Having mentioned them in a previous post, I got to thinking about the tribe of the Ammonites, and, by extension, the other tribes pottering around the Near East at the time of the early Israelites. They appear only as bit-players in the great drama of the Hebrews played out across the Old Testament Histories, popping up in the text only for the purposes of being slaughtered in great numbers by whichever king happened to be running the Israeli war-machine at the time. So who were the Ammonites, and what gave them the audacity to live in lands which Yahweh had promised to his chosen people?
The Bible identifies them as the descendants of Benammi, a relative of Abraham. How close a relative? Well, remember the story of Sodom and Gomorrah? Fleeing the scene of Yahweh’s burning-sulphur-based wrath, Abraham’s nephew Lot escapes (minus his now-composed-of-condiment wife) to the mountains, along with his two daughters. Said daughters, believing that the cataclysm they’ve just high-tailed it away from represents the end of humanity, see it as their duty to re-populate the world with their offspring. Only problem is, there’s a distinct lack of eligible bachelors around, on account of them all perishing in the aforementioned rain of sulphurous death. So they hatch a plot to sleep with the only available male around…
“And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.” Genesis 19:31-38
In a rather amusing bit of propaganda, the Hebrew scriptures make the point that their enemies are the offspring of an incestuous father-daughter relationship – you have to wonder how often that taunt came up on the battlefield.
Of course the Ammonites were’t really the spawn of Lot’s over-randy daughter. They were a small kingdom located to the east of the Dead Sea, in the north of modern-day Jordan. It seems likely that there were close genealogical relationships between them, the Israelites, the Moabites and the other small Semitic tribes knocking around Canaan at the time, and there was probably a good deal of intermarrying going on as well (which, as the Bible makes very clear, God was not pleased about). They were certainly much more closely related to the Hebrew tribes than the pesky Philsitines, Israel’s other major bugbear at the time (the Philistines, who occupied what is now the Gaza Strip, were most likely an offshoot of the Mycenaeans – making them, ironically, far more culturally refined than the Israelites of the time). The kingdom of Ammon was predominantly agricultural – their lands were highly fertile and the number of ruined settlements in the area attests to a settled and agrarian population.
The Ammonites had close diplomatic ties with their neighbours and kinsmen, the Moabites, and they banded together to defend against the aggressive Israelite expansionist policies, to the extent that they were often referred to as a single group (the “Children Of Lot”). They were excluded from “the congregation of the LORD” because they supposedly prevented the Israelites from crossing their lands during the conquest of Canaan – in spite of the fact that the kingdom of Ammon lay to the east of Canaan, and the Israelites (supposedly) invaded from the west. This charge smacks of Hebrew propaganda, but was clearly a popular belief among the ancient Israelites, who needed a good excuse to vilify their neighbours.
Among their other excuses was, naturally, the fact that the Ammonites followed a different religion, worshipping a pantheon which included Baal and Yahweh, but set them under the jurisdiction of the Ammonite deity Milcom. So disapproving were the Yahweh-worshippers that they actually co-opted Milcom (under the slightly different pronunciation Molech) as part of the demonic hierarchy – an idea expounded upon by Christianity, which made him a major figure in the Fall and a Prince of Hell. It’s worth noting that Milcom/Molech was also worshipped by the Moabites (as Chemosh), by the Edomites (as Quaush) and was sometimes seen as an aspect of Baal by the ancient Semites, so he was a pretty major figure in ancient Near-Eastern religion.
Unfortunately, most of what we know of the Ammonites is from the Old Testament itself (and other Israelite sources, plus a few mentions in the records of the Assyrians). Only a few fragments of their own texts survive – a short inscription, a bronze bottle and a few scraps of pottery are all we have. As a result, most of what we know about the Ammonites comes from their enemies, who naturally portray them in the worst light possible. With the aid of archaeology, some additional pieces of the puzzle appear, but we will probably never know the full story of the Israelites’ ancient foe.

26 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 30, 2009 at 9:58 am
The Rambling Taoist
Ooh. The first Axis of Evil — Ammonites, Moabites & Philistines. Don’t you remember that famous scene in which Noah stood on the deck of the ark to proclaim, “Mission Accomplished”?
April 30, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Sarge
When I was a boy, being dragooned to Sunday school and learning this ‘useful’, indispensible information, we went to the Smithsonian one day after church.
This caused some confusion, as I actually saw an ammonite.
It looked like a great big snail, and I wondered why the Israelites would fight such a thing and just how it could fight back. Quite a connundrum.
April 30, 2009 at 2:16 pm
atimetorend
Fascinating stuff, all that propaganda.
…Milkom, he has constructed for you the precinct entrances…
…that all who threaten you shall surely die…
…I shall surely destroy, and all who enter…
…and amidst all its columns the just shall reside…
…there will hang from its doors an ornament…
…will be offered within its portico…
…peace to you and peace…
Brings this to mind:
“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
April 30, 2009 at 2:30 pm
PhillyChief
“Mission Accomplished” – priceless. :)
April 30, 2009 at 2:50 pm
(((Billy)))
That’s why I prefer Ammonites and Belemites.
It is a good lesson, though, in the idea that the victors write the histories. They may have had a wonderful civilization. Too bad that, like possible 90% of cultures which have existed, we will never know.
April 30, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Brian
What about the Canaanites?
From a theology web site:… “They were cut off to prevent Israel and the rest of the world from being corrupted (Deut. 20:16-18). When a people starts to burn their children in honor of their gods (Lev. 18:21), practice sodomy, bestiality, and all sorts of loathsome vice (Lev. 18:23, 24, 20:3), the land itself begins to “vomit” them out as the body heaves under the load of internal poisons (Lev. 18:25, 27-30). Thus, “objection to the fate of these nations … is really an objection to the highest manifestation of the grace of God.” Green likens this action on God’s part, not to doing evil that good may come (though that does seem often to be God’s methodology: the ends justify the means), but doing good in spite of certain evil consequences, just as a surgeon does not refrain from amputating a gangrenous leg even though in so doing he cannot help cutting off much healthy flesh.”
I am talking about Judges chapters 1 and 2 this Sunday to my chirstian small group friends(very liberal). They have a hint about my atheism, we don’t get together often, but every time we talk I bring really sharp questions, the kind that are answered : “only god knows”.
Any suggestions?
April 30, 2009 at 3:56 pm
yunshui
You have to bear two things in mind when looking at the Canaanites (or any of the tribes). Firstly, it’s important to note that the Bible is interested in justifying the Israelites, and so will naturally paint those that they slaughtered in the worst possible light. Hence, bestiality, incest, rape, sodomy etc. etc. As I mentioned above, the Philistines were actually considerably more advanced culturally than the Israelites, having an advanced sea-faring society not dissimilar to that of Crete or Greece. You wouldn’t know this from the Bible’s depiction of them though, so much so that we now use the word “Philistine” to describe an uncultured and crude person.
Secondly, very little of the OT is viable history. We have no, literally no extra-Biblical evidence at all – archaeological or historical – for any Biblical events or characters prior to David. What is know is that the books of the Torah, of Judges, Kings, Samuel and Chronicles were written long after the events they describe and were designed to propagate the established regime of Judah. Moses, The Exodus, the invasion of Canaan, the battle of Jericho, the reign of Saul – all of these are as much a part of the myth-making process as the Creation story of Genesis. None of it actually happened.
April 30, 2009 at 4:00 pm
yunshui
PS.
Brian, I’m going to be linking to this article in a post next week, but you might find it an interesting read to prepare for your discussion on Sunday.
April 30, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Ebonmuse
Great post, yunshui. The winners write the history books – it’s still as true today as it was back then. And it’s absolutely true that the whole story of Lot and his daughters was dreamed up so that the ancient Israelites would have a reason to snicker when they looked at their neighbors over the next hill.
April 30, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Lorena
I always find it amazing that the “Holy” Bible contains the only instance of a father “abused” by his daughters I’ve ever read. Whoever came up with that myth really, seriously wanted to blame women for all the evil in the world. The mother was disobedient and faithless. The daughters raped their dad.
Previously, in the same story, dad tried to give his virgin daughters away to be raped by a mob of perverts who declined because they liked men better. Geez!
Not to mention how adept the bronze-age “virgins” were in knowing how to get impregnated by their dad.
The “Holly” Book never ceases to amaze me.
April 30, 2009 at 5:29 pm
The Rambling Taoist
Not only that, Lorena, but how drunk would a father have to be so he could get a bit randy with his girls? Me thinks if he could get that drunk, then he probably couldn’t get it up! Maybe God helped to stiffen the flagpole?
April 30, 2009 at 5:42 pm
atimetorend
Sorry, had to post this link, it sounds almost like you folks are quoting from the script:
http://www.illustratedbiblestories.ca/Lot_1.htm
April 30, 2009 at 5:43 pm
atimetorend
Sorry, should have added: NSFW
Also, be sure to check out the commentary if you have time, it is really very good.
April 30, 2009 at 5:59 pm
PhillyChief
Great link.
So where did the girls get the wine from?
April 30, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Lorena
ATR
I finally managed to stop laughing to type this comment. I hope it comes out right!
Hey TRT
Here is a vivid illustration for your comment.
April 30, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Brian
Yunshui,
In addition to your link I found this review for a book called The bible unearthed very interesting:
http://www.theosophical.org.uk/Biblunsbd.htm
April 30, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Postman
You bunch of dirty, dirty atheists! The BIBLE is not just about incest! There are plenty of other wonderful stories to tell… Like the proper care and feeding of bears, for instance. http://www.illustratedbiblestories.ca/buybook.htm
Or wholesome stories about water sports.
http://www.illustratedbiblestories.ca/noah_4.htm
May 1, 2009 at 11:00 am
yunshui
Brian:
Thanks for the tip – I think I’ll be ordering that book!
May 1, 2009 at 1:36 pm
atimetorend
I have read some negative reviews of the Finkelstein/Silberman book, (though what book of this genre does not have vitriolic negative reviews). The argument if I’m remembering correctly is they take a very minimalist view of the Israelite narratives, meaning none of it happened and it was all made up at a late date. I have only skimmed the book.
William Dever’s book (What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Archaeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel ) seems to be somewhat better received in the academic community. His book is a strong refutation of the minimalist perspective. He does not think it is all accurate historically, especially in the specifics, but he thinks there were general historic people’s that form the basis of the stories. Dever looks at specific archaeological finds and discusses how they are used to decipher the past, kind of case studies to teach the field.
May 1, 2009 at 2:01 pm
yunshui
Dever is now also on order for the every-growing Library of Yunshui. Thanks, atimetorend. But dammit, people, stop recommending books! You’ll bankrupt me!
May 2, 2009 at 2:46 pm
the chaplain
Why weren’t these interesting Bible translations, complete with stimulating illustrations, available when I was a kid? My illustrated Bible didn’t look anything like these. If it had, I might have read it! :)
May 2, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Roger Moody
Thanks for the link atimentorend. Those stories are great! I loved the wrestling story where god can only manage a draw, and the one where the Philistines get god to stop killing them by making golden statues of the groin tumors god had given them.
I really appreaciate that the site has a commentary section with all the Bible quotes so you realize the stories are actually from the “Holy” book itself. Without the quotes, a lot of people would never believe it.
May 3, 2009 at 3:58 am
atimetorend
Yes, exactly, the commentary section shows the author is not trying to exaggerate the stories. Just “telling it like it is” is bad enough, no exaggeration needed.
May 5, 2009 at 6:59 am
Roger Moody
You know, when I was a believer, I read the Bible cover to cover like 4 times. I “studdied” the Bible with “study guides”. I don’t remeber hearing many of these stories at all. It’s really too bad they aren’t more widely know. Hmmm…
May 31, 2009 at 12:09 pm
atimetorend
yunshui, I read this post this morning and was reminded of you. I may have been off on the comment I made about Finkelstein. If you are interested:
http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2009/05/resetting-the-discipline-of-biblical-archaeology.html
May 2, 2011 at 3:08 am
eaglewoman
Laugh all you want @ the Bible stories, it is the word of Jesus Christ our Lord & Saviour.
Why God would want us to read such mind boggeling stories?
That is where faith comes in…
Ours is not to know the reasons “why” but to have Faith and beleive.
Why should these stories shock anyone. alot of that stuff is still goin on in the real world…