Violence in the scriptures - Revision history

Rcahoon at 17:27, 9 October 2026

2026-10-09T17:27:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:27, 9 October 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~{{Main Page}}~~		<small> [[Abuse and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints\|Abuse and the Church]] \| <span style="color:#7BB375">The Church's Position</span></small>

			__NOTOC__

	{{Navigation:Scripture}}{{blankline}}		{{Navigation:Scripture}}{{blankline}}
	<h1><b>Violence in the Scriptures</b></h1>		<h1><b>Violence in the Scriptures</b></h1>
	Violence in scripture is troubling for many believers. The following articles address issues related to violence in the scriptures.		Violence in scripture is troubling for many believers. The following articles address issues related to violence in the scriptures.

			{{Summary1}}
	----		----
	{{CollapseHeaders		{{CollapseHeaders
Line 772:		Line 777:
	{{CollapseHeaders		{{CollapseHeaders
	\| title = === Do the scriptures endorse child abuse? ===		\| title = === Do the scriptures endorse child abuse? ===
	\| state =		\| state = closed
	\| content =		\| content =
	{{BMCentral\|title=How Abraham’s Sacrifice of Isaac Illuminates the Atonement\|url=https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/how-abrahams-sacrifice-of-isaac-illuminates-the-atonement\|number=412}}		{{BMCentral\|title=How Abraham’s Sacrifice of Isaac Illuminates the Atonement\|url=https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/how-abrahams-sacrifice-of-isaac-illuminates-the-atonement\|number=412}}
Line 778:		Line 783:
	Some claim that God’s command of Abraham to slay Isaac is an example of divinely-endorsed child abuse. Anyone who knows the story is aware that the story is not about abusing Isaac. Rather, it is about God’s desire for Abraham to be willing to follow him despite hard trials. It also foreshadows the offering of God’s only begotten son—Jesus Christ—saving us in Gethsemane and on the cross.		Some claim that God’s command of Abraham to slay Isaac is an example of divinely-endorsed child abuse. Anyone who knows the story is aware that the story is not about abusing Isaac. Rather, it is about God’s desire for Abraham to be willing to follow him despite hard trials. It also foreshadows the offering of God’s only begotten son—Jesus Christ—saving us in Gethsemane and on the cross.

	== It is also claimed that God’s sending of Christ to be crucified instead of himself is such an example ==		==== <b> It is also claimed that God’s sending of Christ to be crucified instead of himself is such an example </b> ====
	In the case of Christ, some secular critics claim that God is an abuser by sending his son to die on the cross. The short answer is that Christ was foreordained to come to earth to redeem all mankind. He voluntarily gave himself in the pre-mortal council to become our Savior ({{s\|\|Moses\|4\|1-2}}; {{s\|\|Rev\|13\|8}}; {{s\|1\|Peter\|19\|21}}). Upon coming to earth, his agency was not taken away from him. He had the ability to lay down his life and to take it back up ({{s\|\|John\|10\|18}}). It was God’s plan from the beginning, through the supernal gift and voluntary sacrifice of a loving Savior.		In the case of Christ, some secular critics claim that God is an abuser by sending his son to die on the cross. The short answer is that Christ was foreordained to come to earth to redeem all mankind. He voluntarily gave himself in the pre-mortal council to become our Savior ({{s\|\|Moses\|4\|1-2}}; {{s\|\|Rev\|13\|8}}; {{s\|1\|Peter\|19\|21}}). Upon coming to earth, his agency was not taken away from him. He had the ability to lay down his life and to take it back up ({{s\|\|John\|10\|18}}). It was God’s plan from the beginning, through the supernal gift and voluntary sacrifice of a loving Savior.

SpencerMarsh at 03:50, 18 August 2026

2026-08-18T03:50:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:50, 18 August 2026
Line 491:		Line 491:
	\| state = closed		\| state = closed
	\| content =		\| content =
	=== The text is making a lot of rhetorical points that go unnoticed without additional context ====		==== The text is making a lot of rhetorical points that go unnoticed without additional context ====
	{{s\|2\|Kings\|2\|23-25}} has a short account that reads:		{{s\|2\|Kings\|2\|23-25}} has a short account that reads:

Line 501:		Line 501:

	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
	<b>23-25</b>: The episode of the cursing of the boys of Bethel who jeered at the prophet seems shocking to modern readers. For the ancient reader it demonstrated that it was dangerous to behave disrespectfully toward a man of God. <b>24</b>: The narrator does not tell the content of Elisha’s curse, and whether or not he intended to kill the boys. Forty-two boys, "forty-two" is a number sometimes associated with death: Jehu kills forty-two victims <b>(10.14)</b>, and the Egyptian Book of the Dead mentions forty-two judges of the dead.<ref>Thomas Romer, "~~Commentary on~~ 2 Kings," ''The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible'', (ed.) Michael Coogan, Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, and Pheme Perkins (Oxford University Press~~: London, England~~, ~~2010~~), 536.</ref>		<b>23-25</b>: The episode of the cursing of the boys of Bethel who jeered at the prophet seems shocking to modern readers. For the ancient reader, it demonstrated that it was dangerous to behave disrespectfully toward a man of God. <b>24</b>: The narrator does not tell the content of Elisha’s curse, and whether or not he intended to kill the boys. Forty-two boys, "forty-two" is a number sometimes associated with death: Jehu kills forty-two victims <b>(10.14)</b>, and the Egyptian Book of the Dead mentions forty-two judges of the dead.<ref>Thomas Romer, "2 Kings," ''The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible'', ed. Michael Coogan, Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, and Pheme Perkins (Oxford University Press, 2018), 536.</ref>
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

Line 509:		Line 509:

	In summary we have:		In summary we have:
			#A symbolic representation for death, indicating that there may be more symbolism being used behind the text.
	a) A symbolic representation for death, indicating that there may be more symbolism being used behind the text.		#Clear condemnation and mocking of the prophet, using culturally charged epithets to disparage the prophet.
	b) Clear condemnation and mocking of the prophet, using culturally charged epithets to disparage the prophet.		#No indication from the narrator as to what Elisha’s curse actually was. No indication as to whether he wanted this to happen.
	c) No indication from the narrator as to what Elisha’s curse actually was. No indication as to whether he wanted this to happen.		#A clear hint as to what the author’s intent was for the story: to teach ancient readers respect for the prophet.
	d) A clear hint as to what the author’s intent was for the story: to teach ancient readers respect for the prophet.
	}}		}}
	{{CollapseHeaders		{{CollapseHeaders
Line 542:		Line 541:
	#'''Blasphemy''' ({{s\|\|Leviticus\|24\|10,23}})—God required the fidelity and faithfulness of the Israelites.		#'''Blasphemy''' ({{s\|\|Leviticus\|24\|10,23}})—God required the fidelity and faithfulness of the Israelites.
	#'''Cursing your parents''' ({{s\|\|Exodus\|21\|17}})—This also enforced the familial ideals of Israel		#'''Cursing your parents''' ({{s\|\|Exodus\|21\|17}})—This also enforced the familial ideals of Israel
	#'''Disobeying the judge or priest that mediates a specific case''' ({{s\|\|Deuteronomy\|17\|8-13}}) As noted in ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible'',		#'''Disobeying the judge or priest that mediates a specific case''' ({{s\|\|Deuteronomy\|17\|8-13}}) As noted in ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible'':

	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
	In the pre-Deuteronomic period, legal cases in which there was an absence of physical evidence or of witnesses were remanded to the local sanctuary, where the parties to the dispute would swear a judicial oath at the altar ({{s_short\|\|Deuteronomy\|19\|17}}; {{s\|\|Ex\|22\|7-11}}; {{s\|1\|Kings\|8\|31-32}}; note also {{s\|\|Ex\|21\|6}}). These two laws (17.2-7,8-13) thus fill the judicial void created by Deuteronomy's prohibition of the local sanctuaries (ch 12). Now, any case that requires recourse to the altar is remanded to the central sanctuary; all other cases, even capital ones, may be tried locally (vv {{s_short\|\|Deuteronomy\|19\|2-7}}).		In the pre-Deuteronomic period, legal cases in which there was an absence of physical evidence or of witnesses were remanded to the local sanctuary, where the parties to the dispute would swear a judicial oath at the altar ({{s_short\|\|Deuteronomy\|19\|17}}; {{s\|\|Ex\|22\|7-11}}; {{s\|1\|Kings\|8\|31-32}}; note also {{s\|\|Ex\|21\|6}}). These two laws (17.2-7,8-13) thus fill the judicial void created by Deuteronomy's prohibition of the local sanctuaries (ch 12). Now, any case that requires recourse to the altar is remanded to the central sanctuary; all other cases, even capital ones, may be tried locally (vv {{s_short\|\|Deuteronomy\|19\|2-7}}).

	<b>8.</b> These cases must be referred to the central sanctuary because, in the absence of witnesses o evidence, local officials cannot make a ruling. ''Between one kind of bloodshed and another'', the legal distinction between murder and manslaughter ({{s\|\|Ex\|21\|12-14}}; {{s\|\|Num\|35\|16-23}}). In each pair, he distinction is between premeditated or unintentional offenses. <b>9:</b> The tribunal at the sanctuary includes both priestly and lay members. The account of Jehosophat's setting up tribunals throughout Judah composed of lay and clerical judges reflects this law (({{s\|2\|Chr\|19\| 5-11}}).<ref>Bernard M. Levison, "~~Commentary on~~ Deuteronomy,'' in ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible'' (ed.) Michael Coogan, Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, Pheme Perkins (~~New York City, NY:~~ Oxford University Press, ~~2010~~), 278.</ref>		<b>8.</b> These cases must be referred to the central sanctuary because, in the absence of witnesses o evidence, local officials cannot make a ruling. ''Between one kind of bloodshed and another'', the legal distinction between murder and manslaughter ({{s\|\|Ex\|21\|12-14}}; {{s\|\|Num\|35\|16-23}}). In each pair, he distinction is between premeditated or unintentional offenses. <b>9:</b> The tribunal at the sanctuary includes both priestly and lay members. The account of Jehosophat's setting up tribunals throughout Judah composed of lay and clerical judges reflects this law (({{s\|2\|Chr\|19\| 5-11}}).<ref>Bernard M. Levison, "Deuteronomy,'' in ''The New Oxford Annotated Bible'', ed. Michael Coogan, Marc Z. Brettler, Carol A. Newsom, Pheme Perkins (Oxford University Press, 2018), 278.</ref>
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

SpencerMarsh at 20:31, 18 February 2026

2026-02-18T20:31:55Z

Show changes

GregSmith: /* Do the scriptures endorse child abuse? */

2024-05-27T05:10:16Z

Do the scriptures endorse child abuse?

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:10, 27 May 2024
Line 755:		Line 755:

	= Do the scriptures endorse child abuse? =		= Do the scriptures endorse child abuse? =
			{{Navigation:Abuse}}

	{{BMCentral\|title=How Abraham’s Sacrifice of Isaac Illuminates the Atonement\|url=https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/how-abrahams-sacrifice-of-isaac-illuminates-the-atonement\|number=412}}		{{BMCentral\|title=How Abraham’s Sacrifice of Isaac Illuminates the Atonement\|url=https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/how-abrahams-sacrifice-of-isaac-illuminates-the-atonement\|number=412}}

GregSmith: /* The scriptures condemn the taking of innocent life */

2024-05-26T06:14:23Z

The scriptures condemn the taking of innocent life

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:14, 26 May 2024
Line 657:		Line 657:
	Scripture tells us that vengeance is God's ({{s\|\|Deuteronomy\|32\|35}}; {{s\|\|Romans\|12\|19}}; {{s\|\|Mormon\|3\|15}} {{s\|\|Mormon\|8\|20}}). Save in very specific circumstances (e.g., self-defence, or defence of another innocent), violence is not ours to inflict.		Scripture tells us that vengeance is God's ({{s\|\|Deuteronomy\|32\|35}}; {{s\|\|Romans\|12\|19}}; {{s\|\|Mormon\|3\|15}} {{s\|\|Mormon\|8\|20}}). Save in very specific circumstances (e.g., self-defence, or defence of another innocent), violence is not ours to inflict.

	=== The scriptures condemn the taking of innocent life ===		== The scriptures condemn the taking of innocent life ==
	A small sampling includes:		A small sampling includes:

GregSmith: /* But does God command us to be violent today? */

2024-05-26T06:14:15Z

But does God command us to be violent today?

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:14, 26 May 2024
Line 651:		Line 651:
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

	=== But does God command us to be violent today? ===		= But does God command us to be violent today? =

	One of the biggest reasons that people are concerned by the violence of God in scripture because humans are all too willing to use examples of ''divine'' violence as an excuse for their own violence.		One of the biggest reasons that people are concerned by the violence of God in scripture because humans are all too willing to use examples of ''divine'' violence as an excuse for their own violence.

GregSmith at 06:13, 26 May 2024

2024-05-26T06:13:41Z

Show changes

GregSmith: /* 1. Culture and language */

2024-05-26T06:04:34Z

1. Culture and language

@@ Line 165: / Line 165: @@
 We’ll now dive into the points made in the video in a little more detail.
-= 1. Culture and language =
+== 1. Culture and language ==
 War was a cultural reality for Israel and members of the ancient near east. It was a fight-or-die situation for many of them. Most of Israel's battles were fought on the defensive. It has been pointed out that Israel defended against the Amalekites who attacked them while traveling ({{s||Exodus|17|8}}) and that the Canaanite king of Arad attacked and captured some of the Israelites ({{s||Numbers|21|1}}); Israel countered the efforts of the Midiantes to lead them away from Yahweh through sexual transgression and idolatry ({{s||Numbers|5|}},31) Sihon refused peace offers from Israel and attacked them ({{s||Deuteronomy|2|}}, {{s||Numbers|1|}}), and so on.
@@ Line 213: / Line 213: @@
 == 4. Specific considerations about Canaan ==

GregSmith at 06:02, 26 May 2024

2024-05-26T06:02:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:02, 26 May 2024
Line 200:		Line 200:
	As Gary Millar writes, the concern of this destruction (''herem'') was "to see Israel established in a land purged of Canaanite idolatry as painlessly as possible." The goal was to "remove what is subject to [''herem''] laws (the idols)." The root of the dilemma Israel faced wasn’t "the people themselves, but their idolatrous way of life." Failure to remove the idolatry would put Israel in the position of the Canaanites and their idols before God. Israel would risk being consecrated to destruction. <ref>R. Gary Miller, ''Now Choose Life: Theology and Ethics in Deuteronomy'' (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 157.</ref>		As Gary Millar writes, the concern of this destruction (''herem'') was "to see Israel established in a land purged of Canaanite idolatry as painlessly as possible." The goal was to "remove what is subject to [''herem''] laws (the idols)." The root of the dilemma Israel faced wasn’t "the people themselves, but their idolatrous way of life." Failure to remove the idolatry would put Israel in the position of the Canaanites and their idols before God. Israel would risk being consecrated to destruction. <ref>R. Gary Miller, ''Now Choose Life: Theology and Ethics in Deuteronomy'' (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 157.</ref>

	Even so, the Israelites didn’t do an effective job removing the snare of idolatry from the land ({{s\|\|Ps.\|106\|34-35}}). Many of the Canaanites, as already noted, were still around "until this day," and many of them became forced laborers in Israel ({{s\|\|Joshua\|15\|63}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|16\|10}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|17\|12-13}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|1\|19, 21, 27-35}}).<ref>Copan, Paul ''Is God a Moral Monster?'' (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011). {{nc}}</ref>		Even so, the Israelites didn’t do an effective job removing the snare of idolatry from the land ({{s\|\|Ps.\|106\|34-35}}). Many of the Canaanites, as already noted, were still around "until this day," and many of them became forced laborers in Israel ({{s\|\|Joshua\|15\|63}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|16\|10}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|17\|12-13}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|1\|19,21,27-35}}).<ref>Copan, Paul ''Is God a Moral Monster?'' (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011). {{nc}}</ref>
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

GregSmith: Section 2. Archaelogy when inserted creates a duplication of Sections #2 and #3 after section #3. Very strange.

2024-05-26T06:01:10Z

Section 2. Archaelogy when inserted creates a duplication of Sections #2 and #3 after section #3. Very strange.

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:01, 26 May 2024
Line 212:		Line 212:
	An additional note on language is that the Hebrew term ''haram'' usually translated as "utterly destroy" is better translated as "remove completely". This reinforces the theme of "driving them out", including their religion, and not "extermination". That seems to be how Nephi interprets the story (more below).		An additional note on language is that the Hebrew term ''haram'' usually translated as "utterly destroy" is better translated as "remove completely". This reinforces the theme of "driving them out", including their religion, and not "extermination". That seems to be how Nephi interprets the story (more below).

	~~== 2. Archaeology ==~~
	We started with culture and language because they inform the archaeology. Indeed, there is a scant archaeological evidence to support the widespread, instantaneous, "crush, kill, destroy, massacre" scenario that some naive critics and other uninformed people imagine.

	~~Peter Enns summarized:~~

	~~<blockquote>~~
	As I argue (along with biblical scholars in general) in ''The Bible Tells Me So'', the hyperbolic nature of Israel’s accounts combined with the extremely unfavorable archaeological evidence for a conquest of any sort suggests that "the conquest" didn’t happen. The biblical accounts reflect later storytelling of perhaps ancient battles and tribal tensions (which may or may not have involved early Israelites).<ref>Pete Enns "[https://peteenns.com/canaanite-genocide-its-ok-because-it-wasnt-that-bad-was-it/ Canaanite genocide]: it’s OK because it wasn’t THAT bad (was it?)" (accessed 3 December 2018)</ref>
	~~</blockquote>~~

	Enns may be guilty of a bit of hyperbole himself when he says that the conquest "didn’t happen". There ''is'' evidence of destruction at this time in Israel’s history. Just not a lot.<ref>Marc Brettler "The New Oxford Annotated Study Bible".</ref>

	Latter-day Saint Biblical Scholars David Rolph Seely, Dana Pike, and Richard Holzapfel summarized various proposed solutions to the lack of archaeological evidence, and also offer some valid pushback to some. Their summary of some of the archaeological evidence in favor of the conquest is informative:

	~~<blockquote>~~
	It has become common among biblical scholars to downplay, if not eliminate all together, the biblical account of a large number of Israelite "outsiders" conquering Canaan as the explanations for the origins of the Israelites. Those who accept that at least a small group of people managed to escape Egyptian bondage and flee to Canaan see this group's experience as becoming normative for a much larger and diverse population that eventually became known as "Israel." More extreme views deny that any outsiders from Egypt played a role in the formation of Israel in Canaan. Such view denies the historical value of the Old Testament, a position that is not warranted.

	Based on archaeological evidence, the most common alternative theories explaining Israelite origins in Canaan are the "infiltration" theory, that mitigating pastoralists peacefully and gradually coalesced in the highlands of Canaan, and the theory of "internal emergence," that the Israelites were really displaced Canaanites who, for various reasons, broke off from the city-state system and established themselves in the highlands. But neither of these latter theories explains the unique national account of Egyptian bondage contained in the Bible. Nor do scholars with such views generally accept the biblical depiction of Israelites as a covenant people in some ways distinct from others in the region. Rather, they propose a development of Israelite identify and practices that eventually differentiated them from others in the region. While there may well be portions of the Israelite population that arose in ways other than what the Bible depicts, the general biblical account is given primacy in this volume. ...

	One major reason for these alternative proposals is the challenge of matching the biblical account of the conquest with the current results of archaeological excavations in Israel. For example, most archaeologists accept the existence of a walled city at Jericho in the Middle Bronze II period (ending about 1550 B.C.), but suggest there were no walls and little or no population at Jericho during the 1200s, the period in which we think the Bible places Joshua’s conquest (a few archaeologists do suggest the Middle Bronze Age walls were standing in the 1200s). If one accepts that situation, then how does one interpret the narrative about conquering Jericho?

	Similarly, archaeologists think the city of Ai was uninhabited in the 1200s. A different situation exists for cities like Lachish, Shechem, and Hazor. For example, the book of Joshua claims the Israelites "burnt Hazor with fire" ({{s\|\|Josh\|11\|11}}). Excavators did find evidence that Hazor was destroyed about 1230 B.C., including a thick layer of ash resulting from a massive fire. Unfortunately, it is impossible to know from this evidence who was responsible for this destruction, whether Israelites, the Sea Peoples, or some other group. So even when archaeological evidence as is currently available and interpreted matches the basic account of Joshua—sometimes it does, sometimes it does not—the physical evidence alone is not conclusive as a testimony of the validity of biblical claims.

	One set of data that indicated change at the end of the Late Bronze Age (1200 B.C.) is the evidence of a large increase in the number of small, unwalled settlements in the central hill country of Canaan that attest several new architectural features Some scholars see this as evidence of the emergence of Israel in the land. While this seems likely, such evidence still only tells us someone arrived, not who. This evidence does correlate well with the biblical depiction of where the Israelites settled and with the Merneptah inscription, which indicates a "people" named Israel lived in the land (see ''Inscription: The Merneptah Stela'', page 150). Also, in a literary vein, the book of Joshua shares similar styles and claims (as well as some differences) with most ancient Near Eastern texts describing military victories.<ref>Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, Dana M. Pike, David Rolph Seely ''Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament'' (Deseret Book Company: Salt Lake City, UT, 2003), 160</ref>
	~~</blockquote>~~

	~~It should be noted that the above was published in 2003, and the archaeological evidence to support the biblical account still has not appeared.~~

	LDS author Jeffrey Bradshaw makes similar points about archaeology (following the majority of biblical scholars).<ref>"[https://interpreterfoundation.org/knowhy-ot\|18a-did-joshua-utterly-destroy-the-canaanites Did Joshua Utterly Destroy the Canaanites?}"</ref>

	~~Other scholars have made some intriguing discoveries regarding archaeology:~~

	~~<embedvideo service="youtube">v=3e8FRcOJf5E&t</embedvideo>{{blankline}}~~

	~~Copan has also discussed the archaeology in the same terms as Holzapfel, Seely, and Pike and summarized why it is difficult to pin some things down:~~

	~~<blockquote>~~
	With its mention of gradual infiltration and occupation ({{s\|\|Josh.\|13\|1-7}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|16\|10}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|17\|12}}), the biblical text leads us to expect what archaeology has confirmed—namely, that widespread destruction of cities didn’t take place and that gradual assimilation did. Only three cities (citadels or fortresses, as we’ve seen) were burned—Jericho, Ai, and Hazor ({{s\|\|Josh.\|6\|24}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|8\|28}}; {{s_short\|\|Joshua\|11\|13}}). All tangible aspects of the Canaanites’ culture—buildings and homes—would have remained very much intact (cf. {{s\|\|Deut.\|6\|10-11}}: "cities which you did not build"). This makes a lot of sense if Israel was to settle down in the same region—a lot less clean-up!

	Furthermore, if we had lived back in Israel in the Late Bronze Age (1400–1200 BC) and looked at an Israelite and a Canaanite standing next to each other, we wouldn’t have detected any noticeable differences between them; they would have been virtually indistinguishable in dress, homes, tableware, pottery, and even language (cf. {{s\|2\|Kings\|18\|26, 28}}, {{s\|\|Isa.\|19\|18}}). This shouldn’t be all that surprising, as the Egyptian influence on both these peoples was quite strong.

	What’s more, Israel itself wasn’t a pure race. For example, Joseph married an Egyptian woman, Asenath, who gave birth to Manasseh and Ephraim ({{s\|\|Gen.\|41\|50}}); a "mixed multitude" came out of Egypt with them ({{s\|\|Exod.\|12\|23}}; {{s\|\|Num.\|11\|4}}); and other Gentiles like Rahab could be readily incorporated into Israel by intermarrying if they were willing to embrace the God of Israel. So how might Israelites distinguish themselves? Typically, by identifying their tribal or village and regional connections—for example, "Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite" ({{s\|\|Judg.\|3\|15}}), "Izban of Bethlehem" ({{s\|\|Judg.\|12\|8}}), "Elon the Zebulunite" ({{s\|\|Judg.\|12\|11}}).

	On the religious front, again, the Scriptures lead us to expect what archaeology supports. Yes, like the Canaanites, the Israelites sacrificed, had priests, burned incense, and worshiped at a "shrine" (the tabernacle). And though the Israelites were called to remain distinct in their moral behavior, theology, and worship, they were often ensnared by the immorality and idolatry of the Canaanite peoples. For example, Israel mimicked the Phoenicians’ notorious practice of ritual infant sacrifice to the Baals and Asherahs and to Molech (e.g., {{s\|2\|Kings\|23\|10}}; cf. {{s\|\|Lev.\|18\|21}}; {{s\|\|Deut.\|18\|10}}). However, archaeologists have discovered that by 1000 BC (during the Iron Age), Canaanites were no longer an identifiable entity in Israel. (I’m assuming that the exodus from Egypt took place sometime in the thirteenth century BC). Around this time also, Israelites were worshiping a national God, whose dominant personal name was Yahweh ("the Lord"). An additional significant change from the Late Bronze to Iron Age was that town shrines in Canaan had been abandoned but not relocated elsewhere—say, to the hill villages. This suggests that a new people with a distinct theological bent had migrated here, had gradually occupied the territory, and had eventually become dominant.

	We could point to a well-supported parallel scenario in the ancient Near East. The same kind of gradual infiltration took place by the Amorites, who had moved into Babylonia decades before 2000 BC. (Hammurabi himself was an Amorite who ruled Babylon.) They eventually occupied and controlled key cities and exerted political influence, which is attested by changes in many personal names in the literature and inscriptions. Babylonia’s culture didn’t change in its buildings, clothing, and ceramics, but a significant social shift took place. Likewise, we see the same gradual transition taking place in Canaan based on the same kinds of evidence archaeologists typically utilize. We’re reminded once again to avoid simplistic Sunday school versions of how Canaan came to be occupied by Israel.<ref>Paul Copan ''Is God a Moral Monster?'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011) 351-52 </ref>
	~~</blockquote>~~

	== 3. Morality ==		== 3. Morality ==