History,
316321.
340 chapter 5
norm. God could then tolerate or even command things that He does not really
want. The goal of Gods accommodation, however, would be to educate Israel.68
Paul Copan believes that God accommodates himself in his judgment to the
culture of the Ancient Near East.69 Copan distances himself from the morality
of the Old Testament, but at the same time defends it since there would be
a development for the better. The attitude toward Babel in Jer. 29 is totally
different from the attitude toward the nations of Canaan.70 The interpretation
that God accommodates himself to what the Israelites can endure, in order to
educate them, is also found by other authors from the past and present.71
Similar to this is the view of Stephen N. Williams, who also states that God
accommodates himself, but who does not see a clearly defined goal. In the
canonical context, however, it would be clear that the extermination of the
Canaanites was not Gods original plan; if God commanded the slaughter of
the Canaanites, it was with an immeasurably heavy heart. This is not explicitly
stated in the Biblical texts concerning the Canaanites, but it would appear from
the canonical context.72
A valuable element in this model is that it takes into account a possible
development in Gods acts and revelation. In this way, it can do justice to Israels
cultural context and to the place of the Deuteronomic command in the history
of Gods revelation. The interpretation that God aimed at a higher goal with this
command is possible. Gods higher goal could be to keep Israel from the seduc-
ing influence of the Canaanite peoples. This motive is explicitly mentioned in
Deut. 7. However, this justification cannot satisfy, since the question of what
the command means for Gods justice remains. Although God actually would
not want extermination, He does command so according to the Old Testament.
In addition, it can be asked whether the goal of Israels education justifies the
means of extermination. Whereas one could see the motif of Gods education
of Israel in the Old Testament as a whole, it is difficult to apply it to this com-
mand. After all, it is difficult to see how this command as such can lead to an
68 This notion has been elaborated especially by John Calvin; for his view on God who
tolerates things in his accommodation, see Arnold Huijgen, Divine Accommodation in John
Calvins Theology: Analysis and Assessment, rht 16 (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2011), 184208. As far as I know, Calvin does not explicitly connect the idea of Gods
accommodation to the command to exterminate the Canaanites.
69 Copan, Is Yahweh a Moral Monster, 22: a morally-undeveloped ane cultural mindset.
70 Ibid., 2734.
71 Augustine, Faust. 22,72 (Augustine, Contra Faustum, 670); 22,79 (Ibid., 680); Junker, Der
alttestamentliche Bann; ONeill, Biblical Truth and the Morality of rem, 221231.
72 Williams, Could God Have Commanded the Slaughter of the Canaanites, 173.
improvement of Israel or of Israels morality.73 Nor does a command to total

destruction mitigate a more extreme alternative that Israel would have cho-
sen otherwise. Rather, Israel is blamed in the Old Testament for neglecting the
extermination.
5.3.3 Model 3: Correction

In this interpretation, the command to destroy the nations of Canaan is juxta-
posed with texts that speak about other nations in a positive way. Usually, the
latter are given the most weight; they would correct the Deuteronomic com-
mand. This approach is found in two variants: the command to exterminate
the Canaanites would be corrected by (a) texts from the Old Testament; (b)
texts from the New Testament.74
a Correction by the Old Testament

Some authors give an overview of Old Testament texts dealing with salva-
tion for the nations, love for the stranger and universal peace and justice.75
Rolf P. Knierim imagines a symposium in which all theological voices from
the Old Testament deal with Israels relation with the original inhabitants of
Canaan. According to him, a large number of these theologians would argue
that extermination of the indigenous population does not fit belief in Yhwh.
They would, according to Knierim, rather risk a schism than concede to this
theology.76 Johanna van Wijk-Bos likewise argues that this theology is rejected
by the Bible as a whole, since many texts speak about love for the stranger. She
opts for those texts.77
Implicitly, this view is also found in the interpretations of Norbert Lohfink
and Cees Houtman, which are based on a more thorough analysis of the texts.
Lohfink has scrutinized the view of the different sources of the Pentateuch with
respect to war. In the so-called Jehovistic historical work, war would not have a
73 Cf. Barr, Biblical Faith and Natural Theology, 217; Morriston, Did God Command Geno-
cide, 21: Surely one of the worst things God could do for the moral development of the
Israelites would be to command them to engage in wholesale slaughter!
74 The difference with model 2c (accommodation) is that model 3 does not necessarily
assume a development between the texts; the texts may be in juxtaposition or in contrast
to each other.
75 Knierim, Task of Old Testament Theology, 316321; Wright, The God I Dont Understand, 98
106.
76 Knierim, Task of Old Testament Theology, 320321.
77 Johanna W.H. Van Wijk-Bos, Making Wise the Simple: The Torah in Christian Faith and
Practice (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 257261.
342 chapter 5
central, but a natural place. In the deuteronomistic narrative of the conquest

(DtrL, deuteronomistische Landnahmeerzhlung), an extensive theology of
war would have been developed. Violence and justice would be closely con-
nected. In the priestly narrative of history (pg, Priesterliche Geschichtserzh-
lung), on the contrary, no war would be found. In the later redactions of the
Pentateuch as a whole, however, the texts about war remain. According to
Lohfink, Jesuss Sermon on the Mount connects to the nonviolent community
of Qumran and to the world without war of pg. It is true that pg is late, but in the
context of the entire Pentateuch it is relativized by the combination with other
sources. Within the development that Lohfink perceives in the pentateuchal
sources, he himself seems to prefer the peaceful theology of pg over the other
sources or the final redaction of the Pentateuch.78
Houtman has investigated two views on Israel as a minority among the
inhabitants of Canaan. In Deuteronomy, Israel has a special position; there is
no place for the Canaanite peoples, nor do they seem to have the possibility of
conversion. Accordingly, this view aims at separation and antithesis. In Gen-
esis, however, the nations of Canaan are described in a much more friendly
way, according to Houtman. Abraham and his offspring live peacefully together
with the indigenous population. These nations are not presented as idolaters
or as a threat to Israel. These two views on the relation between Israel and the
nations of Canaan may have originated in the same period, according to Hout-
man. In the composition of the Pentateuch, however, the anti-Canaanite voice
has been given primacy. Within the Pentateuch as a whole, there is a turning
point with the covenant at Sinai. From that moment on, the relation between
Yhwh and Israel becomes different. The focal point of the Pentateuch would
be in Deuteronomy, the anti-Canaanite voice. Houtman, however, considers it
important that both voices (separation and peaceful coexistence) should be
heard. Thus, he does not follow the choice of the final redaction of the Penta-
teuch, but wants to let both views coexist.79
78 Lohfink, Die Schichten des Pentateuch und der Krieg. Knauf likewise states that p is
pacifistic, in contrast to d; Ernst Axel Knauf, Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichten
der Deuteronomisten, in The Future of the Deuteronomistic History, ed. Thomas C. Rmer,
BEThL 147 (Leuven: University Press, 2000), 107108. According to Knauf, even the descrip-
tion of the conquest in p would be unkriegerisch; Israel would enter an empty land. Due
to this difference between p and d, the book of Joshua would have been excluded when
the Pentateuch was compiled (a compromise between p and d, according to Knauf); Ibid,
114115. If this thesis is correct, it is remarkable that Deut. 7 has been included. The thesis
that p would be pacifistic, is contested by Schmitt, Heilige Krieg, 149158.
79 Houtman, Zwei Sichtweisen. Cf. Thomas C. Rmer, Dieu obscur: Le sexe, la cruaut et la
This model rightly draws attention to the Old Testament view of the nations
in general. It makes a difference whether the Old Testament speaks about all
other nations in a negative way, or whether it does so only concerning a few
nations and also speaks about these nations in a friendly way (see 3.4.5). In
many texts, other nations are not described in a negative way and a peaceful
interaction of Israel and these nations is assumed. In Deuteronomy as well,
Yhwhs acts in favour of other nations are mentioned, and possibly even his
love for the nations (see 3.2.1). Israel is exhorted to meet other nations friendly
and peacefully (see 3.2.2). This situates the attitude toward the nations of
Canaan within a context that views other nations in a positive way.
However, this does not solve all questions. After all, the nations of Canaan
should be exterminated without mercy, according to Deuteronomy (see 3.2.3).
Yhwhs blessing of other nations raises the question of why the nations of
Canaan are excluded from this.80 Its intriguing that, among many texts which
speak about other nations in a positive way and which oppose violence, a
command is found to destroy some nations. This command is referred to on
several occasions in the Old Testament. Even if one believes that the Old
Testament contains a diversity of views which may contradict and oppose
each other and from which one has to choose on the basis of theological or
other arguments, the question of why this voice was included in the Old
Testament as well and what this means for the Old Testament view of God
remains. If, notwithstanding all the diversity and developments, one perceives
a certain unity within the Old Testament (cf. 5.2.3), this question is all the
more urgent.
b Correction by the New Testament

According to several authors, the command to exterminate the Canaanites
is corrected by the New Testament.81 Eric A. Seibert concludes his study of
troubling Old Testament images of God by stating that one should distinguish
between the image of God given in the Old Testament (characterization,
the textual God) and how God really is (character, the actual God). The
violence dans lAncien Testament, EssBib 27 (Genve: Labor et fides, 1996), 9296. For the
view of Genesis on the nations of Canaan, see 3.4.5.
80 Cf. Lohr, Chosen and Unchosen, 176180.
81 This view is closely related to the denial on the basis of theological arguments (model 1b).
The difference is that the first view (model 1b) originates from more general theological
considerations, whereas this view specifically refers to (the view of God in) the New
Testament. In addition, model 1 focuses on the historical reality, model 3 on the texts.
However, the distinction between these approaches is not absolute.
344 chapter 5
criterion to assess whether a text reveals something about God would be what
Jesus revealed about God. Jesus proclaims a God of love, who is friendly to
sinners and who uses no violence. It is clear, according to Seibert, that this God
never commanded the extermination of nations.82 In a later study, he adds as
a criterion that the Bible may never be used to harm others.83 The Palestinian
theologian Naim S. Ateek likewise considers Gods revelation in Christ as the
criterion to judge what the Old Testament says about God. The extermination of
the Canaanite peoples and the promise of the land demonstrate an inadequate
and very limited knowledge of God, according to him.84
Other authors even take a further step and explicitly contrast the God of
the Old and the God of the New Testament. A very radical example is the Pan-
babylonist Friedrich Delitzsch, who at the beginning of the twentieth century
argued that the God of the Old Testament (whom he called Jaho) is not identi-
cal to God. According to him, the Old Testament is religiously meaningless. The
Christian church and theology should reject the Old Testament.85 Less radical
is the recent view of C.S. Cowles. He likewise states that certain parts of the
Old Testament should be put aside. Since Jesus has come, we are under no
obligation to justify that which cannot be justified, but can only be described
as pre-Christ, sub-Christ, and anti-Christ.86
This interpretation rightly points out differences between the Old and New
Testament. The New Testament deals with violence and Gods judgment as
well as the Old Testament, but this judgment is no longer directed toward
specific nations.87 In this interpretation, the command to exterminate the
Canaanite peoples is not considered as a command of God himself. In any
case, it does not fit God as Jesus Christ has revealed Him to us. This approach
is in keeping both with the view that the Old Testament command is a human,
flawed interpretation of Gods will (model 1b) and with the view that God
82 Seibert, Disturbing Divine Behavior, 169207.

83 Seibert, The Violence of Scripture, esp. 95112 on the nations of Canaan. Seibert himself
considers the use of violence always wrong. He repeatedly states that his aim is not to
condemn the view of Israel or the Old Testament authors, but to ask in what respect their
view should be our own. However, this view runs the risk of reading the Old Testament
unhistorically, without taking into account possible developments.
84 Ateek, Justice, and Only Justice, 83, 103112.
85 Delitzsch, Die grosse Tuschung, 1:7282, 95107. This view leads him to view the Jewish
people as a great danger. Delitzsch himself did not consider this as anti-Semitic, but he
was, understandably, blamed for this sentiment by others; Ibid., 2:34.
86 Cowles in Cowles et al., Show Them No Mercy, 36.
87 See Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, 290291; Wright, The God I Dont Understand, 7681.
accommodated himself to Israel, but that in Jesus Christ He showed what He

really wants (model 2c).
However, this interpretation does not provide an adequate solution to the
theological and moral questions evoked by the Deuteronomic command. The
main objection against this interpretation is that Jesus himself and the New
Testament as a whole never reject the extermination of the nations of Canaan.
In some New Testament texts, the extermination is assumed and described as
the work of God without any criticism (see 5.4.5). Therefore, John Goldingay
has rightly stated: Appeal to the New Testament leads to approval of Joshua,
or disapproval of Joshua leads to disapproval of the New Testament.88 The
questions evoked by the Deuteronomic command not only affect the view of
the Old Testament, but also of the New Testament.89
5.3.4 Conclusion
In this section, three recent models of interpretation of the Deuteronomic
command have been discussed. The command to exterminate the nations of
Canaan is generally considered as a theological problem.90 The discussion of
these models has yielded several valuable elements for a theological evaluation
of the command: attention to the historical reality and the function of texts
(model 1a), possible criticism of our own moral views (model 2a), a possible
development in Gods acts and revelation (model 2c and 3b), attention to the
view of the entire Old Testament on other nations (model 3a), and differences
between the Old and New Testament concerning the place of the nations
(model 3b). At the same time, it has to be concluded that none of these models
provides a satisfactory answer to the biblical-theological, hermeneutical and
ethical questions evoked by the Deuteronomic command.
88 Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, 1:490491.

89 Some interpretations in line with this model have been described as a refined form
of Marcionism, which would result in the rejection of large parts of the Old and New
Testament. So Reitsma, Who Is Our God, 194195. Compare the responses to Cowles in
Cowles et al., Show Them No Mercy, 4760.
90 In model 2, the command does not always seem to be viewed as a theological problem.
However, the fact that a justification of the command is given already indicates that this
was apparently needed.
346 chapter 5
5.4 Biblical-Theological Evaluation
This section will identify the contours of my own biblical-theological interpre-

tation of Yhwhs command to exterminate the nations of Canaan. The com-
mand will be situated in the theological context of the Old and New Testament,
on the basis of the research in the previous chapters and in conversation with
other authors. After all, a theological reading of the Old Testament should do
justice to what the Old Testament states about God, or to what God reveals in it
about Himself. The command to exterminate the Canaanites raises huge ques-
tions concerning the view of God (see 5.2). I will not present a new model,
providing a solution to the theological and moral questions, but I will identify
the contours of my own evaluation of Deut. 7, by placing this text in a biblical-
theological framework and by accounting for this view.91
This section will deal with: (1) the context of the command to exterminate
the Canaanites (5.4.1); (2) the relation between the Canaanite peoples and
Israel (5.4.2); (3) the motivation of the command ( 5.4.3); (4) the command
and the Old Testament view of God (5.4.4); (5) the Deuteronomic command
and the New Testament (5.4.5). On this basis, the next section ( 5.5) will
formulate an answer to the questions on the view of God and the potential
of violence of the command (see 5.2.2).
5.4.1 The Context of the Command

A theological evaluation of the Deuteronomic command should read it both
against its own historical-cultural background ( 5.4.1.1), and in its canonical
context (5.4.1.2).
91 This view distinguishes itself from other authors especially because it is based on a
detailed examination of the Old Testament texts about the nations of Canaan. In addi-
tion, the following elements are new with respect to earlier studies: the argument that
Deut. 7 is an integral part of the book of Deuteronomy and of the message of the Old
Testament (5.4.1.2), the interpretation of the command as the opposite of Israels elec-
tion (5.4.2), the substantiation of the view that the nations of Canaan are a symbol of
evil in some texts and that their destruction may be read as an anticipation of the final
judgment (5.4.3.2), the argument of why an appeal to this command in order to legit-
imize violence in the present is to be considered illegitimate ( 5.5.2), and the evaluation
of the command within the salvation-historical development in the Old and New Tes-
tament (mainly 5.5.3). For the theological questions discussed in this section, see also
H.G.L. Peels, God en geweld in het Oude Testament, ApSt 47 (Apeldoorn: Theologische Uni-
versiteit, 2007).
5.4.1.1 Historical-Cultural Context

In the preceding chapters, it appeared that the command of Deut. 7 concern-
ing the nations of Canaan intended the actual extermination of these nations.
Because of the broadly attested tradition of this destruction in the Old Testa-
ment (see 3.4.2), it is likely that a (partial) extermination actually occurred
(see 4.3). The questions concerning how Israels settlement in Canaan and
the battle with the indigenous population may be reconstructed historically are
not discussed here.92 It may be considered likely that in describing the extermi-
nation, the authors made use of the prevailing narrative conventions of their
times, like summaries, hyperboles, etc. The use of such narrative conventions
has been convincingly demonstrated in the book of Joshua.93 The use of hyper-
boles in the description, however, is not an adequate solution of the theological
questions evoked by the command (see 5.3.1).
For the theological evaluation of the Deuteronomic command, it is impor-
tant to take into account that Israel lived in a cultural context in which war and
violence had a large place.94 The cruelty of particularly the Assyrians toward
conquered enemies is notorious. Acts like piling up corpses or skinning ene-
mies alive are described and depicted. The Old Testament is part of this context,
although violence seems to be glorified less in the Old Testament than in other
Ancient Near Eastern texts.95 Since violence has a very different place in our
cultural context (see 5.2.3), it is important to take into account the difference
between our context and the cultural context in which the Old Testament orig-
inated.
92 For a recent overview of the research on this question, see Van Bekkum, From Conquest to
Coexistence, 792. For Van Bekkums own conclusions, see Ibid., 575592.
93 Cf. Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, esp. 420423; Younger, Ancient Conquest
Accounts, 241266.
94 For an overview of the effects of war on civilians, see Jeffrey R. Zorn, War and Its Effects on
Civilians in Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors, in The Other Face of the Battle: The Impact
of War on Civilians in the Ancient Near East, ed. Davide Nadali and Jordi Vidal, aoat 413
(Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014), 79100. See also the other contributions to that volume.
95 Klaas A.D. Smelik, Een tijd van oorlog, een tijd van vrede: Bezetting en bevrijding in de
Bijbel, Bijbelse Zaken 1 (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2005), 210211. The question of
whether there is relatively less cruelty in the Old Testament than in literature from the
Umwelt, as some have stated (Hess, War in the Hebrew Bible, 2829; Wright, The God
I Dont Understand, 8788) is not discussed here. The statement of Prior, The Bible and
Colonialism, 261: There exists within the Bible a degree of violence and praise of violence
that is surpassed by no other ancient book., however, is certainly incorrect in the context
of the Ancient Near East.
348 chapter 5
5.4.1.2 Canonical Context

Next to the historical-cultural context, the canonical context is also relevant
for an evaluation of the Deuteronomic command. Are this command and the
description of its execution an integral part of the religious traditions of the Old
Testament, or are they a strange element within the Old Testament? Of course,
the relevance and the offence of these texts are still present if it would concern
only a few isolated texts. But it does make a difference whether the command is
an exception within the Old Testament as a whole, or whether it is a recurrent
theme.
The importance of the command within the Old Testament is already clear
in Deut. 7 itself. The command to destroy the nations and their cult objects
is motivated by a reference to the position and election of Israel (Deut. 7:6). If
the nations of Canaan would stay alive, Israels future is at stake. It is a matter of
life and death for Israel (Deut. 7:4,16). Moreover, all alternatives that would let
the nations live are explicitly rejected (Deut. 7:23,16,2526). Apparently, this
is considered a risk that should be avoided at all costs.96
The examination of the structure of Deuteronomy has made clear that
Deut. 7 is joined to Deut. 6:49 (parallel to Deut. 6:1025). Deut. 7 thus is
an elaboration or a consequence of this central passage. By this structure, a
connection is made both between the command and the position of Israel
(Deut. 7:6), and between the command and the nature of Yhwh.97
The importance of the Deuteronomic command is confirmed by the place
of Deut. 7 within the book of Deuteronomy as a whole. Deut. 1226 contains
prescriptions for Israels life in Canaan; Deut. 511 describes the framework
of these laws. In the present form of Deuteronomy, chapter 7 has its place
within this framework. This makes clear that the command to exterminate the
nations of Canaan is not just one of the commandments, but is part of the
preconditions for keeping all the commandments. The place of Deut. 7 within
the canonical text of Deuteronomy suggests that the command is considered
of great importance and is closely connected with serving Yhwh.98
Last, the theological importance of the command appears from the fact that
the tradition of the (partial) extermination of the Canaanite peoples is broadly
attested in the Old Testament, in texts from diverse times and genres. Israels
relationship with the nations of Canaan is an important theme in the literary
work of Genesis to Kings. In the book of Kings, the (practices of the) Canaanites
96 See 2.6 and the exegesis of the mentioned texts in 2.4.

97 See 3.1. Cf. Spina, The Faith of the Outsider, 5.
98 See 3.1.
are referred to in relation to two crucial moments in Israels history, namely the
deportation of Israel and of Judah.99
In conclusion, the command to exterminate the nations of Canaan and its
execution are not an exception or a Fremdkrper, but an integral part of the
message of the Old Testament.
In the light of this conclusion, it is remarkable that this theme has received
little attention in Old Testament theologies for a long time. In most of the
Old Testament theologies since the beginning of the twentieth century, the
command to exterminate the Canaanites is not mentioned at all.100 If it is
mentioned, the extermination is referred to as a historical fact, but without
a discussion of the implications of this theme for the Old Testament view
of God.101 In studies of Old Testament ethics as well, the subject is rarely
discussed.102 The first theology known to me that discusses the Deuteronomic
command as a theological problem is Walter Brueggemanns.103
99 See 3.4, esp. 3.4.2.

100 This applies, e.g., to the theologies of E. Sellin (1933), W. Eichrodt (19331939), L. Khler
(1936), Th.C. Vriezen (1949, 19876), O. Procksch (1950), E. Jacob (1955), G. von Rad (1957
1960), G.A.F. Knight (1959), W. Zimmerli (1972), S. Terrien (1978), C. Westermann (1978),
B.S. Childs (1985), J. Schreiner (1995), S.G. Dempster (2003), C.H.H. Scobie (2003), and
R. Routledge (2008).
101 So, e.g., Eduard Knig, Theologie des Alten Testaments kritisch und vergleichend dargestellt
(Stuttgart: Chr. Belser, 1922), 183, 276277; Paul Heinisch, Theologie des Alten Testamentes,
hsat.e 1 (Bonn: Hanstein, 1940), 181; Horst Dietrich Preu, Theologie des Alten Testaments
(Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 19911992), 1:151155; Gunneweg, Biblische Theologie des Alten Tes-
taments, 94, 218; Otto Kaiser, Der Gott des Alten Testaments: Theologie des Alten Testaments
(Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19932003), 2:4950, 5455, 64; Paul R. House, Old
Testament Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998), 179; Rolf Rendtorff, Theologie
des Alten Testaments: Ein kanonischer Entwurf (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
19992001), 2:235237; Wolfram Herrmann, Theologie des Alten Testaments: Geschichte und
Bedeutung des israelitisch-jdischen Glaubens (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004), 133; Bruce
K. Waltke, An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 396, 515516.
102 See Georg Sternberg, Die Ethik des Deuteronomiums (Berlin: Trowitzsch & Sohn, 1907),
5253; Johannes Hempel, Das Ethos des Alten Testaments, 2nd ed., bzaw 67 (Berlin: Tpel-
mann, 1964), 175; Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zon-
dervan, 1983), 266269; Otto, Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments, 199200; Andrew
Sloane, At Home in a Strange Land: Using the Old Testament in Christian Ethics (Peabody:
Hendrickson, 2008), 128141. The theme receives broader treatment only by Kaiser and
Sloane.
103 Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Min-
350 chapter 5
This lacuna in Old Testament theologies corresponds to the fact that the
theme of violence is discussed in Old Testament studies only in recent de-
cades.104 The lack of interest in the theme of violence may be related to a
general tendency in twentieth century theology. According to G.G. de Kruijf,
violence disappeared from the image of God in the twentieth century, under
the influence of A. Ritschl.105 Recent studies rightly call attention to this Old
Testament theme, however difficult and uncomfortable it may be.
5.4.2 The Nations of Canaan and Israel

The command to exterminate the nations of Canaan is closely connected to
the position of Israel. The command to destroy these nations and their cult
objects is motivated by the statement: For you are a people holy to Yhwh
your God; it is you Yhwh your God has chosen out of all the nations who are
on the face of the earth, to be for Him a people of his treasured possession.
(Deut. 7:6). The goal of the extermination, according to Deuteronomy, is to
keep Israel at the service of Yhwh alone (Deut. 7:911). The religion of these
nations is considered a danger for Israel (Deut. 12:30; 20:18). Because of Israel,
Yhwh drives out the nations, and He does so little by little (Deut. 7:22). If Israel
destroys the nations of Canaan, Yhwh will love and abundantly bless Israel
(Deut. 7:1215).106
This connection between the Deuteronomic command and the position of
Israel raises the question of the relation between the nations of Canaan and
Israel. This relation may be described in three ways. The nations of Canaan are:
(1) a test for Israel; (2) a warning for Israel; (3) the counterpart of Israel.
First, the nations of Canaan and the command to exterminate them may be
considered as a test for Israel. If Israel keeps Yhwhs commandments and
exterminates the nations, Yhwh will bless it (Deut. 7:1215); if Israel does not
destroy the nations, this will lead to its own destruction (Deut. 7:4). Spar-
ing the nations of Canaan is a snare to Israel (Deut. 7:16).107 Accordingly,
Israels attitude toward the nations of Canaan will show whether it is obe-
neapolis: Fortress, 1997), 382383, 496497. He has been followed by Bernhard W. Ander-
son, Contours of Old Testament Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 171180; Goldingay,
Old Testament Theology, 1:474511, 3:569582.
104 For the history of research on this theme, see Baumann, Gottesbilder der Gewalt, 3779;
Lohfink, Gewalt als Thema alttestamentlicher Forschung.
105 Kruijf, Give Place unto Wrath!, esp. 118124.
106 Cf. 3.2.1.
107 See the exegesis in 2.4.
dient to Yhwh and serves Him. The Deuteronomic command, therefore, is a

test of Israels loyalty to Yhwh.
If Israel does not destroy the nations of Canaan, they will be a trial for Israel.
According to Num. 33:55, the Canaanites who are not exterminated shall be
barbs and thorns for Israel, and they shall trouble it (cf. Josh. 23:13). In the
beginning of Judges, it is stated that Yhwh will no longer destroy the nations
of Canaan, but that He will leave them, in order to test Israel by them (Judg.
2:22; 3:1,4). The goal of this test is to teach Israel to fight, and to know whether
Israel will obey the commandments of Yhwh (Judg. 3:2,4). According to these
texts, the nations of Canaan that have not been destroyed, in a certain sense,
are a test for Israel as well. From the attitude toward these nations it will appear
whether or not Israel will serve Yhwh. At the same time, however, the fact that
these nations are still alive is attributed to the disobedience and negligence of
Israel. It is immediately noted that Israel mixes with these nations and serves
their gods (Judg. 3:56).
Second, the fate of the Canaanite peoples is a warning for Israel. The command
to exterminate them is motivated by a reference to Israels unique position as
the people of Yhwh; this raises the question of whether Israel is better than
the nations of Canaan.108 According to the Old Testament, this is not the case;
the fate of the Canaanites is a warning for Israel.
The book of Deuteronomy emphasizes that Israels unique position is not
due to the people itself. Only Yhwhs love and his oath to the fathers are the
reason for Israels election (Deut. 7:78). It is emphatically stated that it is not
Israels righteousness that is the reason that Canaan is given to them. This
righteousness does not even exist, for Israel is a stubborn people (Deut. 9:46,
elaborated in 9:710:11; cf. 10:16; 31:27). Accordingly, Israel is threatened by the
same judgment as the nations of Canaan. This is explicitly indicated in Deut. 7:
if Israel does not destroy the nations of Canaan, but goes and serves their gods,
the same judgment awaits them (Deut. 7:4,10). Yhwh will even destroy Israel
quickly, whereas the Canaanite peoples are exterminated little by little (Deut.
7:22). In Deut. 13:1319, the complete destruction of a person or an Israelite
city is commanded if they go and serve other gods. If Israel is disobedient
108 So, e.g., Hempel, Das Ethos des Alten Testaments, 175180: the fact that Israel is different
erscheint als notwendig, gottgeordnet, und damit als ein Bessersein. Next, Hempel states
that this otherness of Israel evokes anti-Semitism; this statement from the first edition
(1938!) was left unaltered in the 1964 edition. For Hempels anti-Semitic ideology, see
Schmitt, Heilige Krieg, 201204.
352 chapter 5
to Yhwh, it will perish like the nations of Canaan (Deut. 8:1920; cf. Num.
33:56). In Deuteronomy, there is certainly no question of the moral superiority
of Israel.109
The same judgment by which the nations of Canaan are struck will also
strike Israel if it becomes Canaanite. In Deuteronomys view of the future,
Israel will indeed abandon Yhwh and be struck by his judgment (Deut.
31:21,27,29; cf. the emphasis on the judgment in Deut. 28). In the Old Testament,
Yhwhs judgment of Israel is emphasized much more than his judgment of the
nations of Canaan. This argues against the interpretation that the command to
exterminate the Canaanite peoples should be considered as merely a religious
self-justification. In the Old Testament as a whole, the command is not part
of the ideology of victors, but an illustration of God as a judge, who punishes
sin, also and most of all the sin of his people Israel.110 Certainly, Yhwhs judg-
ment of Israel, because of the same sins for which the nations of Canaan were
judged, does not remove the offence of the Deuteronomic command. It does
demonstrate, however, that Yhwhs judgment is not restricted to the nations
of Canaan and that the same norms apply for Israel as for the Canaanites. The
fate of these nations and the command to exterminate them also constitute a
warning for Israel itself.111
Third, the nations of Canaan may be considered as the counterpart of Israel.

Both Israel and the nations of Canaan have a special position among the
other nations. Israel has a unique position as the people of Yhwh, according
to Deuteronomy. The nations of Canaan also have a unique position as the
ethnic collective that should be radically destroyed.112 The other nations have
their own position between these two extremes.113 According to Deut. 7, the
continued existence of the Canaanite peoples is a threat for Israels identity
and survival. The extermination of these nations is a counterpart of Israels
election. Opposite the particularity of Yhwhs election is the particularity of
his judgment. Of course, this is not to say that the judgment of the Canaanite
109 Cf. McConville, God and Earthly Power, 9798.

110 Cf. Anderson, Contours of Old Testament Theology, 177178; Talstra, Identity and Loyalty,
8283.
111 According to Block, How Can We Bless Yhwh, 35, in Deuteronomy the Israelites are the
object of Yhwhs fury more than twice as often as the Canaanites.
112 See Block, How Can We Bless Yhwh, 4647.
113 See 3.2.2 and Kaminskys distinction mentioned there between elect (Israel), non-elect
(other nations) and anti-elect (nations of Canaan).
peoples is a logical or necessary consequence of Israels election, although

these are connected in Deut. 7.114
The unique position of Israel and the Canaanites as opposed to the other
nations illustrates the nature of Yhwhs actions in the Old Testament. His acts
are concentrated on Israel and in Canaan, both in grace and in judgment.115
Accordingly, his judgment of other nations in the Old Testament is usually
associated with these nations attitude toward Israel.116
Because of this concentration on Israel and Canaan, Yhwhs judgment of
the Canaanite peoples should not be considered as an indication that these
nations are worse than other nations. The question is often raised of why pre-
cisely these nations had to be exterminated. After all, there would be no reason
to assume that the Canaanites were religiously or morally worse than other
nations or than Israel itself.117 Below (5.4.3), I will discuss the motives men-
tioned in the Old Testament for the extermination of the Canaanite peoples.
Although the description of the Canaanites in the Old Testament is almost
exclusively negative and does not pretend to be representative for the entire
culture of these nations (cf. 4.2), it is nowhere stated that the nations of
Canaan are worse than other nations or than Israel. In Deuteronomy, it is even
explicitly indicated that Israel is not chosen because it is better than other
nations and that Israel may be struck by the same judgment (see above). The
question why other nations are not punished is not answered in the Old Testa-
ment.118
If the extermination of the Canaanite peoples can be considered as a coun-
terpart to Israels election, this underlines the restriction of the Deuteronomic
command to the nations of Canaan.119 Only the seven nations should be exter-
114 See Kaminsky, Did Election Imply the Mistreatment of Non-Israelites

115 Dietrich and Link, Die dunklen Seiten Gottes 1, 216 call Yhwhs dealings with Israel an
Experiment; cf. Deut. 4:68.
116 Cf. 3.2.1.1. However, this is not always the case: the destruction of some nations outside
of Canaan is also attributed to Yhwh (Deut. 2:2122).
117 So already Reimarus, Apologie, 1:483484.
118 Reitsma, Who Is Our God, 189 states that God restrains himself. Sloane, At Home in a
Strange Land, 136 states that although all nations deserved Gods judgment, in the case of
the Canaanite peoples He chose to renounce forbearance. As Sloane himself indicates,
this is not a solution of the problem, but a shift to the question of why other nations were
not punished.
119 Cf. John Goldingay, Justice and Salvation for Israel and Canaan, in Reading the Hebrew
Bible for a New Millennium: Form, Concept, and Theological Perspective; Volume 1: Theo-
logical and Hermeneutical Studies, ed. Wonil Kim et al., sac (Harrisburg: Trinity Press
International, 2000), 169187. In the reception history, the category of the Canaanites has
354 chapter 5
minated. Even in a situation of war, there is a distinction between these nations

and other nations (Deut. 20:1018). Toward other nations, Israel should behave
differently. The prohibition of intermarriage is extended to other nations in
some texts (1Kgs 11:12; Ezra 9:12), but this is never the case with the command
to exterminate the nations. Moreover, this command is restricted to the period
of the settlement in Canaan (3.4.1).120
Since the nations of Canaan are both a counterpart and a warning to Israel,
their extermination may be considered as exemplifying Gods judgment (cf.
5.4.3).
5.4.3 Motivation of the Command

The command to exterminate the nations of Canaan is extensively motivated
in the Old Testament. In this motivation, concrete practices of the Canaanite
peoples are mentioned, on the one hand (5.4.3.1). On the other hand, these
nations are characterized as a symbol of all evil in some texts. In this way, the
battle against these nations acquires features of an eschatological judgment
(5.4.3.2).
5.4.3.1 Concrete Practices

In the Old Testament, the command to exterminate the nations of Canaan is
extensively motivated by the behaviour of these nations. Apparently, the need
was felt to justify this judgment of Yhwh and to demonstrate that it was not
arbitrary. In Gen. 15:16, it is said to Abram that the fourth generation of his
offspring will return to Canaan, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet
complete. In this text, the Amorites are pars pro toto for the entire population
of Canaan. This text presupposes the need for a moral legitimization of the
extermination of the nations of Canaan.121 Only when their iniquity is com-
plete, Abrams offspring can settle in Canaan. According to Deut. 9:45, which
been extended to other nations than the seven mentioned in Deut. 7; even Jews have been
designated as Canaanites. For an overview of the use of Canaanites in the Jewish tradi-
tion, see Katell Berthelot, Joseph E. David, and Marc Hirshman, eds., The Gift of the Land
and the Fate of the Canaanites in Jewish Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014),
251351.
120 Cf. the use of the root in Genesis to Kings, which is virtually restricted to the conquest
of Canaan and the extermination of the indigenous nations; 2.4, Excursus: Meaning and
function of , 2.
121 Compare other judgments of Yhwh in the Old Testament, where sin is likewise identified
as the cause: the flood (Gen. 6:5), the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18:20),
and the exile of Israel and Judah (see 3.4.2).
states that Yhwh expels or destroys these nations because of their wicked-
ness, that moment has come.122 The four generations or four hundred years
that have passed according to Gen. 15:13,16 may implicitly point to the great
patience Yhwh shows toward these nations and their iniquity. The remark that
Israel was oppressed in that time even suggests that Yhwhs patience is at the
expense of Israel.123 Abrahams prayer on behalf of Sodom and Yhwhs willing-
ness to meet his requests (Gen. 18:2333) also suggest that Yhwh is very patient
with the Canaanites.
The motivation of the command to exterminate the Canaanites consists of
two interrelated elements, namely the sins of the nations of Canaan and the
danger that Israel is tempted into these sins. The danger of the temptation
of Israel is mentioned in Deut. 7 as the reason to keep far away from mixed
marriages (Deut. 7:34). The motive for the prohibition of intermarriage is reli-
gious in nature. By intermarriage, Israel would be tempted to go and serve other
gods than Yhwh alone. For the same reason, Israel should not serve the gods of
these nations, nor bring their idols into their houses (Deut. 7:16,2526).124 It is
remarkable that the danger of idolatry is not mentioned elsewhere in the Old
Testament as a motive for the command to exterminate the Canaanites. In the
Old Testament as a whole, the sins of the Canaanites receive more emphasis
than the danger of the temptation for Israel.
The sins of the nations of Canaan are not explicitly mentioned in Deut. 7.
In verse 10, which speaks about Yhwhs retribution for those who hate Him,
a connection is made indirectly between their attitude toward Yhwh and
their extermination. Elsewhere in Deuteronomy, the connection between their
behaviour and their destruction is made explicit (Deut. 18:12; 20:1718). The
Canaanite peoples are not blamed for not having served Yhwh, but for the
way in which they served their own gods. Divination and child sacrifice are
mentioned as concrete examples.125 Elsewhere in the Old Testament, idolatry,
divination and particularly child sacrifice are likewise mentioned as practices
of the Canaanites. In addition, Lev. 18 and 20 mention certain sexual practices
of these nations as a reason for their destruction. The link with their religion is
122 Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, 3:576577.

123 Gary A. Anderson, What About the Canaanites?, in Divine Evil? The Moral Character
of the God of Abraham, ed. Michael Bergmann, Michael J. Murray, and Michael C. Rea
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 280.
124 See the exegesis of these texts in 2.4.
125 See 3.2.4. Contra Wolterstorff, Reading Joshua, 244, who states that nothing is said in
Deuteronomy about destruction of the nations of Canaan because of their sins.
356 chapter 5
missing in that context.126 In a previous chapter, the question of whether the

practices attributed to the nations of Canaan have a historical basis has been
discussed.127 For the theological evaluation in this section, however, mainly the
motivation as such is relevant. In the Old Testament, some sinful practices of
the Canaanite peoples are mentioned (divination, child sacrifice, illicit sexual
practices); time and again, it is these specific practices that are mentioned.
In the reception history, much more depravity is attributed to the nations of
Canaan.128
The motivation of the command is always connected with Israel and Canaan
(cf. Lev. 18:25,28: the land vomits them out). However, nowhere in the Old
Testament is the extermination of the Canaanites motivated by the statement
that they would live in the land where Israel should live or that belonged
to Israel, as some have stated.129 On the contrary, the tradition about the
Canaanite peoples indicates that the land originally was not Israels country.
In Deuteronomy, Canaan is explicitly called the land of the Canaanite peoples
(, Deut. 4:38; 9:5; 12:29; 19:1).130 The fact that Yhwh promised Israel a
land which is inhabited, gives a certain tension with respect to the land. In
Deut. 7, however, it is indicated that Israel could not inhabit the entire country
immediately after the conquest; therefore, Yhwh will drive out the nations
little by little (Deut. 7:22). In other texts, it is stated that Canaan is a broad
land, so that coexistence might be possible (Gen. 34:21; Exod. 3:8; Neh. 9:35).
However, the possession of the land is never mentioned as a motivation for the
command to destroy the Canaanites.
The above makes clear that the Deuteronomic command cannot be ex-
plained as an eruption of extreme nationalism or xenophobia. According to
Deuteronomy, Israel has been outside of Canaan for a long time and it has
had no direct contact with the nations of Canaan in that time. The attitude
of several non-Canaanite nations toward Israel is mentioned in Deuteronomy
126 See 3.4.4.3.

127 See 4.2.
128 Cf. the characterization of the nations of Canaan in Wis. 12 and in Jub.
129 So Brekelmans, De erem, 177178; Knierim, Task of Old Testament Theology, 9798. The
view that the nations of Canaan would live in a land that does not belong to them is found
in Jub. 10:2934.
130 Lohr, Chosen and Unchosen, 224225 considers the sins of the Canaanites as a secondary
reason for their destruction; the land would be the primary reason. In the Old Testament,
the gift of the land to Israel and the sins of the Canaanites are connected (Deut. 9:5).
However, the command to exterminate them is always motivated by the sins of these
nations, never by the fact that they live in a land that would belong to Israel.
as a motivation of Israels attitude toward them. The attitude of the Canaanite

peoples toward Israel, however, is never mentioned as a motivation of the
command to exterminate them. The behaviour of these nations is considered
as sin against Yhwh, to whom apparently also other nations are accountable
(see 3.2.4.1). The motive for the destruction is not a question of racism or
retribution, but is theological in nature.131
Frank Crsemann has pointed out that the behaviour attributed to the
Canaanites, which is reprehensible for Israel, is dealt with in the laws of Deuter-
onomy also independently of the command to destroy the Canaanites.132 This
confirms the conclusion that the motive for the command is not ethnic, but
theological in nature and that the attitude toward the nations of Canaan, as
reflected in Deut. 7, is embedded in the theology of the book as a whole.
In conclusion, the motivation of the command to exterminate the Canaan-
ites makes clear that Yhwh, after a long time of patience, does act in a dreadful
way, but that his judgment is not capricious and arbitrary. Yhwhs judgment is
caused by his aversion to evil and his care for his people.133
A question which is often raised in connection with the Deuteronomic com-

mand is why also the women and in particular the children had to be killed;
after all, they would be innocent. Moreover, in other wars only the men had to
be killed (Deut. 20:1314). Since this seems rather unjust (cf. Deut. 24:16), some
authors have speculated about the possible guilt of the women or the future
fate of the children, who would thus be spared to be raised in a morally deca-
dent culture.134 This reasoning, however, not only raises a lot of new questions,
but it is entirely based on modern, individual thought on guilt and punishment.
In the Old Testament, collective thinking has a prominent place. The whole
clan or the whole nation shares the same fate or the same judgment. The
whole nation may suffer the consequences of a kings sin. The election of Israel
likewise is not one of individuals, but of the people as a whole. This idea of
corporate responsibility is an important notion in the Old Testament, which
131 Cf. Schmitt, Du sollst keinen Frieden, 140141; Sloane, At Home in a Strange Land, 132;
Waltke, Old Testament Theology, 396.
132 Crsemann, Gewaltimagination als Teil der Ursprungsgeschichte, 351354.
133 Copan and Flannagan, Did God Really Command Genocide, 212213, 216217 distinguish
between Gods reasons for issuing the command and the reasons given to Israel. This
distinction, however, is suggested nowhere in the Biblical texts.
134 Copan, Is Yahweh a Moral Monster, 2526; William Lane Craig, Slaughter of the Canaan-
ites, Reasonable Faith, n.d., http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=
NewsArticle&id=5767 (accessed October 26, 2015).
358 chapter 5
is connected to the theology of the covenant. Next to corporate responsibil-

ity, however, individual responsibility also has its place. Joel S. Kaminsky has
demonstrated that the Old Testament has a very nuanced theology of the rela-
tionship between the individual and the community.135 In Deut. 7, the notions
of corporate and individual responsibility appear next to each other: Israel is
called to exterminate the nations of Canaan as a collective, on the one hand,
but the personal retribution is emphasized, on the other (Deut. 7:2,10). Deut.
13:1319 mentions a collective judgment of an Israelite city.136
Last, the question has been raised of whether God could not have acted dif-
ferently with the nations of Canaan and whether He could not have converted
them.137 This question is not dealt with in the Old Testament; on the contrary,
the hardening of these nations is attributed to Yhwh, in order that they should
receive no mercy (Josh. 11:20). For our theological reflection, we have to deal
with the Old Testament traditions, which state that Yhwh and Israel have acted
thus. Particularly the tradition that Yhwh acted so and not otherwise raises the
question of what this means for the Old Testament view of God (see 5.4.4).
5.4.3.2 Symbol of Evil

In some texts, the nations of Canaan are viewed as a symbol of evil. This qual-
ification is used as a motivation for the command to exterminate them, next
to the concrete sinful practices attributed to them (see above). Several authors
have stated that Israels battle with the Canaanite peoples has characteristics
of a spiritual battle or of a mythical battle with chaos.138 The nations of Canaan
135 See Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible, 188. Kaminsky believes that the
corporate ideas flow out of covenantal theology (Ibid., 54). The judgment on the nations of
Canaan, however, demonstrates that also other nations than Israel are sometimes treated
as a collective in the Old Testament, although they are outside of the covenant between
Yhwh and Israel.
136 See the exegesis of Deut. 7:10 in 2.4. Cf. Cees Houtman, Theodicy in the Pentateuch,
in Theodicy in the World of the Bible, ed. Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor (Leiden:
Brill, 2003), 171178; Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, 363367. A pos-
sible development in the relationship between corporate and individual thought is not
discussed here.
137 Morriston, Did God Command Genocide, 1819. Cf. Eleonore Stump, The Problem of
Evil and the History of Peoples: Think Amalek, in Divine Evil? The Moral Character of the
God of Abraham, ed. Michael Bergmann, Michael J. Murray, and Michael C. Rea (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2011), 186189.
138 Jeph Holloway, The Ethical Dilemma of Holy War, swjt 41 (1998): 57; Tremper Long-
man iii and Daniel G. Reid, God Is a Warrior, sotbt (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995), 8687;
McConville, God and Earthly Power, 101.
would have become a symbol of evil in the Old Testament.139 The description
of the Canaanites in the Old Testament indeed contains a number of elements
pointing in this direction.140
First, the grave sins of these nations are repeatedly recorded (see 5.4.3.1).
Although it is not stated explicitly that the nations of Canaan would be worse
than other nations (see 5.4.2), this is suggested by the emphasis on their
abominable practices. The remark that their iniquity was not yet complete
at the time of Abram, but is complete four hundred years later (Gen. 15:16)
suggests that there is an accumulation of sins. In the Old Testament, this is
never stated concerning other nations. When the iniquity is complete, Yhwhs
judgment becomes inevitable.141
Second, several times the sins of the Canaanites are described in a compre-
hensive way. In Deut. 12:31, it is stated: Everything that is abhorrent to Yhwh,
what He hates, they have done for their gods. In Lev. 18:27, it is recorded that
the inhabitants of the land committed all of these abhorrent things (cf. Lev.
18:24).142 According to Ezra 9:11, they filled the land from end to end with
their abhorrent practices. The statement that the land vomits them out (Lev.
18:25,28) and that animals contribute to expel them (Deut. 7:20) suggests that
the entire creation abhors them. This underlines the total depravity of the
nations of Canaan.
Third, it is recorded concerning several kings that they acted according
to (all) the abhorrent things of the nations that Yhwh destroyed before the
Israelites (1Kgs 14:24; 2Kgs 16:3; 21:2; cf. 2Chr. 28:3; 33:2). Ahab is said to act as
the Amorites (1Kgs 21:26) and the northern kingdom is said to live according to
the customs of these nations (2Kgs 17:8). This comparison is clearly intended
pejoratively. In addition, a connection with the way of life of the Canaanites is
139 Van Seters, The Terms Amorite and Hittite, 81: seem to move in the direction of repre-
senting super-human evil; Siwiec, La guerre de conqute, 61: [L]e Cananen est devenu,
au temps de la parution du livre [Deuteronomy], la personification de l idoltrie, le sym-
bole de ladversaire spirituel, du mal et du pch.
140 This thesis is not based on a certain theory about the holy war (see 2.4, Excursus:
Meaning and Function of , 3), nor is it assumed that the description of the Canaanite
peoples is merely an ideological construction. The question is how these nations are
characterized in the Old Testament.
141 This also seems to apply to Israel later: Manassehs sin is the last straw. In that context, the
text explicitly refers to Israels sins since the exodus (2 Kgs 21:1115). The sins of Manasseh
herald the end of the kingdom of Judah; even Josiahs reformation cannot avert this
judgment (2Kgs 23:2627).
142 See 3.4.4.3.
360 chapter 5
made in relation to crucial moments in Israels history, namely the exile of the
northern and of the southern kingdom (2Kgs 17:8,11,15,18; 21:2,9,11). The deprav-
ity of these nations and its terrible consequences apparently have become
proverbial.143
Fourth, in the eschatological prophecy of Zech. 14:21 it is stated that on that
day there will no longer be a Canaanite in the house of Yhwh. In the context
of the chapter, this implies a view of the Canaanite as somebody who opposes
the service of Yhwh and who does not fit his eschatological glory.144
These data show that the description of the Canaanite peoples in the Old
Testament contains a number of elements suggesting that these nations have
become a symbol of evil.145
In the Old Testament, it occurs more often that nations are characterized
as the embodiment of evil when a collective judgment of Yhwh is described.
Prior to the flood, Yhwh saw that the wickedness of man was great and that
every inclination of his heart was only evil continually (Gen. 6:5; cf. 6:1112). At
the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, it is recorded that the sin of these
cities was very grave (Gen. 18:20).146 In describing these judgments of Yhwh,
comprehensive characterizations are used to describe the wickedness of the
nations. Thus, a justification is given for the judgment.
A large part of the texts in which the Canaanites are characterized as a sym-
bol of evil (Kings, Zechariah) refers to the period in which these nations would
have been incorporated into Israel already, according to the Old Testament.
The comparisons with these nations in the book of Kings characterize both the
nations of Canaan and Israel itself. Concerning king Manasseh, it is even stated
that he led Israel to do more evil than the nations whom Yhwh destroyed and
that he himself did more abhorrent things than all that the Amorites did before
him. Accordingly, this characterization of the nations of Canaan is also applied
to Israel itself (cf. Ezek. 16:3). Whereas the wickedness of the Canaanites is
already proverbial, Israel has even surpassed it.
When the nations of Canaan are characterized as the embodiment of evil in

some texts, the command to exterminate these nations receives characteristics
of a battle against the ultimate evil, which opposes Yhwh. Above, I pointed
to the position of the Canaanite peoples as a warning for and the counterpart
of Israel. Accordingly, their destruction may be read as exemplary for Gods
143 See 3.4.2 and 3.4.4.2.

144 See 3.4.3.3.
145 Cf. the description in 1qm xi, 810.
146 For Sodom and Gomorrah in relation to the nations of Canaan, see 3.4.5 (pp. 263264).
judgment (see the end of 5.4.2). Some authors have proposed to read the
judgment on the nations of Canaan as a reference to or a prelude of the final
judgment.147 Although these proposals are not substantiated, the following
arguments may be mentioned in favour of this interpretation, next to the
characterization of these nations as a symbol of evil.
First, this interpretation fits the eschatological expectation of the Old Testa-
ment. In Deuteronomy, an eschatological judgment is hardly mentioned. The
Song about Israels history (Deut. 32:143) mainly sings about Israels attitude,
Yhwhs judgment of it and his final redemption. The nations of Canaan are
not mentioned in this context, although it is stated that Yhwh will defeat those
who hate Him (Deut. 32:4143). In the post-exilic prophecy of Zech. 14, the total
absence of the Canaanite is explicitly mentioned. At the time of the eschato-
logical battle (on that day), there will no longer be a rem and there will no
longer be a Canaanite in the house of Yhwh (Zech. 14:11,21).148 The extermina-
tion of the nations of Canaan in history may be considered as an anticipation of
this. In the New Testament, the idea of a final judgment is elaborated on more
broadly (see 5.4.5).
Second, this interpretation is in keeping with the curse on Canaan at the
beginning of the Old Testament (Gen. 9:25). In Gen. 111, the serpent, the
ground, Cain and Canaan are cursed. Noahs curse on Canaan suggests that
something is wrong with Canaan already since his ancestor. From the begin-
ning, Canaan is characterized as cursed.149 This characterization of Canaan
in primeval times has its counterpart in the prophecy of Zech. 14, where the
Canaanite functions as the personification of that which does not fit the ser-
vice of Yhwh. Thus, primeval times and the end of times correspond.
The interpretation of the command to exterminate the Canaanites as an
exemplary anticipation of Gods great judgment has a parallel in Isa. 34, where
the judgment on Edom is announced. In this chapter, first Yhwhs rage against
all nations is mentioned and it is announced that He will totally destroy them
( hif.). That judgment even seems to be the end of the entire creation (Isa.
34:24). Next, Yhwhs all-encompassing eschatological judgment comes down
upon Edom alone (Isa. 34:56). Thus, Yhwhs judgment on Edom is exemplary
for his judgment of the entire world.
147 Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God, 478479; Wright, The God I Dont
Understand, 96. This view is elaborated on by Gard in Cowles et al., Show Them No Mercy,
113141, but he does so on the basis of the idea of the holy war and hardly deals with the
nations of Canaan. Therefore, his argument is unconvincing.
148 See 3.4.3.3.
149 See 3.4.6.
362 chapter 5
On the basis of these considerations, the extermination of the nations of

Canaan may be interpreted as an anticipation of Gods final judgment. Pro-
tology (Gen. 9), Gods judgment in history (the Deuteronomic command) and
eschatology (Zech. 14) correspond in Yhwhs judgment of the Canaanites, who
are the embodiment of evil. It should be noted that only one text deals with
the nations of Canaan in primeval times and the end of times (Gen. 9:25; Zech.
14:21); the emphasis in the Old Testament is on Gods judgment in history.
5.4.4 The Command and the Old Testament View of God

In Deut. 7, the command to exterminate the nations of Canaan is closely
connected to the identity of Yhwh. The command is motivated by a reference
to Israels identity as a people holy to Yhwh. This results in the conclusion of
who Yhwh is: He is indeed God, the faithful God (Deut. 7:9). It has been argued
above that Deut. 7 is an elaboration of the central passage Deut. 6:49, with
(among other things) a confession about Yhwh.150 Both the place of chapter 7
in the structure of Deuteronomy and the text of the chapter itself indicate a
close connection between the command concerning the Canaanites and the
character of Yhwh.
In Deut. 7, Yhwh is depicted as a God full of love and faithfulness for his
people Israel. He has chosen Israel because of his love for them and because
of his faithfulness to the promise to their fathers (Deut. 7:8,12,13). He has
redeemed Israel from Egypt by his great power (Deut. 7:1819). Now, He is about
to bring them into the land of Canaan, which He will give to them (Deut. 7:1).
Extensively the rich blessings are described which Yhwh will give to Israel if it
keeps his commandments (Deut. 7:1215). A kind of credo describes who Yhwh
is: He is indeed God, the faithful God, who keeps his covenant and faithful love
for those who love Him (Deut. 7:9). At the same time, it is also emphasized that
He will surely and swiftly repay those who hate Him (Deut. 7:10).
However, Yhwhs love and care for Israel seem to be at the expense of other
nations. Earlier, Yhwh has shown this in the liberation from Egypt: the signs
and wonders mentioned in Deut. 7 clearly are a judgment on Pharaoh and
Egypt (Deut. 7:19). The diseases that Yhwh will take away from Israel, He will
give to their enemies (Deut. 7:15). The idea that Yhwhs love for Israel is at the
expense of other nations, however, especially comes to the fore in the com-
mand to exterminate the nations of Canaan. Yhwh himself is said to issue this
command. Moreover, He is actively involved in the extermination: He expels
the nations before Israel, He sends hornets among them, He throws them
150 See 3.1.

into confusion and gives them over completely (Deut. 7:1,20,2224). Israels
smallness over against the greatness of the nations emphasizes Israels depen-
dence on Yhwh in exterminating the nations. When the extermination of these
nations is described as having occurred elsewhere in the Old Testament, Yhwh
always is the subject of the extermination. The Deuteronomic command seems
to be derived directly from Yhwhs care for Israel. If these nations would stay
alive, Israel would go after their gods, it would forsake Yhwh and bring down
Yhwhs anger on them (Deut. 7:4). The assurance that Yhwh is a faithful, great
and awesome God (Deut. 7:21) is an encouragement for Israel, but it means
Yhwhs judgment for the nations of Canaan.
These notions seem to be radically opposed. This raises the question of how
the command to genocide fits with the view of God as described in the Old
Testament. How can Gods love go together with a devastating judgment? How
can a God full of mercy command the total extermination of nations, without
any mercy?151
In response to these questions, authors have often pointed to positive aspects

of violence. It would be fortunate that violence is dealt with in the Old Tes-
tament. In this way, the Old Testament is a completely realistic book in a
world that is full of violence. The fact that God can also use violence would
give hope of liberation to those who are oppressed.152 According to others,
the notion that God shall requite expresses a great confidence that He will
do justice, in a divine manner.153 G.G. de Kruijf has defended the thesis that
violence will always demand its place. Therefore, it would be important not
to banish violence from God, since it would come all the more emphatically
to reside with man. Violence would even arise if Gods judgment is not taken
seriously enough.154 These considerations emphasize the importance of tak-
151 Cf. Dietrich and Link, Die dunklen Seiten Gottes 1, 7784.
152 Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, 303. Joshua Berman, Why Must Israel Be Warriors? The
Constructive Role of Warfare in Deuteronomy, in Encountering Violence in the Bible, ed.
Markus Zehnder and Hallvard Hagelia, bmw 55 (Sheffield: Phoenix, 2013), 1322 views four
positive effects of the extermination of the Canaanites for Israel: it would form cultural
confidence; it would be a warning of what will happen to Israel itself if it is unfaithful; it
would be an agent of bonding; and vulnerability would be a spur to faith.
153 Baumann, Gottesbilder der Gewalt, 158.
154 De Kruijf, Give Place unto Wrath!, 124. For a critical response, see Gijsbert van den Brink,
Violence and the Possibilities of Theology: A Response to Gerrit de Kruijf, in Christian
Faith and Violence, ed. Dirk van Keulen and Martien E. Brinkman, 2 vols., SRTh 1011
(Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2005), 2:130143. Cf. Volf, Exclusion and Embrace, 301304.
364 chapter 5
ing seriously notions like violence and the wrath of God. Yet they do not give a
satisfactory answer to the theological and moral questions evoked by Deut. 7.
After all, the command to exterminate the nations of Canaan is not about the
judgment of God by which He will finally do justice, but about violence in his-
torical reality, to be executed by human beings. In this way, no victims were
redeemed from oppression, but nations were attacked and killed in the name
of God.
Authors have rightly pointed out that many Old Testament texts speak very
differently about violence (cf. 5.3.3). In many texts, other nations are not
described in a negative way and there is a peaceful interaction between Israel
and these nations. At the beginning of Deuteronomy, Israel is called to leave
other nations alone and to meet them friendly (see 3.2.2). Elsewhere, it is
stated that Yhwh does not call to violence, but makes wars cease (Ps. 46:10).
The text about swords being beaten into plowshares is famous (Isa. 2:4; in Joel
4:10, however, the reverse is stated). In these texts, Yhwh opposes violence.155
In the beginning and for the future, the Old Testament proclaims a vision of
peace; in between, violence is a reality. However, texts about peace and blessing
for the nations, on the one hand, and the command to exterminate the nations
of Canaan, on the other, do not neutralize each other. In the final form of
the Old Testament, both themes have received a place. However one views
the genesis of the different texts or their theological views, these themes in
one way or another belong together in the final text of the Old Testament.156
Moreover, the Deuteronomic command is no exception, but an integral part
of the message of the Old Testament (see 5.4.1.2). Accordingly, the question
of the meaning of this command for the Old Testament view of God remains
important.
Several authors have pointed out that violence is one of the most prominent
themes in the Old Testament. This subject is reflected on in a very broad and
differentiated way.157 Not only human violence is dealt with, but violence is
often connected with Yhwh as well. Yhwhs command to Israel to exterminate
the nations of Canaan is certainly not the only violence executed by Yhwh or
155 See Peels, God en geweld in het Oude Testament, 2327.

156 Cf. Bernd Janowski, Theologie des Alten Testaments: Pldoyer fr eine integrative Per-
spektive, in Der Gott des Lebens: Beitrge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments 3 (Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003), 344348.
157 Lohfink, Gewalt als Thema alttestamentlicher Forschung, 15; Raymund Schwager, Brau-
chen wir einen Sndenbock? Gewalt und Erlsung in den biblischen Schriften (Mnchen:
Ksel, 1978), 58; Zenger, Gewalt als Preis der Wahrheit, 55.
in his name. According to an often quoted count of Raymund Schwager, about

a thousand Old Testament texts mention Yhwhs anger, wrath or judgment.
This concerns texts in which the action is attributed directly to Yhwh. In
addition, it is recorded several times that Yhwh uses nations to destroy other
nations (e.g., Isa. 10:5; Jer. 51:20); Israel as well is used more often to punish
other nations (Zech. 9:13). In more than a hundred texts, mention is made of an
express command of Yhwh to kill people.158 A theme that occurs so frequently
cannot be negated or considered as a marginal phenomenon, which would
not really affect the Old Testament view of God. Violence executed by or in
the name of Yhwh is not a marginal phenomenon in the Old Testament, but
part of its message. Accordingly, the question of violence by divine order is
one of the most central (and difficult) questions of Old Testament theology.159
The command to exterminate the nations of Canaan is part of this broader
theme.
In the light of these data, the interpretation that the Deuteronomic com-
mand is only a human self-justification or a flawed interpretation of Gods will
(see 5.3.1) is unsatisfactory. The theme of violence executed or commissioned
by Yhwh is too important in the Old Testament to justify that interpretation.
If one does not want to reject the Old Testament as a whole, it is unclear how
and according to what criteria one could distinguish between divine revelation
and (all too) human interpretation.
The command to exterminate the Canaanites could be explained as an older
stage in the development of Israels attitude toward these nations. In general,
authors have stated, less violence would occur in Old Testament texts of a later
date. An argument in favour of this interpretation is that the nations of Canaan
were eventually incorporated into Israel, according to the Old Testament. The
call to extermination fades into the background and is not repeated in the
writing prophets. An argument against this interpretation, however, is that
also in a late text like Zech. 14 the absence of the Canaanite has explicitly
been given a place. A difference with Deut. 7 is that according to Zech. 14 the
Canaanites will no longer be there only eschatologically and that any call to
human beings to make this come true is missing.160 In a late text like Zech. 9:13,
Yhwh is said to use Israel to punish other nations. On the basis of the texts
158 Schwager, Brauchen wir einen Sndenbock, 65, 70. Unfortunately, Schwager does not indi-
cate how he reached these numbers.
159 Baumann, Gottesbilder der Gewalt, 8081; Jrgen Ebach, Das Erbe der Gewalt: Eine biblische
Realitt und ihre Wirkungsgeschichte (Gtersloh: Mohn, 1980), 24; Schwager, Brauchen wir
einen Sndenbock, 66.
160 See 3.4.3.3.
366 chapter 5
about the destruction of the Canaanite peoples, therefore, a development in

the direction of a more peaceful society or a more friendly view of God cannot
be demonstrated.161
The idea that the Deuteronomic command is not a Fremdkrper in the Old
Testament message about God is confirmed by the fact that this command
is never evaluated negatively in the Old Testament.162 Although there is a
development in the attitude toward the nations of Canaan and these nations in
the end are incorporated into Israel (see 3.4.3), Yhwhs command concerning
these nations is never contradicted or condemned. In Deut. 7, Israel is even
warned against reservations it could have to destroy these nations (Deut. 7:16).
Nowhere, however, is the command itself considered morally or theologically
problematic.163 The authors of the Old (and New) Testament apparently did
not consider the command to exterminate the Canaanites as incompatible
with other statements about Yhwhs character. This raises the question of how
Yhwhs love relates to (a command to) a devastating judgment.
Yhwhs love for Israel and his command to exterminate the nations of Canaan
are standing side by side in Deut. 7. Apparently, they were not considered
as contradictory. Precisely this chapter, which demands the extermination
of the Canaanites, deals extensively with Yhwhs great love for Israel and
the rich blessings He will give if Israel keeps his commandments. Because of
Yhwhs love for Israel, everything that could threaten the exclusive relation-
ship between Yhwh and Israel should be banished. The Deuteronomic com-
161 So, e.g., Anton W.J. Houtepen, De vrede van God en de oorlogen der mensen, in Geloof en
geweld: De vrede van God en de oorlogen der mensen, by Paul van Dijk, Anton W.J. Houte-
pen, and Harry Zeldenrust (Kampen: Kok, 1988), 9395, 108, who believes that there is a
development within the Old Testament in the direction of less violence and a demilita-
rization of the view of God.
162 In the early reception history of the Deuteronomic command, the command is mitigated
or justified in apocryphal and rabbinic literature, which indicates that Yhwhs command
was probably perceived as problematic. In the texts from Qumran and in the New Testa-
ment, on the contrary, there are no indications that the extermination of the Canaanite
peoples or the command to do so was considered as a theological or moral problem. See
Versluis, The Early Reception History.
163 Lohr, Chosen and Unchosen, 225: The ot overall sees no real theological problem with
a good God who commands the slaughter of people, even though there are hints that
the people themselves had reservations about the action at times. In a broader context,
Dietrich and Link, Die dunklen Seiten Gottes 1, 211 point out that in the Old Testament, a
grundstzlichen Infragestellung von Krieg und Gewalt in geschichtlicher Zeit is hardly
found.
mand is even explicitly connected with the identity of Yhwh himself. Next to
Yhwhs love, also his retribution for those who leave Him is mentioned (Deut.
7:4,10).
The combination of Yhwhs love and his anger, his mercy and his justice is
rooted deeply in the Old Testament. An important text in this respect is Exod.
34:67. On a crucial moment in Israels history, just after the sin with the golden
calf, Yhwh himself proclaims who He is.164 This self-revelation to Moses is
the foundation of the continued existence of Israel. This credo is referred to
multiple times in the Old Testament.165 In Exod. 34:67, Yhwh states that He
is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and
faithfulness. He keeps his steadfast love for thousands and forgives all iniquity.
At the same time, He does by no means clear the guilty, but visits the iniquity
(cf. Deut. 7:910). Yhwhs very great mercy and faithfulness toward Israel are
emphasized, but at the same time and at the same level (connected by a copula)
his anger and retribution. This relates primarily to Yhwhs judgment on Israels
sin (cf. Exod. 34:9); immediately following, however, is Yhwhs promise that He
will expel the nations of Canaan (Exod. 34:1116). The connection of Yhwhs
mercy and his retribution in Exod. 34:7 is characterized by Walter Brueggemann
as ambiguity and profound contradiction.166 For the Old Testament authors,
however, Gods love and his anger apparently were no contradiction. Yhwh
forgives and avenges (Ps. 99:8).167 This is related to the central Old Testament
notion of Yhwhs holiness. Yhwh is holy and therefore Israel should be holy
(Lev. 19:2). Yhwhs holiness is both the reason for his judgment (Lev. 10:3; Isa.
5:24) and for his grace (Isa. 41:14; Hos. 11:9).168
As a result of Yhwhs anger, a devastating judgment may take place, not
only against individuals, but also against a collective. The Old Testament gives
several examples of this: in the flood, all humanity except one family perishes
(Gen. 68); Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed by fire from heaven (Gen. 19);
Edom is struck by Yhwhs wrath (Isa. 34); Babel will be massacred (Jer. 50
51). In the Old Testament description, it always resounds that this judgment is
dreadful. Yhwhs judgment is not unmoved and arbitrary. At the flood, Yhwhs
repentance and sorrow are mentioned (Gen. 6:6). Before the destruction of

165 See Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament, 215224; Franz, Der barmherzige und
gndige Gott, 194265.
166 Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament, 227228.
167 For this text, see Peels, Vengeance of God, 260263.
168 See Th.C. Vriezen, Hoofdlijnen der theologie van het Oude Testament, 6th ed. (Wageningen:
Veenman, 1987), 322325.
368 chapter 5
Sodom, there is an intensive conversation with Abraham about the justice

of Yhwhs judgment. In the Old Testament, however, Yhwhs love and anger
belong together. His anger may give rise to a terrible judgment.169
The Old Testament also makes clear, however, that Yhwhs love has the
ascendancy. Yhwh keeps his love and faithfulness for a thousand generations,
whereas He repays his judgment only to those who hate Him (Deut. 7:10; cf.
Exod. 34:7).170 He postpones his wrath for a long time (Exod. 34:6). Yhwhs
anger lasts only a moment, his favour a lifetime (Ps. 30:6; Isa. 54:8). Hos. 11
describes a struggle within God himself, indicating that He cannot hand over
Israel to judgment; his own heart prevents him from doing so. Because Yhwh
is the Holy One, He will not destroy Israel (Hos. 11:89). This ascendancy of
Gods love is also reflected in the texts concerning the nations of Canaan. The
command to exterminate them does not remain in force, but is confined to
the time of the conquest. Although this is considered as a result of Israels
disobedience, the nations of Canaan are subsequently incorporated into Israel.
The fact that Rahab and her family are spared in the conquest and that she
is incorporated into Israel are even described in a positive way. Although
it is never suggested or assumed that this possibility was offered to all the
Canaanites, this story seems to suggest that the judgment is not absolute
and that there was a possibility of escape.171 In later times, distance and the
169 See Dietrich and Link, Die dunklen Seiten Gottes 1, 148168; Bernd Janowski, Der barm-
herzige Richter: Zur Einheit von Gerechtigkeit und Barmherzigkeit im Gottesbild des
Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments, in Der Gott des Lebens: Beitrge zur Theologie
des Alten Testaments 3 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003), 118121; P.F. Theron,
The God of War and His Prince of Peace, in Christian Faith and Violence, ed. Dirk van
Keulen and Martien E. Brinkman, 2 vols., SRTh 1011 (Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2005), 2:144
156.
170 According to Franz, Der barmherzige und gndige Gott, 139 (cf. Ibid., 1442), the distinction
between Yhwhs love and his judgment is indicated in Exod. 34 by (among other things)
the formulation of the judgment with a yiqtol, instead of an adjective or participle. This
would indicate that it is not in the same way characteristic for Yhwh. The end of Exod.
34:7 (who visits the iniquity ), however, is formulated with a participle again.
171 William Ford, What About the Gibeonites?, TynB 66 (2015): 197216 argues that this is also
true for the Gibeonites. In Josh. 910, they are portrayed as people acknowledging Yhwh
and siding with Israel and Yhwh against their own people. Their attitude is contrasted
with the other Canaanites and even with Israel itself. In Josh. 10, Yhwh acts in defence
of them. Ford concludes: This suggests that by responding positively to Yhwh, the
Gibeonites and Rahab become exempted in some way from the erem that is due to the
Canaanites. (213) The stories of Rahab and the Gibeonites thus convey the message that
even the absolute command to destroy the Canaanites is not without exception and that
prohibition of intermarriage (Ezra, Neh.) remain; the prophecy of Zech. 14

even hopes for the total absence of the Canaanite. At the same time, the
incorporation of the Canaanite peoples into Israel is also referred to as an
example for Ekron (Zech. 9:7).172
The above considerations show that Yhwhs command to exterminate the

nations of Canaan is closely connected with the way God is depicted in the Old
Testament as a whole. In the Old Testament, Yhwhs love and anger belong
together. Although Yhwhs love has the ascendancy in the end, his anger may
result in a devastating judgment. The judgment of the Canaanite peoples as
well is a result of Yhwhs wrath over their sin (see 5.4.3). Only with trepidation
can we speak about this, since the command to exterminate peoples is horrible.
Deut. 7 shows that God is different than people might wish. It is understandable
that this chapter states that Yhwh is to be feared ( , Deut. 7:21). A
theology that wants to do justice to all the Old Testament says about God,
however, will not attempt to neutralize the theme contained in these texts by
appealing to other texts, but will let it stand in all its unruliness.173
5.4.5 The Command and the New Testament

Finally, this section will outline the significance of the New Testaments per-
spective for my interpretation and evaluation of the command to extermi-
nate the Canaanites. This is relevant, since reading the Old Testament together
with the New Testament is a longstanding tradition in Western academic and
ecclesial contexts. Of course, the New Testament texts can only be discussed
briefly.174 This section will first investigate explicit references to the extermi-
Yhwh is a merciful God for those who respond positively to Him. However, the portrayal
of the Gibeonites is more ambiguous than that of Rahab, since the Israelites are said to
make a covenant with them without seeking Yhwhs guidance and the Gibeonites are
also cursed (Josh. 9:14,23).
172 See 3.4.3.2.
173 So also, in an investigation of Gods violence against children, Andreas Michel, Gott und
Gewalt gegen Kinder im Alten Testament, fat 37 (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 339350.
Cf. John J. Collins, The Zeal of Phinehas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence, jbl
122 (2003): 1920; Smelik, Een tijd van oorlog, 213: There is no alternative for the biased
God of Israel, there is no alternative for the particularistic Bible. And therefore, there is
also no alternative for the many texts of violence in Scripturethey belong to the whole.
[my translation].
174 The present study does not deal with the New Testament message concerning war or
violence in general; for this, see Tremper Longman iii en Daniel G. Reid, God Is a Warrior,
sotbt (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1995), 91192; Charles Sherlock, The God Who Fights: The War
370 chapter 5
nation of the nations of Canaan; then, the two main themes of the preceding
section will be analyzed from a New Testament perspective, namely the rela-
tion between Israel and the nations, and the view of God.
In the New Testament, the extermination of the Canaanite peoples is men-

tioned three times (Acts 7:45; 13:19; Heb. 11:31). In these passages, the fate of the
Canaanites is described as expulsion (Acts 7:45) or extermination (Acts 13:19).
As a motive for their destruction, only disobedience is mentioned (Heb. 11:31).
An explicit evaluation of the command or its execution is absent; however, the
fact that the extermination is referred to in an overview of Gods acts in Israels
history suggests a positive rather than a negative evaluation. There are no indi-
cations that the New Testament authors considered the command morally or
theologically problematic; and this is different in other writings from the same
time.175 Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that the New Testament authors never
distance themselves from the Deuteronomic command as a command of God
in that time, or from other violence executed in the Old Testament by or in the
name of God.176
The relation between Israel and the nations of Canaan is not explicitly dis-
cussed in the New Testament. The relation between Israel and the nations
in general, however, changes. In many respects, salvation and judgment are
restricted in the Old Testament: in principle only Israel as the people of God
shares in his election and covenant (Deut. 7:6; cf. Deut. 4:68; Ps. 147:20). The
judgment of other nations is usually related to the relationship of these nations
with Israel. The election and judgment of Yhwh often concern a nation as a
whole.
In the New Testament, Jesuss mission is likewise directed toward Israel, not
toward the gentiles (see Matt. 10:56; 15:24). At the same time, he crosses this
boundary by using a Samaritan and a gentile as an example for Israel (Matt.
8:10; Luke 7:9; 10:3037) and by suggesting that gentiles will enter his kingdom
(Luke 13:29; 14:2123). The gospels, especially Matthew and Luke, emphasize the
universality of the proclamation of the gospel; this element is new compared to
Tradition in Holy Scripture, rsct 6 (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1993), 243379; Pieter G.R. de
Villiers en Jan Willem van Henten, eds., Coping with Violence in the New Testament, star 16
(Leiden: Brill, 2012).
175 See Versluis, The Early Reception History, 322323.
176 See 5.3.3. Cf. Copan and Flannagan, Did God Really Command Genocide, 4245; Goldin-
gay, Old Testament Theology, 1:490491; John Howard Yoder, Nonviolence: A Brief History;
The Warsaw Lectures (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2010), 74.
the Old Testament. In Matthew, the first to worship the king of the Jews are the
magi (Matt. 2:112). The message of Gods salvation is extended to all nations
(Matt. 28:19) and the judgment concerns all nations as well (Matt. 25:32). Lukes
scope likewise is the whole world (e.g., Luke 2:1; 24:47).177
Especially after Pentecost, the position of the nations changes relative to the
Old Testament. Although the position of the gentiles in the church is debated in
the early church, it is clear that things have changed. Election and judgment are
no longer particularistic (restricted to one people) and determined by ethnicity,
but become universal.178 According to the Pauline epistles, the people of God
now consist of Jews and gentiles. The gentiles who once were far off have been
brought near and grafted into Israel (Rom. 11:24). The dividing wall between
Jews and gentiles has been broken down by the death of Jesus Christ (Eph. 2:11
22). The gentiles now are fellow heirs and share in the same promise in Christ
Jesus (Eph. 3:6).179
In the New Testament, it appears that Gods judgment is no longer directed
toward specific nations. Concerning both salvation and judgment, it is not
ethnicity that is decisive, but the personal attitude toward Jesus Christ. This
appears, for example, from 1Cor. 16:22, where anyone who does not love Jesus
Christ is called cursed (, the most common translation of in
lxx). It appears, then, that the place of the nations in the New Testament
has become different from the Old Testament. Gods people now consist of
Jews and gentiles, and Gods judgment does not concern specific nations in a
collective punishment.
177 See S. McKnight, Gentiles, Gentile Mission, in Dictionary of the Later New Testament &
Its Developments: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, ed. Ralph P. Mar-
tin and Peter H. Davids (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997), 391392; James M. Scott,
Lukes Geographical Horizon, in The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting; Volume 2:
Graeco-Roman Setting, ed. David W.J. Gill and Conrad Gempf (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1994), 522544; Udo Schnelle, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 2007), 126127, 406407, 439444.
178 This is not to say that Israel no longer has a special place in New Testament theology.
However, Israels place among the nations is different from the Old Testament situation.
Related to this, it may be asked whether the position of the land of Canaan is different
from the Old Testament situation. For this, see e.g. W.D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land:
Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine, BiSe 25 (Sheffield: jsot Press, 1994). In
rabbinic literature, there is a spiritualizing interpretation of the land, next to attention
to the concrete land; see Ibid., 121126; Weinfeld, The Promise of the Land, 213221. The
position of Israel and Canaan in the New Testament are not discussed in this section.
179 See Peter Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Gttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 19921999), 1:210216, 2:1617, 3233.
372 chapter 5
It may be assumed that this change in the position of the nations also affects
the attitude toward the Canaanites. This is evident from a comparison of Zech.
14 and Rev. 22. Although the nations of Canaan were already incorporated into
Israel, it is stated in Zech. 14 that on that day there will no longer be a rem
and there will no longer be a Canaanite in the house of Yhwh (Zech. 14:11,21; see
3.4.3.3). In Rev. 22:3, the text from Zech. 14:11 is quoted that no longer will there
be any curse or anything accursed. In the direct context, other texts from Zech.
14 are alluded to;180 the nations are mentioned (Rev. 21:24,26); and it is stated
who will not enter the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:27). In this context, it is striking
that the text from Zech. 14:21, that there will no longer be a Canaanite, is not
referred to. This might be explained by the different position of the nations in
the New Testament, making an exact reference to Zech. 14:21 no longer possible.
Another illustration of the difference between the Old and New Testament
with respect to the nations of Canaan might be the encounter of Jesus and a
Canaanite woman (Matt. 15:2128).181
Although the relation between Israel and the nations has changed, the
New Testament also describes situations of separation and exclusion from the
Christian community.182 A clear example is 1 Cor. 5, where Paul makes clear
that he wants the church to evict a man who is living in sexual immorality.
The exclusion from the church is described as handing him over to Satan;
however, the goal is that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord (1 Cor.
5:5).183 The chapter closes by a motivating reference to the Deuteronomic
command to expel the wicked person from among you (Deut. 13:6, a.o.). Next
180 Zech. 14:7 is referred to in Rev. 21:25; 22:5; Zech. 14:8 is referred to in Rev. 22:1.
181 In Matt. 15:22, she is called a Canaanite woman ( ); the parallel in Mark,
however, has a Greek, of Syrophoenician origin (Mark 7:26). According to Ulrich Luz, Das
Evangelium nach Matthus, ekk (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 19852002),
2:432433, Canaanite is a self-designation of the Phoenicians in that time. It is not clear
whether the designation Canaanite is only meant to indicate her gentile origin, or that
it is a deliberate allusion to the original inhabitants of Canaan; so John Nolland, The
Gospel of Matthew, nigtc (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 631632. In the latter case,
this encounter illustrates that Gods grace extends to other nations, even to the nations of
Canaan.
182 Cf. the emphasis on separation from the world in 2 Cor. 6:147:1; for the significance of
these texts, see Douglas S. Earl, The Christian Significance of Deuteronomy 7, jti 3
(2009): 5262.
183 Cf. James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (London: t&t Clark, 1998), 691
692; Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Nottingham:
Apollos, 2008), 738739. See also the emphasis on the holiness of the church in Revelation;
Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 2:269271.
to this correspondence, however, the appeal to the Old Testament shows two
differences between the situation in Deuteronomy and in Corinth: the man in
Corinth is not killed, and the final judgment is expected in the future. These
two differences are found more often in the New Testament.
First, in the New Testament judgment and its execution are placed, more
expressly than in the Old Testament, in Gods hands.184 Peter is told to put
his sword back into its place (Matt. 26:5154 parr.; cf. John 18:36).185 Accord-
ing to Paul, vengeance and retribution is Gods (Rom. 12:19, a quotation from
Deut. 32:35); therefore, the people of God are called on to make peace (Rom.
12:1721). Human violence may have its place, but in that case Gods instru-
ment is not the people of Israel, but the government as Gods servant (Rom.
13:4; cf. 1Pet. 2:14). In Pauline literature, the imagery of warfare is often used.
The battle to which believers are called, however, is not a battle against fellow
humans, but against spiritual powers. In this battle, the weapons are spiri-
tual as well; it is the battle of faith (2Cor. 10:4; Eph. 6:1017; 1 Thess. 5:8; 1 Tim.
1:18; 6:12; 2Tim. 4:7).186 A first step in the direction of the idea of a spiri-
tual battle may be found in the description of the nations of Canaan as the
embodiment of evil (see 5.4.3.2), by which the battle against them (also)
becomes a battle against evil. A difference with the Old Testament is that
this battle is spiritual in nature in the New Testament; this element is also
found in the Old Testament, but it is much more prominent in the New Tes-
tament.
Second, in the New Testament Gods judgment is largely postponed to the
future, the last judgment.187 This is related to the previous aspect, that God
does not call on human beings to execute his judgment, but takes judgment
into his own hands.188 In the Old Testament, the moments of Gods grace and
of his judgment usually seem to coincide, as also John the Baptist expected
184 For the intertestamental literature, cf. Collins, The Zeal of Phinehas, 1418.
185 Cf. Janse, De tegenstem van Jezus, 6786; N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, Christian
Origins and the Question of God 2 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 446450.
186 Janse, De tegenstem van Jezus, 150; H.G.L. Peels, God en geweld in het Oude Testament, ApSt
47 (Apeldoorn: Theologische Universiteit, 2007), 8586. The authorship of the epistles
need not be discussed here.
187 Cf. Longman in Cowles et al., Show Them No Mercy, 174183. Longman distinguishes
five phases of erem warfare; the fourth and fifth phase are the battle of Jesus Christ
against the spiritual powers and the final battle. According to Lohfink, Die Schichten
des Pentateuch und der Krieg, 109110, war becomes eschatological in nature already in
the texts from Qumran; for the interim, this would mean a society without violence.
188 Sloane, At Home in a Strange Land, 141.
374 chapter 5
(Matt. 11:26). The response to John seems to indicate, however, that while the
promises of Gods salvation are being fulfilled in Jesus, the final judgment of
his enemies is still to come (cf. Matt. 13:2430). The letters of James and 2 Peter
explicitly mention Gods patience, making him postpone his judgment to the
eschaton (Jas. 5:79; 2Pet. 3:9).189 At the same time, Gods judgment in history
is mentioned sometimes (Acts 5:111; 1Cor. 11:30); in those cases, however, the
judgment concerns individuals, not specific nations, and this judgment is not
executed by human beings. The extermination of the nations of Canaan as an
anticipation of the final judgment (see 5.4.3.2) already is a first step of the
emphasis on eschatological judgment.
Concerning the view of God, it appeared that in the Old Testament Yhwhs love
and anger belong together. In this respect, there seems to be much continuity
between the Old and New Testament. In Johannine literature, for example,
Gods great love is often mentioned next to his judgment for those who reject
him (e.g., John 3:1618; 1John 3:1516).190
In the book of Revelation, in which much violence is found, both Gods mer-
ciful love and his terrible judgment are emphasized. As in the Old Testament,
the wrath of God (and of the Lamb, Rev. 6:16) is mentioned in the context of the
final judgment. In the end, Babylon as the symbol of all evil will be definitively
disposed of (Rev. 1718). Although this judgment is situated in the future and is
not to be executed by human beings, it is equally horrible. As in the extermina-
tion of the nations of Canaan (see 5.4.3.2), the judgments in history described
in Revelation may be viewed as a prelude and an anticipation of the final judg-
ment.191
In the New Testament, Gods judgment is closely connected with Jesuss
death on the cross and with his resurrection. The history of Gods grace and
Gods judgment leads to Calvary. Gods judgment of sin in the Old Testament
did not bring about a definitive change, as is repeatedly recorded. Both before
and after the flood, it is stated that the heart of mankind is evil (Gen. 6:5;
8:21). The destruction of the Canaanites was not completely executed and the
practices of these nations were taken over by Israel. In the end, this resulted in
189 Cf. De Kruijf, Give Place unto Wrath!, 125.

190 Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 126: Gods mercy, then, can be understood only
against the background of his righteous anger against sin and the judgment to come. Cf.
Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection
on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 361363, 373374; Schreiner, New
Testament Theology, 124126, 157162.
191 Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 830. Cf. Ibid., 841, concerning 2 Peter and Jude.
the judgment of exile, according to the Old Testament; but even after Israels
return from exile, the temptation of these nations remained (cf. Ezra 9:1).
This history results in God taking the judgment of sin on Himself in Jesus
Christ.192
According to the New Testament, God did not withhold his own Son, but
gave Him up to save enemies of him (Rom. 5:10; 8:32). In the death of Jesus
Christ, the most horrific human violence and Gods dreadful judgment of sin
come together. Here, election and judgment likewise belong together
(cf. 5.4.2). His death and resurrection may also be interpreted as an anticipa-
tion of the final judgment, and also as its (partial) realization. However, there
are two significant differences with the judgment of the nations of Canaan.
First, Jesus Christ according to the New Testament did not suffer as a punish-
ment for his own sin, but He suffered as the innocent and obedient one (for
others, vicariously; 2Cor. 5:21). Second, Jesuss death not only was an anticipa-
tion of the final judgment, but also, the New Testament suggests, a change that
affects the entire course of history; by his death, sin and guilt, evil and injustice
have been actually condemned and conquered.193 Such a claim is not made
concerning the extermination of the nations of Canaan.
5.5 Conclusions
On the basis of the biblical-theological interpretation in 5.4, I will now at-

tempt to provide an answer to the two problems defined ( 5.2.2), namely
the view of God (5.5.1) and the potential of violence of Deut. 7 and similar
texts (5.5.2). Of course, the answer cannot be a ready-made solution to our
theological and moral problems, nor will it be able to simply remove the
offence given by those texts to modern readers. However, I will attempt to
place Deut. 7 in a sound biblical-theological framework. Finally, I will describe
my own evaluation of the command to exterminate the nations of Canaan
( 5.5.3).
5.5.1 Conclusion Concerning the View of God

Deut. 7 provides the picture of a God who chooses, loves and blesses a nation,
on the one hand, and commands the extermination of nations without pardon,
on the other. The command to exterminate the Canaanites is closely connected
192 Cf. Reitsma, Who Is Our God, 196198.

193 Cf. Wright, The God I Dont Understand, 106107.
376 chapter 5
with the identity and the actions of Yhwh. This command and its execution
are an important theme in the books of Genesis to Kings. Moreover, Deut. 7
is no exception: throughout the Old and New Testament, Gods punishing,
sometimes devastating, judgments are recorded. Concerning the view of God,
two aspects are relevant.
(1) The command to exterminate the nations of Canaan is given in a unique
situation, as the Old Testament makes clear. Only once, in view of one specific
group of peoples and for a limited period of time is Israel called to do this.
The extermination is exclusively connected with Israels settlement in the land
of Canaan. After the conquest of Canaan, the command to exterminate the
Canaanites or the promise that Yhwh will do so is not repeated (cf. 3.4.1).
The Old Testament never mentions the fact that the Canaanite peoples would
live in the land belonging to Israel as a reason for their destruction. There is no
reason to interpret the Deuteronomic command as the result of xenophobia.
According to Deut. 7, the exclusive relationship between Yhwh and Israel is at
stake, since Israel is at risk of being drawn into the practices of the Canaanites.
Gods judgment of the Canaanites is explicitly described as the result of their
iniquity. In the perspective of the Old Testament, it apparently has been, in
that context, and especially in that unique situation in salvation history, Gods
command to slay the nations of Canaan. An evaluation from our perspective
should not pass over this unique situation.
(2) The Deuteronomic command is part of the way that God has manifested
his character and will in the Old Testament. In this command, central aspects of
the view of God, as it is given in the Old and New Testament, emerge, namely
Gods holiness and his hatred of sin and injustice. In the theology of the Old
(and New) Testament, Gods love and wrath belong together. Although Gods
love has the ascendancy in the end, a devastating judgment may take place
as a result of his wrath. Gods judgment is dreadful, but it is not capricious or
arbitrary. In the Old Testament, Gods judgment of the Canaanite peoples is
almost always motivated by a reference to the sins of these nations. The same
judgment is announced to Gods own people Israel, if it follows the nations of
Canaana judgment that is ultimately executed (although this judgment is
not final).
For a theological evaluation of the command to exterminate the Canaanites,
it is important to take into account the framework of the extermination within
the Old Testament, as well as the place of these texts in the history of salvation.
The reality and the radical nature of this judgment of God will remain an
offence for modern readers. However, if we want to do justice to the message
of the Old and New Testament, this offence cannot be removed or neutralized
by considering it as merely human projection, whereas God himself would
in essence have nothing to do with violence. In the New Testament, Gods

(eschatogical) judgment is mentioned as well.194 At the same time, Deut. 7
deals with a unique situation; therefore, the view of God that emerges in
this chapter should always be read in the context of the Old Testament as a
whole. As a Christian theologian, I can only speak about the significance of the
Deuteronomic command for the view of God by reading it together with the
message of the New Testament, that God in his Son has taken the judgment of
sin on Himself.
5.5.2 Conclusion Concerning the Potential of Violence

In history, the texts about the extermination of the nations of Canaan have
been used to legitimize oppression and murder. Our condemnation of this use
of the texts does not undo this Wirkungsgeschichte.195 Therefore, reflection is
necessary on the question of whether these texts are open to interpretations
legitimizing violence in the present. This would be the case if Deut. 7 and sim-
ilar texts were read without taking into account their canonical and salvation-
historical context. However, if these texts are read in the larger context of the
Old and New Testaments, they contain no justification of any form of violence
in the present. As for the question of whether these texts have a potential of vio-
lence, it is not the texts themselves that are decisive, but the context in which
they are situated and the way in which they are interpreted in a community of
faith.196
Any appeal to the Deuteronomic command in order to legitimize violence
in the present should be considered illegitimate for the following four reasons:
(1) In the Old Testament, the command is confined to the time of Israels
conquest of Canaan. After the description of the settlement in the land, the
command to exterminate the nations of Canaan or the promise that Yhwh
will do so are not repeated. Israel is repeatedly warned against the practices
of these nations, but without an exhortation to destroy them. The nations of
Canaan are gradually incorporated into Israel.197
(2) The Deuteronomic command exclusively relates to the nations of
Canaan. These nations are almost always treated as a collective.198 The attitude
194 It has rightly been stated that the judgment of the nations of Canaan in fact is not easier
or more difficult to accept than Gods judgment in, e.g., the flood, the exile or the final
judgment; Reitsma, Who Is Our God, 199. Cf. Longman in Cowles et al., Show Them No
Mercy, 185.
195 Cf. Ebach, Das Erbe der Gewalt, 12.
196 Contra the opinion of Cliteur and others; see 5.2.1.
197 See 3.4.3.
198 See the introduction of 3.4.
378 chapter 5
required of Israel toward other nations surrounding them is rather different.

Their territory is respected and Israel is not called to eradicate these nations.199
Strangers should be treated in a friendly way. This shows that the case of the
Canaanite peoples is an exception. Accordingly, both in the Old Testament and
in the early reception history the Deuteronomic command appears not to be
applied to other peoples.200
(3) In the New Testament, the position of the nations changes relative to
the Old Testament. The message of Gods salvation is now extended to all
nations; also the gentiles now fully share in Gods grace. In the New Testament,
Gods judgment no longer concerns specific nations in a collective punishment.
Accordingly, the position of the nations of Canaan in the New Testament is dif-
ferent from the Old Testament. Although the Canaanite peoples were already
incorporated into Israel in Old Testament times, the eschatological prophecy of
Zech. 14 still refers to the Canaanite as a symbol of resistance against Yhwh. In
the New Testament, however, there is no nation, which as a collective, is struck
by Gods judgment; this is not an accidental change but a fundamental one.
Therefore, it is incorrect both from a historical and a theological perspective to
suggest a connection between the nations of Canaan in Old Testament times
and the Palestinians in the present.201 This is historically incorrect, since the
nations of Canaan have been incorporated into Israel in the first millennium
b.c. and since then no longer exist independently. It is theologically incorrect,
because the relation between Israel and the nations in the New Testament has
become different from the Old Testament.
(4) In the New Testament, Gods judgment and its execution are placed,
more expressly than in the Old Testament, in Gods hands. In addition, Gods
judgment is postponed to the future, the final judgment. Whereas it was pos-
sible that the people of God were called on to use violence in the salvation-
historically unique context of the Old Testament (as an exemplary anticipation
of Gods final judgment, see 5.4.3.2), this no longer seems to happen in the
New Testament. Vengeance and retribution is Gods alone. The battle to which
199 See 3.2.2.

200 See Versluis, The Early Reception History. The prohibition of intermarriage is applied to
other peoples; see 5.4.2.
201 This connection seems to be made rather straightforward by A. van de Beek, De kring om de
Messias: Isral als volk van de lijdende Heer, Spreken over God 1,2 (Zoetermeer: Meinema,
2002), 333350; Uehlinger, The Canaanites and Other pre-Israelite Peoples ii, 195198.
For an overview how modern Jewish thinkers deal with the question of what the battle
with the Canaanites means for the use of violence in the present, including the encounter
with the Palestinians, see Berthelot, David, and Hirshman, Gift of the Land, 353455.
believers are called is a spiritual battle with spiritual weapons. This excludes
that Gods kingdom should be realized by means of human violence.
These considerations lead to the conclusion that any appeal to the Deutero-
nomic command in order to legitimize violence in the present is illegitimate
and evil. This conclusion arises not so much from our modern aversion to vio-
lence, but is the result of a biblical-theological reading of the Deuteronomic
command.202 The Old Testament itself already indicates that the command to
exterminate the nations of Canaan is a non-recurrent event, confined to the
period of the conquest and to those nations only. Since God has fully spoken
in his Son Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:1), a recurrence of the command to exterminate
nations in the present is excluded in the light of Gods revelation in the New
Testament; therefore, any appeal to the command in order to legitimize vio-
lence in the present is to be totally rejected.
5.5.3 Evaluation of the Command

Finally, I will give my own evaluation of Yhwhs command to exterminate the
nations of Canaan, on the basis of the considerations presented above. This
command is the central and most controversial element of Deut. 7. I will answer
the question of its meaning for church and theology in the present from my
perspective as a Western man at the beginning of the twenty-first century, who
never experienced a war or comparable violence, and as a Christian theologian
in the Reformed tradition (5.2.3).203
I do not consider the command as merely a flawed, human interpretation
of Gods will. Nor can I deny that this command may have been Gods will in
that specific situation. For this, the command is too closely connected with
the view of God as presented to us in the Old Testament as a whole. It is
indicated time and again that the command is not arbitrary and that the same
judgment will strike Gods own people Israel, if it follows the nations of Canaan.
Although the command is not repeated in later times, according to the Old
Testament, neither is it ever denied that it was once commanded by Yhwh. In
the light of the New Testament as well, I cannot consider the Deuteronomic
202 Cf. Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, 1:476, 483; 3:582; Sherlock, The God Who Fights, 97
104; Sloane, At Home in a Strange Land, 141.
203 Of course, other perspectives of dealing with the questions of violence and the view of
God are possible. E.g., a contemporary Jewish author discussing these issues from the
perspective of the Jewish tradition is Menachem Kellner, And Yet, the Texts Remain: The
Problem of the Command to Destroy the Canaanites, in The Gift of the Land and the Fate of
the Canaanites in Jewish Thought, ed. Katell Berthelot, Joseph E. David, and Marc Hirshman
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 153179.
380 chapter 5
command as a flawed, human interpretation of Gods will. Nowhere in the

New Testament is the extermination of the nations of Canaan condemned.
Jesus confirms the Old Testament as Gods revelation. Moreover, Jesus himself
repeatedly speaks about Gods judgment, according to the gospels, even about
a definitive judgment.
Yhwhs command to exterminate the nations of Canaan is dreadful, not
only because it resulted in terrible acts of violence, but especially because
this violence was committed at Gods command. Although the command is
restricted to the period of Israels settlement in Canaan and to the nations
of Canaan only, according to the Old Testament it has been, in that specific
context, the will of Yhwh to exterminate these nations.
The Deuteronomic command is closely connected with the Old Testament
view of Gods holiness and his hatred of sin. These aspects have a fundamental
place in the view of God, as it is given in the Old and New Testament. In
the theology of the Old and New Testament, Gods love and wrath belong
together.
I understand the Deuteronomic command as a specific non-recurrent mo-
ment in salvation history, that is, as part of the unique way God has chosen
to go with his people and mankind. According to a canonical reading of the
Scriptures, this way is inseparably connected with the election and the judg-
ment of Gods own people and of Gods own Son. The New Testament suggests
that with the coming of Jesus Christ the position of the nations and the place of
Gods judgment in history have decisively changed as compared to the Old Tes-
tament. The separation between Israel and the nations has disappeared and
Gods judgment is no longer directed toward specific nations in a collective
punishment. Accordingly, Christian theology cannot read the Deuteronomic
command without considering the New Testament as well. As a Christian the-
ologian, I cannot go back behind Gods revelation in Jesus Christ. Viewed in that
light, it is clear that an actualization of the command in the present is excluded
and any appeal to Deut. 7 to legitimize forms of violence in the present is ille-
gitimate.
All this is not a solution to the theological and moral questions evoked in our
context by the command to exterminate the nations of Canaan. In Deut. 7,
the command is connected with Gods love for and his election of Israel. It is
incomprehensible why Yhwh commands the extermination of one nation and
chooses another one as his own people, whereas the latter is not better and
Yhwh already was about to destroy it several times (Deut. 9:46,8,14,19,25; cf.
Exod. 32:10; Num. 14:12). Apparently, Yhwhs own people deserved the same
judgment, but were spared. The only explanation given for this is Yhwhs
inexplicable love (Deut. 7:78). Apparently, God chooses in freedom and out
of love, and his choice cannot be explained by human beings.
However, it is especially incomprehensible that, as the counterpart of this
election (see 5.4.2), the nations of Canaan should be eradicated. I cannot
understand or explain how God, who is presented as a God full of love and
mercy in the Old and New Testament, can issue a command to exterminate
whole peoples, apparently indiscriminately, without warning and without the
possibility of salvation. It is true that the Old Testament often provides reasons
why the nations of Canaan should be exterminated; but even when we weigh
the reasons provided, viewed from our context it is still beyond our understand-
ing of why this consequence of total destruction should follow.
I cannot distance myself from the Deuteronomic command as a part of Gods
way in history. Neither can I fully understand or explain why this apparently has
been Gods command in that specific context.
An important reason why a modern reader cannot understand or explain the
command to exterminate the nations of Canaan is that our salvation historical
and cultural context is different from the Old Testament. From a salvation
historical point of view, our position is different, because we live after the
coming of Jesus Christ, which decisively changed the relation between Israel
and the nations, as well as the possibility of using violence by the people of
God. From our situation post Christum we cannot return to the situation ante
Christum, either to explain why God gave this command in this situation, or
to condemn it. We cannot go back behind this progress in salvation history.
Accordingly, Christian theology can only value the Old Testament correctly, if it
is read together with the New Testament. Our cultural context is also different,
especially in the way we experience acts of violence. The affective distance and
resistance modern man feels when reading Deut. 7 is also there when we think
of all the violence that has been committed in the name of God throughout
history, like the religious wars in Europe, or the killing of heretics and witches.
Our changed contexts, salvation historically and culturally, are of a different
level: the difference in our salvation historical situation applies to the whole
Christian church and theology since the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ;
the cultural context may vary by time and place. For a modern Western reader,
however, the changed salvation historical and cultural context cannot be fully
separated.
To summarize, I cannot fully comprehend or explain Yhwhs command to

exterminate the nations of Canaan, partly because I live in a different salva-
tion historical and cultural situation. Nor can I deny, taking into account the
message of the Old and New Testament as a whole, that the Deuteronomic
382 chapter 5
command has actually been the will of God in that specific situation and at
that stage of salvation history. I understand Deut. 7 as a specific non-recurrent
moment in salvation history, that is, as part of the unique way God has cho-
sen to go with his people and mankind. This command shows that God, in his
holy wrath, may come with a devastating judgment of sin. The Deuteronomic
command may be read as an exemplary anticipation of Gods final judgment.
However, this can only be understood in the context of divine grace and mercy.
The history of Gods judgment and Gods grace results in the coming of his Son
Jesus Christ, who placed Himself vicariously in Gods judgment, and in whom
God has fully revealed his love. After his death and resurrection, a command to
the people of God to exterminate another people is impossible and inconceiv-
able in the history of this world.
chapter 6
Conclusions
In Deut. 7, Israel receives Yhwhs command to exterminate the nations that

live in the land of Canaan. It is not allowed to make a covenant with these
nations or to show them any mercy; only radical extermination will be suffi-
cient. Anything that is reminiscent of the religion of the Canaanites has to be
eradicated. This command is motivated by the identity of Israel as the people of
Yhwh. A similar command concerning the nations of Canaan is also present
elsewhere in the Old Testament, but nowhere as extensive and radical as in
Deut. 7.
The importance attached to this order was shown by the fact that Deut. 7 is
an elaboration of the central passage, Deut. 6:49, the confession that Yhwh
is one and the call to serve Him alone. Moreover, the command has its place in
the framework of the laws of Deuteronomy (Deut. 511). The execution of this
task was thus regarded as a prerequisite for serving Yhwh ( 3.1).
The intention of the command of Deut. 7 is the actual extermination of the

nations of Canaan. This becomes clear from the content of Deut. 7 as a whole
and from the semantic value of the verb used ( hif.). In the literary work
of Genesis to Kings, this verb is used almost exclusively for the conquest of
Canaan and the associated elimination of the indigenous population. The only
relevant parallel from the Ancient Near East can be found in the Mesha Inscrip-
tion. However, the Mesha Inscription not only has interesting similarities with
the Old Testament, but also important differences in the use and meaning of
the verb ( 2.4, Excursus: Meaning and function of ).
In the Old Testament, there is a widely found tradition that extermination
of the Canaanites did (partly) occur. This tradition consistently mentions the
extermination of these peoples (3.4.2). The interpretations that only expul-
sion of the Canaanites was meant, that the command to exterminate them is a
metaphor, indicating loyalty to Yhwh, or that it is only a literary or theological
motif without any historical basis, have all proved unconvincing. Nor was any
evidence found that the command was applicable only under certain condi-
tions. The Deuteronomic command intends the actual extermination of entire
peoples. It is plausible that this extermination (partly) occurred. It is likely that
the tradition of this command is older than the seventh century b.c. ( 4.3).
The tradition of the names of the nations of Canaan probably (partially) goes
back to the end of the second millennium b.c. ( 4.1).

384 chapter 6
The Canaanite peoples have a unique place in the Old Testament. In Deut. 7,
the command to exterminate them is related to Israels conquest of Canaan.
In the book of Deuteronomy, a clear distinction is made between Israels atti-
tude toward the nations of Canaan and toward other nations. The motivation
for Israels attitude toward the Canaanites is also different: the motives are of a
religious nature, in contrast to the motives that are mentioned for Israels atti-
tude toward other nations (3.2.2; 3.2.4). After the description of the conquest
of Canaan, the command to exterminate the Canaanites is not repeated. So,
this command is limited to the seven nations of Canaan and to the period of
the conquest (3.4.1).
In the Old Testament, the destiny of the Canaanites is described as a warning
for Israel. When Israel takes over the practices of these peoples and thus
becomes Canaanite itself, Yhwh will judge Israel too. This threat is ultimately
executed, when Israel and Judah are taken into exile ( 5.4.2).
In the Old Testament, the command to exterminate the Canaanites almost

always has a motive. The motives that are mentioned are not a matter of racism
or retaliation, but are of a theological nature. In Deut. 7, the (threatened)
identity of Israel is mentioned in particular as a motive. Israel is the people of
Yhwh. If the Canaanites would survive, Israel would go and serve their gods. In
that way, the exclusive relationship between Yhwh and Israel would be at stake
(3.2.4). Elsewhere in the Old Testament, another motive for the extermination
is often mentioned, namely, the sins of the nations of Canaan. Especially child
sacrifice, sometimes combined with divination, and illicit sexual relations are
attributed to these nations. Child sacrifice is always connected with idolatry
(3.4.4). On the basis of historical arguments, it is plausible that child sacrifice
actually occurred in Canaan. The frequency, however, cannot be determined.
The sources are not sufficient to draw conclusions about the sexual morality
of the Canaanite nations (4.2). It is not stated in the Old Testament that
the Canaanite nations were morally worse than other nations, or than Israel
itself. In some texts, however, the nations of Canaan are characterized as the
embodiment of the ultimate evil that resists Yhwh. Because of that, their
extermination can be interpreted as an anticipation of the final judgment
(5.4.3).
The relationship between Israel and the Canaanite nations is an important

theme in the literary work of Genesis to Kings. This relationship is sketched
as follows. In the book of Genesis, it is described how Israels ancestors live
peacefully together with the nations of Canaan. However, close contacts and
intermarriage is avoided (3.4.5). Moreover, the measure of the sins of these
conclusions 385
nations is mentioned, and they are under the sign of Noahs curse of Canaan,
characterizing them as cursed in their origin (3.4.6). A turning point in the
attitude toward the Canaanites is the covenant at Sinai. At that time, Israel is
commanded not to make a covenant with these nations. In the books before
Deuteronomy, mainly the expulsion of these nations is asked for, although
there are some hints at destruction; however, both the destruction and Israels
role in this are not emphasized. The command in Deut. 7 is more explicit
and more radical than earlier texts in its demand for extermination of the
nations of Canaan; in addition, Israel is assigned an active role ( 2.6; 3.5).
In the book of Joshua, the execution of the command is described, on the
one hand, and the failure, on the other. In Judg. 2:3, Yhwh announces that
He will no longer dispel the nations, because of Israels disobedience. From
that moment on, it is described that the Canaanites are kept alive and are
gradually incorporated into Israel. This situation appears to be accepted or
tolerated. Israel is warned repeatedly against making a covenant and against
intermarriage; but the command to exterminate the nations is not repeated.
The result of this integration is that Israel takes over the practices of the
nations of Canaan. This eventually leads to the judgment of Yhwh and the
exile of Israel and Judah. In the Old Testament narratives, this is explicitly
connected with the practices of the Canaanites. In the books of Ezra and
Nehemiah, Israel is called again to separate from the peoples of Canaan. In
the book of Zechariah, the integration of these peoples in Israel is mentioned
as an example for Ekron (Zech. 9:7), on the one hand; but an eschatological
prophecy explicitly looks forward to the absence of the Canaanite, as a symbol
of everything that resists Yhwh (Zech. 14:21), on the other ( 3.4.3).
In Deut. 7, the command to exterminate the Canaanites is closely connected

with the nature and actions of Yhwh. He is the one that commands the exter-
mination and who is actively involved in its execution. When the extermination
is reported, the agent of the extermination is always Yhwh ( 3.4.2). At the
same time, Deut. 7 speaks at length about Yhwhs great love and faithfulness to
Israel. With respect to the view of God that emerges in Deut. 7, two aspects are
important. First, the command to exterminate the nations of Canaan is given in
a unique situation. Only once, in view of one specific group of peoples and for
a limited period of time is Israel called to do this. The extermination is exclu-
sively connected with Israels settlement in the land of Canaan. According to
Deut. 7, the unique and exclusive relationship between Yhwh and Israel is at
stake. Second, in the tradition of this command central aspects of the view of
God, as it is given in the Old and New Testament, emerge, namely Gods holi-
ness and his hatred of sin. In the theology of the Old (and New) Testament,
386 chapter 6
Gods love and wrath belong together. As a result of Gods wrath, a devastating
judgment may take place. His judgment is dreadful, but it is not capricious and
arbitrary. This is expressed by the repeated motivation for the extermination,
because of the sins of the Canaanite nations. Moreover, the same judgment is
announced to Gods own people Israel, if it follows the nations of Canaana
judgment that is finally executed. As a Christian theologian, I can only speak
about the significance of the command to exterminate the Canaanites by read-
ing it together with the message of the New Testament, that God in his Son has
taken the judgment of sin on Himself (5.4.4; 5.4.5; 5.5.1).
In history, the texts about the extermination of the Canaanite peoples have
been used to legitimize violence. This Wirkungsgeschichte begs the question
whether these texts have a potential of legitimizing violence. If these texts
are read in the larger context of the Old and New Testaments, they contain
no justification of any form of violence in the present. In the Old Testament,
the command exclusively relates to the nations of Canaan in the period of
Israels settlement in Canaan. Moreover, in the New Testament, the place of the
nations has become different and Gods judgment is more explicitly placed in
Gods hands and postponed to the final judgment. Therefore, any appeal to this
command in order to legitimize violence in the present is to be considered ille-
gitimate. After the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, it is, in the history of
this world, impossible that Gods people should be commanded to exterminate
another people (5.5.2).
When I, from my own perspective as a Western, Christian theologian, evalu-
ate the command to exterminate the Canaanites, I cannot deny that this com-
mand apparently has been the will of God in that specific situation and at that
stage of salvation history. This command shows that God, in his holy wrath, may
come with a devastating judgment of sin (as an anticipation of the final judg-
ment). However, this can never be separated from his love and mercy. Partly
because of our changed context, salvation historically and culturally, I still can-
not understand why God in his freedom chooses one nation and commands the
extermination of another. Nor can I understand why this consequence should
follow from the motivation provided in the Old Testament. I understand Deut. 7
as a specific non-recurrent moment in salvation history, that is, as part of the
unique way God has chosen to go with his people and mankind. According to a
canonical reading of the Scriptures, this way is inseparably connected with the
election and the judgment of Gods own people and of Gods own Son. The his-
tory of Gods judgment and Gods grace results in the coming of his Son Jesus
Christ, who placed Himself vicariously in Gods judgment, and in whom God
has fully revealed his love (5.5.3).
Bibliography
Aaron, David H. Early Rabbinic Exegesis on Noahs Son Ham and the So-Called Ham-
itic Myth. jaar 63 (1995): 721759.
Achenbach, Reinhard. Israel zwischen Verheiung und Gebot: Literarkritische Unter-
suchungen zu Deuteronomium 511. ehs.t 422. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang,
1991.
Achterhuis, Hans. Met alle geweld: Een filosofische zoektocht. Rotterdam: Lemniscaat,
2008.
Aelianus, Claudius. De natura animalium 2: Books vixi. Edited by A.F. Scholfield. lcl.
London: Heinemann, 1959.
Albeck, Chanoch, and Julius Theodor, eds. Midrash Bereshit Rabba: Critical Edition with
Notes and Commentary. 2nd ed. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1965.
Albertz, Rainer. Monotheism and Violence: How to Handle a Dangerous Biblical Tra-
dition. In The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology, edited by J.T.A.G.M. van
Ruiten and Jacobus Cornelis de Vos, 373387. vt.s 124. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Alfonso, Lorenzo d. Die hethitische Vertragstradition in Syrien (14.12. Jh. v. Chr.).
In Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche
Perspektiven zur Deuteronomismus-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten,
edited by Markus Witte, Konrad Schmid, Doris Prechel, and Jan Christian Gertz,
303329. bzaw 365. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006.
Alt, Albrecht. Die Ursprnge des israelitischen Rechts. bvsaw.ph 86/1. Leipzig: Hirzel,
1934. Reprinted in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 1:278332. 4th ed.
Mnchen: Beck, 1968.
Alter, Robert. The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary. New York:
Norton, 2004.
Altman, Amnon. How Many Treaty Traditions Existed in the Ancient Near East? In
Pax Hethitica: Studies on the Hittites and Their Neighbours, edited by Yoram Cohen,
Amir Gilan, and Jared L. Miller, 1736. StBT 51. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010.
Altman, Amnon. The Historical Prologue of the Hittite Vassal Treaties: An Inquiry into the
Concepts of Hittite Interstate Law. bisnelc. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press,
2004.
Altmann, Peter. Erwhlungstheologie und Universalismus im Alten Testament. bzaw 92.
Berlin: Tpelmann, 1964.
Amsler, Samuel. La Motivation de lthique dans la Parnse du Deutronome. In
Beitrge zur alttestamentlichen Theologie, edited by Herbert Donner, Robert Han-
hart, and Rudolf Smend, 1122. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977.
Andersen, Francis I., and David Noel Freedman. Amos. AncB. New York: Doubleday,
1989.
388 bibliography
Anderson, Bernhard W. Contours of Old Testament Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress,

1999.
Anderson, Gary A. What About the Canaanites? In Divine Evil? The Moral Character of
the God of Abraham, edited by Michael Bergmann, Michael J. Murray, and Michael
C. Rea, 269282. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Arnold, Bill T. The Love-Fear Antinomy in Deuteronomy 511. vt 61 (2011): 551569.
Assmann, Jan. Monotheismus und die Sprache der Gewalt. In Das Gewaltpotential des
Monotheismus und der dreieine Gott, edited by Peter Walter, 1838. qd 216. Freiburg:
Herder, 2005.
Ateek, Naim Stifan. Justice, and Only Justice: A Palestinian Theology of Liberation. Mary-
knoll: Orbis Books, 1989.
Augustine. Contra Adimantum. Edited by I. Zycha. csel 25/1, 113190. Prague: Tempsky,
1891.
Augustine. Contra Faustum. Edited by I. Zycha. csel 25/1, 249797. Prague: Tempsky,
1891.
Ausloos, Hans. Deuteronomi(sti)c Elements in Exod 23,2033? Some Methodological
Remarks. In Studies in the Book of Exodus: RedactionReceptionInterpretation,
edited by Marc Vervenne, 481500. BEThL 126. Leuven: University Press, 1996.
Ausloos, Hans. Deuteronomium. In De Bijbel literair: Opbouw en gedachtegang van de
bijbelse geschriften en hun onderlinge relaties, edited by Jan P. Fokkelman and Wim
J.C. Weren, 117132. Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2003.
Ausloos, Hans. The Deuteronomists History: The Role of the Deuteronomist in Historical-
Critical Research into Genesis-Numbers. ots 67. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
Ausloos, Hans. The Need for a Controlling Framework in Determining the Rela-
tionship between GenesisNumbers and the so-called Deuteronomistic Literature.
jnwsl 24/2 (1998): 7789.
Ausloos, Hans. The Septuagint Version of Exod 23:2033: A Deuteronomist at Work?
jnwsl 22/2 (1996): 89106.
Azize, Joseph J. Was There Regular Child Sacrifice in Phoenicia and Carthage? In Gil-
game and the World of Assyria: Proceedings of the Conference Held at Mandelbaum
House, The University of Sydney, 2123 July 2004, edited by Joseph J. Azize and Noel
K. Weeks, 185205. anes.s 21. Leuven: Peeters, 2007.
Bchli, Otto. Israel und die Vlker: Eine Studie zum Deuteronomium. AThANT 41. Zrich:
Zwingli Verlag, 1962.
Bailey, Randall C. Theyre Nothing but Incestuous Bastards: The Polemical Use of
Sex and Sexuality in Hebrew Canon Narratives. In Reading From This Place, edited
by Fernando F. Segovia and Mary Ann Tolbert, 1:121138. Minneapolis: Fortress,
1995.
Bainton, Roland Herbert. Christian Attitudes Toward War and Peace: A Historical Survey
and Critical Re-Evaluation. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1961.
bibliography 389
Baker-Brian, Nicholas. Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire: A Study of Augustines

Contra Adimantum. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 2009.
Baltzer, Klaus. Das Bundesformular. wmant 4. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1960.
Barker, Paul A. The Triumph of Grace in Deuteronomy: Faithless Israel, Faithful Yahweh
in Deuteronomy. pbm. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004.
Barr, James. Biblical Faith and Natural Theology: The Gifford Lectures for 1991, Delivered
in the University of Edinburgh. Oxford: Clarendon, 1993.
Barr, James. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1987.
Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1962.
Bartlett, John R. Edom and the Edomites. jsot.s 77. Sheffield: jsot, 1989.
Bassett, Frederick W. Noahs Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan: A Case of Incest?
vt 21 (1971): 232237.
Batsch, Christophe. La guerre et les rites de guerre dans le judasme du deuxime Temple.
jsj.s 93. Leiden: Brill, 2005.
Bauks, Michaela. Jephtas Tochter: Traditions-, religions- und rezeptionsgeschichtliche
Studien zu Richter 11,2940. fat 71. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.
Baumann, Gerlinde. Gottesbilder der Gewalt im Alten Testament verstehen. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2006.
Baumgarten, Albert I. Myth and Midrash: Genesis 9:2029. In Christianity, Judaism
and Other Greco-Roman Cults, edited by Jacob Neusner, 3:5571. sjla 12. Leiden: Brill,
1975.
Becking, Bob. Exile and Forced Labor in Bt Haro: Remarks on a Recently Discovered
Moabite Inscription. In Homeland and Exile: Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern
Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded, edited by Gershon Galil, Mark Geller, and Alan
Millard, 312. vt.s 130. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Beckman, Gary. Hittite Diplomatic Texts. 2nd ed. sblwaw 7. Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1999.
Beckman, Gary. Hittite Treaties and the Development of the Cuneiform Treaty Tra-
dition. In Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsge-
schichtliche Perspektiven zur Deuteronomismus-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen
Propheten, edited by Markus Witte, Konrad Schmid, Doris Prechel, and Jan Chris-
tian Gertz, 279301. bzaw 365. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006.
Beckman, Gary. International Law in the Second Millennium: Late Bronze Age. In A
History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, edited by Raymond Westbrook, 2 vols., 1:753
774. ho 72. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Beek, A. van de. De kring om de Messias: Isral als volk van de lijdende Heer. Spreken over
God 1,2. Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2002.
Beentjes, Pancratius C. 1 Kronieken. vhb. Kampen: Kok, 2002.
390 bibliography
Beentjes, Pancratius C. Holy People: The Biblical Evidence. In A Holy People: Jew-
ish and Christian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity, edited by Marcel
Poorthuis and Joshua Schwartz, 315. jcps 12. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of all Extant
Hebrew Manuscripts and A Synopsis of all Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. vt.s 68.
Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Begg, Christopher T. Contributions to the Elucidation of the Composition of Deuteron-
omy with Special Attention to the Significance of the Numeruswechsel. Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven, 1978 (unpublished Doctoral Dissertation).
Begg, Christopher T. The Significance of the Numeruswechsel in Deuteronomy: The
Pre-History of the Question. EThL 55 (1979): 116124.
Bekkum, Koert van. From Conquest to Coexistence: Ideology and Antiquarian Intent in
the Historiography of Israels Settlement in Canaan. chane 45. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Ben-David, Abba. ( Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew). 2 vols.
Tel Aviv: Dvir, 19671971.
Ben-ayyim, Zeev. A Grammar of Samaritan Hebrew, Based on the Recitation of the
Law in Comparison with the Tiberian and Other Jewish Traditions. Jerusalem: Magnes,
2000.
Benz, Frank L. Personal Names in the Phoenician and Punic Inscriptions: A Catalog,
Grammatical Study and Glossary of Elements. StP 8. Rome: Biblical Institute Press,
1972.
Bergey, Ronald. La conqute de Canaan: un gnocide? RRef 54/5 (2003): 6988.
Bergmann, Michael, Michael J. Murray, and Michael C. Rea, eds. Divine Evil? The Moral
Character of the God of Abraham. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Bergsma, John Sietze, and Scott Walker Hahn. Noahs Nakedness and the Curse on
Canaan (Genesis 9:2027). jbl 124 (2005): 2540.
Berg, Jacob Albert van den. Biblical Argument in Manichaean Missionary Practice: The
Case of Adimantus and Augustine. nhms 70. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Berman, Joshua. Why Must Israel Be Warriors? The Constructive Role of Warfare in
Deuteronomy. In Encountering Violence in the Bible, edited by Markus Zehnder and
Hallvard Hagelia, 1322. bmw 55. Sheffield: Phoenix, 2013.
Berthelot, Katell. Jewish Views of Human Sacrifice in the Hellenistic and Roman
Period. In Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition, edited by Karin Fin-
sterbusch, Armin L. Lange, and K.F. Diethard Rmheld, 151173. NumBS 112. Leiden:
Brill, 2007.
Berthelot, Katell. The Canaanites Who Trusted in God: An Original Interpretation of
the Fate of the Canaanites in Rabbinic Literature. jjs 62 (2011): 233261.
Berthelot, Katell. The Original Sin of the Canaanites. In The Other in Second Temple
Judaism, edited by Daniel C. Harlow, Karina Martin Hogan, and Matthew Goff, 49
66. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011.
bibliography 391
Berthelot, Katell, Joseph E. David, and Marc Hirshman, eds. The Gift of the Land and the
Fate of the Canaanites in Jewish Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Bertholet, Alfred. Deuteronomium. khc. Freiburg: Mohr (Siebeck), 1899.
Bertholet, Alfred. Die Stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den Fremden. Freiburg:
Akademische Verlagsbuchhandlung von J.C.B. Mohr, 1896.
Beuken, Wim A.M. Jesaja 1327. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2007.
Beyerle, Stefan. Der Mosesegen im Deuteronomium: Eine text-, kompositions- und form-
kritische Studie zu Deuteronomium 33. bzaw 250. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1997.
Biberger, Bernd. Unsere Vter und wir: Unterteilung von Geschichtsdarstellungen in
Generationen und das Verhltnis der Generationen im Alten Testament. bbb 145.
Berlin: Philo, 2003.
Block, Daniel I. Deuteronomy. nivac. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012.
Block, Daniel I. How Can We Bless Yhwh? Wrestling with Divine Violence in Deu-
teronomy. In Wrestling with the Violence of God: Soundings in the Old Testament,
edited by M. Daniel Carroll R. and J. Blair Wilgus, 3150. bbr.s 10. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 2015.
Block, Daniel I. Judges, Ruth. nac. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999.
Blum, Erhard. Das sog. Privilegrecht in Exodus 34,1126: Ein Fixpunkt der Komposi-
tion des Exodusbuches? In Studies in the Book of Exodus: RedactionReception
Interpretation, edited by Marc Vervenne, 347366. BEThL 126. Leuven: University
Press, 1996.
Blum, Erhard. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. bzaw 189. Berlin: De Gruyter,
1990.
Boda, Mark J. Haggai, Zechariah. nivac. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004.
Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice. Les trois rdactions conserves et la forme originale de l en-
voi du Cantique de Mose (Dt 32,43). In Das Deuteronomium: Entstehung, Gestalt
und Botschaft, edited by Norbert Lohfink, 329340. BEThL 68. Leuven: University
Press, 1985.
Bhl, Franz Marius Theodor. Kanaaner und Hebrer: Untersuchungen zur Vorge-
schichte des Volkstums und der Religion Israels auf dem Boden Kanaans. bwat 9.
Leipzig: J.C. Hinrich, 1911.
Booij, Thijs. Psalmen iii (81110). pot. Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1994.
Boorer, Suzanne. The Promise of the Land as Oath: A Key to the Formation of the Penta-
teuch. bzaw 205. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1992.
Borghouts, J.F. Witchcraft, Magic, and Divination in Ancient Egypt. In Civilizations of
the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 3:17751785. New York: Scribner, 1995.
Bornap, Allan. El Problema del en el Pentateuco y su Dimensin Ritual. dl 4
(2005): 116.
Brner-Klein, Dagmar. Pirke de-Rabbi Elieser, nach der Edition Venedig 1544 unter Berck-
sichtigung der Edition Warschau 1852. sj 26. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004.
392 bibliography
Borowski, Oded. The Identity of the Biblical ir. In The Word of the Lord Shall Go
Forth, edited by Carol L. Meyers and Michael Patrick OConnor, 315319. asorsv 1.
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983.
Botterweck, Gerhard Johannes, and Helmer Ringgren. Theologisches Wrterbuch zum
Alten Testament. 10 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970.
Bratcher, Robert G., and Howard A. Hatton. A Handbook on Deuteronomy. ubshs. New
York: United Bible Societies, 2000.
Braulik, Georg. Das Buch Deuteronomium. In Einleitung in das Alte Testament, by
Erich Zenger et al., 136155, 5th ed. KStTh 1,1. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004.
Braulik, Georg. Deuteronomium. 2 vols. neb.at. Wrzburg: Echter, 19861992.
Braulik, Georg. Die Ausdrcke fr Gesetz im Buch Deuteronomium.Bib. 51 (1970): 39
66. Reprinted in Studien zur Theologie des Deuteronomiums, 1138. sbab 2. Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988.
Braulik, Georg. Die Vlkervernichtung und die Rckkehr Israels ins Verheissungsland:
Hermeneutische Bemerkungen zum Buch Deuteronomium. In Deuteronomy and
Deuteronomic Literature, edited by Marc Vervenne and Johan Lust, 338. BEThL 133.
Leuven: University Press, 1997. Reprinted in Studien zum Deuteronomium und seiner
Nachgeschichte, 113152. sbab 33. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2001.
Breit, Herbert. Die Predigt des Deuteronomisten. Mnchen: Chr. Kaiser, 1933.
Brekelmans, C.H.W. De erem in het Oude Testament. Nijmegen: Centrale drukkerij,
1959.
Brett, Mark G. Genocide in Deuteronomy: Postcolonial Variations on Mimetic Desire.
In Seeing Signals, Reading Signs: The Art of Exegesis, edited by Mark A. OBrien and
Howard N. Wallace, 7589. jsnt.s 415. London: t&t Clark, 2004.
Brink, Gijsbert van den. Violence and the Possibilities of Theology: A Response to
Gerrit de Kruijf. In Christian Faith and Violence, edited by Dirk van Keulen and
Martien E. Brinkman, 2:130143. SRTh 1011. Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2005.
Broshi, Magen, ed. The Damascus Document Reconsidered. Jerusalem: Israel Explo-
ration Society, 1992.
Brown, Susanna Shelby. Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice and Sacrificial Monuments in
Their Mediterranean Context. jsot.m 3. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991.
Brown, Walter E. Noah: Sot or Saint? Genesis 9:2027. In The Way of Wisdom, edited
by James I. Packer and Sven Soderlund, 3660. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.
Brueggemann, Walter. Deuteronomy. AbOTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 2001.
Brueggemann, Walter. Revelation and Violence: A Study in Contextualization; The 1986
Pre Marquette Theology Lecture. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1986.
Brueggemann, Walter. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997.
Buber, Salomon. Midrasch Tanchuma: Ein agadischer Commentar zum Pentateuch von
Rabbi Tanchuma ben Rabbi Abba. 6 vols. Wilna: Wittwe & Romm, 1885.
bibliography 393
Buijs, Govert J. Monotheism and Political Violence: Reflections on the Argumentative

Sustainability of a Causal Claim. In Violence in Civil Society: Monotheism Guilty?,
edited by Alejandra Vanney, 1936. Religion and Civil Society 6. Hildesheim: Georg
Olms, 2013.
Buis, Pierre, and Jacques Leclercq. Le Deutronome. SBi. Paris: Gabalda, 1963.
Bultmann, Christoph. Der Fremde im antiken Juda: Eine Untersuchung zum sozialen
Typenbegriff ger und seinem Bedeutungswandel in der alttestamentlichen Gesetz-
gebung. frlant 153. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992.
Calvin, John. Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia. Edited by G. Baum, E. Cunitz,
and E. Reuss. 59 vols. cr 2987. Braunschweig: Schwetschke, 18631900.
Caquot, Andr, and Andr Lemaire. Les textes aramens de Deir Alla. Syr. 54 (1977):
189208.
Carmichael, Calum M. The Laws of Deuteronomy. London: Cornell University Press,
1974.
Carmy, Shalom. The Origin of Nations and the Shadow of Violence: Theological Per-
spectives on Canaan and Amalek. Trad. 39 (2006): 5788.
Carr, David M. Method in Determination of Direction of Dependence: An Empirical
Test of Criteria Applied to Exodus 34,1126 and Its Parallels. In Gottes Volk am Sinai:
Untersuchungen zu Ex 3234 und Dtn 910, edited by Matthias Kckert and Erhard
Blum, 107140. vwgt 18. Gtersloh: Chr. Kaiser, 2001.
Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. 2 vols. ppfbr. Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1964.
Cherry, Conrad, ed. Gods New Israel: Religious Interpretations of American Destiny. 2nd
ed. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1998.
Childs, Brevard S. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection
on the Christian Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.
Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. otl. London:
scm, 1974.
Childs, Brevard S. Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. Philadelphia: Fortress,
1985.
Chisholm, Robert B. Yahweh versus the Canaanite Gods: Polemic in Judges and 1 Sam-
uel 17. bs 164 (2007): 165180.
Christensen, Duane L. Deuteronomy. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001
2002.
Christensen, Duane L. Deuteronomy 111. wbc. Dallas: Word Books, 1991.
Christensen, Duane L. Form and Structure in Deuteronomy 111. In Das Deutero-
nomium: Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft, edited by Norbert Lohfink, 135144.
BEThL 68. Leuven: University Press, 1985.
Clarke, Ernest G. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch: Text and Concordance.
Hoboken: Ktav, 1984.
394 bibliography
Clements, Ronald Ernest. The Book of Deuteronomy. In The New Interpreters Bible,
edited by Leander E. Keck et al., 2:269538. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998.
Clines, David J.A., ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1993.
Cliteur, Paul B. Het monothestisch dilemma, of De theologie van het terrorisme. Amster-
dam: Arbeiderspers, 2010.
Cliteur, Paul B. Religion and Violence. In Freedom of Religion, edited by A. van de Beek,
Eddy A.J.G. van der Borght, and B.P. Vermeulen, 235249. SRTh 19. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
Cogan, Mordechai. 1Kings. AncB. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Cohen, H. Hirsch. The Drunkenness of Noah. JStS 4. Alabama: University of Alabama
Press, 1974.
Cohn, Robert L. Before Israel: The Canaanites as Other in Biblical Tradition. In The
Other in Jewish Thought and History: Constructions of Jewish Culture and Identity,
edited by Laurence J. Silberstein and Robert L. Cohn, 7490. New York: New York
University Press, 1994.
Cohn, Robert L. Negotiating (with) the Natives: Ancestors and Identity in Genesis.
HThR 96 (2003): 147166.
Collins, Billie Jean. The Hittites and Their World. sblabs 7. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2007.
Collins, John J. The Zeal of Phinehas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence. jbl
122 (2003): 321.
Copan, Paul. Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God. Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 2011.
Copan, Paul. Is Yahweh a Moral Monster? The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics.
PhChr 10 (2008): 737.
Copan, Paul. Yahweh Wars and the Canaanites: Divinely-Mandated Genocide or Cor-
porate Capital Punishment? Responses to Critics. PhChr 11 (2009): 7390.
Copan, Paul, and Matthew Flannagan. Did God Really Command Genocide? Coming to
Terms with the Justice of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2014.
Cowles, C.S., Eugene H. Merrill, Daniel L. Gard, and Tremper Longman iii. Show Them
No Mercy: 4 Views on God and Canaanite Genocide. Counterpoints. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2003.
Craigie, Peter C. The Book of Deuteronomy. nic. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.
Craigie, Peter C. The Problem of War in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
Craig, William Lane. Slaughter of the Canaanites. Reasonable Faith, n.d. http://www
.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767.
Creach, Jerome F.D. Violence in Scripture. Interpretation. Louisville: Westminster John
Knox, 2013.
Crouch, Carly L. The Making of Israel: Cultural Diversity in the Southern Levant and the
Formation of Ethnic Identity in Deuteronomy. vt.s 162. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
bibliography 395
Crouch, Carly L. War and Ethics in the Ancient Near East: Military Violence in Light of
Cosmology and History. bzaw 407. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009.
Crump, Wayne. Deuteronomy 7: A Covenant Sermon. RestQ 17 (1974): 222235.
Crsemann, Frank. Abraham und die Bewohner des Landes: Beobachtungen zum
kanonischen Abrahambild. EvTh 62 (2002): 334348.
Crsemann, Frank. Die Tora: Theologie und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen
Gesetzes. Mnchen: Kaiser, 1992.
Crsemann, Frank. Gewaltimagination als Teil der Ursprungsgeschichte: Banngebot
und Rechtsordnung im Deuteronomium. In Religion, Politik und Gewalt: Kongress-
band des xii. Europischen Kongresses fr Theologie, 18.22. September 2005 in Berlin,
edited by Friedrich Schweitzer, 343360. vwgt 29. Gtersloh: Gtersloher Verlags-
haus, 2006.
Curley, Edwin. The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In Divine Evil? The Moral
Character of the God of Abraham, edited by Michael Bergmann, Michael J. Murray,
and Michael C. Rea, 5878. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Curtis, Edward Lewis. The Books of Chronicles. icc. Edinburgh: t&t Clark, 1910.
Davies, Eryl W. The Immoral Bible: Approaches to Biblical Ethics. London: t&t Clark,
2010.
Davies, Philip R. Sons of Cain. In A Word in Season, edited by James D. Martin and
Philip R. Davies, 3556. jsot.s 42. Sheffield: jsot Press, 1986.
Davies, W.D. The Gospel and the Land: Early Christianity and Jewish Territorial Doctrine.
BiSe 25. Sheffield: jsot Press, 1994.
Davis, Malcolm C., ed. Hebrew Bible Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections.
4 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 19782003.
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. New York: Mariner Books, 2008.
Day, John. Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament. ucop 41. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Dearman, J. Andrew. Historical Reconstruction and the Mesha Inscription. In Studies
in the Mesha Inscription and Moab, edited by J. Andrew Dearman, 155210. sblabs 2.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.
Deist, Ferdinand E. The Dangers of Deuteronomy: A Page from the Reception History
of the Book. In Studies in Deuteronomy, edited by Florentino Garca Martnez et al.,
1329. vt.s 53. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
Delcor, M. Astart et la fcondit des troupeaux en Deut. 7,13 et parallles. uf 6 (1974):
714.
Delitzsch, Friedrich. Die grosse Tuschung. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt,
1921.
Del Monte, Giuseppe F. The Hittite erem. In Memoriae Igor M. Diakonoff, edited by
Leonid Kogan et al., 2145. OrCl 8, Babel und Bibel 2. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
2005.
396 bibliography
Delporte, Lucien. Lanathme de Jahv: Recherches sur le erem prexilien en Isral.

rsr 5 (1914): 297338.
Dempster, Stephen G. Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible. Leicester:
Apollos, 2003.
DeRouchie, Jason S. A Call to Covenant Love: Text Grammar and Literary Structure in
Deuteronomy 511. GDis 30, Biblical Studies 2. New Jersey: Gorgias, 2007.
Deutsch, Robert, and Michael Heltzer. New Epigraphic Evidence from the Biblical Period.
Tel Aviv: Archaeological Center Publication, 1995.
DeVries, Simon J. 1Kings. 2nd ed. wbc. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003.
Dicou, Bert. Edom, Israels Brother and Antagonist: The Role of Edom in Biblical Prophecy
and Story. jsot.s 169. Sheffield: jsot Press, 1994.
Diepold, Peter. Israels Land. bwant 95. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1972.
Dietrich, Walter, and Christian Link. Die dunklen Seiten Gottes 1: Willkr und Gewalt. 4th
ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2002.
Dietrich, Manfried, Oswald Loretz, and Joaqun Sanmartn. The Cuneiform Alphabetic
Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places (ktu: Second, Enlarged Edition).
alasp 8. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995.
Dez Macho, Alejandro. Neophyti 1: Targum palestinense ms de la biblioteca Vaticana. 6
vols. csic.te 711.20. Madrid: Consejo superior de investigaciones cientficas, 1968
1979.
Dijkstra, Meindert. Two Notes on pru 5, No. 60. uf 8 (1976): 437439.
Dillmann, August. Die Bcher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua. 2nd ed. keh. Leipzig:
Hirzel, 1886.
Dion, Paul-Eugne. Isral et ltranger dans le Deutronome. In L altrit vivre ensem-
ble diffrents: Approches pluridisciplinaires; Actes du Colloque pluridisciplinaire tenu
loccasion du 75e anniversaire du Collge dominicain de philosophie et de tholo-
gie, edited by Michel Gourgues and Gilles-D. Mailhiot, 211233. ReNS 7. Paris: Cerf,
1986.
Dirksen, P.B. The Old Testament Peshitta. In Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and
Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, edited
by M.J. Mulder, 254297. cri ii/1. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988.
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert. Oxford: Clarendon, 1955.
Dogniez, Ccile, and Marguerite Harl, eds. La Bible dAlexandrie: Le Deutronome. Paris:
ditions du Cerf, 1992.
Dller, Johann. Der Bann (erem) im Alten Testament und im spteren Judentum.
ZKTh 37 (1913): 124.
Donner, Herbert, and Wolfgang Rllig, eds. Kanaanische und aramische Inschriften.
2d ed. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 19661969.
Dorsey, David A. The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A Commentary on Genesis
Malachi. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.
bibliography 397
Douglas, Mary. Justice as the Cornerstone: An Interpretation of Leviticus 1820.Interp.

53 (1999): 341350.
Douglas, Mary. Leviticus as Literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Drazin, Israel. Targum Onkelos to Deuteronomy: An English Translation of the Text With
Analysis and Commentary (Based on A. Sperbers Edition). [New York]: Ktav, 1982.
Drinkard, Joel. The Literary Genre of the Mesha Inscription. In Studies in the Mesha
Inscription and Moab, edited by J. Andrew Dearman, 131154. sblabs 2. Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1989.
Driver, G.R. Hebrew Homonyms. In Hebrische Wortforschung, edited by Benedikt
Hartmann et al., 5064. vt.s 16. Leiden: Brill, 1967.
Driver, G.R. Studies in the Vocabulary of the Old Testament iiiii. JThS 32 (1931): 250
257, 361366.
Driver, S.R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. 3rd ed. icc. Edin-
burgh: t&t Clark, 1902.
Dronkert, Karel. De Molochdienst in het Oude Testament. Leiden: Luctor et Emergo,
1953.
Dube, Musa W. Postcolonial Feminist Interpretation of the Bible. St. Louis: Chalice, 2000.
Dunn, James D.G. The Theology of Paul the Apostle. London: t&t Clark, 1998.
Earl, Douglas S. Reading Joshua as Christian Scripture. jti.s 2. Winona Lake: Eisen-
brauns, 2010.
Earl, Douglas S. The Christian Significance of Deuteronomy 7. jti 3 (2009): 4162.
Earl, Douglas S. The Joshua Delusion? Rethinking Genocide in the Bible. Eugene: Cascade
Books, 2010.
Ebach, Jrgen. Das Erbe der Gewalt: Eine biblische Realitt und ihre Wirkungsgeschichte.
Gtersloh: Mohn, 1980.
Ebach, Jrgen. Genesis 3750. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2007.
Edelman, Diana Vikander. You Shall Not Abhor an Edomite for He Is Your Brother: Edom
and Seir in History and Tradition. ABSt 3. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995.
Eerdmans, Bernardus D. Alttestamentliche Studien iii: Das Buch Exodus. Gieen: Tpel-
mann, 1910.
Ehrlich, Arnold B. Randglossen zur hebrischen Bibel: Textkritisches, sprachliches und
sachliches. 7 vols. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrich, 19081914.
Eichrodt, Walther. Theologie des Alten Testaments. 3 vols. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrich, 1933
1939.
Eissfeldt, Otto. Molk als Opferbegriff im Punischen und Hebrischen und das Ende des
Gottes Moloch. brga 3. Halle: Niemeyer, 1935.
Elias, Norbert. ber den Prozess der Zivilisation: Soziogenetische und psychogenetische
Untersuchungen. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Bern: Francke, 1969.
Elliger, Karl, and Wilhelm Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, editio quarta
emendata. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1990.
398 bibliography
Elnes, Eric E. Discerning the Difference: The Distinctiveness of Yahweh and Israel in
the Book of Deuteronomy. Princeton Theological Seminary, 1997 (unpublished).
Elner, Thomas R. Josua und seine Kriege in jdischer und christlicher Rezeptions-
geschichte. ThFr 37. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2008.
Ephrem the Syrian. Sancti Ephraem Syri in Genesim et in Exodum Commentarii. Edited
by Raymond-M. Tonneau. csco.s 7172. Leuven: Secrtariat du corpusSCO, 1955.
Epiphanius. Epiphanius 3: Panarion haer. 6580. De fide. Edited by K. Holl. 2nd ed.
gcs 37. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1985.
Fabry, Heinz-Josef, and Ulrich Dahmen, eds. Theologisches Wrterbuch zu den Qumran-
texten. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2011.
Fales, Evan. Satanic Verses: Moral Chaos in Holy Writ. In Divine Evil? The Moral
Farber, Walter. Witchcraft, Magic, and Divination in Ancient Mesopotamia. In Civi-
lizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 3:18951909. New York:
Scribner, 1995.
Feliks, Jehuda. The Animal World of the Bible: The Identification of All Animals Mentioned
in the Bible and Their Descriptions Based on the Bible, the Mishna, the Midrash and the
Talmud and Placed in an Israeli Setting. Tel-Aviv: Sinai, 1962.
Feliks, Yehuda. Talmud Yerushalmi: Tractate Sheviit Critically Edited: A Study of the
Halachic Topics and Their Botanical and Agricultural Background. 2 vols. Jerusalem:
Rubin Mass, 1986.
Fernndez, A. Aspecto moral de la conquista de Canan. Bib. 3 (1922): 145164.
Fernndez, A. El erem biblico. Bib. 5 (1924): 325.
Field, F., ed. Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt sive veterum interpretum Graecorum
in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1875.
Finkelstein, Louis, ed. Siphre ad Deuteronomium: H.S. Horovitzii schedis usus cum variis
lectionibus et adnotationibus. Berlin: Jdischer Kulturbund in Deutschland, 1939.
Finsterbusch, Karin. Weisung fr Israel: Studien zu religisem Lehren und Lernen im
Deuteronomium und in seinem Umfeld. fat 44. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.
Fishbane, Michael A. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985.
Floss, Johannes Peter. Jahwe dienenGttern dienen: Terminologische, literarische und
semantische Untersuchung einer theologischen Aussage zum Gottesverhltnis im
Alten Testament. bbb 45. Kln: Hanstein, 1975.
Flusser, David. Paganism in Palestine. In The Jewish People in the First Century: Histor-
ical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions,
edited by S. Safrai and M. Stern, 2:10651100. cri, i. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1976.
Fohrer, Georg. Israels Haltung gegenber den Kanaanern und anderen Vlkern. JSSt
12 (1968): 6475.
Fokkelman, Jan P. Major Poems of the Hebrew Bible at the Interface of Hermeneutics and
bibliography 399
Structural Analysis: Volume i: Ex. 15, Deut. 32, and Job 3. ssn 37. Assen: Van Gorcum,
1998.
Fokkelman, Jan P. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: Volume iii: Throne
and City (ii Sam. 28 & 2124). ssn 27. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1990.
Ford, William. What About the Gibeonites? TynB 66 (2015): 197216.
Forrest, Robert W.E. Paradise Lost Again: Violence and Obedience in the Flood Narra-
tive. jsot 62 (1994): 318.
Frandsen, Paul John. Incestuous and Close-Kin Marriage in Ancient Egypt and Persia:
An Examination of the Evidence. cni Publications 34. Copenhagen: Museum Tuscu-
lanum Press, 2009.
Frankel, David. The Land of Canaan and the Destiny of Israel: Theologies of Territory in
the Hebrew Bible. Siphrut 4. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2011.
Frantz-Szab, Gabriella. Hittite Witchcraft, Magic, and Divination. In Civilizations of
the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 3:20072019. New York: Scribner,
1995.
Franz, Matthias. Der barmherzige und gndige Gott: Die Gnadenrede vom Sinai (Exo-
dus 34,67) und ihre Parallelen im Alten Testament und seiner Umwelt. bwant 160.
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2003.
Frensdorff, S., ed. Das Buch Ochlah Wochlah (Massora). Hannover: Hahn, 1864.
Fretz, Mark. Herem in the Old Testament: A Critical Reading. In Essays on War and
Peace: Bible and Early Church, edited by Willard M. Swartley, 744. Occasional Papers
9. Elkhart: Institute of Mennonite Studies, 1986.
Freund, Yosef. And Ekron as a Jebusite (Zechariah 9:7). jbq 21 (1993): 170177.
Gagnon, Robert A.J. The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. Nash-
ville: Abingdon, 2001.
Gall, August Freiherr von. Der hebrische Pentateuch der Samaritaner. Gieen: Tpel-
mann, 1918.
Gangloff, Frdric. Joshua 6: Holy War or Extermination by Divine Command
(Herem)? ThRev 25 (2004): 323.
Garbini, G. Liscrizione di Balaam bar-Beor. Hen 1 (1979): 166188.
Garca Lpez, Flix. Un peuple consacr: Analyse critique de Deutronome vii. vt 32
(1982): 438463.
Garstang, John. Joshua, Judges. fbh. London: Constable, 1931.
Ga, Erasmus. PerisiterHiwiterJebusiter: Gentilizia in Zentral- und Nordpals-
tina. In Studien zum Richterbuch und seinen Vlkernamen, by Walter Gro and
Erasmus Ga, 323362. sbab 54. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2012.
Gerhards, Meik. Die biblischen Hethiter. WOr 39 (2009): 145179.
Gesenius, H.F. Wilhelm. Gesenius Hebrew Grammar as Edited and Enlarged by the Late
E. Kautzsch. Edited by A.E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon, 1910.
Gesenius, H.F. Wilhelm. Wilhelm Gesenius Hebrisches und Aramisches Handwrter-
400 bibliography
buch ber das Alte Testament. Edited by Udo Rterswrden et al. 18th ed. Berlin:
Springer, 1987.
Gibson, John C.L. Observations on Some Important Ethnic Terms in the Pentateuch.
jnes 20 (1961): 217238.
Gibson, John C.L. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon,
19711982.
Gispen, Willem Hendrik. Genesis. 3 vols. cot. Kampen: Kok, 19741983.
Goldenberg, David M. The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003.
Goldenberg, David M. What Did Ham Do to Noah? In The Words of a Wise Mans
Mouth Are Gracious (Qoh 10,12), edited by Mauro Perani, 257265. sj 32. Berlin: De
Gruyter, 2005.
Goldingay, John. Justice and Salvation for Israel and Canaan. In Reading the Hebrew
Bible for a New Millennium: Form, Concept, and Theological Perspective; Volume 1: The-
ological and Hermeneutical Studies, edited by Wonil Kim, Deborah Ellens, Michael
H. Floyd, and Marvin A. Sweeney, 169187. sac. Harrisburg: Trinity Press Interna-
tional, 2000.
Goldingay, John. Old Testament Theology. 3 vols. Downers Grove: ivp Academic, 2003
2009.
Grg, Manfred. iwwiter im 13. Jahrhundert v. Chr. uf 8 (1976): 5355.
Goslinga, C.J. Het eerste boek Samul. cot. Kampen: Kok, 1968.
Green, Alberto Ravinell Whitney. The Role of Human Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East.
asords 1. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975.
Greenberg, Moshe. Hebrew segull: Akkadian sikiltu. jaos 71 (1951): 172174.
Grossfeld, Bernard. The Targum Onqelos to Deuteronomy: Translated, with Apparatus,
and Notes. ArB 9. Wilmington: Glazier, 1988.
Gro, Walter. Richter. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2009.
Grnwaldt, Klaus. Das Heiligkeitsgesetz Leviticus 1726: Ursprngliche Gestalt, Tradition
und Theologie. bzaw 271. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999.
Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis. hk. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1902.
Gunn, David M. Colonialism and the Vagaries of Scripture: Te Kooti in Canaan (A Story
of Bible and Dispossession in Aotearoa/New Zealand). In God in the Fray, edited by
Tod Linafelt and Timothy K. Beal, 127142. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998.
Gunneweg, Antonius H.J. Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments: Eine Religionsge-
schichte Israels in biblisch-theologischer Sicht. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1993.
Hackett, Jo Ann. The Balaam Text from Deir All. hsm 31. Chico: Scholars Press, 1984.
Hadley, Judith M. The de-deification of Deities in Deuteronomy. In The God of Israel,
edited by R.P. Gordon, 157174. ucop 64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2007.
Halbe, Jrn. Das Privilegrecht Jahwes Ex 34, 1026: Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft und
bibliography 401
Wirken in vordeuteronomischer Zeit. frlant 114. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup-

recht, 1975.
Hallo, William W. Biblical Abominations and Sumerian Taboos. jqr 76 (1985): 2140.
Hamilton, Victor P. The Book of Genesis, Chapters 117. nic. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1990.
Hartley, John E., and Timothy Dwyer. An Investigation into the Location of the Laws on
Offerings to Molek in the Book of Leviticus. In Go to the Land I Will Show You, edited
by Joseph E. Coleson and Victor Harold Matthews, 8193. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns,
1996.
Heider, George C. The Cult of Molek: A Reassessment. jsot.s 43. Sheffield: jsot, 1985.
Heimbach, Daniel R. Crusade in the Old Testament and Today. In Holy War in the
Bible: Christian Morality and an Old Testament Problem, edited by Heath A. Thomas,
Jeremy Evans, and Paul Copan, 179200. Downers Grove: ivp Academic, 2013.
Heinisch, Paul. Theologie des Alten Testamentes. hsat.e 1. Bonn: Hanstein, 1940.
Hempel, Johannes. Das Ethos des Alten Testaments. 2nd ed. bzaw 67. Berlin: Tpel-
mann, 1964. First edition 1938.
Hempel, Johannes. Die Schichten des Deuteronomiums: Ein Beitrag zur israelitischen
Literatur- und Rechtsgeschichte. bku 33. Leipzig: Voigtlnder, 1914.
Hengstenberg, Ernst Wilhelm. Die Bcher Moses und gypten. Berlin: Ludwig Oeh-
migke, 1841.
Herrmann, Wolfram. Theologie des Alten Testaments: Geschichte und Bedeutung des
israelitisch-jdischen Glaubens. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2004.
Hess, Richard S. Because of the Wickedness of These Nations (Deut 9:45): The
CanaanitesEthical or Not? In For Our Good Always: Studies on the Message and
Influence of Deuteronomy in Honor of Daniel I. Block, edited by Jason S. DeRouchie,
Jason Gile, and Kenneth J. Turner, 1737. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013.
Hess, Richard S. War in the Hebrew Bible: An Overview. In War in the Bible and Ter-
rorism in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Richard S. Hess and Elmer A. Martens,
1932. bbr.s 2. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008.
Hiebert, Theodore. The Tower of Babel and the Origin of the Worlds Cultures. jbl 126
(2007): 2958.
Hieke, Thomas. Das Verbot der bergabe von Nachkommen an den Molech in Lev
18 und 20: Ein neuer Deutungsversuch. WOr 41 (2011): 147167.
Hieke, Thomas. Die Genealogien der Genesis. HBibS 39. Freiburg: Herder, 2003.
Hieke, Thomas. Levitikus. 2 vols. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2014.
Higgs, William Robert. A Stylistic Analysis of the Numeruswechsel Sections of Deuteron-
omy. Ann Arbor: umi, 1982.
Hillers, Delbert R. A Note on Some Treaty Terminology in the Old Testament. basor
176 (1964): 4647.
Hoekveld-Meijer, Gerda. Esau: Salvation in Disguise. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996.
402 bibliography
Hoffman, Yair. The Deuteronomistic Concept of the Herem. zaw 111 (1999): 196210.
Hoffner Jr., Harry A. Ancient Israels Literary Heritage Compared with Hittite Textual
Data. In The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assump-
tions; The Proceedings of a Symposium, August 1214, 2001 at Trinity International
University, edited by James K. Hoffmeier and A.R. Millard, 176192. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2004.
Hoffner Jr., Harry A. Hittites. In Peoples of the Old Testament World, edited by Alfred
J. Hoerth, Gerald L. Mattingly, and Edwin M. Yamauchi, 127155. Grand Rapids: Baker,
1996.
Hoffner Jr., Harry A. Incest, Sodomy and Bestiality in the Ancient Near East. In Orient
and Occident, edited by Harry A. Hoffner Jr., 8190. aoat 22. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1973.
Hoffner Jr., Harry A. Some Contributions of Hittitology to Old Testament Study. TynB
20 (1969): 2755.
Hoffner Jr., Harry A. The Hittites and Hurrians. In Peoples of Old Testament Times,
edited by D.J. Wiseman, 197228. Oxford: Clarendon, 1973.
Hoffner Jr., Harry A. The Laws of the Hittites: A Critical Edition. dmoa 23. Leiden: Brill,
1997.
Hofreiter, Christian. Genocide in Deuteronomy and Christian Interpretation. In Inter-
preting Deuteronomy: Issues and Approaches, edited by David G. Firth and Philip
S. Johnston, 240262. Downers Grove: ivp Academic, 2012.
Hoftijzer, Jacob. Some Remarks to the Tale of Noahs Drunkenness. In Studies on the
Book of Genesis, edited by Berend Gemser et al., 2227. ots 12. Leiden: Brill, 1958.
Hoftijzer, Jacob. The Function and Use of the Imperfect Forms with Nun-Paragogicum in
Classical Hebrew. ssn 21. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1985.
Hoftijzer, Jacob, and Karel Jongeling. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions.
2 vols. ho 21. Leiden: Brill, 1995.
Hoftijzer, Jacob, and Gerrit van der Kooij, eds. Aramaic Texts from Deir Alla. dmoa 19.
Holloway, Jeph. The Ethical Dilemma of Holy War. swjt 41 (1998): 4469.
Hlscher, G. Komposition und Ursprung des Deuteronomiums. zaw 40 (1922): 161
255.
Hospers, Johannes Hendrik. De numeruswisseling in het boek Deuteronomium. Utrecht:
Kemink en Zoon, 1947.
Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Psalmen 51100. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder,
2000.
Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. Psalmen 101150. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder,
2008.
Hostetter, Edwin C. Geographic Distribution of the Pre-Israelite Peoples of Ancient
Palestine. bz 38 (1994): 8186.
bibliography 403
Hostetter, Edwin C. Nations Mightier and More Numerous: The Biblical View of Palestines
Pre-Israelite Peoples. bibds 3. Berkeley: bibal, 1995.
Hour, Jean L. Les interdits Toeba dans le Deutronome. rb 71 (1964): 481503.
House, Paul R. Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998.
Houtepen, Anton W.J. De vrede van God en de oorlogen der mensen. In Geloof en
geweld: De vrede van God en de oorlogen der mensen, by Paul van Dijk, Anton W.J.
Houtepen, and Harry Zeldenrust, 79124. Kampen: Kok, 1988.
Houtman, Cornelis. Exodus. 4 vols. hcot. Kampen: Kok and Leuven: Peeters, 1993
2002.
Houtman, Cornelis. Der Himmel im Alten Testament: Israels Weltbild und Weltanschau-
ung. ots 30. Leiden: Brill, 1993.
Houtman, Cornelis. Der Pentateuch: Die Geschichte seiner Erforschung neben einer Aus-
wertung. cbet 9. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994.
Houtman, Cornelis. Die ursprnglichen Bewohner des Landes Kanaan im Deutero-
nomium: Sinn und Absicht der Beschreibung ihrer Identitt und ihres Charakters.
vt 52 (2002): 5165.
Houtman, Cornelis. Josua im Urteil einiger Freidenker. In The Land of Israel in Bible,
History, and Theology, edited by J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten and Jacobus Cornelis de Vos,
339354. vt.s 124. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Houtman, Cornelis. Theodicy in the Pentateuch. In Theodicy in the World of the Bible,
edited by Antti Laato and Johannes C. de Moor, 151182. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Houtman, Cornelis. Zwei Sichtweisen von Israel als Minderheit inmitten der Bewoh-
ner Kanaans: Ein Diskussionsbeitrag zum Verhltnis von J und Dtr(G). In Deuteron-
omy and Deuteronomic Literature, edited by Marc Vervenne and Johan Lust, 213231.
Hbner, Ulrich. Jerusalem und die Jebusiter. In Kein Land fr sich allein: Studien zum
Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel/Palstina und Ebirnri, edited by Ulrich Hbner and
Ernst Axel Knauf, 3142. obo 186. Freiburg: Universittsverlag, 2002.
Huijgen, Arnold. Divine Accommodation in John Calvins Theology: Analysis and Assess-
ment. rht 16. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011.
Humbert, Paul. Le substantif tob et le verbe tb dans l Ancien Testament. zaw 72
(1960): 217237.
Hwang, Jerry. The Rhetoric of Remembrance: An Investigation of the Fathers in Deuter-
onomy. Siphrut 8. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012.
Irenaeus of Lyon. Epideixis: Adversus Haereses i. Edited by N. Brox. fc 8/1. Freiburg:
Herder, 1993.
Irsigler, Hubert. Zefanja. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2002.
Ishida, Tomoo. History and Historical Writing in Ancient Israel: Studies in Biblical Histo-
riography. shcane 16. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Ishida, Tomoo. The Structure and Historical Implications of the Lists of Pre-Israelite
Nations. Bib. 60 (1979): 461490.
404 bibliography
Iodad de Merw. Commentaire sur lAncien Testament ii: ExodeDeutronome. Edited

by Ceslas van den Eynde. csco.s 8081. Leuven: Secrtariat du corpusSCO, 1958.
Jackson, Kent P. The Language of the Mesha Inscription. In Studies in the Mesha
Inscription and Moab, edited by J. Andrew Dearman, 96130. sblabs 2. Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1989.
Jackson, Kent P., and J. Andrew Dearman. The Text of the Mesha Inscription. In
Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab, edited by J. Andrew Dearman, 9395.
sblabs 2. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.
Jacob, Benno. Das Buch Genesis. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1934.
Jacob, Benno. The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus. Hoboken: Ktav, 1992.
Jacob, Edmond. Thologie de lAncien Testament. Neuchtel: Delachaux et Niestl, 1955.
Jagersma, H. Exodus 2: 1940. vhb. Kampen: Kok, 2002.
Jagersma, H. Genesis 1:125:11. vhb. Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1995.
Janowski, Bernd. Der barmherzige Richter: Zur Einheit von Gerechtigkeit und Barm-
herzigkeit im Gottesbild des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments. In Der Gott
des Lebens: Beitrge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments 3, 75133. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Janowski, Bernd. Theologie des Alten Testaments: Pldoyer fr eine integrative Per-
spektive. In Der Gott des Lebens: Beitrge zur Theologie des Alten Testaments 3, 315
350. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2003.
Janowski, Bernd, and Gernot Wilhelm, eds. Staatsvertrge, Herrscherinschriften und
andere Dokumente zur politischen Geschichte. tuat 2. Gtersloh: Gtersloher Ver-
lagshaus, 2005.
Janse, Sam. De tegenstem van Jezus: Over geweld in het Nieuwe Testament. be. Zoeter-
meer: Boekencentrum, 2006.
Japhet, Sara. i & ii Chronicles: A Commentary. otl. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox,
1993.
Jenni, Ernst. Die hebrischen Prpositionen: Band 1: Die Prposition Beth. Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1992.
Jenni, Ernst, and Claus Westermann, eds. Theologisches Handwrterbuch zum Alten
Testament. 2 vols. Mnchen: Kaiser, 19711976.
Jeremias, Jrg. Der Prophet Amos. atd. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995.
Jobling, David. The Jordan a Boundary: Transjordan in Israels Ideological Geography.
In The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Structural Analyses in the Hebrew Bible, 2:88134.
jsot.s 39. Sheffield: jsot Press, 1986.
Jones, Adam. Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2011.
Jones, Clay. We Dont Hate Sin So We Dont Understand What Happened to the
Canaanites: An Addendum to Divine Genocide Arguments. PhChr 11 (2009): 53
72.
Jones, Gwilym H. Holy War or Yahweh War? vt 25 (1975): 642658.
bibliography 405
Jones, Gwilym H. The Concept of Holy War. In The World of Ancient Israel: Sociolog-
ical, Anthropological and Political Perspectives; Essays by Members of the Society for
Old Testament Study, edited by Ronald Ernest Clements, 299321. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1989.
Jongeling, B. La particule . In Syntax and Meaning: Studies in Hebrew Syntax and
Biblical Exegesis, by C.J. Labuschagne et al., 97107. ots 18. Leiden: Brill, 1973.
Joosten, Jan. People and Land in the Holiness Code: An Exegetical Study of the Ideational
Framework of the Law in Leviticus 1726. vt.s 67. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Joosten, Jan. The Numeruswechsel in the Holiness Code (Lev. xviixxvi). In Lasset
Uns Brcken Bauen : Collected Communications of the xvth Congress of the Inter-
national Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Cambridge 1995, edited by
Klaus-Dietrich Schunck and Matthias Augustin, 6771. beat 42. Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang, 1998.
Josephus, Flavius. Jewish Antiquities [Antiquitates Judaicae]. Edited by Henry St.
J. Thackeray et al. 6 vols. lcl. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 19661979.
Joon, Paul, and Takamitsu Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Rev. ed. SubBi 27.
Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2006.
Junker, Hubert. Das Buch Deuteronomium. hsat. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1933.
Junker, Hubert. Der alttestamentliche Bann gegen heidnische Vlker als moraltheolo-
gisches und offenbarungsgeschichtliches Problem. TThZ 56 (1947): 7489.
Kaiser, Otto. Der Gott des Alten Testaments: Theologie des Alten Testaments. 3 vols.
Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 19932003.
Kaiser Jr., Walter C. Toward Old Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.
Kaminsky, Joel S. Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible. jsot.s 196. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.
Kaminsky, Joel S. Did Election Imply the Mistreatment of Non-Israelites? HThR 96
(2003): 397425.
Kang, Sa-Moon. Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East. bzaw 177.
Berlin: De Gruyter, 1989.
Keil, Carl Friedrich. Genesis und Exodus. bc. Leipzig: Drffling und Franke, 1866.
Keil, Carl Friedrich. Leviticus, Numeri und Deuteronomium. bc. Leipzig: Drffling und
Franke, 1862.
Kellner, Menachem. And Yet, the Texts Remain: The Problem of the Command to
Destroy the Canaanites. In The Gift of the Land and the Fate of the Canaanites in
Jewish Thought, edited by Katell Berthelot, Joseph E. David, and Marc Hirshman,
153179. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Kennicott, B. Vetus Testamentum hebraicum, cum variis lectionibus. Oxford: Clarendon,
1776.
Kestemont, Guy. Diplomatique et droit international en Asie occidentale (16001200 av.
J.C.). piol 9. Leuven: Institut Orientaliste, 1974.
406 bibliography
Keulen, Percy S.F. van. Manasseh through the Eyes of the Deuteronomists: The Manasseh
Account (2Kings 21:118) & the Final Chapters of the Deuteronomistic History. ots 38.
Killebrew, Ann E. Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians,
Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel, 13001100b.c.e. sblabs 9. Leiden: Brill,
2005.
Kislev, Mordecai E. . Le. 61 (1998): 5161.
Kister, Menahem. The Fate of the Canaanites and the Despoliation of the Egyptians:
Polemics among Jews, Pagans, Christians, and Gnostics; Motifs and Motives. In The
Gift of the Land and the Fate of the Canaanites in Jewish Thought, edited by Katell
Berthelot, Joseph E. David, and Marc Hirshman, 66111. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2014.
Kitchen, Kenneth A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2003.
Kitchen, Kenneth A., and Paul J.N. Lawrence. Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient
Near East. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012.
Klein, George L. Zechariah. nac. Nashville: b & h Publishing, 2008.
Klein, Jacob, and Yitschak Sefati. The Concept of Abomination in Mesopotamian
Literature and the Bible. BSh 3 (1988): 131148. [Hebr.]
Klein, Michael L., ed. The Fragment-Targums to the Pentateuch According to Their Extant
Sources 1: Texts, Indices and Introductory Essays. AnBib 76. Rome: Biblical Institute
Press, 1980.
Kline, Meredith G. Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy;
Studies and Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.
Knauf, Ernst Axel. Die Priesterschrift und die Geschichten der Deuteronomisten.
In The Future of the Deuteronomistic History, edited by Thomas C. Rmer, 101118.
Knierim, Rolf P. The Task of Old Testament Theology: Method and Cases. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1995.
Knight, George Angus Fulton. A Christian Theology of the Old Testament. London: scm,
1959.
Koch, Christoph. Vertrag, Treueid und Bund: Studien zur Rezeption des altorientalischen
Vertragsrechts im Deuteronomium und zur Ausbildung der Bundestheologie im Alten
Testament. bzaw 383. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2008.
Koch, Christoph. Zwischen Hatti und Assur: Traditionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen
zu den aramischen Inschriften von Sfire. In Die deuteronomistischen Geschichts-
werke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur Deuteronomismus-
Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten, edited by Markus Witte, Konrad Schmid,
Doris Prechel, and Jan Christian Gertz, 379406. bzaw 365. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter,
2006.
bibliography 407
Koffi, E. Rethinking the Significance of the Black Presence in the Pentateuch for
Translation and Bible Studies: Part i. BiTr 51 (2000): 316330.
Khler, Ludwig. Hebrische Vokabeln i. zaw 54 (1936): 287293.
Khler, Ludwig. Theologie des Alten Testaments. ntg. Tbingen: Mohr, 1936.
Khler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. Hebrisches und Aramisches Lexikon zum
Alten Testament. 3rd ed. Leiden: Brill, 19671995.
Knig, Eduard. Das Deuteronomium. kat. Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhand-
lung Werner Scholl, 1917.
Knig, Eduard. Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebude der hebrischen Sprache. 3 vols. Leip-
zig: J.C. Hinrich, 18811897.
Knig, Eduard. Theologie des Alten Testaments kritisch und vergleichend dargestellt.
Stuttgart: Chr. Belser, 1922.
Konkel, Michael. Snde und Vergebung: Eine Rekonstruktion der Redaktionsgeschichte
der hinteren Sinaiperikope (Exodus 3234) vor dem Hintergrund aktueller Pentateuch-
modelle. fat 58. Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.
Kooij, Arie van der. And I Also Said: A New Interpretation of Judges ii 3. vt 45 (1995):
294306.
Koopmans, William T. Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative. jsot.s 93. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1990.
Koroec, Viktor. Hethitische Staatsvertrge: Ein Beitrag zu ihrer juristischen Wertung.
lrws 60. Leipzig: Weicher, 1931.
Koschel, Ansgar. Volk Gottes in der deuteronomischen Parnese: Untersuchungen
zum Begriffsfeld von Volk Gottes in Dt 7,111. Westflische Wilhelms-Universitt,
1969 (unpublished).
Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalmen. 4th ed. 2 vols. bk. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1972.
Kruijf, Gerrit G. de. Give Place unto Wrath! In Christian Faith and Violence, edited
by Dirk van Keulen and Martien E. Brinkman, 2:115129. SRTh 1011. Zoetermeer:
Meinema, 2005.
Krygier, Rivon. Did God Command the Extermination of the Canaanites? The Rabbis
Encounter with Genocide. CJud 57 (2005): 7894.
Labuschagne, C.J. Deuteronomium. 4 vols. pot. Nijkerk: Callenbach, 19871997.
Lake, Todd L. Did God Command Genocide? Christian Theology and the rem. Ann
Arbor: umi, 1997.
Lange, Armin L. They Burn Their Sons and Daughters. That Was No Command of
Mine (Jer 7:31): Child Sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible and in the Deuteronomistic
Jeremiah Redaction. In Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition, edited by
Karin Finsterbusch, Armin L. Lange, and K.F. Diethard Rmheld, 109132. NumBS
112. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Lange, Armin L. Your Daughters Do Not Give to Their Sons and Their Daughters Do Not
408 bibliography
Take for Your Sons (Ezra 9,12): Intermarriage in Ezra 910 and in the Pre-Maccabean
Dead Sea Scrolls; Teil i. bn 137 (2008): 1740.
Lange, Armin L. Your Daughters Do Not Give to Their Sons and Their Daughters Do Not
Take for Your Sons (Ezra 9,12): Intermarriage in Ezra 910 and in the Pre-Maccabean
Dead Sea Scrolls; Teil ii. bn 139 (2008): 7998.
Lange, Frits de. De verzachting der zeden: Modernisering, agressie en religieus ge-
weld. In Kruis en zwaard: Terugblik op de kruistochten 10961996, edited by Auke
Jelsma and G.J. van Klinken, 135154. Zoetermeer: Meinema, 1996.
Langlamet, F. Isral et lhabitant du pays: Vocabulaire et formules dEx., xxxiv, 1116.
rb 76 (1969): 321350, 481507.
Lebrun, R. Hittites et Hourrites en Palestine-Canaan. Trans 15 (1998): 153163.
Lehmann, Klaus-Peter. Die Erwhlung Israels und die Bannung der Gtzendiener:
Auslegung um Dtn 7,112. TeKo 14 (1991): 224.
Lemaire, Andr. Hiwwites, Perizzites et Girgashites: Essai d Identification Ethnique.
In Stimulation from Leiden: Collected Communications to the xviiith Congress of the
International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament, Leiden 2004, edited by
Hermann Michael Niemann and Matthias Augustin, 219224. beat 54. Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang, 2006.
Lemaire, Andr. Le rem dans le monde nord-ouest smitique. In Guerre et Conqute
dans le Proche-orient ancien, edited by Lala Nehm, 7992. AntS 4. Paris: Maison-
neuve, 1999.
Lemaire, Andr. Maison de David, maison de Mopsos, et les Hivvites. In Sefer Moshe:
Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism,
edited by Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz, and Shalom M. Paul, 303312. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 2004.
Lemaire, Andr. New Photographs and ryt or hyt in the Mesha Inscription, Line 12.iej
57 (2007): 204207.
Lemche, Niels Peter. The Canaanites and Their Land: The Tradition of the Canaanites.
jsot.s 110. Sheffield: jsot Press, 1991.
Lemche, Niels Peter. The Old Testament between Theology and History: A Critical Survey.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008.
Levine, Baruch A. Leviticus. jpstc. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989.
Levine, Baruch A. The Deir Alla Plaster Inscriptions. jaos 101 (1981): 195205.
Levinson, Bernard M. Legal Revision and Religious Renewal in Ancient Israel. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Levy, B. Barry. Targum Neophyti 1: A Textual Study. 2 vols. StJud. Lanham: University
Press of America, 19861987.
Lieberman, Saul, ed. Midrash Debarim Rabbah: Edited for the First Time from the Oxford
Ms. No. 147 with an Introduction and Notes. 3rd ed. Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1974.
Lieberman, Saul, ed. The Tosefta, according to Codex Vienna, with Variants from Codices
bibliography 409
Erfurt, London, Genizah Mss. and Editio Princeps (Venice 1521). New York: Jewish
Theological Seminary of America, 1955.
Lings, K. Renato. Culture Clash in Sodom: Patriarchal Tales of Heroes, Villains, and
Manipulation. In Patriarchs, Prophets and Other Villains, edited by Lisa Isherwood,
183207. London: Equinox, 2007.
Lipiski, Edward. Itineraria Phoenicia. ola 127, StPho 18. Leuven: Peeters, 2004.
Liss, Abraham. The Babylonian Talmud with Variant Readings collected from Manu-
scripts, Fragments of the Genizah and Early Printed Editions: Tractate Sotah. 2 vols.
Jerusalem: Institute for the Complete Israeli Talmud, 19771979.
Liverani, M. The Amorites. In Peoples of Old Testament Times, edited by D.J. Wiseman,
100133. Oxford: Clarendon, 1973.
Loersch, Sigrid. Das Deuteronomium und seine Deutungen: Ein forschungsgeschicht-
licher berblick. sbs 22. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1967.
Loewenstamm, Samuel E. . In Hebrew Language Studies, edited by Moshe
Bar-Asher and Aron Dotan, 321328. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983. [Hebr.] Translated in
From Babylon to Canaan: Studies in the Bible and its Oriental Background, 268279.
Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992.
Lohfink, Norbert. Das Hauptgebot: Eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu
Dtn 511. AnBib 20. Roma: Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1963.
Lohfink, Norbert. Der Bundesschlu im Land Moab: Redaktionsgeschichtliches zu Dt
28,6932,47. bz 6 (1962): 3256. Reprinted in Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur
deuteronomistischen Literatur 1, 5382. sbab 8. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk,
1990.
Lohfink, Norbert. Deuteronomium und Pentateuch: Zum Stand der Forschung. In Stu-
dien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur 3, 1338. sbab 20.
Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995.
Lohfink, Norbert. Die Bedeutungen von hebr. jr qal und hif. bz 27 (1983): 1433.
Lohfink, Norbert. Die uqqm mipm im Buch Deuteronomium und ihre Neube-
grenzung durch Dtn 12,1. Bib. 70 (1989): 130.
Lohfink, Norbert. Die Schichten des Pentateuch und der Krieg. In Gewalt und Gewalt-
losigkeit im Alten Testament, edited by Norbert Lohfink, 51110. qd 96. Freiburg:
Herder, 1983.
Lohfink, Norbert. Die Vter Israels im Deuteronomium: Mit einer Stellungnahme von
Thomas Rmer. obo 111. Freiburg: Universittsverlag, 1991.
Lohfink, Norbert. Dtn 28,69berschrift oder Kolophon? bn 64 (1992): 4052. Re-
printed in Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur 3,
279291. sbab 20. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995.
Lohfink, Norbert. Geschichtstypologisch orientierte Textstrukturen in den Bchern
Deuteronomium und Josua. In Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature, edited by
Marc Vervenne and Johan Lust, 133160. BEThL 133. Leuven: University Press, 1997.
410 bibliography
Reprinted in Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur 4,

Lohfink, Norbert. Gewalt als Thema alttestamentlicher Forschung. In Gewalt und
Gewaltlosigkeit im Alten Testament, edited by Norbert Lohfink, 1550. qd 96. Frei-
burg: Herder, 1983.
Lohfink, Norbert. Ich bin Jahwe, dein Arzt (Ex 15,26): Gott, Gesellschaft und mensch-
liche Gesundheit in einer nachexilischen Pentateuchbearbeitung (Ex 15,25b.26). In
Studien zum Pentateuch, 91155. sbab 4. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk,
1988.
Lohfink, Norbert. Opferzentralisation, Skularisierungsthese und mimetische Theo-
rie. In Studien zum Deuteronomium und zur deuteronomistischen Literatur 3, 219
Lohr, Joel N. Chosen and Unchosen: Conceptions of Election in the Pentateuch and Jewish-
Christian Interpretation. Siphrut 2. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2009.
Longman iii, Tremper, and Daniel G. Reid. God Is a Warrior. sotbt. Carlisle: Paternos-
ter, 1995.
Lundbom, Jack R. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013.
Lundbom, Jack R. The Inclusio and Other Framing Devices in Deuteronomy ixxviii.
vt 46 (1996): 296315.
Lust, Johan. Isaiah 34 and the erem. In The Book of Isaiah / Le livre dIsae: Les oracles
et leur relectures: Unit et complexit de louvrage, edited by Jacques Vermeylen, 275
286. BEThL 81. Leuven: University Press, 1989.
Lust, Johan. Molek and . In Phoenicia and the Bible: Proceedings of the Confer-
ence Held at the University of Leuven on the 15th and 16th of March 1990, edited by
Edward Lipiski, 193208. ola 44, StPho 11. Leuven: Peeters, 1991.
Luz, Ulrich. Das Evangelium nach Matthus. 4 vols. ekk. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukir-
chener Verlag, 19852002.
Maarsingh, B. Leviticus. pot. Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1974.
Maarsingh, B. Onderzoek naar de ethiek van de wetten in Deuteronomium. Winterswijk:
Van Amstel, 1961.
MacDonald, Nathan. Deuteronomy and the Meaning of Monotheism. fat 2/1. Tbin-
gen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
Macuch, Rudolf. Grammatik des samaritanischen Hebrisch. StSam 1. Berlin: De Gruy-
ter, 1969.
Malamat, Abraham. The Ban in Mari and the Bible. In Biblical Essays 1966Pro-
ceedings of the 9th Meeting of Die Ou-Testam. Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika, 40
49. Potchefstroom: Pro Rege, 1966. Reprinted in Mari and the Bible: A Collection of
Studies, 5261. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1975.
Manniche, Lise. Sexual Life in Ancient Egypt. London: Routledge, 1987.
Margalith, Othniel. The Hivites. zaw 100 (1988): 6070.
bibliography 411
Margulies, Mordecai. Midrash Wayyikra Rabbah: A Critical Edition Based on Manu-

scripts and Genizah Fragments with Variants and Notes. 3rd ed. 5 vols. New York:
Jewish Theological Seminary, 1993.
Markl, Dominik. Gottes Volk im Deuteronomium. bzabr 18. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,
2012.
Mason, Rex. The Use of Earlier Biblical Material in Zechariah 914: A Study in Inner
Biblical Exegesis. In Bringing out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9
14, edited by Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd, 1208. jsot.s 370. Sheffield: Sheffield
Mather, Cotton. Souldiers Counselled and Comforted: A Discourse Delivered unto Some
Part of the Forces Engaged in the Just War of New-England Against the Northern &
Eastern Indians. Boston: Samuel Green, 1689.
Mathews, Kenneth A. Genesis 111:26. nac. [Nashville]: Broadman & Holman, 1996.
Mattingly, Gerald L. Moabite Religion and the Mesha Inscription. In Studies in the
Mesha Inscription and Moab, edited by J. Andrew Dearman, 211238. sblabs 2.
Maxwell, John C. Deuteronomy. mot. Dallas: Word Books, 1987.
Mayes, A.D.H. Deuteronomy. NCeB. London: Oliphants, 1979.
Mazar, Benjamin. . In ( Encyclopaedia Biblica), 6:773774.
Jerusalem: Bialik, 1971.
McCarter Jr., P. Kyle. ii Samuel. AncB. New York: Doubleday, 1984.
McCarter Jr., P. Kyle. The Balaam Texts from Deir All: The First Combination. basor
239 (1980): 4960.
McCarthy, Carmel. Deuteronomy. bhq 5. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007.
McCarthy, Dennis J. Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental
Documents and in the Old Testament. 2nd ed. AnBib 21a. Rome: Biblical Institute,
1981.
McConville, J.G. Deuteronomy. aotc. Leicester: Apollos, 2002.
McConville, J.G. God and Earthly Power: An Old Testament Political Theology; Genesis
Kings. lhbots 454. London: t & t Clark, 2006.
McConville, J.G. Law and Theology in Deuteronomy. jsot.s 33. Sheffield: jsot, 1984.
McConville, J.G., and J. Gary Millar. Time and Place in Deuteronomy. jsot.s 179. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
McKnight, S. Gentiles, Gentile Mission. In Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its
Developments: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship, edited by Ralph
P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, 388394. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997.
McNamara, Martin, ed. Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy: Translated, with Apparatus and
Notes. ArB 5a. Edinburgh: t&t Clark, 1997.
Mendenhall, George E. Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition. ba 17 (1954): 5076.
Mendenhall, George E. The Suzerainty Treaty Structure: Thirty Years Later. In Religion
412 bibliography
and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives, edited by Edwin Brown Firmage,
Bernard G. Weiss, and John W. Welch, 85100. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Merendino, Rosario Pius. Das deuteronomische Gesetz: Eine literarkritische, gattungs-
und berlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu Dt 1226. bbb 31. Bonn: Hanstein,
1969.
Merrill, Eugene H. Deuteronomy. nac. [Nashville]: Broadman & Holman, 1994.
Merrill, Eugene H. The Peoples of the Old Testament according to Genesis 10. bs 154
(1997): 322.
Meyers, Carol L., and Eric M. Meyers. Zechariah 914. AncB. New York: Doubleday,
1993.
Michel, Andreas. Gott und Gewalt gegen Kinder im Alten Testament. fat 37. Tbingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus. 3 vols. AncB. New York: Doubleday, 19912000.
Millard, A.R. The Canaanites. In Peoples of Old Testament Times, edited by D.J. Wise-
man, 2952. Oxford: Clarendon, 1973.
Millar, J. Gary. Now Choose Life: Theology and Ethics in Deuteronomy. nsbt 6. Leicester:
Apollos, 1998.
Miller Jr., Patrick D. The Gift of God: The Deuteronomic Theology of the Land. Interp.
23 (1969): 451465.
Minette de Tillesse, Georges. Sections Tu et sections Vous dans le Deutronome. vt
12 (1962): 2987.
Minette de Tillesse, Georges. tu & vous dans le Deutronome. In Liebe und Gebot:
Studien zum Deuteronomium, edited by Reinhard Gregor Kratz and Hermann
Spieckermann, 156163. frlant 190. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000.
Mitchell, H.G. The Use of the Second Person in Deuteronomy. jbl 18 (1899): 61109.
Mitchell, T.C. The Old Testament Usage of Nem. vt 11 (1961): 177187.
Moberly, R.W.L. Old Testament Theology: Reading the Hebrew Bible as Christian Scrip-
ture. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.
Moberly, R.W.L. Toward an Interpretation of the Shema. In Theological Exegesis,
edited by Christopher R. Seitz and Kathryn Greene-McCreight, 124144. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
Mohrmann, Doug C. Making Sense of Sex: A Study of Leviticus 18. jsot 29 (2004):
5779.
Molen, Wietske Klazina van der. Een ban om te mijden: Bouwstenen voor een bijbels-
theologische verkenning. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 2008 (unpublished).
Monroe, Lauren A.S. Israelite, Moabite and Sabaean War-rem Traditions and the
Forging of National Identity: Reconsidering the Sabaean Text res 3945 in Light of
Biblical and Moabite Evidence. vt 57 (2007): 318341.
Moor, Johannes C. de. The Rise of Yahwism: The Roots of Israelite Monotheism. 2nd ed.
bibliography 413
Moor, Johannes C. The Twelve Tribes in the Song of Deborah. vt 43 (1993): 483494.
Moran, William L. A Note on the Treaty Terminology of the Sefre Stelas. jnes 22
(1963): 173176.
Moran, William L. The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in
Deuteronomy. cbq 25 (1963): 7787.
Morriston, Wesley. Did God Command Genocide? A Challenge to the Biblical Inerran-
tist. PhChr 11 (2009): 726.
Morrow, William. Deuteronomy 7 in Postcolonial Perspective: Cultural Fragmentation
and Renewal. In Interpreting Exile: Displacement and Deportation in Biblical and
Modern Contexts, edited by Brad E. Kelle, Frank Ritchel Ames, and Jacob L. Wright,
275293. sblail 10. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Mullen, E. Theodore. Narrative History and Ethnic Boundaries: The Deuteronomistic
Historian and the Creation of Israelite National Identity. sblss. Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1993.
Mller, Hans-Peter. Die aramische Inschrift von Deir All und die lteren Bileam-
sprche. zaw 94 (1982): 214244.
Mller, Hans-Peter. Einige alttestamentliche Probleme zur aramischen Inschrift von
Dr All. zdpv 94 (1978): 5667.
Mntzer, Thomas. Briefwechsel. Edited by Siegfried Bruer and Manfred Kobuch.
Thomas-Mntzer-Ausgabe: Kritische Gesamtausgabe 2, qfsg, 25 ii. Leipzig: Sch-
sische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2010.
Mntzer, Thomas. Schriften und Briefe: Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Edited by Gnther
Franz. qfrg 33. Gtersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1968.
Muraoka, Takamitsu. The Tell-Fekherye Bilingual Inscription and Early Aramaic. Abr-
n. 22 (19831984): 79117.
Murphy, Mark C. God Beyond Justice. In Divine Evil? The Moral Character of the God
of Abraham, edited by Michael Bergmann, Michael J. Murray, and Michael C. Rea,
Naaman, Nadav. Borders and Districts in Biblical Historiography: Seven Studies in Biblical
Geographical Lists. jbs 4. Jerusalem: Simor, 1986.
Naaman, Nadav. The Canaanites and Their Land: A Rejoinder. uf 26 (1994): 397
418.
Naaman, Nadav. The Conquest of Canaan in the Book of Joshua and in History. In
From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel,
edited by Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Naaman, 218281. Jerusalem: Israel Explo-
ration Society, 1994.
Naaman, Nadav. The Recycling of a Silver Statue. jnes 40 (1981): 4748.
Neiman, David. The Date and Circumstances of the Cursing of Canaan. In Biblical
Motifs: Origins and Transformations, edited by Alexander Altmann, 113134. Cam-
bridge: Harvard University Press, 1966.
414 bibliography
Neis, Helene. Vernichtet werdet ihr, vernichtet! Narrative und parnetische Entfaltung des
Gewaltmotivs in der ersten Moserede Dtn 1,14,40. ehs.t 923. Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang, 2011.
Nelson, Richard D. Deuteronomy. otl. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002.
Nelson, Richard D. erem and the Deuteronomic Social Conscience. In Deuteron-
omy and Deuteronomic Literature, edited by Marc Vervenne and Johan Lust, 3954.
Nelson, Richard D. Raising Up a Faithful Priest: Community and Priesthood in Biblical
Theology. Louisville: Westminster, 1993.
Neufeld, Edward. Insects as Warfare Agents in the Ancient Near East (Ex. 23:28; Deut.
7:20; Josh. 24:12; Isa. 7:1820). Or. 49 (1980): 3057.
Niditch, Susan. War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence. Oxford: Oxford
Nielsen, Eduard. Deuteronomium. hat i/6. Tbingen: Mohr, 1995.
Niemann, Hermann Michael. Das Ende des Volkes der Perizziter: ber soziale Wand-
lungen Israels im Spiegel einer Begriffsgruppe. zaw 105 (1993): 233257.
Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew. nigtc. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Noort, Ed. Child Sacrifice in Ancient Israel: The Status Quaestionis. In The Strange
World of Human Sacrifice, edited by Jan N. Bremmer, 103125. shar 1. Leuven:
Peeters, 2007.
Noort, Ed. Das Kapitulationsangebot im Kriegsgesetz Dtn 20:10 ff. und in den Kriegs-
erzhlungen. In Studies in Deuteronomy, edited by Florentino Garca Martnez et
al., 197222. vt.s 53. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
North, Robert. The Hivites. Bib. 54 (1973): 4362.
Noth, Martin. Das zweite Buch Mose, Exodus. atd. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1959.
Noth, Martin, and Winfried Thiel. Knige. bk. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1968.
OConnell, Kevin G. The List of Seven Peoples in Canaan: A Fresh Analysis. In The
Answers Lie Below, edited by Henry O. Thompson, 221241. New York: University
Press of America, 1984.
OConnell, Robert H. Deuteronomy vii 126: Asymmetrical Concentricity and the
Rhetoric of Conquest. vt 42 (1992): 248265.
ODonovan, Oliver. The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theol-
ogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Oettli, Samuel. Das Deuteronomium und die Bcher Josua und Richter. kk. Mnchen:
Beck, 1893.
Ollenburger, Ben C. Introduction: Gerhard von Rads Theory of Holy War. In Holy War
in Ancient Israel, by Gerhard von Rad, 133. Translated by M.J. Dawn. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1991.
bibliography 415
Olmo Lete, Gregorio del, and Joaqun Sanmartn. A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language
in the Alphabetic Tradition. 2 vols. ho 67. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
ONeill, Helen C. Biblical Truth and the Morality of rem. Providence: Pontificia Uni-
versitas S. Thoma, 1984.
Origen. Homlies sur Josu [Homiliae in Jesu Nave]. Edited by Annie Jaubert. sc 71. Paris:
ditions du Cerf, 1960.
Osumi, Yuichi. Die Kompositionsgeschichte des Bundesbuches Exodus 20,22b23,33.
obo 105. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991.
Otto, Eckart. Deuteronomium 111. 2 vols. HThKAT. Freiburg: Herder, 2012.
Otto, Eckart. Deuteronomiumstudien ii: Deuteronomistische und postdeuteronomis-
tische Perspektiven in der Literaturgeschichte von Deuteronomium 511. zabr 15
(2009): 65215.
Otto, Eckart. Krieg und Frieden in der Hebrischen Bibel und im Alten Orient: Aspekte fr
eine Friedensordnung in der Moderne. ThFr 18. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1999.
Otto, Eckart. Perspektiven der neueren Deuteronomiumsforschung. zaw 119 (2007):
319340.
Otto, Eckart. Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments. ThW 3,2. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
1994.
Pardee, Dennis. A Further Note on pru v, No. 60. uf 13 (1981): 151156.
Park, Hyung Dae. Finding Herem? A Study of Luke-Acts in the Light of Herem. lnts 357.
London: t&t Clark, 2007.
Parpola, Simo. International Law in the First Millennium. In A History of Ancient Near
Eastern Law, edited by Raymond Westbrook, 2 vols., 2:10471066. ho 72. Leiden: Brill,
2003.
Parpola, Simo, and Kazuko Watanabe. Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths. saa 2.
Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988.
Paul, M.J. Het Archimedisch Punt van de Pentateuchkritiek: Een historisch en exegetisch
onderzoek naar de verhouding van Deuteronomium en de reformatie van koning Josia
(2 Kon 2223). s-Gravenhage: Boekencentrum, 1988.
Peels, H.G.L. God en geweld in het Oude Testament. ApSt 47. Apeldoorn: Theologische
Universiteit, 2007.
Peels, H.G.L. The Vengeance of God: The Meaning of the Root nqm and the Function of the
nqm-Texts in the Context of Divine Revelation in the Old Testament. ots 31. Leiden:
Brill, 1995.
Peisker, Martin. Die Beziehungen der Nichtisraeliten zu Jahve nach der Anschauung der
altisraelitischen Quellenschriften. bzaw 12. Gieen: Tpelmann, 1907.
Perlitt, Lothar. Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. wmant 36. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Perlitt, Lothar, and Udo Rterswrden. Deuteronomium. bk. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neu-
kirchener Verlag, 1990.
416 bibliography
Philo of Alexandria. Philo. Edited by F.H. Colson (et al.). 10 + 2 vols. lcl. London:
Heinemann, 19621971.
Plinius Secundus, Gaius. Naturalis Historia 7: libri xxivxxvii. Edited by W.H.S. Jones.
lcl. London: Heinemann, 1956.
Plger, Josef G. Literarkritische, formgeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen
zum Deuteronomium. bbb 26. Bonn: Hanstein, 1967.
Polliack, Meira, and Marzena Zawanowska. God Would Not Give the Land, but to the
Obedient: Medieval Karaite Responses to the Curse of Canaan (Genesis 9:25). In
The Gift of the Land and the Fate of the Canaanites in Jewish Thought, edited by Katell
Press, 2014.
Power, Samantha. A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. New York:
Basic Books, 2002.
Preu, Horst Dietrich. Deuteronomium. EdF 164. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchge-
sellschaft, 1982.
Preu, Horst Dietrich. Theologie des Alten Testaments. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
19911992.
Price, James D. The Syntax of Masoretic Accents in the Hebrew Bible. sbec 27. Lewiston:
Edwin Mellen, 1990.
Prior, Michael. The Bible and Colonialism: A Moral Critique. BiSe 48. Sheffield: Sheffield
Procksch, Otto. Die Genesis. kat. Leipzig: A. Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1924.
Procksch, Otto. Theologie des Alten Testaments. Gtersloh: Bertelsmann, 1950.
Propp, William H.C. Exodus 1940. AncB. New York: Doubleday, 2006.
Pury, Albert de. La guerre sainte isralite: ralit historique ou fiction littraire? Ltat
des recherches sur un thme de lAncien Testament. etr 56 (1981): 538.
Puukko, A. Filemon. Das Deuteronomium: Eine literarkritische Untersuchung. bwat 5.
Leipzig: J.C. Hinrich, 1909.
Qimron, Elisha. The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls. hss 29. Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1986.
Qimron, Elisha., ed. The Temple Scroll: A Critical Edition with Extensive Reconstructions.
jds. Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 1996.
Rad, Gerhard von. Das erste Buch Mose: Genesis. atd. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1972.
Rad, Gerhard von. Das fnfte Buch Mose: Deuteronomium. atd. Gttingen: Vanden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 1964.
Rad, Gerhard von. Der Heilige Krieg im alten Israel. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup-
recht, 1952.
Rad, Gerhard von. Theologie des Alten Testaments. 2 vols. Mnchen: Kaiser, 19571960.
Rad, Gerhard von. Verheienes Land und Jahwes Land im Hexateuch.zdpv 66 (1943):
bibliography 417
191204. Reprinted in Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, 87100. tb 8. Mn-

chen: Kaiser, 1958.
Rainey, Anson F. Mesha and Syntax. In The Land That I Will Show You: Essays on the
History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, edited by J. Andrew Dearman and
M. Patrick Graham, 287307. jsot.s 343. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.
Rainey, Anson F. Who Is a Canaanite? A Review of the Textual Evidence. basor 304
(1996): 115.
Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta, id est Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta lxx interpretes. 2
vols. Stuttgart: Privilegierte Wrttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1935.
Ramban (Moe ben Naman, Nachmanides). Commentary on the Torah: Deuteronomy.
Edited by C.B. Chavel. New York: Shilo, 1976.
Ramban (Moe ben Naman, Nachmanides). ,
2: , ,. Edited by C.B. Chavel. Jerusalem: Harav Kook, 19631964.
Rashbam (Samuel ben Meir). Rashbams Commentary on Deuteronomy: An Annotated
Translation. Edited by M.I. Lockshin. BJSt 340. Providence: Brown, 2004.
Rashi. . Edited by C.B. Chavel. Jerusalem: Harav Kook, 1983.
Rauser, Randal. Let Nothing That Breathes Remain Alive: On the Problem of Divinely
Commanded Genocide. PhChr 11 (2009): 2741.
Regt, L.J. de. A Parametric Model for Syntactic Studies of a Textual Corpus, Demonstrated
on the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 130. 2 vols. ssn 24. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988.
Reimarus, Hermann Samuel. Apologie oder Schutzschrift fr die vernnftigen Verehrer
Gottes. Edited by G. Alexander. 2 vols. [Frankfurt am Main]: Insel Verlag, 1972.
Reinke, L. Ueber das Recht der Israeliten an Canaan und ber die Ursache seiner
Eroberung und der Vertilgung seiner Einwohner durch die Israeliten und die ver-
schiedenen Erklrungsversuche darber. In Beitrge zur Erklrung des alten Testa-
mentes, 269418. Mnster: Coppenrath, 1851.
Reitsma, Bernhard J.G. Who Is Our God? The Theological Challenges of the State
of Israel for Christian ArabsFaith and Ethnicity in the Middle East. In Faith
and Ethnicity, edited by Eddy A.J.G. van der Borght, Dirk van Keulen, and Martien
E. Brinkman, 1:180202. SRTh 67. Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2002.
Rendtorff, Rolf. Die Erwhlung Israels als Thema der deuteronomischen Theologie.
In Die Botschaft und die Boten, edited by Jrg Jeremias and Lothar Perlitt, 7586.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981.
Rendtorff, Rolf. Die Herausfhrungsformel in ihrem literarischen und theologischen
Kontext. In Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature, edited by Marc Vervenne
and Johan Lust, 501527. BEThL 133. Leuven: University Press, 1997.
Rendtorff, Rolf. Theologie des Alten Testaments: Ein kanonischer Entwurf. 2 vols. Neu-
kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 19992001.
Renkema, Johan. Obadiah. hcot. Leuven: Peeters, 2003.
Revell, E.J. The Accents: Hierarchy and Meaning. In Method in Unit Delimitation,
418 bibliography
edited by Marjo C.A. Korpel, Josef M. Oesch, and Stanley E. Porter, 6191. Pericope
6. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Reventlow, Henning Graf. Die Propheten Haggai, Sacharja und Maleachi. atd. Gttin-
gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993.
Reynolds, Bennie H. Molek: Dead or Alive? The Meaning and Derivation of mlk and
. In Human Sacrifice in Jewish and Christian Tradition, edited by Karin Finster-
busch, Armin L. Lange, and K.F. Diethard Rmheld, 133150. NumBS 112. Leiden: Brill,
2007.
Rice, Gene. The Curse That Never Was (Genesis 9:1827). jrt 29 (1972): 527.
Ringgren, Helmer. Balaam and the Deir Alla Inscription. In Isac Leo Seeligmann
Volume: Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World 3: Non-Hebrew Section, edited by
Alexander Rof and Yair Zakovitch, 9398. Jerusalem: Rubinstein, 1983.
Robertson, O. Palmer. Current Critical Questions Concerning the Curse of Ham (Gen
9:2027). jets 41 (1998): 177188.
Rof, Alexander. The End of the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:43). In Liebe und
Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium, edited by Reinhard Gregor Kratz and Hermann
Spieckermann, 164172. frlant 190. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000.
Rof, Alexander. The Laws of Warfare in the Book of Deuteronomy: Their Origins,
Intent and Positivity. jsot 32 (1985): 2344.
Rmer, Thomas C. Cult Centralization in Deuteronomy 12: Between Deuteronomistic
History and Pentateuch. In Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch und Deute-
ronomistischem Geschichtswerk, edited by Eckart Otto and Reinhard Achenbach,
168180. frlant 206. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004.
Rmer, Thomas C. Dieu obscur: Le sexe, la cruaut et la violence dans l Ancien Testament.
EssBib 27. Genve: Labor et fides, 1996.
Rmer, Thomas C. Israels Vter: Untersuchungen zur Vterthematik im Deuteronomium
und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition. obo 99. Freiburg: Universittsverlag, 1990.
Rooy, Herrie F. van. Deuteronomy 28,69Superscript or Subscript? jnwsl 14 (1988):
215222.
Rooze, Egbert A. Amalek geweldig verslagen: Een bijbels-theologisch onderzoek naar
de vijandschap Isral-Amalek als bijdrage tot de discussie over Geweld in het Oude
Testament. Brussel: Universitaire Faculteit voor Protestantse Godgeleerdheid, 1995.
Rose, Martin. 5. Mose. 2 vols. zbk. Zrich: Theologischer Verlag, 1994.
Rose, Martin. Der Ausschlielichkeitsanspruch Jahwes: Deuteronomische Schultheologie
und die Volksfrmmigkeit in der spten Knigszeit. bwant 106. Stuttgart: Kohlham-
mer, 1975.
Rosen-Zvi, Ishay. Rereading herem: Destruction of Idolatry in Tannaitic Literature. In
The Gift of the Land and the Fate of the Canaanites in Jewish Thought, edited by Katell
Press, 2014.
bibliography 419
Ross, Allen P. Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of the Book of
Genesis. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988.
Ross, Allen P. Studies in the Book of Genesis, Part 1: The Curse of Canaan.bs 137 (1980):
223240.
Rossi, J.B. de. Variae lectiones veteris testamenti ex immensa mss. editorumq. codicum
congerie haustae et ad samar. textum, ad vetustiss. versiones, ad accuratiores sacrae
criticae fontes ac leges examinatae. 4 vols. Parma: Regio, 17841798.
Roszkowska-Mutschler, Hanna. and on Its Site I Sowed Cress : Some Remarks on
the Execration of Defeated Enemy Cities by the Hittite Kings. jac 7 (1992): 112.
Roth, Cecil. The Cleansing of the Temple and Zechariah xiv 21. nt 4 (1960): 174
181.
Routledge, Bruce Edward. Moab in the Iron Age: Hegemony, Polity, Archaeology. ACSo.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.
Routledge, Robin. Old Testament Theology: A Thematic Approach. Nottingham: Apollos,
2008.
Rowlett, Lori L. Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence: A New Historicist Analysis. jsot.s
226. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
Rudolph, Wilhelm. Haggai, Sacharja 18, Sacharja 914, Maleachi. kat. Gtersloh:
Mohn, 1976.
Rudolph, Wilhelm. Joel, Amos, Obadja, Jona. kat. Gtersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1971.
Ruiten, J.T.A.G.M. van. Primaeval History Interpreted: The Rewriting of Genesis 111 in the
Book of Jubilees. jsj.s 66. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Ruppert, Lothar. Genesis: Ein kritischer und theologischer Kommentar; 1. Teilband: Gen
1,111,26. FzB 70. Wrzburg: Echter Verlag, 1992.
Rterswrden, Udo. Die Apodosis in den Rechtsstzen des Deuteronomiums.zah 15
16 (20022003): 124137.
Rterswrden, Udo. Die Liebe zu Gott im Deuteronomium. In Die deuteronomisti-
schen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur
Deuteronomismus-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten, edited by Markus
Witte, Konrad Schmid, Doris Prechel, and Jan Christian Gertz, 229238. bzaw 365.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006.
Sabatier, Pierre, ed. Bibliorum sacrorum latinae versiones antiquae, seu Vetus Italica. 3
vols. Reims: Reginaldum Florentain, 1743.
Sadaqa, Ratson, and Avraham Sadaqa, eds. Jewish Version and Samaritan Version of the
Pentateuch with Particular Stress on the Differences between Both Texts 5: Deuteron-
omy. Tel-Aviv, 1961.
Sanders, Paul. The Provenance of Deuteronomy 32. ots 37. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
Sanz Gimnez-Rico, Enrique. Un recuerdo que conduce al don: Teologa de Dt 111. BTeoC
11. Madrid: Universidad pontificia Comillas, 2004.
Sarna, Nahum M. Genesis. jpstc. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989.
420 bibliography
Sasson, Victor. The Book of Oracular Visions of Balaam from Deir Alla. uf 17 (1985):
283309.
Satterthwaite, Philip E., and David W. Baker. Nations of Canaan. In Dictionary of the
Old Testament: Pentateuch, edited by T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker,
596605. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003.
Sawyer, John F.A. A Note on the Etymology of raat. vt 26 (1976): 241245.
Saysell, Csilla. According to the Law: Reading Ezra 910 as Christian Scripture. jti.s 4.
Saysell, Csilla. Deuteronomy in the Intermarriage Crises in EzraNehemiah. In Inter-
preting Deuteronomy: Issues and Approaches, edited by David G. Firth and Philip
S. Johnston, 197208. Downers Grove: ivp Academic, 2012.
Schaade, Aaron. New Photographs Supporting the Reading ryt in Line 12 of the Mesha
Inscription. iej 55 (2005): 205208.
Schaefer, Konrad R. The Ending of the Book of Zechariah: A Commentary. rb 100
(1993): 165238.
Schfer-Lichtenberger, Christa. Bedeutung und Funktion von erem in biblisch-
hebrischen Texten. bz 38 (1994): 270275.
Schfer-Lichtenberger, Christa. jhwh, Israel und die Vlker aus der Perspektive von
Dtn 7. bz 40 (1996): 194218.
Schfer, Peter, and Hans-Jrgen Becker, eds. Synopse zum Talmud Yerushalmi: Band i/3
5 Ordnung Zeraim: Demai, Kilayim und Sheviit. tsaj 33. Tbingen: Mohr, 1992.
Scheiber, Thomas. Lots Enkel: Israels Verhltnis zu Moab und Ammon im Alten Testa-
ment. Norderstedt: Books on Demand, 2007.
Schenker, Adrian. What Connects the Incest Prohibitions with the Other Prohibitions
Listed in Leviticus 18 and 20? In The Book of Leviticus: Composition and Reception,
edited by Rolf Rendtorff and Robert A. Kugler, 162185. vt.s 93. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Schenker et al., Adrian, ed. Biblia Hebraica quinta editione cum apparatu critico novis
curis elaborato. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004.
Schmitt, Gtz. Du sollst keinen Frieden schlieen mit den Bewohnern des Landes: Die
Weisungen gegen die Kanaaner in Israels Geschichte und Geschichtsschreibung.
bwant 91. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970.
Schmitt, Hans-Christoph. Das sptdeuteronomistische Geschichtswerk Genesis i
2 Regum xxv und seine theologische Intention. In Congress Volume Cambridge 1995,
edited by John Adney Emerton, 261279. vt.s 66. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Schmitt, Rdiger. Der Heilige Krieg im Pentateuch und im deuteronomistischen Ge-
schichtswerk: Studien zur Forschungs-, Rezeptions- und Religionsgeschichte von Krieg
und Bann im Alten Testament. aoat 381. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2011.
Schmitt, Rdiger. Magie im Alten Testament. aoat 313. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2004.
Schnelle, Udo. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2007.
bibliography 421
Schottroff, Willy. Gedenken im alten Orient und im Alten Testament: Die Wurzel zkar
im semitischen Sprachkreis. wmant 15. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1964.
Schoville, Keith N. Canaanites and Amorites. In Peoples of the Old Testament World,
edited by Alfred J. Hoerth, Gerald L. Mattingly, and Edwin M. Yamauchi, 157182.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.
Schreiner, Josef. Theologie des Alten Testaments. neb.e 1. Wrzburg: Echter, 1995.
Schreiner, Thomas R. New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ. Nottingham:
Apollos, 2008.
Schuil, A. Amalek: Onderzoek naar oorsprong en ontwikkeling van Amaleks rol in het
Oude Testament. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 1997.
Schulmeister, Irene. Israels Befreiung aus gypten: Eine Formeluntersuchung zur The-
ologie des Deuteronomiums. bs 36. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2010.
Schwager, Raymund. Brauchen wir einen Sndenbock? Gewalt und Erlsung in den bib-
lischen Schriften. Mnchen: Ksel, 1978.
Schwally, Friedrich. Semitische Kriegsaltertmer 1: Der heilige Krieg im alten Israel. Leip-
zig: Dieterichsche Verlagsbuchhandlung Theodor Weicher, 1901.
Schwartz, Baruch J. Reexamining the Fate of the Canaanites in the Torah Traditions.
In Sefer Moshe: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-
Biblical Judaism, edited by Chaim Cohen, Avi Hurvitz, and Shalom M. Paul, 151170.
Schwartz, Baruch J. .( The Holiness Legislation:
Studies in the Priestly Code). Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999.
Schwartz, Regina M. The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1997.
Schwienhorst-Schnberger, Ludger. Das Bundesbuch (Ex 20,2223,33): Studien zu seiner
Entstehung und Theologie. bzaw 188. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1990.
Scobie, Charles H.H. The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
Scott, James M. Lukes Geographical Horizon. In The Book of Acts in Its First Cen-
tury Setting; Volume 2: Graeco-Roman Setting, edited by David W.J. Gill and Conrad
Gempf, 483544. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Seebass, Horst. Numeri 22,236,13. bk. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
2007.
Sefati, Yitschak, and Jacob Klein. The Law of the Sorceress (Exodus 22:17[18]) in the
Light of Biblical and Mesopotamian Parallels. In Sefer Moshe: Studies in the Bible and
the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and Post-Biblical Judaism, edited by Chaim Cohen,
Avi Hurvitz, and Shalom M. Paul, 171190. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004.
Seibert, Eric A. Disturbing Divine Behavior: Troubling Old Testament Images of God.
422 bibliography
Seibert, Eric A. The Violence of Scripture: Overcoming the Old Testaments Troubling
Legacy. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012.
Seitz, Gottfried. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Deuteronomium. bwant 93.
Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1971.
Sellin, Ernst. Alttestamentliche Theologie auf religionsgeschichtlicher Grundlage 2: The-
ologie des Alten Testaments. Leipzig: Quelle & Meyer, 1933.
Selms, A. van. The Canaanites in the Book of Genesis. In Studies on the Book of Genesis,
edited by Berend Gemser et al., 182213. ots 12. Leiden: Brill, 1958.
Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottin-
gensis editum. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931.
Seux, M.-J. Epithtes royales akkadiennes et sumriennes. Paris: Letouzey et An,
1967.
Sherlock, Charles. The God Who Fights: The War Tradition in Holy Scripture. rsct 6.
Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1993.
Singer, Itamar. The Hittites and the Bible Revisited. In I Will Speak the Riddles of
Ancient Times: Archaeological and Historical Studies, edited by Aren M. Maeir and
Pierre de Miroschedji, 2:723756. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006.
Siwiec, Stanislaw. La guerre de conqute de Canaan dans le Deutronome. Excerpta ex
dissertatione ad Lauream in Facultate Theologica Pontificii Athenaei Antoniani.
paaft.sb 235. Roma, 1976.
Skinner, John. Genesis. 2nd ed. icc. Edinburgh: t. & t. Clark, 1930.
Skweres, Dieter Eduard. Die Rckverweise im Buch Deuteronomium. AnBib 79. Rome:
Biblical Institute Press, 1979.
Sloane, Andrew. At Home in a Strange Land: Using the Old Testament in Christian Ethics.
Peabody: Hendrickson, 2008.
Smelik, Klaas A.D. Een tijd van oorlog, een tijd van vrede: Bezetting en bevrijding in de
Bijbel. Bijbelse Zaken 1. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2005.
Smelik, Klaas A.D. King Meshas Inscription: Between History and Fiction. In Convert-
ing the Past: Studies in Ancient Israelite and Moabite Historiography, 5992. ots 28.
Smelik, Klaas A.D. Moloch, Molekh or Molk-Sacrifice? A Reassessment of the Evidence
Concerning the Hebrew Term Molekh. sjot 9 (1995): 133142.
Smelik, Klaas A.D. The Literary Structure of King Meshas Inscription. jsot 46 (1990):
2130.
Smend, Rudolf. Jahwekrieg und Stmmebund: Erwgungen zur ltesten Geschichte
Israels. frlant 84. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963.
Smith, George Adam. The Book of Deuteronomy. cbsc. Cambridge: University Press,
1950.
Snaith, Norman H. The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament. 2nd ed. London: Epworth,
1945.
bibliography 423
Soggin, J. Alberto. Das Buch Genesis: Kommentar. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buch-

gesellschaft, 1997.
Sparks, Kenton L. Ethnicity and Identity in Ancient Israel: Prolegomena to the Study of
Ethnic Sentiments and Their Expression in the Hebrew Bible. Winona Lake: Eisen-
brauns, 1998.
Sperber, Alexander. The Bible in Aramaic 1: The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos.
Sperber, J. Der Personenwechsel in der Bibel. za 32 (1918): 2333.
Spina, Frank Anthony. The Faith of the Outsider: Exclusion and Inclusion in the Biblical
Story. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Staerk, Willy. Das Deuteronomium: Sein Inhalt und seine literarische Form; Eine kritische
Studie. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrich, 1894.
Stavrakopoulou, Francesca. King Manasseh and Child Sacrifice: Biblical Distortions of
Historical Realities. bzaw 338. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004.
Steinmetz, Devora. From Father to Son: Kinship, Conflict, and Continuity in Genesis. lcbi.
Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991.
Steinmetz, Devora. Vineyard, Farm, and Garden: The Drunkenness of Noah in the
Context of Primeval History. jbl 113 (1994): 193207.
Sternberg, Georg. Die Ethik des Deuteronomiums. Berlin: Trowitzsch & Sohn, 1907.
Stern, Philip D. Of Kings and Moabites: History and Theology in 2 Kings 3 and the
Mesha Inscription. huca 64 (1993): 114.
Stern, Philip D. The Biblical erem: A Window on Israels Religious Experience. BJSt 211.
Steuernagel, Carl. Das Deuteronomium. 2nd ed. hk. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rup-
recht, 1923.
Steuernagel, Carl. Deuteronomium und Josua und allgemeine Einleitung in den Hexa-
teuch. hk. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900.
Stoebe, Hans-Joachim. Das erste Buch Samuelis. kat. Gtersloh: Mohn, 1973.
Stoebe, Hans-Joachim. Das zweite Buch Samuelis. kat. Gtersloh: Gtersloher Ver-
lagshaus, 1994.
Stolz, Fritz. Jahwes und Israels Kriege: Kriegstheorien und Kriegserfahrungen im Glauben
des alten Israels. AThANT 60. Zrich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972.
Stone, Lawson G. Ethical and Apologetic Tendencies in the Redaction of the Book of
Joshua. cbq 53 (1991): 2536.
Stuhlmacher, Peter. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 2 vols. Gttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 19921999.
Stump, Eleonore. The Problem of Evil and the History of Peoples: Think Amalek. In
Divine Evil? The Moral Character of the God of Abraham, edited by Michael Berg-
mann, Michael J. Murray, and Michael C. Rea, 179197. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2011.
424 bibliography
Sukenik, Eleazar Lipa, ed. The Dead Sea Scrolls of the Hebrew University. Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1955.
Suzuki, Yoshihide. A New Aspect of in Deuteronomy in View of an Assimilation
Policy of King Josiah. ajbi 21 (1995): 327.
Suzuki, Yoshihide. The Numeruswechsel in Deuteronomy. Claremont/Ann Arbor: umi,
1982.
Swinburne, Richard. What Does the Old Testament Mean? In Divine Evil? The Moral
Tal, Abraham, ed. The Samaritan Pentateuch, Edited According to Ms 6 (c) of the Shekhem
Synagogue. tshl 8. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 1994.
Talmud Bavli. Vilna: Romm, 18801886.
Talstra, Eep. Deuteronomium. In De Bijbel theologisch: Hoofdlijnen en themas, edited
by Klaas Spronk and Archibald L.H.M. van Wieringen, 5163. Zoetermeer: Meinema,
2011.
Talstra, Eep. Identity and Loyalty, Faith and Violence: The Case of Deuteronomy. In
Christian Faith and Violence, edited by Dirk van Keulen and Martien E. Brinkman,
1:6985. SRTh 1011. Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2005.
Tanner, Hans Andreas. Amalek: Der Feind Israels und der Feind Jahwes; Eine Studie zu
den Amalektexten im Alten Testament. Zrich: Theologischer Verlag Zrich, 2005.
Tarragon, Jean-Michel de. Witchcraft, Magic, and Divination in Canaan and Ancient
Israel. In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 3:20712081.
New York: Scribner, 1995.
Terrien, Samuel L. The Elusive Presence: The Heart of Biblical Theology. rps 26. San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978.
The Old Testament in Syriac According to the Peshita Version, Edited on behalf of the
International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament by the Peshita Institute
Leiden. Leiden: Brill, 1972.
Theophilus of Antioch. Ad Autolycum. Edited by Robert M. Grant. oect. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1970.
Theron, P.F. The God of War and His Prince of Peace. In Christian Faith and Vio-
lence, edited by Dirk van Keulen and Martien E. Brinkman, 2:144156. SRTh 1011.
Zoetermeer: Meinema, 2005.
Thomas, Heath A., Jeremy Evans, and Paul Copan, eds. Holy War in the Bible: Christian
Morality and an Old Testament Problem. Downers Grove: ivp Academic, 2013.
Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy. jpstc. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996.
Tilly, Michael. Kanaaner, Hndler und der Tempel in Jerusalem. bn 57 (1991): 30
36.
Tomasino, Anthony J. History Repeats Itself: The Fall and Noahs Drunkenness. vt 42
(1992): 128130.
bibliography 425
Toorn, Karel van der, Bob Becking, and Pieter Willem van der Horst, eds. Dictionary of
Deities and Demons in the Bible (ddd). Rev. ed. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress,
2012.
Trimm, Charles. Recent Research on Warfare in the Old Testament. cbr 10 (2012): 171
216.
Tristram, Henry Baker. Hornet. In A Dictionary of the Bible Comprising Its Antiquities,
Biography, Geography, and Natural History, edited by W. Smith and J.M. Fuller, 2nd
ed., 1389. London: John Murray, 1893.
Tropper, Josef. Nekromantie: Totenbefragung im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament.
aoat 223. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1989.
Uchelen, N.A. van. Psalmen. 2 vols. pot. Nijkerk: Callenbach, 19711977.
Uehlinger, Christoph. The Canaanites and Other pre-Israelite Peoples in Story and
History (Part i). FZPhTh 46 (1999): 546578.
Uehlinger, Christoph. The Canaanites and Other pre-Israelite Peoples in Story and
History (Part ii). FZPhTh 47 (2000): 173198.
Uehlinger, Christoph. Weltreich und eine Rede: Eine neue Deutung der sogenannten
Turmbauerzhlung (Gen 11, 19). obo 101. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990.
Uffenheimer, Benjamin. . BetM 22 (71) (1977): 427434. [Hebr.]
Ulrich, Eugene Charles, ed. The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual
Variants. vt.s 134. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
VanGemeren, Willem A., ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology &
Exegesis. 5 vols. Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997.
Van Seters, John. The Terms Amorite and Hittite in the Old Testament. vt 22 (1972):
6481.
Van Wijk-Bos, Johanna W.H. Making Wise the Simple: The Torah in Christian Faith and
Practice. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.
Van Winkle, Dwight. Canaanite Genocide and Amalekite Genocide and the God of Love.
Winifred E. Weter Faculty Award Lecture. Seattle: Pacific University, 1989.
Vasholz, Robert I. Genesis 9:1925. Presb. 26 (2000): 3233.
Veenhof, Klaas R. Geschichte des alten Orients bis zur Zeit Alexanders des Groen. gat 11.
Veijola, Timo. Das 5. Buch Mose: Deuteronomium: Kapitel 1,116,17. atd. Gttingen: Van-
denhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004.
Veijola, Timo. Deuteronomismusforschung zwischen Tradition und Innovation (i).
ThR 67 (2002): 273327.
Velde, Herman te. Human Sacrifice in Ancient Egypt. In The Strange World of Human
Sacrifice, edited by Jan N. Bremmer, 127134. shar 1. Leuven: Peeters, 2007.
Versluis, Arie. Devotion and/or Destruction? The Meaning and Function of in the
Old Testament. zaw 128 (2016): 233246.
426 bibliography
Versluis, Arie. The Early Reception History of the Command to Exterminate the
Canaanites. Biblical Reception 3 (2014 [2015]): 308329.
Vervenne, Marc. What Shall We Do with the Drunken Sailor? A Critical Re-Examina-
tion of Genesis 9.2027. jsot 68 (1995): 3355.
Vetus Latina Database. Accessed November 7, 2006. www.brepolis.net.
Vieweger, Dieter. und fhrte euch heraus aus dem Eisenschmelzofen, aus gypten,
. als Metapher fr die Knechtschaft in gypten (Dtn 4,20; 1 Kn 8,51 und
Jer 11,4). In Gottes Recht als Lebensraum, edited by Peter Mommer, Werner H.
Schmidt, and Hans Strauss, 265276. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1993.
Villiers, Pieter G.R. de, and Jan Willem van Henten, eds. Coping with Violence in the New
Testament. star 16. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Vivian, Angelo. I campi lessicali della separazione nell Ebraico biblico, di Qumran e
della Mishna: ovvero, applicabilit della teoria dei campi lessicali all Ebraico. QuSem
4. Florence: Istituto di linguistica e di lingue orientali, 1978.
Vogels, Walter. Cham dcouvre les limites de son pre No (Gn 9,2027). NRTh 109
(1987): 554573.
Volf, Miroslav. Christianity and Violence. In War in the Bible and Terrorism in the
Twenty-First Century, edited by Richard S. Hess and Elmer A. Martens, 117. bbr.s 2.
Volf, Miroslav. Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness,
and Reconciliation. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996.
Vriezen, Th.C. Hoofdlijnen der theologie van het Oude Testament. 6th ed. Wageningen:
Veenman, 1987.
Waltke, Bruce K. An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic
Approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.
Waltke, Bruce K., and Cathi J. Fredricks. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zon-
dervan, 2001.
Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael Patrick OConnor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew
Syntax. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990.
Walton, John H. Genesis. nivac. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.
Warrior, Robert Allen. A Native American Perspective: Canaanites, Cowboys, and
Indians. In Voices from the Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the Third World, edited
by R.S. Sugirtharajah, 287295. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1991.
Washburn, David L. A Catalog of Biblical Passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls. sbltcs 2.
Wazana, Nili. Everything Was Fulfilled versus The Land That Yet Remains: Contrast-
ing Conceptions of the Fulfillment of the Promise in the Book of Joshua. In The Gift
of the Land and the Fate of the Canaanites in Jewish Thought, edited by Katell Berth-
elot, Joseph E. David, and Marc Hirshman, 1335. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2014.
bibliography 427
Weber, Robert, and Bonifatius Fischer et al., eds. Biblia Sacra: iuxta Vulgatam Ver-
sionem. 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983.
Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy 111. AncB. New York: Doubleday, 1991.
Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon,
1972.
Weinfeld, Moshe. The Ban on the Canaanites in the Biblical Codes and Its Historical
Development. In History and Traditions of Early Israel, edited by Andr Lemaire and
Benedikt Otzen, 142160. vt.s 50. Leiden: Brill, 1993.
Weinfeld, Moshe. The Extent of the Promised Landthe Status of Transjordan. In
Das Land Israel in biblischer Zeit: Jerusalem-Symposium 1981 der Hebrischen Uni-
versitt und der Georg-August-Universitt, edited by Georg Strecker, 5975. gta 25.
Weinfeld, Moshe. The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the
Israelites. tljs. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.
Weinfeld, Moshe. The Worship of Molech and of the Queen of Heaven and Its Back-
ground. uf 4 (1972): 133154.
Weinfeld, Moshe. ,. Zion
53 (1988): 135147.
Weippert, Helga, and Manfred Weippert. Die Bileam-Inschrift von Tell Dr All.zdpv
98 (1982): 77103.
Weippert, Manfred. Heiliger Krieg in Israel und Assyrien: Kritische Anmerkungen zu
Gerhard von Rads Konzept des Heiligen Krieges im alten Israel. zaw 84 (1972):
460493.
Weitzman, Michael P. The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction. ucop 56.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Welch, Adam C. The Purpose of Deuteronomy, Chapter vii. et 42 (19301931): 409
412.
Welten et al., Peter. Bann. In tre, 5:159190. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1980.
Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis. 2 vols. wbc. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 19871994.
Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. nic. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.
Westermann, Claus. Genesis. 3 vols. bk. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974
1982.
Westermann, Claus. Theologie des Alten Testaments in Grundzgen. gat 6. Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978.
Wette, W.M.L. de. Dissertatio critica qva a prioribvs Devteronomivm Pentatevchi libris
diversvm alivs cvivsdam recentioris avctoris opvs esse monstratvr. In Opuscula
theologica, 149168. Berlin: Reimerus, 1830.
Wevers, John William. Notes on the Greek Text of Deuteronomy. SCSt 39. Atlanta: Schol-
ars Press, 1995.
Wevers, John William. Yahweh and Its Appositives in lxx Deuteronomium. In
428 bibliography
Studies in Deuteronomy, edited by Florentino Garca Martnez et al., 269280. vt.s 53.
Whitford, David M. The Curse of Ham in the Early Modern Era: The Bible and the
Justifications for Slavery. sasrh. Surrey: Ashgate, 2009.
Wildberger, Hans. Jahwes Eigentumsvolk: Eine Studie zur Traditionsgeschichte und The-
ologie des Erwhlungsgedankens. AThANT 37. Zrich: Zwingli Verlag, 1960.
Wildberger, Hans. Jesaja 139. 3 vols. bk. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972
1982.
Williamson, H.G.M. Ezra, Nehemiah. wbc. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985.
Williams, Peter J. Studies in the Syntax of the Peshitta of 1 Kings. mpil 12. Leiden: Brill,
2001.
Williams, Stephen N. Could God Have Commanded the Slaughter of the Canaanites?
TynB 63 (2012): 161178.
Wilms, Franz-Elmar. Das jahwistische Bundesbuch in Exodus 34. StANT 32. Mnchen:
Ksel-Verlag, 1973.
Wittenberg, Gunther H. Let Canaan Be His Slave. (Gen 9:26): Is Ham Also Cursed?
jtsa 74 (1991): 4656.
Wolff, Hans Walter. Joel, Amos. bk. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969.
Wolters, Al. Zechariah. hcot. Leuven: Peeters, 2014.
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. Reading Joshua. In Divine Evil? The Moral Character of the God
of Abraham, edited by Michael Bergmann, Michael J. Murray, and Michael C. Rea,
Woods, Edward J. Deuteronomy. totc. Downers Grove: ivp Academic, 2011.
Woude, Adam S. van der. Pluriformity and Uniformity: Reflections on the Transmission
of the Text of the Old Testament. In Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism:
A Symposium in Honour of A.S. van der Woude, edited by J.N. Bremmer and F. Garca
Martnez, 151169. cbet 5. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1992.
Woude, Adam S. Habakuk, Zefanja. pot. Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1978.
Woude, Adam S. Zacharia. pot. Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1984.
Wright, Christopher J.H. Deuteronomy. nibc. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996.
Wright, Christopher J.H. Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. Downers Grove:
Inter-Varsity, 2004.
Wright, Christopher J.H. The God I Dont Understand: Reflections on Tough Questions of
Faith. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008.
Wright, N.T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Christian Origins and the Question of God 2.
Yeivin, Israel, ed. Geniza Bible Fragments with Babylonian Massorah and Vocalization i:
Pentateuch. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Makor, 1973.
Yeivin, Israel, ed. Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah. Edited by E.J. Revell. MasSt 5.
Missoula: Scholars Press, 1980.
bibliography 429
Yoder, John Howard. Nonviolence: A Brief History; The Warsaw Lectures. Waco: Baylor
Younger Jr., K. Lawson. Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and
Biblical History Writing. jsot.s 98. Sheffield: jsot Press, 1990.
Younger Jr., K. Lawson. Judges and Ruth. nivac. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.
Younger Jr., K. Lawson. The Configuring of Judicial Preliminaries: Judges 1.12.5 and Its
Dependence on the Book of Joshua. jsot 68 (1995): 7592.
Zehnder, Markus Philipp. Building on Stone? Deuteronomy and Esarhaddons Loyalty
Oaths (Pts. 1 and 2). bbr 19 (2009): 341374, 511535.
Zehnder, Markus Philipp. The Annihilation of the Canaanites: Reassessing the Brutal-
ity of the Biblical Witness. In Encountering Violence in the Bible, edited by Markus
Zehnder and Hallvard Hagelia, 263290. bmw 55. Sheffield: Phoenix, 2013.
Zehnder, Markus Philipp. Umgang mit Fremden in Israel und Assyrien: Ein Beitrag
zur Anthropologie des Fremden im Licht antiker Quellen. bwant 168. Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 2005.
Zenger, Erich. Gewalt als Preis der Wahrheit? Alttestamentliche Beobachtungen zur
sogenannten Mosaischen Unterscheidung. In Religion, Politik und Gewalt: Kongress-
band des xii. Europischen Kongresses fr Theologie, 18.22. September 2005 in Berlin,
edited by Friedrich Schweitzer, 3557. vwgt 29. Gtersloh: Gtersloher Verlagshaus,
2006.
Zimmerli, Walther. 1. Mose 111: Die Urgeschichte. 3rd ed. zbk. Zrich: Zwingli-Verlag,
1967.
Zimmerli, Walther. Grundri der alttestamentlichen Theologie. 4th ed. ThW 3. Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1982.
Zorn, Jeffrey R. War and Its Effects on Civilians in Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors. In
The Other Face of the Battle: The Impact of War on Civilians in the Ancient Near East,
edited by Davide Nadali and Jordi Vidal, 79100. aoat 413. Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag,
2014.
Zundel, Enoch.
. Jerusalem: Lewin-Epstein, 1960.
Zyl, A.H. van. Israel and the Indigenous Population of Canaan According to the Books
of Samuel. In Die Ou Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika: Studies on the
Books of Samuel; Papers Read at the 3rd Meeting Held at Stellenbosch 2628 January
1960, 6780. Pretoria: otwsa, 1960.
Zyl, A.H. van. The Relationship of the Israelite Tribes to the Indigenous Population of
Canaan According to the Book of Judges. In Die Ou Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap
in Suid-Afrika: Papers Read at the 2nd Meeting Held at Potchefstroom 25 February
1959, 5160. Pretoria: otwsa, 1959.
Index of Textual References
The Index of Textual References is limited to Scripture texts that are explicitly discussed.
Old Testament
Genesis 3:17 39
111 179 13:5 39, 224
3:14,17 280 13:11 224, 291
4:11 280 15:1417 232 n. 307
68 367 15:26 104105
6:5 354 n. 121, 360 17:1416 55, 166167
9:1 275 20:5 201, 214
9:1827 267268 22:1719 5658, 7172
9:25 267282, 361 23:2033 2, 8, 13, 196211, 212, 218
10 279, 296 222, 266, 317, 323
10:2,6,21 274, 277 23:23 39, 220
10:1518 39 23:24 214
10:19 263264 23:27 28
11:4 179 23:28 111113, 224
12:6 262, 291 23:29 28, 118, 241242 n. 338
13:7 262, 293 23:31 225, 229
14:57 262 33:2 39, 196197, 228
14:13 263 34:67 367, 368
15:16 253, 354, 359 34:1016 2, 8, 196198, 211222, 309,
15:1921 39, 262 317
1819 263264, 367 34:11 39
18:20 354 n. 121, 360 34:13 225
18:2332 338, 355
19:3038 272, 280 Leviticus
23:6 263 10:3 367
24:3,37 264 18 257260, 305306, 355
26:3435 264 18:78 271
27:46 265 18:24 228229
28:1,6,8 265 18:27 359
33:19 263 19:2 367
34 265 20 260, 305306, 355
34:2 294 20:5 303 n. 79
34:21 356 20:11 271
34:30 293 20:17 271
38:2 265 20:23 228229
46:10 265 27:28 47 n. 97, 50, 52
48:22 266
50:11 291 Numbers
13:29 39, 223, 287, 290, 291,
Exodus 295
3:8 39, 356 14:25,43,45 223
index of textual references 431
21:13 52, 55, 230, 254 7:16 3233

21:2135 55, 225 n. 285, 254 7:1 2223, 3643, 105, 123124,
21:32 213232 n. 299 185, 200
32:39 231 7:2 2, 23, 4375, 124126, 206,
33:5056 8, 197, 219220, 225, 229, 212, 219220, 229, 358
241242 n. 338, 351 7:3 23, 45 n. 90, 75, 124126, 174,
216, 246, 317
Deuteronomy 7:4 23, 7678, 126130, 202, 216
1:14:40 10 7:5 24, 45 n. 90, 7880, 126130,
1:12 139 202, 213214, 225
1:7 175, 290 7:6 8084, 106, 129, 130, 156
1:1946 177 n. 147 7:711 3233
1:27 176 7:7 24, 45 n. 90, 8485, 106, 129,
1:28 176177, 179 130131, 157
23 176177 7:8 17, 24, 8589, 129, 130131,
2:45 2, 153, 161 157
2:9 2, 153, 161162 7:9 17, 24, 8992, 131132
2:1012 178181 7:10 25, 45 n. 90, 9294, 132, 358
2:11 177 7:11 2526, 9495, 132, 211
2:19 2, 153, 161162 7:1216 3234, 134
2:2023 153, 155, 178181, 224 n. 283 7:12 26, 9597, 129, 133
2:24 55, 177 7:13 26, 97102, 202
2:25 155 7:14 26, 45 n. 90, 102103, 106,
2:26 172 134, 203
2:2829 163 7:15 26, 103105, 203
2:3031 55 7:16 27, 45 n. 90, 105107, 134,
2:33 155 202, 206, 213
2:34 69 7:1726 3234, 134
3:23 155 7:17 27, 105, 108109
3:6 69 7:18 27, 45 n. 90, 109110
3:11 178, 180 7:19 27, 106, 110111, 181
3:21 177, 181 7:20 111116, 135, 204, 359
4:68 158 7:21 45 n. 90, 116117, 200, 203
4:19 154 7:22 2728, 45 n. 90, 105, 116,
4:20 165 117118, 135, 183, 206
4:3235 152153, 157 7:23 2829, 118119, 203
4:38 356 7:24 2930, 45 n. 90, 119120, 135,
4:4411:32 141146 206
4:4445 139140 7:25 30, 45 n. 90, 53, 120121, 129,
5:16:3 143144 136
5:1 143 7:26 45 n. 90, 53, 122, 136
5:910 93 8:20 158, 181, 184, 352
6:1 140 9:111:32 146
6:48:20 144145 9:13 155156, 177, 179
6:425 144 9:1 143
6:4 143 9:3 109, 135, 183
6:10 145 9:46 157, 187189, 351, 354355,
6:14 157, 184 356
6:19 182 9:14 153
432 index of textual references
Deuteronomy (cont.) Joshua

10:1415 153, 156 1:4 224
10:19 321 2:911 238
11:30 175, 291 2:10 237 n. 323
12:1 140141 3:10 39, 228
12:910 167168 5:1 291
12:2931 190191, 193194, 303, 350, 6:17 52, 225 n. 285, 231
356 6:18 47 n. 97
13 183184 6:25 231, 238
13:6 372 8:2 225 n. 285
13:1319 94, 318, 351, 358 8:8 226 n. 288
13:16 56 9 231, 309
13:18 56 9:1 39, 254
14:12 156 9:7 294
18:914 157, 191195, 303, 355 9:24 226
19:1 356 10:15 254
20:1018 54, 157, 169174, 309, 318, 10:6 290
350, 354 10:20 231
20:1012 3 10:2839 231
20:1314 357 10:3033 46
20:17 2, 39, 219220, 229 10:40 226227, 232
20:1718 187, 355 11:15 254
21:1014 125, 174 11:3 39, 287, 293, 294, 295
23:29 162166, 246 11:1920 172, 227, 254, 294, 358
24:16 94 12:8 39
25:1719 55, 166168 13:6 229
26:6 165 13:13 239
26:19 158 13:21 230231 n. 299
28 98, 158 14:12 226 n. 288
28:49 156 15:63 239, 295
28:60 103 16:10 239
28:69 139140 17:1213 239
29:10 168 n. 116 17:15 293
29:1723 184 17:16 291
29:25 154 21:44 232
30:34 156 23:4 229, 232, 239
30:5 185 23:5 229
31:34 176177, 181 23:9 229, 232
31:21,27,29 352 23:1216 241, 241242 n. 338
32:143 361 24:8 232
32:89 153, 156 24:11 39
32:35 373 24:12 111, 204, 205 n. 237, 232
32:43 159160 24:15 224
32:49 175 24:18 232
33:1 139
33:3 155, 156 Judges
33:27 182 n. 164 1:12:5 231, 239240, 244
33:29 160 1:4 293
1:19 239 n. 331
1:21 295 19:11 58

2:2 227 21:211 233, 255256, 305, 359
2:3 240, 241242 n. 338, 385 360
2:2123 240, 241, 351 2223 12, 246
3:3 223, 240 n. 333
3:14 351 1Chronicles
3:5 39 1:1316 39
4:2,23,24 232, 242, 316 n. 128 4:4041 235 n. 317
5 315316 5:25 235
6:910 232 11:45 295
19:1112 252 n. 379, 295 11:6 232
21:11 56 11:41 243
17:21 232
1Samuel 21:15,18,28 243
7:14 242 22:18 236, 244
14:4748 242243 n. 340
15 55 2Chronicles
15:21 52 1:17 287288
26:6 243 3:1 243
27:89 245 n. 350 8:78 39, 233, 240241, 243
20:7 235
2Samuel 33:6 305
5:8 232
7:23 232233 n. 310 Ezra
11:3,6,17,21,24 243 9:12 39, 246, 312
12:9,10 243 9:1112 230 n. 298, 246, 254, 312,
21:12 242, 309 354, 359
23:39 243 10:8 72
24:7 244245, 294 n. 37
24:16,18 243 Nehemiah
2:10,19 281
1Kings 9:8 39, 224
9:16 243 n. 343 9:24 224, 235, 236, 291
9:2021 39, 233, 240241, 243244 9:35 356
10:28 295 10:31 247
10:29 287 13:1,23 247 n. 357
11:12 230 n. 298, 233, 246, 288, 354
11:7 302303 n. 78 Psalms
14:2426 233, 260261, 359 9:67 234 n. 314
15:5 243 10:16 234 n. 314
21:2526 233, 253254, 359 30:6 368
44:3 234, 237
2Kings 46:10 364
3 63 n. 194, 304 47:45 234235, 236
7:6 287 68:13 234 n. 314
16:25 233, 255, 305, 359 78:55 235
17:8,11,15,18 233, 235236, 255, 359360 80:9 235
17:17 305 81:15 234 n. 314
17:31 304 99:8 367
434 index of textual references
Psalms (cont.) Ezekiel

106:3441 227228, 241, 256 16:3 252 n. 379
135:1011 235 20:31 305
136:1722 235
149:79 234 n. 314 Hosea
11:89 367, 368
Proverbs
31:24 247 n. 359 Joel
4:10 364
Isaiah
2:4 364 Amos
5:24 367 2:910 234, 237, 315
10:5 365
11:15 46 Obadiah
23:11 223 n. 282 20 234 n. 313
34:26 361, 367
41:14 367 Zephaniah
54:8 368 2:5 223 n. 282
Jeremiah Zechariah
25:9 46 9:7 245, 369, 385
5051 367 9:13 365
51:20 365 11:7,11 251252
14:11 249250, 361
14:21 249251, 360, 361, 365, 369,
372, 385
New Testament
Matthew 8:26,37 296 n. 48

2:112 371 10:3037 370
5:44 323 13:29 370
8:10 370 14:2123 370
8:28 296 n. 48 24:47 371
10:56 370
11:26 373374 John
15:2128 370, 372 3:1618 374
25:32 371 18:36 373
26:5154 373
28:19 371 Acts
5:111 374
Mark 7:45 370
5:1 296 n. 48 13:19 370
11:1518 250
Romans
Luke 5:10 375
2:1 371 8:32 375
7:9 370 11:24 371
12:1721 373 2Timothy

13:4 373 4:7 373
1Corinthians Hebrews
5 372373 1:1 379
11:30 374 11:31 370
16:22 371
James
2Corinthians 5:79 374
5:21 375
10:4 373 1Peter
2:14 373
Ephesians
2:1122 371 2Peter
3:6 371 3:9 374
6:1017 373
1John
1Thessalonians 3:1516 374
5:8 373
Revelation
1Timothy 22:3 372
1:18 373
6:12 373
Index of Authors
The Index of Authors is limited to authors whose views are discussed in some detail, especially
in the main text.
Ateek, Naim S. 325, 344 Ishida, Tomoo 4142

Augustine 337
Janse, Sam 334
Bchli, Otto 9, 152, 192
Becking, Bob 67 n. 211 Kaminsky, Joel S. 168 n. 115, 358
Bekkum, Koert van 309 Kitchen, Kenneth A. 148
Bertholet, Alfred 174 Knierim, Rolf P. 341
Block, Daniel I. 62 Koschel, Ansgar 8
Borowski, Oded 114 Kruijf, G.G. de 350, 363
Braulik, Georg 185186
Brekelmans, C.H.W. 334 Labuschagne, C.J. 78, 142
Brueggemann, Walter 349, 367 Lake, Todd L. 11
Lemaire, Andr 66
Calvin, John 337338 Lemche, Niels Peter 13, 292
Christensen, Duane L. 142 Lohfink, Norbert 3435, 8990, 341342
Cliteur, Paul 323324 Longman, Tremper iii 11
Copan, Paul 339, 340
Cowles, C.S. 11, 344 Marcion 5, 322
Crsemann, Frank 151 n. 46, 215 n. 263, 215 McCarthy, Carmel 25
216 n. 266, 221222, 309, 357 McConville, J. Gordon 13
Mendenhall, George E. 147
Dawkins, Richard 323 Merrill, Eugene H. 11, 338
Delitzsch, Friedrich 344 Morrow, William 311
Dietrich, Walter 331 Murphy, Mark C. 338
Dorsey, David A. 142
Naaman, Nadav 292
Earl, Douglas S. 333 Neis, Helene 10
Elias, Norbert 329 Neufeld, Edward 114
Nielsen, Eduard 135
Floss, Johannes Peter 130, 131, 134
Ford, William 368 n. 171 OConnell, Kevin G. 4142
ONeill, Helen C. 11
Garca Lpez, Flix 124125, 134 Osumi, Yuichi 209210
Gard, Daniel L. 11 Otto, Eckart 1213, 109, 133
Hempel, Johannes 124 Rad, Gerhard von 59

Hess, Richard S. 331 Rainey, Anson F. 66, 292
Hoffman, Yair 309, 312, 314 Reimarus, Hermann Samuel 323
Hostetter, Edwin C. 9, 42 Reinke, L. 10
Hour, Jean l 187 Rose, Martin 132
Houtman, Cees 9, 57, 178181, 266267,
342 Schfer-Lichtenberger, Christa 8, 7172,
7475, 105106, 116, 186
index of authors 437
Schmitt, Gtz 7, 308 Wellhausen, Julius 12

Schwally, Friedrich 59 Wette, W.M.L. de 12, 308
Seibert, Eric A. 343344 Wijk-Bos, Johanna van 341
Staerk, W. 128, 130131 Wildberger, Hans 84
Stern, Philip D. 5354, 309, 311312, Williams, Stephen N. 340
314 Woude, A.S. van der 252
Steuernagel, C. 129
Younger, K. Lawson Jr. 240
Warrior, Robert A. 328
Weinfeld, Moshe 8, 219221, 309 Zehnder, Markus 331332 n. 37

(OS 071) Versluis - The Command To Exterminate The Canaanites - Deuteronomy 7 PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

(OS 071) Versluis - The Command To Exterminate The Canaanites - Deuteronomy 7 PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Command to Exterminate the Canaanites: Deuteronomy 7

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ots

Copyright 2017 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands.

This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

3 Literary Context 139

3.2 The Nations of Canaan in the Book of Deuteronomy 152

4 Historical Setting 286

5 Theological Evaluation 321

The theme of religiously inspired violence continues to be a topic of interest.

The present monograph is a translation and revision of my PhD Thesis, Geen

Ouderkerk aan de Amstel

See Siegfried M. Schwertner, Abkrzungsverzeichnis. 2nd ed. tre. Berlin: De

AbOTC Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries

sasrh St. Andrews Studies in Reformation History

1.1 Object of the Present Study

koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004341319_002

Accordingly, Deut. 7 is a text that evokes significant theological and moral

These interpretations will be seriously considered in the present study. How-

Further investigation is needed of the exegetical, historical, and theological

1.2 Previous Research

1.2.1 Research of the Command to Exterminate the Canaanites

Exod. 23:2033, and so is part of the Nachgeschichte of the original command.

30 Cees Houtman, Die ursprnglichen Bewohner des Landes Kanaan im Deuteronomium:

1.2.2 Research of Deuteronomy

34 Sigrid Loersch, Das Deuteronomium und seine Deutungen: Ein forschungsgeschichtlicher

deuteronomistischen Literatur 3, sbab 20 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1995), 1619.

As noted above, the dating of Deuteronomy or its underlying traditions has

1.3 Aim and Method

and structure of Deut. 7 are examined. Afterwards, an exegesis of the chapter is

2.1 Text and Translation

In this section, the Masoretic text of Deut. 7 is displayed, together with a

1a 1When Yhwh your God brings you

koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004341319_003

1b and He drives out greata nations before

7b for you are the smallest of all the nations.

13b in the land

22a little by little.

2.2 Text-Critical Annotations

4 The following abbreviations are used: mtMasoretic text; lxxSeptuagint; spSamaritan

2. a: lxx . Cf. Deut. 7:23,24. Given the unanimity of

3. a: pl. lxx, s.12

5. a: sg. mtMs, sp, vl.

7. a: at this point, the manuscript of tn has a lacuna. According to

8. a: spMss -. Apparently, this form was interpreted as a noun by

10. a: mtMs -. Carmel McCarthy seems to follow this reading in bhq,

11. a: pl. lxx, v. lxx-Deut. almost always translates , which is used

b: suffix > tj | suffix 2nd pl. s.

13. a-a : s, v, tn24 use the same translation for in both

14. a: suffix pl. lxx.

24 ; tn always translates with ; Martin McNamara,

17. a: sg. lxx.

18. a-a : s everything that ; tj the mighty acts that ; tn the

19. a: 5QDeut seems to add , but the reading is uncertain. If the

22. a: mtMs, 4QDeutf, sp. as a demonstrative pronoun occurs nine

b: lxx . The plus in lxx can be explained

23. a: mt, 4QpaleoDeutr, sp, s, v, to, tj, tn | : 4QDeute, lxx (like

b: mt, 4QpaleoDeutr ( reconstructed on the basis of the available

In conclusion, a comparison of the textual witnesses makes clear that mt may

2.3 Delimitation and Structure

cases, the difference in number with mt should be explained as a characteristic of the

In Codex Leningradensis, Deut. 7 is delimited by a between Deut. 6:25 and

For an investigation of the structure of Deut. 7, the subdivision of mt may

According to this subdivision, the major division within Deut. 7 is between