DH1c
Tracing the Development of Herem within the DtrH
So if the Deuteronomistic History uniquely applies herem to the -ites confederation and if its use of the term herem is unlike what we find elsewhere in the OT, then on what basis does the DtrH transform it?
For the crime of Israelite cities going after other gods, the Deuteronomic law code (Deut 13) “devotes” them, not to Yahweh, but to the sword.
Deut 13: Herem policy toward cities that go after other gods. Deuteronomy 13 in the law code appears to be the source for the peculiar application of herem within both Deuteronomy and Joshua, as they all share a constellation of terminology.
The chapter concerns those who woo others, “let us go after other gods”—within Israel itself. This chapter and the two others in Deuteronomy dealing with the -ites confederation (Deut 7; 20) all concern groups (either cities or “-ites”) that serve “other gods,” a practice identified as an “abomination.” As a result, they are to be put under herem and “struck with the sword.”
If a prophet (Deut 13:1–5) or relative (Deut 13:6–11) says, “let us go after other gods,” the punishment is death (see also Deut 17:2–7). But if “a city” does the same (Deut 13:12–18), their action is singled out as “an abomination” and the punishment is herem.
You shall indeed strike the inhabitants of that city with the sword, devoting it and everything in it and its cattle to the sword” (Deut 13:14–15).
This passage deviates from the priestly passages where things were “devoted to” Yahweh and thereby to priests (Lev 27:21, 28; Num 18:14; Ezek 44:29; cf. Mic 4:13). Here the city is “devoted … to the sword” (echoed in Josh 6:21)! The Deuteronomist takes the term “devote,” denoting an irrevocable dedication normally in the sacred world, and reapplies it to execution in the legal world. The “city” will thereby become a “tell,” that is, an abandoned city “mound” (the same term used in modern archaeology and for modern Israeli cities such as Tel Aviv).
We must be clear here: the usage of herem in the OT indicates that the term itself denotes a declaration of “dedicating” something usually and sometimes someone. By itself it does not denote “complete destruction.” If death is intended, it must be clarified by qualifying phrases: the sword, “put to death” (Lev 27:29), “not leave alive anything that breathes” (Deut 20:16; Josh 10:40; 11:11, 14). The OT passages that collocate herem (noun or verb) with “sword” indicate a close connection between Deuteronomy’s policy for cities that “go after other gods” and Joshua’s herem war (Deut 13:15; Josh 6:21; 8:24–26; 10:28–39; 11:11–12).
Deut 7; 20: Herem policy towards the -ites confederation. As it turns out, this crime forms the essence of the Deuteronomist’s two treatments of the -ites confederation in Canaan: “they will turn your sons from following after me, and they will serve other gods” (Deut 7:1, 4; and 20:18).
The legal policy for Israelite cities once they reside in the land (Deut 13) determines their military policy for Canaanite cities when they invade the land (Deut 7; 20).
As in Deut 13:14, their idols and their practices are labelled an “abomination” (Deut 7:25–26; 20:18). As a result, the Israelites are to pronounce them under herem (Deut 7:2; 20:17). But as noted, this act of “dedicating” them does not denote death. That becomes clear in the attending instruction to “strike” (Deut 7:2) them with the “sword” (Deut 20:13), as prescribed in Deut 13:15. As in Deut 13:12–16, it is the “cities of these peoples” (the -ites confederation) in particular that are singled out for “devotion” (Deut 20:16–17). Perhaps as an echo of the priests’ responsibility to “eat” the herem (Num 18:10–13; Ezek 44:29), so the Israelites are instructed figuratively to “eat/consume” all the peoples of Canaan and their spoils (Deut 7:16; 20:14). In this light, the legal practice for Israelite cities once they reside in Canaan (Deut 13) determines their military policy for Canaanite cities (Deut 7; 20).
Deuteronomy 7 and 20 add a further motivation for herem: eliminate the temptation to worship other gods by eliminating people who worship other gods, who would tempt by intermarriage (Deut 7:3–4, 16) or influence (“that they not teach you to do,” Deut 20:18).
Joshua 6-12 executes the herem policies of Deut 7 and 20 on Canaanite cities. Deuteronomy’s policy of eradicating Canaanite worship is translated in Joshua as an eradication of Canaanite cities.
Josh 6–12: Herem executed on the Canaanite cities. In Joshua 6–12 we see the same constellation of terminology (though without explicit mention of “other gods” or “abominations”). All three of Joshua’s military campaigns focus on Canaanite “cities,” which stand on their “tell/mound” (Josh 11:13; cf. 8:28).
These “cities” are placed under herem and put to the “sword” (Josh 6:21; 8:24, 26; 10:37, 39; 11:12-15, 21). The Deuteronomistic narrator is careful to note that Joshua’s battles in the southern and northern campaigns are against the -ites confederation (Josh 9:1; 11:1–5; 12:8), the same confederation identified in Deut 7:1–2; 20:17.
This constellation of terminology indicates that Joshua’s military strikes stem from Deuteronomy’s criminal case for Israelite cities defecting to other gods (Deut 13). The Canaanite cities are placed under the “ban” and “put to the sword” because they would tempt the Israelites to “go after other gods.” Deuteronomy’s policy of eradicating Canaanite worship is translated in the book of Joshua as an eradication of Canaanite cities.
What Did the Book of Joshua Mean for its Seventh Century BCE Audience?
Joshua and the seventh-century publication of the Deuteronomistic History. If the book of Joshua is part of the Deuteronomistic history (DtrH) and thus composed in light of Deuteronomy’s policies, it cannot be composed until Deuteronomy (D) was published in Josiah’s reform.
As part of the DtrH, the earliest publication date for Joshua lies in Josiah’s reform (622 BCE), which enacted a culture war on “Canaanite” religion.
The root problem instigating the reform was “they have forsaken me and burned offerings to other gods” (2 Kgs 22:17). The principal actions undertaken were to “pull down … altars,” “shatter the standing stones,” and burn/cut down “the asherim” (2 Kgs 23:6, 12–15)— the very actions prescribed in Deuteronomy (Deut 7:5; 12:3). But we should note that in Deuteronomy these three items belonged to the -ites confederation (Deut 7:1), “the nations whom you will dispossess (Deut 12:2). In Josiah’s reform, however, they belong to Israelites. In this respect, Josiah’s reform, as narrated by the DtrH, was a culture war on “Canaanite” religion (i.e., the kind of religion they practiced), but without any reference to ethnic Canaanites there in the seventh century BCE.
The earliest date for the composition of Joshua is after 622 BCE, at least five centuries after Israelite occupation of Canaan after 1200 BC. Hence, the initial audience of Joshua’s publication resides in the seventh century, not the 12th century when early Israelites began to occupy the central hills. Indeed, the phrase, “to this day,” appears 15 times in the book of Joshua, more frequently than any other OT book. It implies some generational distance from the events it narrates (e.g., Josh 9:27, and Josh 11:21 distinguishes Judah and Israel, assuming a divided monarchy).
In 622 BCE the ethnic “-ites” no longer existed and Judah was not at war.
So what was the historical situation of the audience of the DtrH? Josiah’s reform takes place during a unique window in Israel’s history.
For a brief generation the kingdom of Judah enjoyed political independence: between the fall of the Neo-Assyrian Empire and the rise of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. From Josiah’s reform in 622 BCE until his death in battle against Pharaoh Neco of Egypt in 609, there were no wars and there were no ethnic “-ites.” In the seventh century these people groups no longer existed as social groups posing an identifiable threat.
● Their last mention as a political reality lay in the pre-monarchic period (Jdg 3:5, called “nations,” Jdg 2:21–3:1), some 400 years earlier.
● The last mention of their “descendants” notes that Solomon had “conscripted them as forced labor to this day” (1 Kgs 9:20–21).
● Thereafter, they drop from the pages of the OT, until they surface as the stock/stereotypical list of Canaanite residents (Neh 9:8, 24), whose worship practices were emblematic “abominations” (Ezra 9:1).
So what then were the torah lessons from Joshua for this 7th-century audience of Josiah’s day—when there were no “-ites” to tempt them and when they were not wielding “swords”? As these two features were irrelevant to their situation, the Canaanites and the wars became simply the “staging” for the drama.
In this setting, the torah lesson renders the war on Canaanites as staging, while the spotlight falls on the named characters who speak: Yahweh, Joshua, Rahab, Achan, and the Gibeonites.
As much as “Joshua fit the battle of Jericho” and “the walls came tumblin' down” may lodge in people’s memory today, these are not the features foregrounded in the narrative.
The spotlight falls on the named characters who speak in Joshua 1–12: Yahweh, Joshua, Rahab, Achan, and the Gibeonites.
● Josh 1–5 presents Joshua as a second Moses.
● Josh 2. While this chapter highlights the parallels between Joshua and Moses who both sent out spies, it develops the character of Rahab.
● Josh 6–8. As dramatic as the fall of Jericho is, it sets the stage for Achan’s violation of herem and Israel’s failure to take Ai. His execution (Josh 7:25–26) and Joshua’s putting Ai under herem resolves the interwoven Jericho-Ai episode (Josh 8:26–29).
● Josh 9–10. The southern battle against the 5-king alliance makes sense only in light of the Gibeonites, whose trickery allied them with Israel. Their confessions of what Yahweh had done to Egypt, Sihon, and Og, and what he is about to do to the inhabitants of Canaan (Josh 9:9–10, 24) mirror those of Rahab (Josh 2:8–11).
Joshua models obedience to Deuteronomy. Rahab, the outsider, demonstrates faithfulness and becomes an insider. Achan, the insider, violates Deuteronomy and is executed. Faithfulness to Yahweh is the central torah lesson.
These literary characters dramatize the torah lessons of Joshua 1–12. Joshua models obedience to “this Book of the Law” (Deuteronomy) and his story demonstrates his success (esp. Josh 1:6–8). Within the cultural mindset, Rahab begins with “3 strikes” against her: she is a Canaanite resident, a woman, and a prostitute.
Yet she confesses Yahweh’s mighty acts—what Yahweh had done to Egypt, Sihon, and Og, and what he is about to do to the inhabitants of Canaan—along with her own praise: “Yahweh, your God, he is God in the heavens above and upon the earth beneath” (Josh 2:8–11). But most importantly, she is the only character who demonstrates mutual “loyalty/ faithfulness” with the Israelites (ḥesed, Josh 2:12–14), even when she must do so subversively! (See the NT references to the book of Joshua below.)
Achan’s character is the exact opposite. He is an Israelite, a man, and a warrior. Yet he confesses, “I have sinned … and I coveted” (Josh 7:20–21, also likely in 6:18). While Rahab acted in “faithfulness” (ḥsd), Achan “coveted” (ḥmd). The outsider who demonstrates faithfulness becomes an insider among the Israelites, while the insider violates one of Torah’s top Ten Commandments and is executed as a criminal. The key torah lesson of Josh 2–8 is that outsiders can become insiders and that insiders should take warning that their insider status is not guaranteed by ethnicity or membership among the people of God. Allegiance to covenant ever remains a choice. Although the overall program of the herem wars on the Canaanites appears xenophobic to modern readers, the narrative artistry of Joshua opens the door to include strangers.
Was herem and the sword ever considered an actual policy in the OT? Short answer: no. There are three OT passages that allude to Deut 7 and 20, two within the DtrH itself. In each case, these texts justify certain actions, but never does anyone consider wielding the sword against a population, as prescribed there (Deut 7:2; 20:13).
In spite of Deuteronomy’s command to kill the Canaanites, later generations never interpreted it as actual policy.
First, during Solomon’s reign these passages were used to justify his conscription of forced labor for his building projects, based along ethnic lines (1 Kgs 9:20-22). Second, as we saw in Josiah’s reform, “the Book of the Law” justified the dismantling of illegitimate altars, standing stones, and asherah poles/trees. Third, in the postexilic period Ezra faced the problem of the Jewish returnnees intermarrying with “the peoples of the lands.” His takeaway from these passages was to prescribe divorce and separation (Ezra 9:1–2, 12; 10:10–11, drawing from Deut 7:3), not execution.
The editorial cues embedded in the DtrH frame Joshua as an idealized second Moses and herem as a culture war on “Canaanite” religion. The first test in the DtrH presents a positive example, teaching fidelity to Yahweh, not violence.
What Are We to Make of Joshua’s Conquest and Herem war? We are now in a better position to address the big questions. Does the biblical narrator present Joshua’s conquest as history? Did Yahweh actually command Israel to cleanse the land of Canaanites during their occupation?
The discussion above has shown that these two questions are intertwined. To be clear, our initial aim is not to harmonize biblical books with each other, nor to harmonize the Bible with archaeology and history. Nor is it to make the biblical Yahweh compatible with humane policies. This is our question: what reading strategy is indicated by the biblical narrator, the Deuteronomistic historian? What cues are embedded in its genres and “frames”?
Joshua 1–12 bears some standout features within the DtrH. First, it alone presents Israel’s occupation of the land as a successful military conquest. According to Judges 1, they “possessed” the unoccupied hill country but failed to “dispossess” the Canaanites in the valleys and cities. According to the Song of the Sea, the Israelites simply “passed by” the petrified Canaanites into the hill country (Exod 15). Second, Joshua 1–12 bears the marks of an ANE conquest account that memorializes the leader’s complete domination of the Enemy.
Third, the “frames” of the DtrH (esp. Deut 1–3; 31; Josh 1–5) cast Joshua as a second Moses who serves as a model of obedience to the Mosaic torah in Deuteronomy. The “report cards” that frame Joshua 1–12 are phrased in the singular, indicating the successes belong to Joshua, not the Israelites (Josh 8:28; 10:40–42; 11:12–23). The DtrH frame of Judges indicates that Yahweh’s “test” of the Israelites (Jdg 2:20–3:6) appears in this later book, not in the book of Joshua.
The DtrH’s casting of Joshua appears similar to the Chronicler’s recasting of the David portrayed in 1–2 Samuel (see “Torah as Recasted Historical Narrative” in the Pentateuch module). David the opportunist in 1–2 Samuel becomes David the pious Jew in 1–2 Chronicles. A headline figure known from Israel’s sacred historical traditions is shaped as a model for teaching torah. History is embellished with lessons on how to obey Yahweh for the scripture’s listeners and readers. The figure of Joshua is presented as a literary character, not a historical one.
The DtrH’s framing of herem follows a similar line, as it appears to be a literary construct for the mode of Joshua’s obedience. While J and E prescribe destroying Canaanite objects of worship, D uniquely imposes herem on these populations. D uniquely attaches herem, “devoting something irrevocably,” to the sword. D applies this policy to “cities” that advocate “following other gods” and their “abominations.” As the Canaanites worship “other gods,” D proscribes their cities to herem and the sword. Joshua, as Moses’ successor, will cause the Israelites to “inherit” the land by continuing Moses’ herem wars in Canaan.
As the readership of the DtrH in the seventh century is neither engaged in war nor tempted by ethnic Canaanites, they would view these battles and the -ites confederation as the stereotypical enemy of Israel’s distant past. They have become the stage for the drama of its main characters: Yahweh, Joshua, Rahab, Achan, and the Gibeonites. Hence, herem and the sword never formed an actual policy against ethnic groups. For the Deuteronomistic historian in the seventh century, both the figure of Joshua and the policy of herem wars were literary staging for Joshua as a model of Torah obedience.
The Bible’s Ongoing Struggle with Violence, Identity, the Other, and Inclusion
What do the other biblical scrolls have to say about violence, the root problem of “going after the gods,” and especially about the theological views and policies represented in the DtrH and Josiah’s reform? What is “the whole counsel of God” (cf. Acts 20:27) on these issues?
The DtrH is but one voice in the Scriptures. Other voices do not give assent to its violence. Jeremiah’s remedy for idolatry is repentance, not execution.
● Jeremiah was a contemporary of Josiah’s reform. If we use his scroll and that of the DtrH as news sources for the impact of Josiah’s reform, we get very different impressions. The reform is clearly the high point of 1–2 Kings. But of all Jeremiah’s oracles, only a single passage echoes support for it (Jer 11:1–8). The others consist largely of repeated indictments against every segment of Israelite society (see esp. Jer 5:1–9). His scroll leaves the impression that the reform had little effect on the people’s attitudes and actions, implying it was institutional only.
● On the crucial issue of what to do to those who advocate “going after other gods,” Deuteronomy’s prescription is execution (Deut 13:1–15). Jeremiah’s remedy is repentance (Jer 35:15; cf. 25:3–6). For this prophet it was Judah’s persistent dismissal of Yahweh's prophets that brought judgment, not a single act of disobedience (Jer 44:2–6).
● The DtrH endorses Jehu’s bloody coup against “the house of Ahab,” even noting that Yahweh commissioned it (1 Kgs 19:16; 2 Kgs 9:1–3, 7) and afterwards endorsed his actions (2 Kgs 10:30)—even though he also executed Ahab’s 70 sons, 42 relatives of Judah’s king, and the prophets of Baal (2 Kgs 9–10). But the prophet Hosea condemns Jehu’s bloodbath. There Yahweh promises, “I will call the house of Jehu to account for the blood of Jezreel, and I will bring an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel” (Hos 1:4).
The New Testament’s allusions to the book of Joshua are very selective. It nowhere approvingly quotes or echoes the book of Joshua where it refers to violence and Yahweh war. It does refer to dispossessing nations, but only as part of a historical recital (Acts 7:45; 13:19), and to the walls of Jericho falling (Heb 11:30). Even Revelation does not spiritualize Joshua’s warfare language. If we analyze which figure gets the most “hits” in the NT, it would be Rahab (Heb 11:31; James 2:25)!