4—
Deuteronomy
The final source to be discussed here con-
[21] See my book: Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (n. 19), pp. 342–43.
cerning the ban of the Canaanites is Deut. 7:1–2; 20:10–18. In 7:1–2 we read:
For (YHWH) shall bring you to the land whither you are going to inherit, and he shall make fall mighty nations before you, the Hittite and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, seven mighty nations which are mightier than you. And YHWH your God will deliver them to you; and you shall smite them; you must annihilate them (hhrm thrymm[ *] ); you shall not make a covenant with them and you shall not spare them (l' tkrt lhm bryt wl' thnm[*] ). And you shall not marry them, you shall not let your daughter marry his son, and his daughter you shall not take as a wife for your son. For she will draw your son away from me and they shall serve other gods . . . but thus shall you do to them: their altars you shall dismantle and their steles you shall smash; and their sacred trees you shall chop down; and their idols you shall burn with fire.
On the topics of refraining from covenants with the Canaanites, the prohibition of contracting marriages with them, and the obligation to dismantle their altars, the author of the book of Deuteronomy depends on Exod. 23:20–34, but he adds a commandment unique to him, concerning the burning of idols (see Deut. 7:25).[22] The most important innovation by the author of Deuteronomy is the herem[*] of the seven peoples, which we shall discuss presently.
In a more legalistic passage, Deut. 20:16–18, we read:
But in the towns of these peoples (the Canaanites) which
[22] See Halbe, Das Privilegrecht (n. 12), pp. 119 ff. This commandment occurs for the first time in the book of Deuteronomy. In fact, David did not enforce this law; he just "carried them [the idols] off" (2 Sam. 5:21). The Chronicler who follows the Deuteronomic law has David giving an order "to burn the idols" (1 Chron. 14:12) instead of "carrying them off."
YHWH your God has given to you for an inheritance, you shall not let a soul remain alive, for you must annihilate them (hhrm thrymm[ *] ): the Hittite, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Perizzite and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, as YHWH your God commanded you, so that they do not lead you to do all the abominations which they have done for their gods and sin against YHWH your God.[23]
In these two pericopes of Deuteronomy we find, for the first time, the use of the verb hhrym[ *] concerning the Canaanites, in the sense of "annihilation."[24] We do not find this verb in the earlier sources, neither in connection with God who dis-
[23] These verses constitute a reinterpretation of an older law pertaining to the imposition of corvée upon a Canaanite city that makes peace with the Israelites (vv. 10–14). The author of Deuteronomy, who demands absolute and unconditional herem[*] of the Canaanites, interpreted the old law of 20:10–14 as applying only to remote cities not belonging to Canaan (see A. Biram, "mas 'obed[*] ," Tarbiz , 23 (1944), pp. 137 ff.). Verse 15, which opens with the phrase "thus you shall deal with all the towns that lie very far from you," has the force of the Rabbinic casuistic term bmh dbrym 'mwrym[*] "in which case are these words said" = when does this apply; cf. A. Toeg, "Exodus XXII, 4: The Text and the Law in the Light of the Ancient Sources," Tarbiz 39 (1970), p. 229 (Hebrew); I. L. Seeligmann, "From Historic Reality to Historiosophic Conception in the Bible," in E. S. Rosenthal, ed., P'raqim[*] , Yearbook of the Schocken Institute for Jewish Research 2 (Jerusalem, 1969–74), p. 294 (Hebrew).
[24] The root hrm[*] in the Semitic languages indicates both prohibition and sacredness; cf., e.g., Deut. 22:9: "You shall not sow your vineyards with another kind of seed, else the crop will become sacred (tqds[*] ) (i.e., will be prohibited)"; compare Arabic hrym[*] . Herem[*] in the context of war denotes dedication to God: if it is man or animal, it should be sacrificed to God, and if it is property, it should be devoted to him (Exod. 22:19; Lev. 27:29; Deut. 13:16; 1 Sam. 15:3, 33). The religious meaning of the root hrm is fully expressed in the Mesha inscription: "and I killed . . . seven thousand men . . . and women because I proclaimed them as herem to Istar-Kemos[*] (ky l'str kms hhrmth[*] ); see Donner and Röllig, KAI (n. 16), no. 181:17. In the second temple period and in later periods, herem acquired the meaning of expulsion and confiscation of property (Ezra 10:8). See W. Horbury, "Extirpation and Excommunication," Vetus Testamentum 35 (1985), pp. 19–38.
possesses nor in relation to the dispossessing accomplished by Israel. And in no other sources do we find such commands as "you shall not let a soul remain alive" (l' thyh kl nsmh[*] ) (Deut. 20:16; cf. Deut. 2:34; 3:3),[25] of which the Deuteronomistic historiographer makes frequent use (Josh. 10:28, 30, 33, 37, 39, 40; 11:11, 14). The book of Deuteronomy, which uses hhrym[*] concerning the Canaanites, consistently avoids the verb grs[*] for "expel," in order to indicate that the seven nations are not to be expelled but exterminated. Alongside the verb hhrym in Deuteronomy we find a series of other verbs connoting annihilation, such as 'kl[*] "devour" (Deut. 7:16), klh "put an end to" (Deut. 7:22), hsmyd[*] "wipe out" (Deut. 7:24), and h'byd[*] "cause to perish" (Deut. 7:24). When the author of Deuteronomy draws on earlier sources that do use the verb grs , he intentionally changes it to another verb in order to establish his own point of view. Entire phrases are transformed for this purpose; for example, Exod. 23:27, which says that God will panic the enemy so that he turns the nape of his neck to Israel (i.e., he flees), reads: "And I shall panic (whmty ) all the people among whom you shall go and they shall turn tail and run (ntn 'rp[ *] )." In the hands of the author of Deuteronomy, this passage becomes "And YHWH your God shall give them unto you, and he shall throw them into a great panic (whmm mhmh gdwlh ) until they are wiped out ('d hsmdm[*] )" Deut. 7:23). Instead of "turning their back"—fleeing—the author of the book of Deuteronomy uses the term hsmyd . Moreover, he adds the phrase "nobody will be able to stand against you until he causes you to destroy them" (Deut. 7:22; cf. 11:25; Josh. 1:5).[26]
[25] Compare Num. 21:35: "until no remnant was left" ('dblty hs'yrlw sryd[*] ), in a passage copied from Deut. 2:1–3. See commentaries and my article "The Extent of the Promised Land: The Status of Transjordan," in G. Strecker, ed., Das Land Israel in Biblischer Zeit (Goettingen, 1983), p. 70, n. 4.
[26] For the military speech containing patriotic motives in the Deuteronomic work, see my book Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (n. 18), pp. 45–51.
Another example of intentional change on the subject of the removal of the pre-Israelite population is Exod. 23:28. There we read that the hornet (sr'h[*] ) is sent by God in order to drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite from before the Israelites from his land. As a matter of ideological taste, the book of Deuteronomy completely drops the tradition of the angel (an objection to angelology),[27] but the hornet now acquires a function different from that in Exod. 23:28: God sends the hornet not to drive out the Canaanites, but to annihilate the remnants and the hidden enemies (hns'rym[*]whnstrym ) before the Israelites (7:20); the unhidden enemies the Israelites will destroy themselves.
What is the reason for these developments in the book of Deuteronomy, and how do we account for the adoption in this late book of a radical position concerning the pre-Israelite populations? Herem[*] in the sense of dedicating and offering to God is known to us from ancient periods in Israel and in other nations, as, for example, in the Mesha inscription.[28] Yet the ancient herem[*] was ostensibly a vow undertaken at the time of proclamation of outright war, as was the case at Jericho (Josh.
[27] See my article "The Emergence of the Deuteronomic Movement: The Historical Antecedents," in N. Lohfink, ed., Das Deuteronomium, Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (Leuven, 1985), p. 84.
[28] Exod. 22:19; Lev. 27:29; 1 Sam. 15:3, 18, 33; 1 Kings 20:42; and compare Micah 4:13. Cf. n. 24, above.
For the connection between hrm[*] and qds[*] (compared to the akkadian asakku ) see A. Malamat, "The Herem in Mari and in the Bible," Y. Kaufman Jubilee Volume , Jerusalem, 1961, pp. 149–58, (Hebrew). See also my article "The Royal and Sacred Aspects of the Tithe in the Old Testament," Beer-Sheva 1 (1973), p. 123, n. 6 (Hebrew), and also my article "Hilul[*]kbisha and mirmas regel ,"Mehqerey[*]Lason[*] , Hebrew Language Studies Presented to Zeev Ben-Hayyim (Jerusalem, 1983), pp. 198–99, n. 20 (Hebrew).
Concerning the Mesha inscription, see n. 24 above. For cultic extermination carried out by other nations, see N. Lohfink, "Hrm[*] ," in G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, eds., Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament 3 (Stuttgart, 1978), p. 204; S. E. Loewenstamm, "Herem ," Encycl. Miqra'it[*] 3, cols. 290–92 (Hebrew).
6:17–18) and Arad (Num. 21:1–3).[29] Joshua proclaims in the siege of Jericho: "and the city shall be herem[*] , it and all which is in her, to the Lord" (Josh. 6:17). As a result of this dedication, everything in the city, "from man to animal" (Josh. 6:21), the silver and gold, and the brass and iron, are given to the temple treasury (Josh. 6:24). Were the herem a custom that operated in accordance with the commands of the book of Deuteronomy—that all the population of the land of Canaan were subject to the law of the herem (Deut. 7:2; 20:17)—there would be no reason to proclaim special status for the city of Jericho.[30] The case of the herem of Arad in Num. 21:1–3 is similar: Israel vows (ndr ) to the Lord that if God will give the Canaanites dwelling in the Negeb into their hands, then the Israelites will turn the cities and their inhabitants into herem . A parallel tradition of the herem in the Negeb district, at the hand of the tribe of Judah and Simeon, and of calling the place by the name Hormah[*] , appears in Judg. 1:18.[31] According to the herem law in Deuteronomy, the herem applies, in any case, to all seven pre-Israelite peoples, thus rendering superfluous the Israelites' vow to put to herem the Canaanites of Jericho and Arad.
It was the book of Deuteronomy that conceived the herem as a commandment applying automatically to all the inhabitants of the land, whether or not they fought. This herem is not conditional on any vow or dedication but is an a priori decree, which belongs more to utopian theory than to practice. In-
[29] Compare Lev. 27:28–29, where Herem[ *] executed against humans and beasts appears as part of a voluntary dedication, as a result of a vow; cf. v. 2: "when a man shall clearly utter a vow,"ky ypl' ndr[*] , 14 ff.; and compare to v. 21: "as a field devoted," ksdh hhrm[*] . See Seeligmann (above, n. 23), p. 295; M. Greenberg, "Herem ," Encycl. Judaica 8, cols. 344–50.
[30] Only by adopting the midrashic method can we claim that Joshua had executed in Jericho a more stringent extermination than that found in Deuteronomy; for that reason, a special kind of extermination must have been carried out (see BT Sanhed. 44a).
[31] Of the relation between the tradition in Num. 21:1–3 and Jud. 1:17, see discussion below, pp. 130–31.
deed, in practice, the inhabitants of the Canaanite cities were not destroyed but rather placed under corvée labor, as we learn from 1 Kings 9:20–21: "All the remaining people of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites which were not from the Israelites themselves, among those which were left . . . which the Israelites could not destroy,[32] Solomon put them for corvée labor until this day." We also learn, from old traditions,[33] that the remaining Canaanites dwelt in their cities until the time of David and Solomon, and that these latter were placed under corvée labor (1 Kings 9:20–21; 2 Chron. 2:16). Furthermore, according to Judg. 1:32–33, some of these Canaanites even placed the Israelites in the north (on the coast and in Galilee) under corvée. As will be shown later, the imposition of corvée labor on the pre-Israelite inhabitants of the land and not their dispossession —as we find in Judg. 1—is represented as a sin. The angel of the Lord sent to bring the Israelites into the land (see above) reproves the Israelites about this matter, which he represents as a violation of the commandment not to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land (Judg. 2:1–4).
Although in all the existing sources Israel is commanded to remove the Canaanites from the land, only in Deuteronomy is the removal interpreted as requiring complete annihilation. In the other sources, both expulsion and dispossession are commanded. According to the historical works, as we have indicated, the herem[*] on the Canaanites as commanded in Deut. 7:2; 20:16–17 was never carried out. The editor of the book of Joshua, who depends on Deuteronomy, tried to render an image of the conquest as proceeding according to command-
[32] It seems that 2 Chron. 8:7–8 deliberately changed the phrase "Whom the children of Israel could not destroy," to "whom the children of Israel consumed not," (l' kylwm[ *] ), and it views them as gerim (2 Chron. 2:16). See S. Japhet, The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought (Frankfurt, 1989), pp. 334–47.
[33] Judg. 1:21, 27–28, 29, 30, 31–33; and their parallels in Josh. 15:63; 16:10; 17:12–13, 14–18.
ments of the book of Deuteronomy; therefore, he speaks of total annihilation of all the inhabitants of the Canaanite cities of the land: "and Joshua smote all the land . . . and all their kings did not leave behind a survivor, and every single soul was destroyed as the Lord God of Israel commanded" (Josh. 10:40); "and all the cities of these kings and all their kings, Joshua seized and he smote them by the sword and annihilated them, as Moses the servant of the Lord commanded . . . every man they smote by the sword until they destroyed them and they did not leave any alive" (Josh. 11:12–14). According to this author, all the territory "from the Mount of Halaq in the south to Baal Gad in the valley of Lebanon" was seized by the Israelites in the days of Joshua, and not a single Canaanite was left behind in this area (Josh. 11:14–15, 16–17, 20; 12:7). Such a portrayal stands in complete contradiction to the core accounts of the tribal conquest in Judg. 1 and their parallels in the book of Joshua, according to which the Canaanite inhabitants persisted in the coastal cities and in the lowlands until Davidic times. In fact, the survivors of the Canaanites who were left in the land are the strangers (gerim ) mentioned in most of the law codes in the Pentateuch.[34]
The law of herem[*] in Deuteronomy, then, is a utopian law that was written in retrospect. Deuteronomy adopted for itself the commandments of the old herem , which was practiced in encounters with the enemies and which was intertwined with a vow and with dedication in proclaiming herem , but Deuteronomy applied it in the manner of a theoretical herem applying to all the pre-Israelite inhabitants. Furthermore, according to the author of Deuteronomy the herem applied not only to the population west of the Jordan but also to the Transjordan population (Deut. 2:34; 3:10); Transjordan, in his view, as has been discussed in Chapter 3, is a part of the promised land.
The Rabbis could not accept this radical concept of total
[34] See I. L. Seeligmann, "Ger," Encycl. Miqra'it[*] 2 (Jerusalem, 1954), p. 547.
herem[*] in Deuteronomy, and they circumvented the plain meaning of the scripture by introducing the accounts of Joshua's conquest as follows: "Joshua sent out three proclamations (prostagmata ) to the Canaanites: 'Let him who would flee flee, let him who would make peace make peace, and let him who would make war do so.'"[35] Such an offer of options to the Canaanites stands in complete contradiction to the laws of herem in Deuteronomy (7:2; 20:16–17), but it reflects the politics customary in dealings with other nations during Hasmonean times, when there was no inclination to annihilate strangers according to the commandments of the herem . The purpose of the proclamations was to cleanse the land of idols and convert the inhabitants to Judaism insofar as possible, and anyone who opposed such measures was given the opportunity to leave the area.[36] Thus, for example, when the men of Gezer requested that Simeon the Hasmonean make a covenant with them ("he will give them the right hand"),[37] he consented; instead of annihilating them he expelled them from the city, purified their houses of idols, and settled in the city men who observed the Torah (1 Macc. 13:43–44). He treated the inhabitants of the Haqra[*] in Jerusalem similarly: "he gave them the right hand," made them leave the fortress, and cleansed it of idols (1 Macc. 13:49–50).
Thus we have seen that the total herem of the pre-Israelite
[35] Lev. Rabbah 17:6 (ed. Margaliot, pp. 386–87); Yerushalmi Shebi'it[*] 7:5, 36, d; Debarim Rabbah 5:14; and see below, pp. 152–53.
[36] We therefore cannot accept E. Meyer's opinion, in Ursprung und Anfaenge des Christentums 2: Die Entwicklung des Judentums und Jesus von Nazaret (Berlin, 1925), pp. 281–82, that the Hasmoneans followed the extermination law as found in Deuteronomy. On the contrary, in their time the law was taken out of its context, in order to be adjusted to a new reality.
[37] For this expression see M. Weinfeld and R. Meridor, "The Punishment of Zedekiah and That of Polymestor," in Y. Zakovitch and A. Rofé, eds., I. L. Seeligmann Volume: Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World 1 (Jerusalem, 1983), p. 229, n. 1 (Hebrew). For qblt ymyn , see S. Liebermann, "Notes," in E. S. Rosenthal, ed., P'raqim[*], Yearbook of the Schocken Institute for Jewish Research 1 (Jerusalem, 1967–68), pp. 98–101.
population, as described by the Deuteronomic writings, is unrealistic. What actually occurred was the expulsion and clearing out of the pre-Israelite inhabitants, and even that was not a one-time event but an ongoing process (cf. Exod. 23:29–30).[38] The herem[*] of Deuteronomy, then, is a wish originating in the eighth and seventh centuries B.C.E. , the time of crystallization of the book of Deuteronomy.
We have discussed the background of the herem of Deuteronomy and must now establish the background of the commandments concerning expulsion and dispossession that precede the utopian ideology of Deuteronomy. The laws of expulsion and dispossession of the pre-Israelite population crystalized in a period of tension with the inhabitants of Canaan, and unity among the tribes of Israel. The most suitable period for the crystallization of the laws of dispossession is that of King Saul, when there was a sense of tribal unification under one king. Furthermore, the most suitable place for the crystalization of these traditions is the shrine of Gilgal, which is commonly accepted as the place of the formation of the stories of conquest in Josh. 2–10.[39] The central place to which the stories are tied is Gilgal, where monumental stones are set up to commemorate the crossing of the Jordan (Josh. 3–4), and where the Israelites were circumcised (Josh. 5:2–8) and celebrated the Passover (Josh. 5:9–12); there, the captain of the Lord's Host ( = an angel)[40] appears to Joshua before the con-
[38] The verse in Deut. 7:22 is dependent on Exod. 23:29–30 and contradicts Deut. 9:3: "So shalt thou drive them out and make them to perish quickly,"whwrstm wh'[*] bdtm mhr ; compare Josh. 10:42: "and all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time," lkd Yehosua p'm 'ht[*] , with Josh. 11:18: "Joshua made war a long time with all those kings," ymymrbym 'sh Jehosua[*]'t kl hmlkym[*]h'lh mlhmh[*] ).
[39] See A. Alt, "Josua," Kleine Schriften 1 (Munich, 1953), pp. 176 ff., and also M. Noth, Josua , HAT (Tübingen, 1953), p. 12; J. A. Soggin, Joshua , OTL (London, 1972), pp. 9–11.
[40] The "Captain of the host of the Lord" is the angel sent by God to guide the children of Israel to the promised land (Exod. 23:20; 32:34; 33:2); see above, pp. 78 ff.
quest begins (Josh. 5:13–15), and thither the Israelites return after the wars (Josh. 10:15, 33).
Gilgal was the cultic center of the tribe of Benjamin, and the events of the conquest according to Joshua 2–10 occur in the district of Benjamin. These events begin in Jericho, move to Ay, to Gibeon, and to Beth-Horon, and conclude in the valley of Aijalon. All these cities are part of Benjamin's territory (Josh. 18:21–28),[41] and they delineate the main campaign of the conquest in Joshua 3:1–10:15. Saul, the first king of Israel, was originally from the tribe of Benjamin (1 Sam. 9:1), and the main sanctuary of this tribe was at Gilgal. Saul was bound to Gilgal: it is where he was crowned (1 Sam. 11:14–15), where he came to sacrifice before the battle with the Philistines (1 Sam. 13:7–15), and where he went to celebrate the victory over Amalek (1 Sam. 15:12 ff.). It seems reasonable that the main kernel of the laws of dispossession in Exod. 23:20–33 emerged in Gilgal,[42] in the times of Saul. The radical policy against the old inhabitants of the land is characteristic of those times, and Saul is portrayed as a man who plotted against the Gibeonites, "a remnant of the Amorites," whom he sought to destroy "in his zeal for the Israelites and Judah" (2 Sam. 21:2–3).
Against this background we can consider the story of the Israelites' illegitimate covenant with the Gibeonites in Josh. 9:6–7; 14–15.[43] The expressions used to describe this covenant
[41] Aijalon became part of the tribe of Benjamin after its expansion toward the west, as we learn from 1 Chron. 8:13: "And Beriah and Shema, who were heads of fathers' houses of the inhabitants of Ayalon, who put to flight the inhabitants of Gath," (hmh hbryhw 't ywsby[*]Gath ). The inhabitants of Gath who managed to kill the Ephraimites (1 Chron. 7:21) were driven off by the people of Benjamin. See Z. Kallai, "The Settlement Traditions of Ephraim: A Historiographical Study," ZDPV 102 (1986), pp. 72–73.
[42] N. Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot, Eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu Dtn. 5–11 (Rome, 1963), pp. 176 ff.; E. Otto, Das Mazzotfest in Gilgal (Stuttgart, 1975), pp. 203 ff.
[43] Special attention should be drawn to verse 14: " . . . and they did not inquire of the mouth of the Lord," (w't py JHWH l' s' lw[*] ).
are the same as the language used in the law of dispossession in Exod. 23:20–33. The men of Israel say to the Hivite who is in Gibeon: "perhaps you dwell in my midst (ysb[*] bqrb ) and how shall I make a covenant with you? (Josh. 9:7). In Exod. 23:32–33 similar words are spoken against the inhabitants of Canaan: "You shall not make with them . . . any covenant. They shall not dwell in your land (ysb b'rs[ *] ) . . ." And, as scholars have suggested,[44] the story of the Gibeonites in Josh. 9 can be understood only by assuming that the law had been set up in the light of the prohibition to give the Canaanites the right to dwell among the Israelites, which is reflected in the desire of Saul not to allow the Gibeonites who dwelt in the land the right to settle in the mountains of the land of Israel.
Furthermore, even the institution of the herem[*] in its original form (see above) may be explained against the background of the time of Saul. The herem of Jericho in Josh. 6:17–21 fits the hard line of Saul and seems to have originated at the sanctuary of Gilgal. The formulation of the herem in Josh. 6:21, "And they destroyed everything in the city, man and woman, young and old, ox, and sheep, and ass by the sword," almost overlaps the formulation of the herem that Saul cast over Nob, the city of the priests: "And Nob, the city of the priests, he killed by the sword, man and woman, child and infant, and ox, and ass, and sheep by the sword" (1 Sam. 22:19).[45] The same formulation appears in connection with the herem of Amalek commanded by God to Saul: "Go and smite Amalek and destroy all therein and you shall not have pity on them, but shall kill
[44] See M. Haran, "The Gibeonites, the Nethinim and the Sons of Solomon's Servants," VT 11 (1961), pp. 159–69; J. Halbe, "Gibeon und Israel," VT 25 (1975), pp. 613–41.
[45] Of other Israelite cities, which were to be exterminated in a total manner, cf. what is said about "the rebellious city" ('yr hnydht[*] ) in Deut. 13:16: "Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly and all there is therein and the cattle thereof with the edge of the sword," and also the cities of Benjamin: " . . . and smote them by the edge of the sword, both entire city and the cattle and all that they found" (Judg. 20:48).
man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and ass" (1 Sam. 15:3).[46]
The period of Saul, then, is the most appropriate time for the crystallization of anti-Canaanite ideology, in contrast to the period of David and Solomon, who did not practice the herem[*] against the pre-Israelite inhabitants but rather placed them under corvée labor (1 Kings 9:20–21).[47] Moreover, from 2 Sam. 24, the account of David's census of his kingdom, we learn that "the cities of the Hivites and the Canaanites" are included in the census of the Israelite population (v. 7).[48] Indeed, the Gibeonites, to save their lives, turned to David to avenge them against the house of Saul, the king who had tried to annihilate them (2 Sam. 21:5, and see above), and David rescued them from annihilation. After the days of David and Solomon, there is no further mention of the destruction of Canaanite cities and their inhabitants. The author of the book of Deuteronomy thus revived the herem from the times of Saul,[49] but whereas the old herem had applied to specific encounters—with the Gibeonites, and at Nob, the city of the priests, and Amalek—the editor of the book of Deuteronomy
[46] In the Herem[*] of Amaleq we find the camel along with the donkey; we have not found camels in other extermination formulas, because the enemy was not nomadic as here. Like the Midianites and the Ismaelites[*] , the Amalekites, who dwelled in the desert, used camels. See Judg. 6:3–5: "The Midianites came up and the Amalekites and the children of the east . . . for they came up with their cattle . . . and their camels were without number." Compare Judg. 7:12; 1 Sam. 30:17.
[47] Concerning the change in the matter of Herem in the time of David and Solomon, see my article: "Zion and Jerusalem as Religious and Political Capital: Ideology and Utopia," in R. E. Friedman, ed., The Poet and the Historian: Essays in Literary and Historical Biblical Criticism , Harvard Semitic Studies 26, (Chico, Calif., 1983), pp. 81–85.
[48] See S. Abramsky, "The Attitude Toward the Amorites and the Jebusites in the Book of Samuel: Historical Foundation and the Ideological Significance," Zion 50 (1985), pp. 27–58 (Hebrew).
[49] Cf. J. Milgrom, "Profane Slaughter" (n. 13), pp. 6–8. However, (pace Milgrom) the campaign against the Gibeonites is not to be equated with the total ban of all the Canaanites, as Deuteronomy would have it.
depicted the herem[*] as originally applied to the seven peoples of the land of Canaan.
As we conclude our discussion, we should pose the question concerning why the Philistines were not banned. The Philistines, a bitter enemy of Israel, especially at the time of Saul, do not appear in the lists of nations to be banned. Why? The answer is that the Philistines, like the Israelites, were not natives in the Land of Canaan but intruders who appeared on the horizon in the middle of the twelfth century, after the Israelites had settled in the land. The definition of the native, pre-Israelite nations, like the delineation of the borders of Canaan, had already been fixed at the beginning of the settlement and could not be altered. This chronological issue may explain the tradition about the covenant of the Patriarchs with the Philistines (Gen. 21:22–34; 26:26–31), which stands in contrast to the tradition about the failed attempt at covenant-making with the Shechemites (Gen. 34) who belonged to the Hivites (Gen. 34:2).
All in all, in the biblical laws, the statutes relating to the pre-Israelite inhabitants show a developmental process: in the first version, reflected in Exod. 23:20–33; 34:11–16, the commandment prescribes "expelling (grs[*] )" the Canaanites and avoiding any covenants with them—that is, refusing to allow them settlement in the land: "They shall not dwell in your land" (Exod. 23:33). In the second version, reflected in the priestly code in Num. 33:50–56, the commandment prescribes "dispossession (hwrys[*] )" of the inhabitants of the land, which was interpreted as either expulsion or destruction. In the third version, reflected in Deut. 7:2; 20:16–17, the commandment prescribes the "ban (herem )," which is interpreted as annihilation: "you shall not let any soul live" (Deut. 20:16). The herem , the total destruction described in Deuteronomy, was never carried out (see 1 Kings 9:20–21), and this law must be seen as utopian.
As we move further from the historical situation, a more rigid picture appears, in which the laws gradually become
idealized and unrealistic. The most extreme position crystalized during the period of national revival at the time of Hezekiah[50] and Josiah. In earlier days, complete destruction had been instituted as a vow and a dedication, on the occasion of a proclamation of war on a specific city or hostile group, even within Israel.[51] In contrast, the Deuteronomic herem[ *] was conceived to apply a priori to all the inhabitants of the land of Canaan, regardless of whether they fought against the Israelites. Such total destruction must be understood as utopian, for it originated in a theoretical manner several centuries after the wars of Israel in Canaan.
[50] Concerning the extermination of nomadic tribes in the time of Hezekiah, see: 1 Chron. 4:39–43: " . . . and destroyed them utterly, unto this day" (wyhrymwm 'd hywm[*]hzh ) (v. 41); "And they smote the remnant of the Amalekites" (wykw 't s'ryt hplth l'mlq[*] ) (v. 43). These verses could explain the background of the inclusion of the obligation to wipe out the memory of Amaleq in Deuteronomy (25:17–19). For discussion of the tradition of 1 Chron. 4:39–41 see N. Na'aman, "Pastoral Nomads in the Southwestern Periphery of the Kingdom of Judah in the 9th–8th Centuries B.C.E. ," Zion 52 (1987), pp. 264–67 (Hebrew).
[51] See above, n. 45.