Did Everyone Write Like That? Genocide in Ancient Near Eastern Literature

Did Everyone Write Like That? Genocide in Ancient Near Eastern Literature

When modern readers encounter the violent conquest stories in the Bible—especially commands to "utterly destroy" entire Canaanite populations—it can feel deeply troubling. Did God really command genocide? And if so, how is that morally or spiritually acceptable? To make sense of these difficult texts, we need to ask a broader cultural question: Was genocide a common theme in the literature of the Ancient Near East (ANE)? The answer is yes—but with an important twist. Much of it was rhetorical, not literal.

Let’s dig into how warfare and divine judgment were portrayed in the ancient world—and why understanding that can change the way we read the Bible.

Hyperbole Was the Norm in War Stories

In ANE cultures—including Israel, Moab, Assyria, and Egypt—kings and scribes often exaggerated military victories in official records. This wasn’t deception; it was standard storytelling.

For example:

The Mesha Stele (Moabite Stone) from the 9th century BC claims that King Mesha "devoted" an entire Israelite city to destruction for the god Chemosh, killing 7,000 men, women, and children.

Assyrian kings like Ashurnasirpal II or Sennacherib bragged about stacking heads, burning cities, and flaying people alive.

Egyptian pharaohs like Ramses II declared total victory over the Hittites at the Battle of Kadesh—despite the battle ending in a draw.

These were common motifs meant to display divine favor, political dominance, and royal power—not necessarily factual reports of genocide. Conquest accounts were written to glorify the gods and legitimize kings, not document military history the way modern historians would.

Biblical Conquest Language Mirrors This Style

The Bible’s conquest narratives in Joshua and Deuteronomy follow the same literary pattern. Phrases like:

“Leave alive nothing that breathes” (Deut. 20:16)

“Totally destroyed them” (Josh. 10:40)

“Not one survived” (Josh. 11:14)

These sound like genocide—but then, contradictory verses soon appear, showing those same peoples still alive:

The book of Judges says Canaanites lived among the Israelites for generations (Judges 1).

Later books mention Hittites, Jebusites, and others still present during Israel’s monarchy.

This strongly suggests that the "total destruction" language was hyperbolic, not literal genocide. Israel, like its neighbors, used the standard war rhetoric of the day.

Theological Takeaway: Understanding the Bible in Context

Recognizing the ANE literary backdrop helps us read difficult biblical texts more responsibly.

These conquest accounts aren’t moral prescriptions for genocide, but theological storytelling in a violent world. They reflect how ancient peoples interpreted their survival and victories as divine acts, often using dramatic and absolute language. As Israel grew in its understanding of God, the Scriptures themselves show a move away from violent conquest toward mercy, justice, and peace.

Most importantly, Jesus reframes everything. His teachings and life reveal a God who loves enemies, rejects vengeance, and conquers through sacrificial love—not the sword. So when we see violent stories in Scripture, we are invited to interpret them in light of Christ, not as timeless commands, but as ancient reflections of a developing relationship between humanity and God.

Conclusion

Yes, genocide—or the appearance of it—was a common theme in ancient literature. But it was usually a stylized way of telling war stories, not a record of systematic slaughter. The Bible reflects this literary world, but also transcends it. What begins in Joshua ends with Jesus—not in the conquest of others, but in the conquering of hate through love. Understanding the context doesn’t erase the discomfort, but it humanizes the text and opens a path to deeper faith—faith rooted not in fear or violence, but in the peace of Christ.