Andrew, you write: “Personally, I would rather let the conquest narratives stand as an affront to our complacent moralizing, our sense of theological superiority, than suppress them - that seems to me dishonest.” I am not for “complacent moralizing” or a “sense of theological superiority” (by which I assume you mean the sense of some people today that we automatically know better than did pre-moderns). However, I’m not sure these are the issues for followers of Jesus who struggle to reconcile the conquest narratives and the story of Jesus.

The early followers of Jesus who wrote the New Testament were pre-moderns. They probably did not have a “sense of theological superiority” over the writers of the Hebrew scriptures (though they did have the advantage of knowing the story of Jesus, both his teachings and his deeds). When contemporary readers hear a discrepancy on the subject of violence between the Gospels and the conquest narratives, they are hearing a difference between two pre-modern witnesses; contemporary readers are not necessarily assuming their own “theological superiority” over the writers of the Hebrew scriptures.

And far from “complacent moralizing,” taking seriously the ethic taught and practiced by Jesus in the Gospels is what leads some of us to question the conquest narratives. It is because we are not reading this ethic complacently that it stands in such stark contrast to the conquest narratives. It seems to me that the conquest narratives do “stand as an affront”—to the ethic of Jesus! (To which someone may reply by echoing a post above that notes Jesus affirmed the Hebrew scriptures; I am not aware, however, of any affirmation by Jesus of the conquest narratives.)

I am not suggesting that we “sanitize” or “suppress” the conquest narratives. I am suggesting that we read biblical texts honestly, put them in conversation with one another, and then simply admit when we hear what Richard Hays calls “irreconcilable tensions” (Hays argues that the New Testament “trumps” the Old Testament at these times). David Bartlett has suggested that “a lover’s quarrel” with biblical texts is sometimes appropriate; I think the Gospels invite such a quarrel with texts that describe holy war and/or genocide. This approach allows these difficult texts to “stand” without also interpreting them as prescriptive for today.

Still, questions about whether or not the conquest narratives impugn God’s character remain. As you say, “There is certainly a conversation to be had about the implications of letting them stand.” One of these implications seems to be that God is not nonviolent. I agree with you that Scripture shows God to be free to use violence—as well as free to use nonviolence. (In my mind, it does not follow from God’s freedom to be violent that God wants Christians to do violence.) However, the conquest narratives do not merely depict God as free to make use of violent means; rather, they describe God as sanctioning the wholesale slaughter of men, women, and children. They are therefore deeply problematic.