Holy War or Yahweh War

7/28/2019 Holy War or Yahweh War

1/20

"Holy War" or "Yahweh War"?

Gwilym H. Jones

Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 25, Fasc. 3. (Jul., 1975), pp. 642-658.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-4935%28197507%2925%3A3%3C642%3A%22WO%22W%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0

Vetus Testamentum is currently published by BRILL.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/bap.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academicjournals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.orgFri Dec 21 10:27:32 2007
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-4935%28197507%2925%3A3%3C642%3A%22WO%22W%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/bap.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/bap.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-4935%28197507%2925%3A3%3C642%3A%22WO%22W%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0


2/20

Vetw Testamentum, Vol. XXV, Fasc. 3

"HOLY WAR" OR "YAHWEH WAR"?

GWILYM H. JONES

Twenty five years have passed since Gerhard VON RAD ead a paperto the Society for Old Testament Study on Holy War I), in which heexamined in more detail a concept which he had previously recognisedin his studies on Deuteronomy 2). The importance of war in Israel'sfaith and history had been realised before, as is aptly illustrated byWELLHAUSEN'Semarks :

"Israel means E I j g h t s , and Yahweh was the fighting El after whomthe people named itself. The war camp was the cradle of the nation,it was also the oldest sanctuary. Israel was there and Yahweh wasthere 3)."The choice of terminology, Der heilige Krieg, was not VON RAD'S, orthe term was known in Old Testament studies since at least the inves-tigations of F. SCHWALLY Nevertheless, it isn the same subject 4).VON RAD'Sname that is connected with Holy War, and the remarkableinfluence of his slender volume can be attributed firstly to his successin analysing the Holy War theory and in demonstrating its importance

l) This paper was read to the Society for Old Testament Study in London,January 3, 1974 und er the presidency of M r D. R. AP-THOMAS,angor . G. VONRAD'Spaper, read unde r the chairmanship of another B angor president, ProfessorC. R. N OR TH , n 1949, was subsequently published as De r Heil2 e Krieg im altenIsrael, 1951, 4th ed. 1965.2) Deuteronomimstudien, 1947, English translation Studies in Deuteronomy, 1953,especially pp. 45-59.3, This quotation is given in English in R. SMEND,Yahweh W a r and T ribalConfederation, 1970, 27, with reference to J . W EL LH AU SEN ,kixxen und VorarbeitenI, 1884, 10. The same quotation is used by G. VON R A D ,Der Heilige Krieg, 14.See now J . WE LLHA USEN, 18 .rundrisse xum Alten Testament, 1965, ed. R. SME ND,4, F. S C H W A L L Y ,emitische Kriegsaltertumer. I Der heil&e Krieg i m alten Israel,1901. Cf. also W. CASPARI,Was s tand im Buche der Kriege Jahwes?", Z W T hliv, 1912, 110 -158, esp. p. 150, an d M. W E B E R ,Geasmmelte Aufsatxe xur Religions-soxiologie I I I . D a s antike Judentum 1922, 99 A. The term does not receive much


3/20

for understanding Israel's faith and history, and secondly to the factthat by connecting it with the amphictyony 5, and so designating it asa cultic institution he brought Holy War into the main stream of OldTestament research.VONRADadopted the traditio-historical method, and after consider-ing relevant texts from the Old Testament he found in them a numberof constant formal elements which enabled him to describe the theoryof Holy War; he then discussed its Sit7 im Leben in ancient Israel 6).His thesis won general acclamation and its influence is evident onscholars representing different schools of thought '). It became accep-ted basis for studies in other fields and was seen to have wide-rangingimplications for the study of other concepts, such as the Day of Yah-weh a), for analysing the forms of prophetic speech 9), and for discus-sing prophetic preaching against foreign nations lo) and againstIsrael ll). Nevertheless, VON RAD'S thesis has not been without itscritics 12), and in reacting to various aspects of his definition of HolyWar an increasing number of scholars reject the terminology altoge-ther and adopt the proposed nomenclature 'Yahweh War', which is

j) V O NRA D eems to accept withou t debate the amphictyony thesis of A[. NOTH,Das System der xwiilf Stamme Israels, 1930, esp. pp. 39-121. Cf. also his Historyof Israel, E.T., 2nd ed., 1960, 85-109.@)G . VON R A D ,op. cit. 5 f., wh ere h e describes his me thod . Cf. also F. STOLZ ,Jahwes und Israels Kriege, 1972, 9 f. F or sho rt analyses of YON RAD'S hesis cf.H . -J . K R A U S ,Krieg 11', R G G 4 , IV , 64 ; W . ZIMM ERLI , run dri a der alttestament-lichen Theologie, 1972, 50; J. H. G R O N B A E K ,Juda und Amalek. Uberlieferungs-geschichtliche Erwagungen zu Exodus 17.8-16", S t T h xviii, 1964, 26-45;

hi. W E I P P E R T ," 'Heiliger Krieg' in Israel und Assyrien", ZAW lxxxiv, 1972,460 A.') For a fuller discussion with an impressive list of writings v. hi. W E I P P E R T ,op. cit. 463-5.

s, G . VON R A D ,"Th e Origin of the Concept of the Day of Yah neh" ,JSS iv,1959, 97-108.9, R. B A C H ,Die Auforderungen xur Fhcht und xum Kampf in alttestamentlichenProphetenspruch, 1962.l o) J . H . H A Y E S , The Usage of Oracles against Foreign Nations in AncientIsrael", JBL lxxxvii, 1968, 81-92, Cf. also unpublished doctoral dissertations byJ . H. H A Y E S ,The Oracles against the ATations in the O ld Testament, (Princeton 1964),B . B. M A RG UL IS, (Brandeis 1967),tudies in the Oracles against Foreign A'ations

G W IL YMH . JON ES,A n examination of some leading mo tifs in the Prophetic Oraclesagainst Foreign nhtions (Wales 1970).11) J. A . S OG GI N, Der prophe tische G edank e iiber den H eiligen Krieg, alsGericht gegen Israel", I'T x, 1960, 79-83; H. W EIPPE RT, Jahwekrieg und


4/20

644 GW. H. JONESderived from Biblical texts (miLbam8th Yhwh occurs in Nu. xxi 14;1 Sam. xviii 17, xxv 28; Ex. xvii 16; 1 Sam. xvii 47) 13). The purposeof this paper is to re-examine some of the points at which VON RADhas been most severely criticised 14), and i t will be mainly concernedwith the question whether Holy War, as defined by VON RAD, everexisted.

It has been demonstrated that VON RAD'S theory is vulnerable tocriticism because he has defined Holy War as an amphictyonic reac-tion. Admittedly a feeling has grown that NOTH'Sconception of theamphictyony has been given an exaggerated importance in studies ofthe early period of Israelite history 15), and his position has been chal-lenged from various angles lG).Nevertheless, the argument for sepa-rating Holy War from an amphictyonyc context does not necessarilyinvolve criticism of NOTH'S heory: what is said is that Holy War wasnot an exercise of the Israelite amphictyony, and the question of theexistence of such a confederation is left open.

A case for separating the amphictyony, a sacral-cultic institution,from Holy War, a political-military institution, has been vigorously13) O n th is term see W. CASPARI, op. czt. 38; W. RICHTER ,p. cit. 148 ; R . SMEND,

TraditionsgeschichtliGhe Untersuchungen 7uzml Richterbuch, 1966 (2nd ed.), 18 6;H . WEIPPERT,p. c i t . 396; M . WEIPPERT,op. cit. 490-1.14) Aspects not treated are: (a) the relevance of studies on Holy War in theancient Orie nt in general, as done by F. SCHWALLY, op. cit. ;p. cit.;h1. WEIPPE RT,E . NIELS EN ,La guerre considerke com me une religion et la religion comm e une

guerre", S t T h xv, 1961, 93 ff.; J. G. HE INT Z, Oracles prophetiques et g uerresainte selon les archives royales d e hlar i et l'Ancien Testam ent", V T S xvii, 1969,112-135; and (b ) the belief that Holy War was a defensive war: &I. W E I P P E R T ,op. cit. 492, argues that there is no distinction in the ideological-theologicaltreatmen t between defensive and offensive wars in texts fro m the Assyrian Em pireor in the Old Tes tament ; F. STOLZ,op. cit. 199, suggests that in the process ofpossessing the land an offensive war can be un ders tood as a campaign fo r existence;G. H. W . B R E K E L M A N S ,e herem in bet Oude Testament, 1959, 156 ff., s ho w s tha tthe ban did no t belong to a defensive war.15) R. SME ND, 9.cit. 1 1 ; S . H E R R M A N N , T h L Z lxxxvii,Das Werden Israels",1962, 561 ff.

16) A discussion of the m ain objections with a list of the dissenters is given byG. FO HR ER , Altes Testament-"Amphiktyonie" und "Bund"?", T h L Z cxi,1966, 801-16, 893-904. Rut R . SMEND,Zur Frage der altisraelitischen Amphik-tyonie", E v T h , xi/xii, 1971, 623-630, defends NO TH 'S hesis. See furthe r G. W .


5/20

argued by Rudolf SMEND 7), and his basic thesis that Yahweh Warwas not an undertaking of the amphictyony is convincing. The factthat all Israel did not participate in the campaign described in the Songof Deborah is not necessarily an indication that Judah and Simeon Is)did not belong to the confederation, which at the time was a ten-tribe-alliance 19). It is rather a case of the non-participation of these twoisolated tribes because the campaign had nothing whatsoever to dowith tribal confederation 20). In other instances too single alliancesparticipated in the wars of the Judges, and it is only the Deuteronomicframework that has expanded their campaigns to be the action of allIsrael. A political-military unity of Israel before and during the takingof the land did not exist, and it was in the time of Saul that the Phili-stine menace led to a rallying of all the tribes and the formation of thestate of Israel. Before that time there was no consolidation for combi-ned military action. And so the two entities, Yahweh war and tribalconfederation, "do not actually agree statistically" (SMEND, . 25) 21).

If the case for separating Yahweh War from an amphictyonic con-text is accepted, where did the concept emerge? SMEND'S nswer isthat Yahweh War had its home among the Rachel tribes of centralPalestine. His insistence on the importance of the Rachel tribes as thebearers of the Yahweh War tradition is certainly justified. The Arkwas connected with the tribes of Joseph and Benjamin, and Ephraimseems to have been a permanent constituent in the Yahweh wars.There is also some justification for contrasting the Rachel tribes whorepresented the 'war element' in Israel's early history with the Leahtribes who contributed the 'amphictyonic element' to its traditions 22),

17) R. ~ M E N D ,Yah~vehW a r and Tribal Confederation, E.T ., 13-25.Is ) Only Ephraim, Benjamin, hlachir, Zebulun, Issachar and Naphtali partici-

pated; of the non-participants Reuben, Gilead, Dan and Asher are rebuked, butJudah and Simeon are not mentioned. LZIachir and Gilead take the places occupiedin the more familiar tribal lists by Manasseh and Gad, cf. R . Smend, op. cit. 17.

lg) Several scholars have suggested that a ten tribe system existed in the timeof the Judges, cf. S. A'IOWINC EL,Zu r Frage nach dokumentarischen Quellen in josua13-19, 1946, 20 ff . and also his " 'Rahelstamme' und 'Leastamme' ", l,'on Ugaritnach Qu mr an (Eissfeeldt Festschr ift), 1958, 129 ff.; A. WEISER, Das Deboralied",ZA W Ixxi, 1959, 96; K.-D. SCHUNCK,enjamin, Untersuchungen ~ u r ntstehungund Geschichte eines israelitischen Sta mm es, 1963, 48 f f .

R. SUEND,Gehorte Juda zum vorstaatlichen Israel?' Fourth Wo rld Congressofjew ish Studies, Papers I, 1947, 57 ff .21) SMEND inds confirmation for his basic theory in further examination ofthe cultic institution, the role of the Judges and the Ark. Each of these topics is


6/20

646 GW. H. JONESand for emphasising the connection of the Rachel tribes with theexodus experience 23),because exodus and conquest are bound toge-her in the experience of the Rachel tribes, and Moses is "a man of thewar of Yahweh" 24).

SMENDs certainly right in emphasising the significant role playedby the Rachel tribes. Nevertheless, his concern with the centrality ofthese tribes has led him to discredit the suggestion of some texts thatthe Yahweh War tradition was known among other groups. Althoughhe is anxious to declare that the War of Yahweh was not restricted tothese tribes, the conclusions he draws in relation to some texts havecontrary implications. In the battle of Deborah, for example, it wasthe Rachel tribes and no others, except those who had no choice in thematter, that participated (SMEND,. 101), and the initiative was takenby Deborah who was living in Ephraim. He, therefore, asserts that"positive proof of the wars of Yahweh in the case of other tribes" canbe extracted only with difficulty (SMEND,. 102).

By subsuming all under the initiative of the Rachel tribes SMENDtends to underrate the action taken by the Northern tribes. The battledescribed in Judg. iv-v was the affair of a northern group, particularlyZebulun and Naphtali, who are mentioned in both prose (iv 6,10) andverse (v 14, 15, 18) accounts, and who with Issachar have producedthe leaders (iv 6). The evidence is too easily dismissed with the com-ment that these tribes "had no possible choice". Basically Judg. ivcontains two originally independent narratives, one describing thecampaign of Deborah and Barak against Sisera (vv. 6-16) and the otherconcerned with Jael and Sisera (vv. 17-22) 25). There is some doubtabout the value of the description of Deborah as a prophetess judgingin Ephraim (iv 4 f.) as it may be an addition from the hand of a pre-Deuteronomic redactor 26). In any case, districts in Zebulun andNaphtali only are mentioned in the course of the narrative (vv. 6-10)27),System der ~ w o gtamme Israels, 75 ff., and History of Israel, E T , 89-90, that therewas a s ix-tr ibe amphictyony prior to the conquest of the land by Joseph andBenjamin.

23 ) R. SMEND,op. cit. 111-112, against hi. NOTH, ~ber l ie ferungsgeschicdesPentateuch, 2nd ed. 1960, 52-3, and with 0. KAISER, S tamme~ge~ch ich t l i cheHintergriinde der Josephgeschichte", VT x, 1950, 1 ff.

24 ) R. SMEND, p. cit. 121 ff . and also his Das Mosebild von Heinrich Ewald bisMart in Noth , 1959, 1-21, against M. N O T H ,op. tit. 178 A.


7/20

and the naming of Ephraim in verse 5 seems to be out of place. Thehero song of Jael, which is the oldest section in the Song of Debo-rah 28), describes events located near Kishon in the territory of Issachar.Behind Judg. iv-v, therefore, lies an old tradition about a war againstSisera, a tradition that had been preserved in the North, possibly inthe locality of Tabor and in connection with the old sanctuary there.Later redactors, who were more concerned with the activity andsuccess of the Ephraimite tribes, may have inserted a reference toEphraim, thus e;tablishing a connection with the midPalestiniangroup.

The two tribes missing from the Song of Deborah, Judah andSimeon, were cut off by a belt of strong Canaanite city states 29). Yetthis does not prove that the Yahweh war tradition was unknown tothe tribes isolated in the South. The Amalekite war of Ex. xvii 8-16must be taken into account, despite SMEND'Sssertion that it brings nopositive testimony to a Yahweh War independent of the Rachel tribes(SMEND,. 103).Although the present form of the report reflects theinterests of a Judahite group in Davidic times, it contains a basicallyauthentic reference to a clash between Amalek and a pre-Israelitetribal group, which later emerged as the tribe of Judah 30). To assertfurther, however, that there was in the South a 'Judahite amphicty-ony', whose clashes with Amalek bear all the characteristics of HolyWar as defined by VON RAD31), attempts to further the claims of boththe Holy War and the amphictyony theories on too slender evidence.Nevertheless, a conclusion that Yahweh Mar was known in the Southamong a group of tribes that was independent of the mid-PalestinianRachel group seems justified.

28) Convincing arguments have been put forward for considering separatelythe different sections of the Song of Deborah, the kernel being an old profaneSong ( v v . 24-30), which was used in com bination with a son g of praise to Yahweh( v v . 6-8, l l-13, 19-23), thus giving an early victory celebration song. The othersections, a Psalm of praise ( v v . 2-5, 9-10), tribal sayings ( v v . 14-18) and the closingverse ( v . 31) were added later, Cf. H.-P, MU LL ER ,Der Au fba ude s Deboraliedes",V T xvi, 1966, 446-459; W . RICHTER,op. tit. 89 ff.; F . STOLZ,op. cit. 105 ff.

28) R. SMEND, p, cit. 17, with reference to K . BUDDE,Das Buch der Richter,1897, 40, and A. AL T,E u a y s on Old Testament History and Religion, E .T ., 1966, 166.

30) J . H. G R O N B A E K ,p. cit. 26-45, thinks that there was in Davidic times analliance of tribes in the South whose function was the repulsion of Amalek. Thelater tradition of E x. xvii 14-16 originated fro m this Jewish gr ou p an d is intended


8/20

648 GW. H. JONESAlthough meagre, and at times indistinct, the evidence suggests

that Yahweh War was known among a northern group of tribes ope-rating in the area of Tabor and also among a Southern group with itscentre probably around Kadesh (VON AD,p. 17). Admittedly there isa substantial difference in the amount of available evidence relating tothe mid-Palestinian group. One reason for this disparity is that themovement of tribes into Canaan was not uniform in character. Littleis known about the settlement of both Northern and Southern groups,but it appears that the settlement of penetrating tribes in the centralarea resulted in more military action than in other areas. Thus, theRachel group was more actively engaged in Yahweh War. Further-more, the War experiences of the group involved in the exodus and inthe movement into central Palestine became more dominant in He-brew tradition, and the redactors would naturally attach more impor-tance to the operations of Ephraimite tribes. It must also be admittedthat the experiences of the central group had formative influence onthe way in which other groups expressed their own experiences, andprobably guided them in their interpretation of such events as YahwehWar. But Yahweh War was not confined to one group; it was ratheran experience that was known among different groups of tribes thatbecame subsequently the people of Israel 32). Yet the point remainsthat these groups in the North, South and central area acted indepen-dently, and, therefore, the war of Yahweh in which they were engagedwas not an amphictyonic exercise.

I1Once the connection between Holy War, a political-military insti-tution, and the amphictyony, a sacral-cultic institution, is severed the

way is open to deny the former's cultic character. SMENDgain arguesemphatically against making Yahweh War "subsumed under the cate-gory of the cultic" @. 36). The war of Yahweh was not "the sacredinstitution" and the "eminently cultic celebration" described by VONRAD(pp. 6, 14).

When Israel's war narratives are examined and its ancient war cus-toms compared with those of surrounding peoples, it is obvious thata number of common rites and practices became attached to YahwehWar. Furthermore, there can be no doubt about the cultic character of


9/20

many of these practices. Studies of warfare practices among otherpeoples show that rituals were performed in preparation for battle,during the battle to instigate the desired result, and at the conclusionto celebrate victory. References can be found to religious ceremoniesto make the army ritually clean, consultation of omens, accrediting ofvictory to the gods who marched in front of the army 33), and devo-ting part of the booty to the gods 34).The gods' standards were carriedin front of the army and symbolised their presence with the troops 35);a concrete aspect of consulting the gods was the receiving of messagesthrough prophetic oracles 36).

In Israel too Yahweh's help in war was sought through externalmeans, some of which bear close resemblance to sympathetic magic.According to Ex. xvii 8-16 it was Yahweh's rod in the hand of Mosesthat determined the course of the battle against Amalek. The interpre-tation of mat[& hZ'el8hfm in this passage is difficult-firstly, becausethe rod, in contrast to the javelin in Jos. viii 18, 26, had no specialfunction in war and Moses himself played no military role 37), andsecondly, the rod appears only here in the traditions of the wanderingand the suggestion of verse 12 is that power lay in Moses' outstretchedhands. It is possible, therefore, that the reference to the rod is an un-necessary addition 38). Despite this uncertainty, a tradition is preservedhere, as in Jos. viii 18, 26, that some form of rite was performed tosecure Yahweh's help in war 39).

Co-operation between a war leader and an inspired person occurredin Yahweh wars, and probably some form of consultation took placebefore a war. The relationship between Moses and Joshua in Ex. xviifinds a close parallel in the partnership between Deborah and Barak

33) A. GOETZE,Warfare in Asia Minor", Iraq xxv, 1923, 124-30; E. NIELSEN,op. cit.34) Cf. the Mesha Inscription, Documents from Old Testament Times, ed. D.WINTONTHOMAS, 958, 195-8, and A. MALAMAT, and theThe Ban in hiariBible", Y e h e ~ k e lKaufmann Jubilee Volurne, 1960, 149-58 (in Heb.). See alsoH. E. DEL MEDICO Le rite de la guerre dans l'Ancien Testament", L'Ethno-graphie, 45, 1947-50, 127-170 and P. D. MILLER r., The Divine Warrior in EarlyIsrael, 1973.

35)H. W. F. SAGGS,'Assyrian Warfare in the Sargonid Period", Iraq xxv,1963, 145-54.36)1.G. HEINTZ, p. cif.3i) 1.H . GRONBAEK,p. cit. 31-39.


10/20

650 GW. H. JONESin Judg. iv-v, and in both cases the success of the campaign dependedon the power of the endowed person 40). Samuel appears in a similarrole when Saul fought Amalek (1 Sam. xv), and there is again jointaction by military commander and inspired person. Another aspect ofthis co-operation is found in the custom of seeking an oracle througha priest (1 Sam. xxx 7-9) or a prophet (1 Sam. xxviii 6; 1 Kgs. xx) be-fore battle. Although these examples belong to a later period, they areto be understood in connection with earlier instances of co-operationbetween military leaders and inspired persons, which may suggest thatconsultation of inspired persons was part of the ritual of Yahweh War.

Occasional references to war-cries in the ancient traditions suggestthat a campaign was dedicated to Yahweh. Gideon's campaign againstMidian began with the war-cry le_yhwh ti1"ghidh'btz (Judg. vii 18) 41), andit is possible that Israel's battles against Amalek also began with a tra-ditional war-cry "Yahweh's war against Amalek" (miIQZmZb le_yhwhba'amZIzq Ex. xvii 16b) 43.Further, if both halves of v . 16 in Ex. xviiare taken together, it can be suggested that Israel had an altar, withthe dedication "Yahweh is my banner" on it, which served as a gather-ing place for battle against Amalek, and that it was as they moved outto battle that the troops raised the war-cry 43). It is probable that adedication of troops before battle was held at the old sanctuary ofTabor under the guidance of Deborah and Barak (Judg. iv 6, 12), andit would naturally have been of a cultic nature (SMEND, . 36). Eventhe possibility of a cultic preparation for battle at the old centre atKadesh can be admitted ( v o ~AD,pp. 17-18). Sometimes, when moreelaborate, the ritual included a sacrifice and some form of blessing andcursing (SMEND, . 36). Although the relevant texts are from a slightlylater period, they testify to a ritual purification and dedication of thetroops (1 Sam. xxi 5 ; 2 Sam. xi 11) 44).

Without referring to more difficult questions, such as the use of theban (QZrem) and the Ark by the Israelites, there is sufficient evidence tosuggest that customs of a ritual and cultic nature were attached to

4 O ) Cf. J . H . G R Q N B A E K ,p. cit. 42-5; P. D. M I L L E R ,op. cit. 157. O n t h e c o n-nection between the two examples see F. STOLZ,op. cit. 97-9; 108-9; 172-83.4 l ) It was a traditional war-cry, according to W. R I C H T E R ,p. cit. 190.

4 a ) This does not presuppose the existence of an epic poem as suggested byU. CASSUTO,A Commentary on the Book of Exo du s, 1951 (Heb.), 1967 (Eng.tr.),
http:///reader/full/(Eng.tr.)http:///reader/full/(Eng.tr.)


11/20

Israelite warfare. But even when all the evidence is assen~bled, o setpattern for Yahweh War emerges; it is not possible to say that whenIsrael went to war it had to perform a number of rituals according to agiven formula. A recognition of its association with cultic practicesdoes not prove that Holy War was a cultic event; the preparations thatwere made before battle were cultic preparations for a non-cultic event(SMEND,pp. 36-7). FOHRER as rightly commented that, whereaswarfare as part and parcel of life was interwoven with religious con-cepts and accompanied by religious rites, war can no more be designa-ted 'holy' and a sacred institution than birth, weaning, marriage, deathand sheep-shearing 45).AS far as a picture of Israelite warfare can bereconstructed from the available evidence, the various war customswere only loosely connected with one another and do not produce astandard pattern that emerges invariably with the practice of war; it is,therefore, not correct to refer to a fixed ritual and a cultic institution.

I11Nevertheless, Holy War, as presented in the Biblical historical writ-

ings, possesses a highly formal character and it is possible, as VON RADhas shown, to describe a Holy War scheme. There is a carefully plan-ned sequence of events beginning with the summoning of troops andending with their release after the battle. Every occurrence connectedwith the battle is part of the scheme, is presented according to a setformula and may have possessed a cultic significance. This suggeststhat there has been a process of standardising the Holy War patternand of schematising the events.

A Holy War scheme appears as a framework for a section of theGideon narrative in Judg. vi 33-vii 22 46), in which there are threestructural key points : (1) a summoning of troops (vi 33 f.) ;(2) a rally-ing together and formation for battle (vii 1); (3) a statement that vic-tory was won (vii 22). Within this Holy War outline lies a basic tradi-tion about Gideon, which related firstly how he visited the camp dur-ing the night and was encouraged when he overheard a soldier relat-ing his dream, and secondly how he divided his men and planned hisaction against the enemy (vii I lb , 13-21) (RICHTER, p. 188-202). Inaddition to supplying key points which have given the present form


12/20

652 GW. H. JONESof the narrative its structural outline, the redactor also made someinsertions, which again emphasise characteristic Holy War themes.An example of such an insertion is the short section in vii 9-1 l a (RICH-TER,pp. 202-7), whose basic contents are the handing-over formula(~ber~abeformel)n v. 9 47)and the Do-not-fear theme in v . 10, both ofwhich are prominent in Holy War sections. In this case, therefore, itwould appear that the redactors provided a framework for the originaltradition and also made some insertions; in this way the old traditionhas been transformed into a typical Holy War narrative. Yet anotherversion of the Holy War scheme appears in another section of theGideon narrative, vii 23-viii 21 (RICHTER, p. 207 ff.). This was basic-ally a narrative describing Gideon's revenge on the men of Succoth(viii 5-9, 14-21), but in its present setting it stands within a Holy Warscheme, which includes again a summoning of troops (vii 23 f.), arallying together and formation for battle (viii 4) and a statement thatvictory was won (viii 10-13); it has thus been transformed into a typi-cal Holy War account. The redactors did not interfere with the contentsof the received narrative, but succeeded in giving it a Holy War cha-racter by supplying the framework, mostly at the beginning (vii 23-viii 4) and to a lesser degree at the end (viii 10-13). Both instances showhow the Holy War scheme was used for the construction of two sec-tions in the Gideon complex, and how, especially in the latter case,the character of the narrative, which was not specifically connectedwith Holy War, was changed. That the Holy War concept was impor-tant for the redactor is confirmed by the fact that in both sections theHoly War scheme has dominated the presentation of the material.

Importance must be attached to 1 Sam. xi as an example of the HolyWar scheme outside the Book of Judges 4s). Although the presentform of the narrative connects Saul's war against the Ammonites withthe question of the kingship, the Holy War pattern has not been sup-pressed in the interests of the more dominant theme 49).The narrativeopens with the Ammonite oppression (v. 1) and the consequent distressof the men of Jabesh. Saul, after hearing the news, was possessed by

47 ) The handing-over formula is called 'Ubereignungsformel' by W. RICHTER,op. cit. 21-25, but F . STOLZ,op. cit. 21 f., prefers the term 'Ubergabeformel'.48) G. VO N RAD,op. cit. 20 f. ; W .RICHTER,op. cit. 177 ff . .4Q) According to R. SMEND,p. cit. 64, the chapter's intention is not to answer


13/20

653OLY WAR OR Y A H WEHWAR?the Spirit (v. 6) and immediately summoned the people to war. Hismethod of conscripting supporters is not the usual sounding of atrumpet (cf. Judg. iii 27; vi 23; 1 Sam. xiii 3) or the sending out of amessage (cf. Judg. vii 24), but there is no doubt that the sending ofpieces of oxen (v. 7) served the same purpose and achieved the desiredresult, for they came out "as one man" 50). After a short account of thebattle there follows the usual statement about victory and the com-plete annihilation of the enemy (v. 11). Admittedly the Holy War schemeis not as distinctly emphasised here as in the story of Gideon, but thedifferences are not so great as to dissociate 1 Sam. xi from the HolyWar tradition 51). Adequate reasons for the differences between 1 Sam.xi and the tradition in Judges can be suggested: (a) whereas in Judgesthe Holy War scheme is presented mostly in the framework of narra-tives and through the insertion of key constructional points, in 1 Sam.xi the main elements form an integral part of the narrative itself (cf.RICHTER);nd (b) there was a certain amount of freedom in present-ing the Holy War tradition, and it was not necessary to work alwaysaccording to a tight formula 52).

Whereas fewer signs of Holy War schematisation appear in 2 Sam.xi, some of the narratives in the Book of Joshua suggest a yet moreadvanced stage in presentation, and provide more formularized ac-counts. Jos. x 6-11 is a fine example of how an older tradition appearsin its final Deuteronomic composition 53).Basically the narrative relatedhow Israel under the leadership of Joshua defeated an Amorite coali-tion at Gibeon; the victory was due to Joshua's strategy which wassimply a movement of the Israelite army at night and a surprise dawnattack on the enemy (v. 9) 54). The Israelites pursued the enemy as far

jO) It is definitely a call to arms, acc ording t o W . R ICH TER , p. cit. 177-86.O n the section 1 Sam. xi 1-11 see further H. J . STOEBE, as erste Buch Samuelir,1973, 219-230.jl) Agree ing with W . RICHTER,bid., against F. STOLZ,op. cit. 129, where itis argued th at 1 Sam. xi is not a characteristic Holy War narrative, because (i) thetotal victory of the Judge is not described here, and (ii) it is r6ah ' e l a n d n o trziah yhwh .j2) With W. R I C H T E R ,p. cit. 178, against G . v o ~A D ,op. tit. 6.j3) O n the problems connected with Jos . x see A. ALT,"Josua", Kleine Sc hriftenXur Geschichte des V o lk es Israel I (2nd ed.) 1959, 176 f f . ; hl. N O T H ,Da s Buch josua ,3rd ed. 1971, 56 f f . ; G. E. W RI GH T, The Literary an d Historical Problem s ofJoshua 10 and Judges l",J?JES v, 1946, 105 f f . ; H. SCHM ID, Erwagungen zur


14/20

654 GW. H. JONES

as Azekah and Makkedah, killing a great number of them in battle.During an early pre-Deuteronomic stage in the history of the traditionthe account of Yahweh throwing stones from heaven (v. I la) wasadded. Thus, the narrative's original emphasis is retained, namely thatthe enemy was conquered by the Israelites, and it was later, when thearmy was in flight, that Yahweh interfered. A further redaction intro-duced into the narrative three additional elements : (1) An introductionwhich is a combination of the ' at t t r 2 formula 55), which occurs usual-ly in a divine oracle and is found also in the regulations for Holy Warin Deut. xx 1-4, and the Ubergabeformel. This combination makes thebattle from the very beginning an example of Yahweh War. (2) A di-rect attribution of the enemy's panic to Yahweh (v. lo), which thusmakes him responsible for a double intervention in the battle. (3) Afinal word in v. 1 b , which emphasises unmistakably that victory wasdue to Yahweh's intervention and not to the fighting of the Israelites.A heightening of divine intervention at this final stage has transferredIsrael's part in the battle into a secondary position sandwiched betweenYahweh's double activity in vv. 10a and I lb . Furthermore, these addi-tions have given the narrative a more definite pattern.On the basis of these selected examples, three stages in the develop-ment of the Holy War theory can be tentatively proposed. (1) Thestage nearest to the events described is represented by 1 Sam. xi, whichdescribes what was evidently regarded as an example of Yahweh War.Several of the key elements of the Holy War scheme form an integralpart of the narrative, and schematisation has been unnecessary. (2)During a pre-Deuteronomic stage narratives containing war materialwere set within an easily recognised framework. Some significantadditions were also made, and the overall impression is that of a schemewhich had a set form. Two examples from the story of Gideonillustrate this process; it is interesting to note that possession by thespirit, which was an integral part of the Saul episode, is part of theframework in the Gideon narrative. (3) At a later stage the Holy Warscheme was adopted into the Deuteronomic tradition, and as shownby Jos. x 6-11 acquired some formulaic and theological additions thatconformed with the Deuteronomic understanding of Holy War.This approach to the Holy War scheme, whilst recognising fullythe pattern described by VON RAD,offers a different interpretation of


15/20

its place and development. According to VON RADa Holy War theoryor ideology existed, and for a specified period in Israelite history thistheory came to dominate Israel's war practices. The above interpreta-tion suggests that the formulation of the Holy War theory followed,rather than preceded, the practice of Yahweh War. In earlier practiceIsrael's wars, although containing customs of a cultic and ritual nature,do not give the impression of a set form or of being conducted accord-ing to an accepted scheme. It was later that the material was manipu-lated and set within the framework of a Holy War scheme ;the pattern,which was superimposed on narratives and traditions that existed inan unschematised form, emerged when the material was standardizedin pre-Deuteronomic times, and the process reached a climax whenthe traditions were accepted into the Deuteronomic historical scheme.Whereas VON RADdescribed a theory that was established before thepractice, the presupposition of this approach is that the theory repre-sents later development, and is a formulation of what existed previous-ly in the ancient Yahweh War tradition.

Once the Holy War theory is separated from practice and describedas a later formulation, the question of historical reality cannot beavoided. Was Holy War ever practised historically or was it merely apost e v en tm projection of the redactors that was never practised in anhistorical context?

VONRAD'Ssupposition that Israel's Holy War was a cultic institu-tion is mainly an argument by implication, and he admits that noexample of the Holy War being practised according to the pattern inits entirety can be quoted (VONRAD,p. 14). A suggested reason forthis is that we are dealing with actual history, and that rigidity is soonlost amid the events of history. His argument is that the Holy Warconcept must have derived its nourishment from a very rich and al-most inexhaustible religious background; this is the conclusion hedraws from the fact that Israel used the concept for a long time afterit had been separated from the original institution. Holy War wasconducted with confidence in the personal help of Yahweh: this wasthe source of its essentially dynamic character. VONRADwas convin-ced that the Sit? im Leben of this motif of faith was to be sought, not


16/20

656 GW. H. JONES

RICHTERoo is unwilling to attribute the scheme entirely to theredactors and so to question the reality of the historical practice ofHoly War. His proposed solution is more elaborate than VON RAD'S,as is seen from his argument in favour of including the Ehud andGideon narratives within the Holy War scheme. He maintains that, inthe tradition that lay before the redactor, Ehud and Gideon weregenuine Holy War figures, but that older tradition was either totallyreplaced or rewritten in order to fit it into the redactor's scheme.Because of this he encourages caution in discussing the question ofhistoricity (RICHTER, p. 178-9).

Although the view expressed in this paper is that the Holy Wartheory was a post eventtlm interpretation and schematisation of pastevents, it is not claimed that the Holy War theory possesses no histo-rical reality. On the contrary, the Holy War theory was built on atradition that already existed in the Yahweh War experience. Thetheory was an attempt to define and to formulate what was regardedas fundamental to the old tradition; it sought to grasp what was basic,and by setting it within a standardised formula to underline and toemphasise it. That fundamental element was that it was Yahweh'swar, and when that conviction was set within a pattern that containeda series of formulaic sequences Yahweh's activity became even moredominant. Naturally the rites and customs that had become attachedto Yahweh's wars were taken over into the scheme and appear as therecurring elements of the formula, but they are subservient to the dom-inant theme of Yahweh's participation. I t is not denied that thisprocess of superimposing a formula on traditional material in someinstances, such as Gideon's revenge on the men of Succoth, shifted theemphasis of the original. Sometimes a narrative, when set within astandardised form, has lost some of its vivacity and colour, as has beenthe case with the Ehud narrative (STOLZ, . 101). Despite this, theHoly War formula was not completely divorced from historical reality;it represents rather a standardisation of a tradition that was firmlyattached to Israel's historical experience, for Yahweh War was "anuncultic historical action of unique and incomparable force" (SMEND,p. 37).Nevertheless, there is no proof that the Holy War scheme in itsentirety was ever put into action historically. Whereas the material


17/20

beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the origin and provenanceof the Holy War theory, it can be suggested that the formulationemerged when the old Yahweh war tradition was becoming extinctand that the process of standardising the tradition is to be interpretedas a salvaging operation which attempted to define, safeguard andperhaps revive the old tradition 56). But even the attempts of someprophets to conduct the wars of Israel according to the Holy Wartheory were not outstandingly successful, and when they assumedthe role of champions of this tradition they give the impression ofrepresenting an antiquarian and unrealistic institution 57). The oldYahweh War tradition had become extinct, and the attempt to trans-late the Holy War theory into practice did not materialise. Thus, thetheory itself is divorced form actual historical events.

The Old Testament presentation of Holy War, however, avoidedthe dichotomy of event and formula, of history and interpretation 58).Because the historical events have been set within the formula of laterinterpreters and the whole material thus presented as an account ofwhat had happened, no distinction is drawn between historical factsand the interpretation of faith. Nevertheless, a close analysis of thetradition suggests that older accounts of historical events recognisedas Yahweh War have now been incorporated in the Holy War formula.That formula, however, does not represent what actually happenedhistorically.

Finally, there remains the question of terminology. For VON RAD'Holy War' meant an amphictyonic and cultic institution that, in theoryand practice, belonged to a relatively short period of Israelite history.However, the separation of 'Holy War' from the amphictyony and theconsequent refusal to describe it as 'cultic' has led to an abandonmentof 'Holy War' as a description of the Israelite institution and a prefer-ence for the term 'Yahweh War'. In redefining the terminology it isusual to restrict 'Yahweh War' to the peculiarly Israelite experience,and to use 'Holy War' to describe beliefs and practices that werecommon among neighbouring peoples 59).

56) Cf. F. STOLZ,op. cit. 203, where it is similarly argued that the absence of apresent experience was compensated by the heightening of the theory.


18/20

Another way of defining our terminology results form this paper.Whereas the distinction between 'Yahweh War' and 'Holy War' restson the difference between the Old Testament and the common Orien-tal practice, our discussion has been concerned with an inner-Israelitemovement from ancient practice and experience to a later formulationof standardised tradition. It seems possible to reserve the term 'Yah-weh War' to describe the actual experience of Yahweh's participationand activity, including of course the customs that became associatedin Israel with such wars. Later these experiences were formulated intoa scheme with a recognised set of concepts and terminology; for thatformulation the term 'Holy War' may be used.


19/20

You have printed the following article:

"Holy War" or "Yahweh War"?

Gwilym H. Jones

Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 25, Fasc. 3. (Jul., 1975), pp. 642-658.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-4935%28197507%2925%3A3%3C642%3A%22WO%22W%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0

This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from anoff-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Pleasevisit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.

[Footnotes]

10 The Usage of Oracles against Foreign Nations in Ancient Israel

John H. Hayes

Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 87, No. 1. (Mar., 1968), pp. 81-92.

Stable URL:http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9231%28196803%2987%3A1%3C81%3ATUOOAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1

11Der prophetische Gedanke ber den heiligen Krieg, als Gericht gegen Israel

J. Alberto Soggin

Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 10, Fasc. 1. (Jan., 1960), pp. 79-83.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-4935%28196001%2910%3A1%3C79%3ADPGUDH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B

23 Stammesgeschichtliche Hintergrnde der Josephsgeschichte: Erwgungen zur vor-undFrhgeschichte Israels

Otto Kaiser


Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-4935%28196001%2910%3A1%3C1%3ASHDJEZ%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7

30Gilead and Gilgal: Some Reflections on the Israelite Occupation of Palestine

John Mauchline


Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-4935%28195601%296%3A1%3C19%3AGAGSRO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I

http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS- Page 1 of 2 -

NOTE: The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-4935%28197507%2925%3A3%3C642%3A%22WO%22W%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9231%28196803%2987%3A1%3C81%3ATUOOAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-4935%28196001%2910%3A1%3C79%3ADPGUDH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-4935%28196001%2910%3A1%3C1%3ASHDJEZ%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-4935%28195601%296%3A1%3C19%3AGAGSRO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-4935%28195601%296%3A1%3C19%3AGAGSRO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-4935%28196001%2910%3A1%3C1%3ASHDJEZ%3E2.0.CO%3B2-7&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-4935%28196001%2910%3A1%3C79%3ADPGUDH%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-9231%28196803%2987%3A1%3C81%3ATUOOAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-4935%28197507%2925%3A3%3C642%3A%22WO%22W%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0&origin=JSTOR-pdf


20/20

32 Geschichte und heilsgeschichtliche Traditionsbildung im Alten Testament: Ein Beitrag zurTraditionsgeschichte von Richter VI-VIII

Walter Beyerlin


Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-4935%28196301%2913%3A1%3C1%3AGUHTIA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5

39

Zum Verstndnis von Ex. XVII 15f.Roland Gradwohl

Vetus Testamentum, Vol. 12, Fasc. 4. (Oct., 1962), pp. 491-494.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-4935%28196210%2912%3A4%3C491%3AZVVEX1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z

53 The Literary and Historical Problem of Joshua 10 and Judges 1

G. Ernest Wright

Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2. (Apr., 1946), pp. 105-114.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2968%28194604%295%3A2%3C105%3ATLAHPO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0

http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS- Page 2 of 2 -

NOTE: The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-4935%28196301%2913%3A1%3C1%3AGUHTIA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-4935%28196210%2912%3A4%3C491%3AZVVEX1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2968%28194604%295%3A2%3C105%3ATLAHPO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2968%28194604%295%3A2%3C105%3ATLAHPO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-4935%28196210%2912%3A4%3C491%3AZVVEX1%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-4935%28196301%2913%3A1%3C1%3AGUHTIA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5&origin=JSTOR-pdf

Holy War or Yahweh War

Documents

Transcript of Holy War or Yahweh War