Josh, my point about ‘complacent moralizing’ and ‘theological superiority’ was not so much that we should not automatically assume that we know better than the ancients. It was directed more against the lazy assumption that Christianity - or the prevailing historical form of Christianity - is morally or theologically superior to other belief systems or ideologies - Islam, for example, or secular humanism.

When contemporary readers hear a discrepancy on the subject of violence between the Gospels and the conquest narratives…

My argument in the previous comment was that there is perhaps much less of a discrepancy than modern, enlightened, liberalized readers like to think. Certainly Jesus would never have advocated violence as a means of bringing about the reign of God over his people. But I think it is difficult to deny that he saw military-political destruction as an expression of the judgment of God. This is not just about the conquest narratives. The old covenant, defined by Torah, interpreted by the prophets, is built on this premise. The Babylonian invasion and the exile, which are so central to the theology of the prophets, are understood to be the outworking of God’s anger against a sinful people. In this argument Israel certainly takes centre-stage, but it is equally affirmed that YHWH will destroy his enemies in similar fashion.

I think that we have to allow that in some regard this covenantal arrangement is not fully ended until the defeat of Greek-Roman paganism. That is when the logic of judgment on rebellious Israel, judgment on the enemies of YHWH, and vindication of the righteous finally works itself out. That long dénouement overlaps with the inauguration of a new covenant for the people of God which does not require judgment by violence, whether directed towards the church or towards the enemies of the church. But Jesus is as much a prophet to old covenant Israel as he is the crucified Lord of the new covenant people of the Spirit - and I don’t really see an irreconcilable tension here. At least, if we attempt to pull out the thread of the conquest narrative, the whole of Old Testament theology is likely to unravel.

We do not know what Jesus thought of the conquest of Canaan, but the event is integral to the fulfilment of the old covenant - there is no alternative narrative of entry into the land that God had promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jesus does not condemn Israel for having seized the land by force; he condemns Israel for failing to live up to the standards of the covenant.

But it appears, in the end, that we are more or less in agreement. The moral and theological problems remain - and perhaps they should be a thorn-in-the-flesh to us. I don’t think that we can with integrity affirm the ideal character of Jesus without acknowledging the part that violence places in the biblical story, which is Jesus’ story. The calling of the new covenant people of God, however, is absolutely to renounce violence, to demonstrate to the world that within the confines of new creation justice can be achieved by peaceful and compassionate means, even if at times that will require extreme self-giving.