# ANE Siege-Warfare Reality ## Intro The hardest Old Testament texts for modern readers are the conquest narratives. Joshua takes the land. *"Joshua smote all the country... he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed"* ([Joshua 10:40](/codex/joshua-10-40/)). Critics call it genocide and ask, with real force, how a good God could command such a thing. Two things have to be on the table before the texts can be read fairly. The first is the *literary convention*. In the ancient Near East, *every* nation's military annals talked this way. The Moabite king Mesha (around 840 BC) boasts on a stone monument that he *"destroyed Israel forever."* Israel was not destroyed; the boast is conventional rhetoric. The Assyrian king Sennacherib (around 700 BC) claims he *"trampled like dust"* the surrounding peoples; the same peoples appear in subsequent campaigns. Egyptian pharaohs routinely claim total destruction of enemies who reappear in later inscriptions. This *hagiographic hyperbole* was the genre. The original audience knew it. When Joshua's annal says *"all who breathed,"* it is using the speech-form of victory accounts of the time, not a literal census of corpses. Internally the Bible confirms this: Joshua claims total destruction in chapter 10, but [Judges 1](/codex/judges-1/) says the Canaanites were still there in large numbers. The two texts only contradict if the first is read literally; on the conventional reading they coexist easily. The second thing is the *actual practice* of ANE siege warfare. Bronze Age sieges, when literally executed, were horrific by modern standards. Mass enslavement, mass deportation, mass killing, sexual violence, and starvation of besieged cities were normal. Against that real-world baseline, the Mosaic war code in [Deuteronomy 20](/codex/deuteronomy-20/) is striking for what it *forbids* and limits. Offer terms of peace first. Spare women and children of distant cities under specific conditions. Preserve fruit trees. Provide for the survivors. The OT code is not the floor of ancient ethics; it is the ceiling, restraining conduct that the surrounding cultures normalized. These two moves together, hagiographic hyperbole as the genre, and ANE siege practice as the realistic comparison, do not make every difficulty in the conquest texts disappear. They do reframe the conversation. The honest position is that Israel's conquest narratives are using standard ancient war-rhetoric while constraining real practice more tightly than the surrounding world. The page below works the comparative material in detail, traces the contemporary evangelical scholarship (Paul Copan, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Matthew Flannagan, John Walton, Richard Hess), and shows how this framework engages the strongest forms of the genocide objection. ## In full The **actual historical practice and rhetorical conventions of warfare in the ancient Near East**, the comparative-context frame for engaging the OT conquest narratives (Joshua, [Judges 1](/codex/judges-1/), the *herem* commands of [Deuteronomy 7](/codex/deuteronomy-7/) and 20) without imposing 21st-century military-ethics expectations on Bronze-Age realities. The contemporary evangelical apologetic move ([Paul Copan](/codex/paul-copan/), Nicholas Wolterstorff, Matthew Flannagan, [John Walton](/codex/john-walton/), Richard Hess) reads the conquest narratives against the **standard ANE military-rhetorical conventions** and the **archaeological evidence of actual ANE siege practice**, finding the conquest texts substantially more humane than their contemporary alternatives and substantially less literal in their extermination-language than naive readings assume. This hub is the historical-realia companion to [ANE Legal Codes, Comparative Context](/codex/ane-legal-codes-comparative-context/) (which addresses ANE legal corpora) and [God and the Killing of Children](/codex/god-and-the-killing-of-children/) (which addresses the conquest narratives directly). The two together provide the structural apologetic engagement with the most morally-difficult OT material. --- ## Two principal apologetic moves ### Move 1, hagiographic hyperbole in ANE military rhetoric The atheist objection cites [Joshua 10:40](/codex/joshua-10-40/) (*"Joshua smote all the country... he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed"*) and similar texts as describing literal genocide. The comparative-ANE response: **this language is the standard ANE military-rhetorical convention** of the period, used routinely by Assyrian, Egyptian, Hittite, and Moabite military annals to claim victory regardless of the actual death toll. Documented parallels from non-biblical ANE sources: - **The Mesha Stele** (Moabite, c. 840 BC), King Mesha of Moab boasts of having "destroyed Israel forever" (line 7); we know from the OT ([2 Kings 3](/codex/2-kings-3/), plus subsequent Israelite history) that Israel was emphatically not destroyed. The rhetoric is standard ANE military boasting. - **Sennacherib's annals** (Assyrian, c. 700 BC), Sennacherib claims he "trampled like dust" the surrounding nations; standard hyperbolic claim that does not literally describe extermination. - **Egyptian Pharaonic battle inscriptions** (e.g., Thutmose III, Ramesses II), routinely claim total destruction of enemies; the same enemies appear in subsequent campaigns. This rhetorical convention was so standard that the original ANE audience would not have read it literally. The biblical conquest narratives use this convention, Joshua's "destroyed all that breathed" is genre-standard military rhetoric, not a description of literal extermination of every individual including non-combatants. **Evidence within the biblical text that the conquest was not literal extermination:** - [Judges 1](/codex/judges-1/) records that the Canaanites *continued to exist* in the land after Joshua's conquest, many cities Joshua "destroyed" reappear in Judges populated by Canaanites whom Israel failed to drive out. - [Judges 2:20-23](/codex/judges-2-20-23/) explicitly notes that God left some nations *not* driven out as a test for Israel. - The Rahab narrative ([Joshua 2](/codex/joshua-2/), 6) and Gibeonite narrative ([Joshua 9](/codex/joshua-9/)) demonstrate that surrender + treaty was a valid alternative to extermination, the *herem* was not categorically applied to anyone meeting Israel in war. - The *herem* texts themselves include exemptions: women and children among non-Canaanite cities offering peace ([Deut 20:10-15](/codex/deuteronomy-20-10-15/)); fruit-bearing trees protected ([Deut 20:19-20](/codex/deuteronomy-20-19-20/)). The internal-biblical evidence + the external ANE-rhetorical convention together imply that the conquest narratives are **stylized military reportage in ANE-convention** rather than literal-genocidal extermination accounts. See Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan, *Did God Really Command Genocide?* (Baker, 2014) for the canonical evangelical deployment of this argument. ### Move 2, the actual character of ANE siege warfare When ancient siege warfare *did* occur in literal historical practice, it was routinely: - **Total**, Assyrian siege practice (the most documented in the period) included impaling enemy leaders on stakes, flaying captives alive, deporting entire populations, salting the earth. The "no quarter" practice was the *default* across the ANE. - **Asymmetric**, non-combatants were not protected by any ANE convention; the modern just-war distinction between combatants and non-combatants did not exist. - **Gendered**, women and children of conquered cities were typically taken as captives / slaves / concubines, sometimes killed. The Mosaic conquest commands, read against this baseline, are **substantially more restrained**: - Cities outside the Canaanite list ([Deut 20:10-15](/codex/deuteronomy-20-10-15/)): peace-offer first; if accepted, the population becomes tributary; if rejected, only the adult males are killed in war, women and children spared. - The Canaanite-list *herem* ([Deut 20:16-18](/codex/deuteronomy-20-16-18/)): the explicit theological justification is preventing religious assimilation (the Canaanite religion involved child sacrifice, sacred prostitution, divination); the *herem* is targeted at the religious-cultural system, not at individuals. - The duration is bounded, the conquest period is a finite historical window (the Joshua-period campaigns), not an ongoing genocide. Once the land was taken, the OT explicitly forbids further such warfare. The conquest texts represent a *specific, bounded, theologically-purposed* divine action within the broader ANE military framework, not a universal license for religious violence and not even the worst military practice of the period. --- ## Where the apologetic still has weight The comparative-ANE move handles much of the conquest-narrative difficulty, but not all of it. Genuine remaining difficulties: - **Theological scandal of divine command for any killing of non-combatants**, even granting hagiographic-hyperbole, the texts include divine commands to kill (at minimum) the male adults of conquered cities. The Christian framework must engage this theologically rather than handwave it away with the hyperbole reading alone. - **Children specifically**, the *herem* texts ([Deut 20:16](/codex/deuteronomy-20-16/), [1 Sam 15:3](/codex/1-samuel-15-3/)) name children among those to be killed in some passages. Even granting hyperbole, the *moral problem* of these texts being in the canon at all requires a substantive theological response. See [God and the Killing of Children](/codex/god-and-the-killing-of-children/) for the engagement. - **The pastoral handling**, for the believer or seeker wounded by these texts, the comparative-ANE engagement is intellectually necessary but not pastorally sufficient. The cross + the suffering-God + the eschatological-judgment-frame must come into play. See [Conversation Scenarios](/codex/conversation-scenarios/) §funeral / §wounded ex-church for the pastoral protocol. The apologetic position is: the comparative-ANE move + the hyperbole reading + the theological-context engagement + the cross-and-eschaton framing collectively form a coherent response, not that any single move suffices. --- ## See also - [Old Testament Difficult Texts](/codex/old-testament-difficult-texts/), parent cluster - [ANE Legal Codes, Comparative Context](/codex/ane-legal-codes-comparative-context/), companion comparative-context hub (legal corpora) - [God and the Killing of Children](/codex/god-and-the-killing-of-children/), the conquest-narrative direct engagement - [Negative-Example Narratives in Judges](/codex/negative-example-narratives-in-judges/), companion hermeneutical defense - [Hebrew Verbs for Sexual Contact](/codex/hebrew-verbs-for-sexual-contact/), companion lexical-defense for sexual-violence laws - [Ethical Trajectory Hermeneutic](/codex/ethical-trajectory-hermeneutic/), the redemptive-arc reading - Paul Copan, the principal popular-evangelical advocate of these moves - [Joshua](/codex/joshua/) (book hub), the conquest-narrative book - [Deuteronomy 20](/codex/deuteronomy-20/), the war-conventions chapter - [Hypocrisy](/codex/hypocrisy/), companion borrowed-moral-horizon defeater - [Atheist Objections](/codex/atheist-objections/) - [Apologetics](/codex/apologetics/) ## Common questions this page answers **Q: Did Joshua really commit genocide?** No, on the standard contemporary evangelical reading. The conquest language ("destroyed all that breathed," [Joshua 10:40](/codex/joshua-10-40/)) is hagiographic hyperbole, the standard ANE military-rhetorical convention. The same Joshua who claims total destruction in chapter 10 is contradicted by [Judges 1](/codex/judges-1/) which records that Canaanites remained in large numbers. The contradiction dissolves on the hyperbolic reading: Joshua used the standard victory speech-form of the period, not a literal corpse count. **Q: What is hagiographic hyperbole?** It is the standard ANE genre of military victory rhetoric. King Mesha of Moab (~840 BC) boasted on the Mesha Stele that he "destroyed Israel forever" (he did not). Sennacherib of Assyria (~700 BC) claimed he "trampled like dust" surrounding peoples who reappear in later campaigns. Egyptian pharaohs routinely claimed total destruction of enemies who show up later. The original ANE audience knew this language was conventional, not literal. **Q: How does Mosaic war law compare to other ancient war practices?** Mosaic war law is substantially more restrained. Outside the Canaanite list, [Deuteronomy 20:10-15](/codex/deuteronomy-20-10-15/) requires offering terms of peace first; if accepted, the population becomes tributary; if rejected, only adult males are killed in war. Fruit trees are protected ([Deuteronomy 20:19-20](/codex/deuteronomy-20-19-20/)). Standard Assyrian siege practice included impaling enemy leaders, flaying captives alive, deporting populations. The OT is the ceiling of ancient war ethics, not the floor. **Q: Why was the herem command applied to the Canaanites?** The explicit theological justification in [Deuteronomy 20:16-18](/codex/deuteronomy-20-16-18/) is preventing religious assimilation. Canaanite religion involved child sacrifice, sacred prostitution, and divination. The *herem* targets the religious-cultural system, not individuals as such. The Rahab ([Joshua 2](/codex/joshua-2/)) and Gibeonite ([Joshua 9](/codex/joshua-9/)) narratives demonstrate that surrender + treaty was a valid alternative. **Q: Does saying it's hyperbole make all the moral problems go away?** No. Even on the hyperbolic reading, the texts still include divine commands to kill at minimum the male adults of conquered cities, and some passages name children among those to be killed. The full apologetic response requires the hyperbole reading plus comparative ANE context plus a theological response (divine prerogative over life, the eschatological frame, the cross). See [God and the Killing of Children](/codex/god-and-the-killing-of-children/) for the direct engagement. **Q: Are there scholars who defend this reading?** Yes, the canonical evangelical engagement is [Paul Copan](/codex/paul-copan/) and Matthew Flannagan, *Did God Really Command Genocide?* (Baker, 2014). Related: Nicholas Wolterstorff, [John Walton](/codex/john-walton/) and J. Harvey Walton (*The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest*, IVP Academic 2017), Richard Hess, and K. Lawson Younger's foundational *Ancient Conquest Accounts* (JSOT Press, 1990).