Herem (war or property)

''Herem'' or ''cherem'' (Hebrew: חרם, ''ḥērem''), as used in the Tanakh, and sometimes refers to things or persons to be utterly destroyed. 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", or "the total destruction of the enemy and his goods at the conclusion of a campaign", or "uncompromising consecration of property and dedication of the property to God without possibility of recall or redemption". It is translated into Latin as devotio, a word used for human sacrifice, and into Greek as anathema, which was a sacrifice to the Gods.

There is a related verb, ''heḥərîm'' (החרים), meaning "to treat as ''ḥērem''", or "destroy utterly".

Etymology

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.Hans Wehr Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, 1960. In the Masoretic Text of the Tanakh the verb form occurs 51 times, while the noun occurs 38 times. Leon J. Wood, "חרם," in ''Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament'', Moody, 1980, pp. 324-325. 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". 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.

Sources

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.Israel Drazin, ''Maimonides and the Biblical Prophets'', Gefen Publishing House, 2009, p. 64.

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. This has led to the conquest of Canaan being referred to as genocide. For example, Ra'anan Boustan calls this "a thoroughly violent commandment" which "in modern terms would be characterized as genocide."

In the Book of Judges, chapters 19–21, the 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).

Most scholars conclude that the biblical accounts of extermination are exaggerated, fictional, or metaphorical. In the archaeological community, the Battle of Jericho is very thoroughly studied, and 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. For example, the Book of Joshua arguably describes the extermination of the Canaanite tribes, yet and both say that the extermination was not complete.

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).

Meaning and significance

William Dumbrell suggests that "the ban appears to have been conceived as an acknowledgment of Yahweh's help." 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." Similarly, Balchin argues that "drastic action was required to keep Israel in holy existence." 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."J. P. U. Lilley,
Understanding the ''herem''
" in ''Tyndale Bulletin'' 44, 1993, p. 171-173. 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."

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." 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."

Ethical issues

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.

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.

Rabbi Gunther Plaut asserted that the Torah, itself, never addresses the morality of the wars of extermination.
Biblical scholar Sidney Hoenig discussed the "brutality" in the book of Joshua, but concluded that the "battle is only in honor of God".
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", 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 aking the landfrom the Canaanites. There is only one catch. The command of God ordered us to be the people of the Land of Israel". Scholar Carl Ehrlich states that Jewish commentators have tended to be silent regarding the morality of the violence in the Book of Joshua. Prominent scholar Richard Dawkins asserted that the commandments to exterminate are immoral.

Some scholars claim that collective punishment, particularly punishment of descendants for transgressions committed by ancestors, is common in the Hebrew Bible

HOME


Content is Copyleft
Website design, code, and AI is Copyrighted (c) 2014-2017 by Stephen Payne


Consider donating to Wikimedia



As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases