Herem or cherem (Hebrew: חרם, ḥērem), as used in the Tanakh, means something given over to the Lord, or under a ban, and sometimes refers to things or persons to be utterly destroyed. [2] [3] The term has been explained in different and sometimes conflicting ways by different scholars. It has been defined as "a mode of secluding, and rendering harmless, anything imperilling the religious life of the nation", [4] or "the total destruction of the enemy and his goods at the conclusion of a campaign", [5] or "uncompromising consecration of property and dedication of the property to God without possibility of recall or redemption". [3] It is translated into Latin as devotio , a word used for human sacrifice, [6] and into Greek as anathema , which was a sacrifice to the gods (and later to God). [7]
A related verb, heḥərîm (החרים), means "to treat as ḥērem", or "destroy utterly".
The word comes from the semitic root Ḥ-R-M with meanings having to do with prohibiting and sanctity. There is another root, ḫ-r-m, which can mean to destroy or annihilate. [8] In the Masoretic Text of the Tanakh the verb form occurs 51 times, while the noun occurs 38 times. [9] [2] Although the word basically means something devoted or given over to God (as in Leviticus 27:28), it often refers to "a ban for utter destruction". [2] There is also a homonym, herem, meaning fisherman's net, which occurs 9 times in the masoretic text and is regarded as etymologically unrelated, according to the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon. It is related to the Arabic root ḫ-r-m, which can also mean to perforate. [8]
The word is often used in the 6th and 7th chapters of the Book of Joshua, where Jericho came under herem. This meant it had to be completely destroyed, except for "the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron" which were to go into "YHWH's treasury" (Joshua 6:19). The following chapter describes how Achan pillaged an ingot of gold, a quantity of silver, and a costly garment for himself, and was executed by stoning. [1]
Deuteronomy 20:17 also names six people groups who were to be subject to the ḥērem (using the verb): the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.
In the Book of Judges, chapters 19–21, the Israelite town of Jabesh-Gilead was put under herem for not joining in battle against the Tribe of Benjamin.
King Saul put the priestly town of Nob under herem, nearly wiping out the priestly House of Eli.
The concept of herem also appears in 1 Samuel 15, where Saul "totally destroyed" (verse 8, NIV) the Amalekites with the sword, but spared their king, Agag, and kept "the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambs—everything that was good." For this, Saul is rebuked by Samuel, who reminds him that God had commanded him to "completely destroy" the Amalekites (verse 15). Samuel "hacked Agag to pieces" himself (verse 33, ESV).
The word herem is the last word of the prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible: "… lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction" (Malachi 4:6, ESV).
Most scholars conclude that the biblical accounts of extermination are exaggerated, fictional, or metaphorical. [10] In the archaeological community, the consensus of modern scholars is that the story of battle and the associated extermination are a pious fiction and did not happen as described in the Book of Joshua. [11] For example, the Book of Joshua arguably describes the extermination of the Canaanite tribes, yet Joshua 16:10 and Judges 1:1–2:5 both say that the extermination was not complete. [12]
William Dumbrell suggests that "the ban appears to have been conceived as an acknowledgment of Yahweh's help." [13] He also notes that "everything likely to contaminate Israel religiously" was destroyed, and thus the institution of the ban was "designed not to counter a military threat but to counter a religious threat." [14] Similarly, Balchin argues that "drastic action was required to keep Israel in holy existence." [15] But Lilley argues that "Israel, like other contemporary societies, did not recognise any distinction between sacred and secular war," and that "holy war" is not a biblical term, "but one invented or at least appropriated by commentators." [3] Lilley goes on to suggest that essence of the idea of herem is an "irrevocable renunciation of any interest" in the object 'devoted', and thus "so far as persons are concerned, the options of enslavement and treaty are not available." He contests the idea that it always involved things imperilling the religious life of the nation, arguing that these things "were to be destroyed out of hand, not given to the sanctuary." [16]
Longman and Reid alternatively suggest that herem was a "sacrifice of the occupants of Canaan in the interest of securing the purity of the land." [17] The concept of herem was not unique to Israel. The Mesha Stele contains a statement by King Mesha of Moab that he captured the town of Nebo and killed all seven thousand people there, "for I had devoted them to destruction for (the god) Ashtar-Chemosh." [18]
Theologians and other scholars have commented on the ethical and moral dilemmas posed by the wars of extermination, particularly the killing of women and children. [19]
Maimonides applies the rules from Deuteronomy 20:10 (the rules governing discretionary wars) to the war on the Canaanite nation, and suggests that the commandment to exterminate the Canaanites was not absolute. He writes that Joshua gave the Canaanites three options: to flee, to remain and make peace with the Israelites, or to fight. [20]
Rabbi Gunther Plaut asserted that the Torah, itself, never addresses the morality of the wars of extermination. [21] Biblical scholar Sidney Hoenig discussed the "brutality" in the book of Joshua, but concluded that the "battle is only in honor of God". [22] The Mennonite scholar John Howard Yoder suggests that the concept of herem was unique in relation to the morality of the time not in its violence, but in ensuring that "war does not become a source of immediate enrichment through plunder", [23] and hence was the beginning of a trajectory that would lead ultimately to the teaching of nonviolence. Scholars Ian Lustick and Leonard B. Glick quote Shlomo Aviner as saying "from the point of view of mankind's humanistic morality we were in the wrong in [taking the land] from the Canaanites. There is only one catch. The command of God ordered us to be the people of the Land of Israel". [24]
Some scholars claim that collective punishment, particularly punishment of descendants for transgressions committed by ancestors, is common in the Hebrew Bible—a view based primarily on repeated descriptions (with slightly varied wording) of God as "a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation … but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments." [25]
Several scholars and commentators have characterized the wars of extermination as genocide. [10] [26] [27]
Scholar Pekka Pitkanen asserts that Deuteronomy involves "demonization of the opponent", which is typical of genocide, and he asserts that the genocide of the Canaanites was due to unique circumstances, and that "the biblical material should not be read as giving license for repeating it." [28]
Scholar Philip Jenkins characterizes the warfare of the Bible as genocidal, and considers the laws of warfare in the Quran to be more humane than the Biblical rules. [29]
Scholar M. I. Rey notes that Deut 21:10–14 constitutes a form of genocidal rape and the gravity of the practice should not be minimized solely because it does not display the totalizing destruction and annihilation seen in herem (despite being labeled "herem-like").
Several justifications and explanations for the extreme violence associated with the wars of extermination have been offered, some found in the Hebrew Bible, others provided by Rabbinic commentators, and others hypothesized by scholars. These include:
According to the Talmud, the Canaanite nations were first given the opportunity to avoid extermination by voluntarily leaving the land, and in fact one Canaanite nation (the Girgashites) did so. [34] Another Talmudic explanation suggested God gave the land to the Canaanites only temporarily, until the Israelites would arrive, and the Canaanites' extermination was punishment for their refusal to obey God's desire that they leave. [34] Another explanation proposed that wars in the Book of Joshua were a diversionary tactic, so that Israelites would not kill Joshua after discovering that he had forgotten certain laws. [34]
Michael S. Heiser notes that the herem in the Book of Joshua predominately targets the Anakim, descendants of the Nephilim (Deuteronomy 9:2, Numbers 13:32-33, Joshua 11:21-22). The Nephilim are believed to be the offspring of fallen angels and mankind [35] [36] so thus, Heiser argues that the purpose of the herem is to also prevent the physical corruption of the Israelites. [37]
Some analysts have associated the biblical commandments of extermination with violent attitudes in modern era.
According to Ian Lustick, in the 1980s, leaders of the now defunct Israeli messianic and political movement Gush Emunim, such as Hanan Porat, considered the Palestinians to be like Canaanites or Amalekites, and suggested that implied a duty to make merciless war against Arabs who reject Jewish sovereignty. [38]
Biblical scholar Niels Peter Lemche asserts that European colonialism in the nineteenth century was ideologically based on the biblical narratives of conquest and extermination. He also states that European Jews who migrated to Palestine relied on the biblical ideology of conquest and extermination, and considered the Arabs to be Canaanites. [39] Scholar Arthur Grenke claims that the view of war expressed in Deuteronomy contributed to the destruction of Native Americans and to the destruction of European Jewry. [40]
Nur Masalha, a Palestinian writer and academic, writes that the genocide of the extermination commandments has been "kept before subsequent generations" and served as inspirational examples of divine support for slaughtering enemies. [41] Ra'anan S. Boustan, an associate professor of ancient Mediterranean religions at UCLA, has said that militant Zionists have identified modern Palestinians with Canaanites, and hence as targets of violence mandated in Deut 20:15-18. [42] Scholar Leonard B. Glick states that Jewish fundamentalists in Israel, such as Shlomo Aviner, consider the Palestinians to be like biblical Canaanites, and that some fundamentalist leaders suggest that they "must be prepared to destroy" the Palestinians if the Palestinians do not leave the land. [43] Keith Whitelam, professor emeritus of Biblical Studies in the University of Sheffield, asserts that the Zionist movement has drawn inspiration from the biblical conquest tradition, and Whitelam draws parallels between the "genocidal Israelites" of Joshua and modern Zionists. [44]
A formal declaration that the “seven nations” are no longer identifiable was made by Joshua ben Hananiah, around the year 100 CE. [45]
Scholar Moshe Greenberg asserts that the laws of extermination applied only to the extinct tribes, and only to their contemporary generations of Israelites. [46] Carl Ehrlich states the biblical rules of extermination provide guidance to modern Israelis not for genocidal purposes, but rather simply as models for reclaiming the land of Israel. [47]
According to Christian Hofreiter, historically almost all Christian authorities and theologians have interpreted the herem passages as referring to real, historical events when God commanded the Israelites to exterminate all the members of particular nations. He states that "there is practically no historical evidence that anyone in the Great Church" viewed them as being purely an allegory. In particular, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin have defended a literal reading of these passages at length. Origen of Alexandria is sometimes cited as having viewed the herem passages allegorically; Hofreiter argues that although Origen viewed a spiritual interpretation as having primary importance to Christians, he did not deny that the herem passages described historical events. [48]
The Book of Joshua is the sixth book in the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament, and is the first book of the Deuteronomistic history, the story of Israel from the conquest of Canaan to the Babylonian exile. It tells of the campaigns of the Israelites in central, southern and northern Canaan, the destruction of their enemies, and the division of the land among the Twelve Tribes, framed by two set-piece speeches, the first by God commanding the conquest of the land, and, at the end, the second by Joshua warning of the need for faithful observance of the Law (torah) revealed to Moses.
Deuteronomy is the fifth book of the Torah, where it is called Devarim and the fifth book of the Hebrew Bible and Christian Old Testament.
Yahweh was an ancient Levantine deity who was venerated in Israel and Judah. Though no consensus exists regarding his origins, scholars generally contend that he is associated with Seir, Edom, Paran and Teman, and later with Canaan. His worship reaches back to at least the Early Iron Age, and likely to the Late Bronze Age, if not somewhat earlier.
The Israelites were a Hebrew-speaking ethnoreligious group consisting of tribes that inhabited much of Canaan during the Iron Age.
Amalek is described in the Hebrew Bible as the enemy nation of the Israelites. The name "Amalek" can refer to the descendants of Amalek, the grandson of Esau, or anyone who lived in their territories in Canaan, or North African descendants of Ham, the son of Noah.
According to the Hebrew Bible, the Tribe of Ephraim was one of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. The Tribe of Manasseh, together with Ephraim, formed the Tribe of Joseph. It is one of the Ten Lost Tribes. The etymology of the name is disputed.
Ethics in the Bible refers to the system(s) or theory(ies) produced by the study, interpretation, and evaluation of biblical morals, that are found in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles. It comprises a narrow part of the larger fields of Jewish and Christian ethics, which are themselves parts of the larger field of philosophical ethics. Ethics in the Bible is unlike other western ethical theories in that it is seldom overtly philosophical. It presents neither a systematic nor a formal deductive ethical argument. Instead, the Bible provides patterns of moral reasoning that focus on conduct and character in what is sometimes referred to as virtue ethics. This moral reasoning is part of a broad, normative covenantal tradition where duty and virtue are inextricably tied together in a mutually reinforcing manner.
Mount Ebal is one of the two mountains near the city of Nablus in the West Bank, and forms the northern side of the valley in which Nablus is situated, the southern side being formed by Mount Gerizim. The mountain is one of the highest peaks in the West Bank and rises to 935 m (3,068 ft) above sea level, some 60 m (200 ft) higher than Mount Gerizim. Mount Ebal is approximately 17 km2 (6.6 sq mi) in area, and is composed primarily of limestone. The slopes of the mountain contain several large caverns which were probably originally quarries, and at the base towards the north are several tombs.
Yehezkel Kaufmann was an Israeli philosopher and Biblical scholar associated with the Hebrew University. His main contribution to the study of biblical religion was his thesis that Israel's monotheism was not a gradual development from paganism but entirely new.
Mosaic authorship is the Judeo-Christian tradition that the Torah, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, were dictated by God to Moses. The tradition probably began with the legalistic code of the Book of Deuteronomy and was then gradually extended until Moses, as the central character, came to be regarded not just as the mediator of law but as author of both laws and narrative.
The most widespread belief among archeological and historical scholars is that the origins of Judaism lie in Bronze Age polytheistic Canaanite religion. Judaism also syncretized elements of other Semitic religions such as Babylonian religion, which is reflected in the early prophetic books of the Tanakh.
Normative Judaism's views on warfare are defined by restraint that is neither guided by avidness for belligerence nor is it categorically pacifist. Traditionally, self-defense has been the underpinning principle for the sanctioned use of violence, with the maintenance of peace taking precedence over waging war. While the biblical narrative about the conquest of Canaan and the commands related to it have had a deep influence on Western culture, mainstream Jewish traditions throughout history have treated these texts as purely historical or highly conditioned, and in either case not relevant to contemporary life. However, some minor strains of radical Zionism promote aggressive war and justify them with biblical texts.
Judaism's doctrines and texts have sometimes been associated with violence or anti-violence. Laws requiring the eradication of evil, sometimes using violent means, exist in the Jewish tradition. However, Judaism also contains peaceful texts and doctrines. There is often a juxtaposition of Judaic law and theology to violence and nonviolence by groups and individuals. Attitudes and laws towards both peace and violence exist within the Jewish tradition. Throughout history, Judaism's religious texts or precepts have been used to promote as well as oppose violence.
The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament both contain narratives, poems, and instructions which describe, encourage, command, condemn, reward, punish and regulate violent actions by God, individuals, groups, governments, and nation-states. Among the violent acts referred to are war, human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, murder, rape, genocide, and criminal punishment. Violence is defined around four main areas: that which damages the environment, dishonest or oppressive speech, and issues of justice and purity. War is a special category of violence that is addressed in four different ways including pacifism, non-resistance, just war and crusade.
Ancient Hebrew writings are texts written in Biblical Hebrew using the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE.
Judges 20 is the twentieth chapter of the Book of Judges in the Old Testament or the Hebrew Bible. According to Jewish tradition the book was attributed to the prophet Samuel, but modern scholars view it as part of the Deuteronomistic History, which spans in the books of Deuteronomy to 2 Kings, attributed to nationalistic and devotedly Yahwistic writers during the time of the reformer Judean king Josiah in 7th century BCE. This chapter records the war between the tribe of Benjamin and the other eleven tribes of Israel, belonging to a section comprising Judges 17 to 21.
War in the Hebrew Bible concerns any military engagement narrated or discussed in the Hebrew Bible, also known as the Tanakh or Old Testament of the Bible. Texts about war in the Hebrew Bible are part of the broader topic of The Bible and violence. They cover a wide range of topics from detailed battle reports including weapons and tactics used, numbers of combatants involved, and casualties experienced, to discussions of motives and justifications for war, the sacred and secular aspects of war, descriptions and considerations of what in the modern era would be considered war crimes, such as genocide or wartime sexual violence, and reflections on wars that have happened, or predictions, visions or imaginations of wars that are yet to come.
Joshua 11 is the eleventh chapter of the Book of Joshua in the Hebrew Bible or in the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. According to Jewish tradition the book was attributed to Joshua, with additions by the high priests Eleazar and Phinehas, but modern scholars view it as part of the Deuteronomistic History, which spans the books of Deuteronomy to 2 Kings, attributed to nationalistic and devotedly Yahwistic writers during the time of the reformer Judean king Josiah in 7th century BCE. This chapter focuses on the conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites under the leadership of Joshua, a part of a section comprising Joshua 5:13–12:24 about the conquest of Canaan.
According to the Hebrew Bible, the Tribe of Asher was one of the Tribes of Israel descended from Asher, the eighth son of Jacob. It is one of the ten lost tribes.
Some of the events depicted in the Hebrew Bible's narrative which involve violence and warfare are considered by some academics and commentors to amount to genocide, most notably the conflicts with the Midianites as well as the Canaanites. Various interpretations have been given of these passages throughout history, with some who consider that God has commanded the Israelites to destroy some nations, often referred to as Amalek, while others hold the commandments as allegorical. Critics of Christianity and Judaism have often cited the passages to prove that the biblical god is a malevolent being. Still others have invoked the passage to incite genocide or ethnic cleansing against religious or ethnic minorities, such as was done during the Rwandan genocide. A reference to the commandment by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the Israel–Hamas war was cited as proof of genocide in the Gaza strip in South Africa's genocide case against Israel. In mainstream scholarship, the historicity of the Biblical Narrative and stories is questionable.