I An important aspect of ancient Hebrew war practice, and a basic j

recurring feature throughout the tradition-history of holy war in j

the Old Testament, is the close association of trumpet-call and

battle-shout ( (1 3 2). 4

T * ■.•53

In the narrative of the Battle of Jericho seven priests are to sound ■% ram’s horns and the whole qrmy is to raise the shout (Josh 6.5,20; j verb & substantive 77V^"7/>). Similarly, the formal battle-cry i_{r ;} of Gideon’s warriors is preceded by the sound of the horns (Ju 7*18,20;; note also Hos 5*8). A striking example is also found in the 9 Chronicler’s account of the war waged by Jeroboam against Judah : :| at the height of the battle the priests sounded the trumpets and the <6 men of Judah raised the shout (2 Chr 13*l4b~15a; verb VIY) .

Horn and battle-shout are associated in the following passages : ^ Jer 4 .1 9b (explicitly /7 25^4/1 JiV-HA) ; Am 2.2; Job 39*25* 'J

rv : * - : 1

28 '1% H

Zephaniah describes the Day ox Yahweh as "a day of horn and battle- /

shout" (Zeph 1.16 ; cf Joel 2.1 (l33)). The association is also

preserved in Psalm 4-7 • 6 ( E W 5 ) ; .

"God. has gone up with a shout ; Yahweh with the sound of a horn" . |

That the sound of the trumpet was in fact the signal for the battle- S

shout is clear from Joshua 6.5,20 and Judges 7.18,20 . This is

further illustrated in a few non-military contexts (134). In addition,S

examination of the references to in Numbers 10.5a, 6a, 6b

(135) supports the same conclusion. The reference in Numbers 3 1 . 6 i

is also instructive. The trumpets which Phinehas carries to battle #

$

are here described as _{T ; —} A _{: :}, which may be rendered 'I

simply "the t®rü^â trumpets", that is, trumpets for signalling

"t^ru^ â " ; (IvEB interprets the phrase as "the trumpets to give the ;■ signal for the battle-cry").

Xn actual battle practice the combination of trumpet and shout may

well have constituted the signal for attack (note especially Josh 6 .

5,20f; similarly, 2 Chr 13.l4b-15 where the ensuing battle-action ;

is Yahweh's ; cf also Ju 7.18,20).

Battle-cry :

Apart from the battle-shout ( _{T ;} some evidence of more formal

battle-cries is presented. The most obvious example is Gideon’s i

battle-cry: "For Yahweh and for Gideon" (ju 7 .IS ^1 3 6)).

P.O. Craigie notes the following additional examples of battle-cry î

i]i early Hebrew war-poetry:

"After you Benjamin" (Ju 5*14; cf also Hos 5.8b)

"Dominate powerfully, 0 my soul" (ju 5.21 } "Yahweh is a man of war" (Ex 1 5.3)

"War-cry of a king" (Nu 23,21b). '■

Craigie further considers that the name of the artar "Yahweh is my ■;

banner" (Ex 17.15) may be a recollection of a battle-cry (137).

Liturgical emphasis

Aj.'. innovation of considerable importance in the presentation of ;.|

battle-trumpet and shout is the unique liturgical emphasis evident .'j

in the Chronicler’s work (1 3 8). Although witnessed mainly in non- j

military contexts (139)? the Chronicler’s liturgical emphasis is • "ïj

attested in one notable battle episode, 2 Chronicles 20, which stands4

out as the ultimate idealistic development of the Old Testament holy war tradition. Here, according to the Chronicler, male singers are

appointed to precede Jehoshaphat's army "praising God" (v 21).

against the enemy (v 22; cf supra p 2?). Presumably, as elsewhere |

in Chronicles (l4o), these are cultic singers, indeed Temple guild |

singers, whose cultic function in battle may be compared with the ï

central role of the seven priests in the idealistic presentation |

of the Battle of Jericho, Equally important is the fact that one of i their number, Jahaaiel, "a Levite of the sons of Asaph", delivers

the pre-battle address (vv l4-1?; vide supra p 2 0 & note (9 8)) (l4l).| The most significant feature in the Chronicler's cultic presentation ! of this battle episode is that the battle-shout has in reality

become a battle-hymn: "Praise be to Yahweh, for His mercy is forever"}

(v 21b) (i42). Another striking innovation is that there is no |

mention of trumpet summons or signal either before or during battle i

(contrast 2 Chr 13.12,14), The cultic singers, therefore, not only I;

transform the battle-shout, their singing would seem to have replaced;

the function of the trumpet in battle (l43). (Por the inclusion of t

the trumpet in the Chronicler’s description of the victory 3

celebrations, vide infra p 3 3 ) . ,

Finally, it may be noted that the Book of Deuteronomy, despite the

inclusion of a formalised war code, which doubtless preserves -

original aspects of the ancient war tradition, makes no mention of war trumpets, battle-shout, or battle-cry.

Post-battle rites and practices Hereni

The sacral character of ancient Hebrew warfare is convincingly

demonstrated in the act of the ritual slaughter of the defeated

enemies, their families and their livestock ( 144). It is important to ! observe the cultic connotation of the term which indicates not simply annihilation but "devotion" or "vowing to the deity by destruction" |

(cf Akkad, haramu,"ritually separate"; a pre-battle vow to carry out i herem is explicit in Nu 2 1 ,2f). Thus herem is ideally a divine

sanction, obligatory as the concluding cultic act of holy war.

Consequently, failure to carry out complete herem may seriously affect the course of battle. Because of Achan's breaking of the sanctity of herem the initial attack on Ai fails; the sin is expiated by the destruction of Achan and his family (josh 7 (145)). In the context of Saul's fall from divine favour the (anti-monarchic) narrator indicates the King’s disobedience in neglecting to carry out full-

scale herem against the Amalekites (1 Sam 15.8a,9,19); in the sequel,

Samuel’s action in hewing Agag in pieces "before Yahweh" (i.e. as a cultic act) may be contrued as herern-slaughter (vv 32f). In another

30

episode, Moses rebukes the Israelites for having appropriated ^ animals and spoil, and for having spared the lives of women and

children after the defeat of the Midianites (Nu 31 ,9-1 2,14f. ) .• | Noteworthy is the use of the Hiph’il of the verb 0*7/7 in the | prophetic writings especially with reference to Yahweh *s action

against the nations (146).

In practice, however, total herem might not in fact have been carried ? out in all circumstances. Two instances indicate that young virgins might be spared (ju 21.12; Nu 31*18). The Deuteronomic law of siege ;

stipulates, in the case of distant cities, that women smd children

are to be spared (Dt 20.14; note also the ordinance for the permitted ] marriage of an Israelite with a female prisoner of war, Dt 21.10-14). In several instances the appropriation of cattle and spoil is allowed

(Dt 2.35; 3.7; 20.14; josh 8.2,27; 11.14; vide infra pp 31f,). Nevertheless these exceptions to the rule do not detract from the essential and practical purpose of herem, namely, the effective

reduction of the enemy’s military potential. Thus, even where cattle and spoil are retained, the total annihilation of the enemy population is carried out (Dt 2.34; 3*6; Josh 8.24ff; 11.14; cf 1 Sam 15.8b+33b), and in cases where women and children are spared, all the males are slain (Nu 3 1.7b; Dt 20.13; Ju 21.11; note that the last passage includes married women, similarly Nu 31 * 17 specifies male children and married women).

It is readily apparent that herem has a special importance for the writers of Deuteronomy, Indeed, it may be said that the rite forms

a focal point in their revival of holy war ordinances. We may also -3 infer that it is the principle of herem rather than its actual

practice which interests the Deuteronomists since the principle i truly exemplifies their theological standpoint, namely, the complete rejection of and separation from everything pertaining to pagan cult ] and life (l47). This is well illustrated in Deuteronomy 1 3 • 12-1 8 where

(hypothetically) an Israelite city which has become apostate is | condemned to complete herem. In this episode, apart from herem, two i other elements of the ancient war tradition are apparent: firstly, J the action is to be undertaken by the whole of Israel (l4S) (of the inter-tribal conflict in Judges 20); secondly, the city is to be 1 completely destroyed, and a curse forbids its rebuilding (cf Josh 6,26) Herem is necessarily an integral part of the Deuteronomic concept of |_■I the wars of conquest (note especially Dt 7*2,16,24; cf also Dt 2.34; i 3.6). In contrast to the treatment prescribed for distant cities, the ^ law of siege insists that cities near at hand must be given over to [ complete herem (Dt 20.l6f.). In the same context an uncompromising

(theological) reason for herem is adduced, namely, the prevention of religious syncretism (Dt 20,18) (l 4-9). It is important, therefore, to see the Deuteronomic demand for herem in the context of the

continuing ideological struggle against the influences of pagan religion. Thus in Deuteronomy and in the Deuteronomistic writers the practice of herem is frequently associated with the destruction of pagan altars and images as well as with the proscription of

agreements and inter-marriage with the indigenous population (I5 0). In line with this theological standpoint Deuteronomy and the

Deuteronomistic writers characteristically describe the idolatrous cult of heathen gods as a "snare" for Israel (151).

Booty

A few passages clearly indicate that the spoils of war must be consecrated to Yahweh (1 5 2). In this respect the disposal of booty is governed in effect by the law of herem (153). More frequently, however, booty is appropriated by the warriors themselves (1 5 4). That this may have become the more usual practice is indicated not

J