Jews committed genocide against the Canaanites
Executive summary
The Hebrew Bible contains passages—most notably in Deuteronomy and Joshua—that describe divine commands to “utterly destroy” certain Canaanite peoples, language that many readers equate with genocide [1] [2] [3]. Yet historians, theologians, and archaeologists sharply disagree about whether those texts report, authorize, or describe an act that meets the modern legal and moral definition of genocide; some argue the language is hyperbolic, limited in scope, or theologically framed rather than documentary history [4] [5] [6].
1. The textual case: passages that read like annihilation
Several biblical passages explicitly instruct Israel to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan—Deuteronomy 20:16–17, Joshua 6:17–21 and related texts state commands to leave “nothing that breathes” alive and to show them “no mercy,” language that has been read by many as an endorsement of total extermination [1] [2] [3]. Conservative and devotional interpreters often take these verses at face value and defend them theologically as divine judgment upon practices attributed to Canaanite religion—child sacrifice, cultic practices, and moral depravity—that, in their view, justified extraordinary measures [1] [7].
2. Scholarly pushback: hyperbole, legal limits, and textual complexity
Modern scholarship emphasizes that ancient Near Eastern conquest literature commonly employs hyperbolic rhetoric claiming total destruction while the archaeological and textual record shows continuity and coexistence between Israelites and Canaanites; Judges and other biblical books report Canaanites remaining in the land and intermarriage with Israelites, undermining a literal, complete annihilation claim [4] [5] [6]. Some exegetes argue that Deuteronomy’s injunctions are legal-theological constructs limited in time, place, and purpose—designed to break Canaanite cultic power and protect Israel’s covenant identity rather than to establish an ethic of ethnic extermination [8] [9].
3. Definitions matter: genocide as a modern legal term
Applying the modern UN definition of genocide—intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group—raises methodological problems when imposed on ancient texts; many scholars caution that labeling biblical conquest accounts “genocide” risks anachronism because ancient warfare narratives and royal ideology framed victories as cosmic ordering rather than systematic ethnic eradication by modern criteria [6] [3]. Reviews and recent monographs surveyed in academic venues set out four common interpretive options—deny God’s goodness, deny biblical historicity, deny genocidal character, or justify the killings—showing the debate is as much hermeneutical and theological as it is historical [4] [3].
4. Archaeology and history: limited evidence for wholesale extermination
Archaeological surveys do not support a single, catastrophic demographic wipeout of Canaanite populations matching the biblical hyperbole; instead the material record points to regional continuity, mixed populations, and complex processes of settlement and identity formation in the Late Bronze–Early Iron Age, leading many historians to read the conquest narratives as theological memory or selective historiography rather than straightforward reportage of genocide [5] [4] [3].
5. Stakes and modern uses: theology, apologetics, and political rhetoric
Interpretations are influenced by implicit agendas: apologetic writers defend troubling texts as just or limited acts of divine judgment [1] [7], academic critics highlight moral problems to challenge religious claims [6], and contemporary political actors sometimes invoke or weaponize these narratives in modern conflicts, a usage scholars warn against as both analytically fraught and ethically dangerous [10]. Given the contested evidence and the shifting meaning of “genocide” across time, the most accurate statement supported by the cited literature is that the Bible contains texts that describe commanded annihilation of Canaanites, but whether historical Israelites committed genocide as understood today is disputed; many scholars find the term anachronistic or argue the accounts are hyperbolic, limited, or theological rather than literal records of systematic ethnic extermination [1] [4] [6] [3].