Themes
The enemy
Further information: The Bible and violence
The Taking of Jericho (watercolor c. 1896–1902 by James Tissot)
William G. Dever writes that Joshua "carries out a systematic campaign against the civilians of Canaan – men, women and children – that amounts to genocide"[80] although other scholars reject using "genocide" as a label to describe the conquest.[81] This practice was known as herem, as described in Deuteronomy 20:17, which entailed no treaties with the enemy, no mercy, and no intermarriage.[10]: 175 "The extermination of the nations glorifies Yahweh as a warrior and promotes Israel's claim to the land," while their continued survival "explores the themes of disobedience and penalty and looks forward to the story told in Judges and Kings."[62]: 18–19 The divine call for massacre at Jericho and elsewhere can be explained in terms of cultural norms (Israel was not the only Iron Age state to practice herem) and theology (e.g. to ensure Israel's purity, fulfill God's promise, judge the Canaanites for their "sexual misconduct").[82][10]: 175 The violent language within the story has also been taken by several scholars as being hyperbolic, drawing comparisons between the biblical account and extrabiblical military reports.[83][84]
Patrick D. Miller in his commentary on Deuteronomy, writes that "there is no real way to make such reports palatable to the hearts and minds of contemporary readers and believers," and that the "tension between the Israelites and its neighbors was fundamentally a religious conflict," writing further for the need to understand what the reports teach "so that they make some sense to us in the whole." Miller writes further that the "Deuteronomistic history in Joshua through Second Kings is a story of constant or recurring apostasy" and that for the Israelites, maintaining their allegiance with Yahweh "required, in their sight, removal of all temptation."[79]: 40–42 Nissim Amzallag sees similarities between Joshua's conquest and the return of Judean exiles in Ezra-Nehemiah but compared to the former, the Judeans merely refrained from intermarrying the "Canaanites". These "Canaanites" were most likely non-exiled Judeans, who were contaminated with "foreign influence".[85]