Herem in Deuteronomy 7

Mark Hicks

When Canaanite and Israelite Lived In Harmony

Return to the Fillmore Institute landing page.

Hi Friends —

Mark Hicks
Sunday, December 16, 2024

separator

Download PDF of this paper

Download PDF of this page

separator

Mark Hicks
Herem in Deuteronomy 7
December 10, 2024

Text

(1) When the LORD your God brings you into the land that you are about to enter and occupy, and he clears away many nations before you—the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations mightier and more numerous than you— (2) and when the LORD your God gives them over to you and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy. (3) Do not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, (4) for that would turn away your children from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly. (5) But this is how you must deal with them: break down their altars, smash their pillars, hew down their sacred poles, and burn their idols with fire. (6) For you are a people holy to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on earth to be his people, his treasured possession. (NRSV)

Introduction and Thesis

Given the current events of this time (Fall 2024), many people will be forming opinions about hostilities in Israel and neighboring countries. Christians who study the Bible and have a well-regarded study Bible will likely read the commentary in their Bible for Deuteronomy 7:1-6, focusing on the verse translated in NRSV as “then you must utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy.”

Regardless of the applicability of Deuteronomy 7:1-6 to current events, people will look to the text of their Bible for guidance. We must be clear on what the text says and means. Jeffrey Shade has written, “The herem, a significant aspect of God's revelation, conjures up subjects that modernity has understood to be morally reprehensible: Nazis, terrorists, and religious and political extremists.”1 Scholars such as Eban Scheffler stress the importance of scholarly engagement in public discourse:

Should the Bible not (especially the OT) rather be discarded and radically criticised? It is noteworthy that secularism (in the sense of atheism or agnosticism) increases at an alarming tempo in the Western world and the violence in the Bible (and its reception in the history of Christianity) usually functions as a prominent argument (e. g. Dawkins, cf. above). Old Testament scholars who in any way still want to profess Judaism or Christianity can no longer avoid these debates with neo–atheists.2

And, regrettably, a few Christian scholars berate Judaism because of herem in Deuteronomy. An example is Jon D. Levenson, “Is There a Counterpart in the Hebrew Bible to New Testament Antisemitism?”3

There is little disagreement among scholars that herem in the Hebrew text is a literary device used for making a theological point. Total destruction of peoples did indeed occur, but it did not happen in the conquest of Canaan by the Hebrew people. As nearly all scholars agree, the use of herem in Deuteronomy 7 is designed to address internal syncretism and apostasy in the 7th century BCE, not external ethnic diversity at the time of the conquest. My thesis has three assertions:

  1. Deuteronomy 22-23 provides a deeper understanding of herem: destruction is carried out by the Lord, not the Hebrew people. The Hebrew people only clean up what the Lord has already “given.” The caution here is that the Hebrew people should not do the Lord’s work by taking what the Lord has not already destroyed and “given.” To do so would be plunder. Any attempt by the Hebrew people to unilaterally destroy is a premature, unholy appropriation of that which has not been given and that which the Hebrew people have no right to possess.
  2. The approved translations (JPS, NRSV, NAVRE, NIV)4 are not sufficiently precise for interpreting current events through the lens of the biblical concept of herem. “Doom to destruction” (JPS), “utterly destroy” (NRSV), “place under the ban” (NAVRE), and “destroy them totally” (NIV) are ambiguous. Of these four, JPS is preferable because “doom” implies anticipating the Lord’s role as destroyer.
  3. The commentaries in the approved study bibles (Oxford, Harper, New Interpreters, Catholic) are somewhat ambiguous at best and weak or irresponsible in other cases. Interestingly, Oxford has commentary identical to that in the Jewish Study Bible (both published by Oxford). The Oxford and JPS are preferable because their commentary acknowledges ambiguity and states that herem in Deuteronomy is a polemical statement about apostasy instead of ethnicity. The Catholic commentary is weak, only saying the herem “is historically doubtful.” The New Interpreters is also weak, only saying herem “does not accord with the actual historical course of Israel’s settlement in the land” and otherwise implying historical accuracy in the inline commentary and the first three paragraphs of an excursus. The Harper Collins commentary is irresponsible in that it does not acknowledge the “ban” is anything but a historical fact and only offers that “[T]he ban is a radical solution that, if enforced, would make the commands of vv. 2b – 5 superfluous.”

This study will review the scholarship of Deuteronomy 7:1-6, focusing on verse 2 and the Hebrew term herem (hrm) in that verse. I will draw from an extensive list of monographs from notable scholars and a wide variety of peer-reviewed articles.

My primary sources are the Anchor Bible v5, Deuteronomy by Moshe Weinfeld, and Deuteronomy: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation by Jeffrey Tigay. The Anchor Bible proclaims itself as “a project of international and interfaith scope. Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish scholars.”5 The JPS commentary is Jewish.

My synthesis will be my commentary on these sources. In the Reflection, I will compare my commentary to what is published in our study Bibles, Jacobson and Chan, our text, and the Jewish Study Bible commentary. The content of these items is listed in the Appendix.

Literary Context:

From the New Interpreter’s Study Bible Introduction to Deuteronomy, we learn that the setting for Deuteronomy is Moses giving his last testimony as Israel is about to enter Canaan after its 40-year sojourn upon the exodus from Egypt. Since God has prohibited Moses from entering the Promised Land, God has told Moses to instruct the people of Israel on how their community should be governed when they occupy Canaan.

The content of the book is comprised of five speeches by Moses. The text of Deuteronomy 7 is part of the second speech, in which Moses summarizes God’s covenant, which was given to him 40 years earlier at Mount Horeb. This speech lays out a law code for governance after they inhabit the Promised Land. Our text, Deuteronomy 7:1-6, is situated in the 2nd speech as the 3rd of 3 pericopes, which follows the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:1-9. All three pericopes instruct on keeping the statutes and ordinances embedded in the commandments and the Shema. The first cautioned about forgetting the Lord after inhabiting the land. The second warned about failing to pass on the instruction to later generations.

The third pericope, our text, cautions about apostasy.6 We must connect the instruction for herem in verse 2 with the instruction prohibiting intermarriage in verse 3 and we must connect the instruction prohibiting intermarriage of verse 3 with the instruction about serving other gods in verse 4. The pericope is, ultimately, about apostasy, not intermarriage, nor herem. These linkages are the basis for the assertion made by most commentators that herem is not about destruction, nor ethnicity, but about apostasy.

Further, a literary analysis of vv3-4 raises a logical inconsistency if herem is interpreted as destruction. Why would Moses be concerned about intermarriage if the inhabitants of Canaan had been utterly destroyed? The prohibition of intermarriage in v3 indicates that herem in v2 is not about destruction.

Deuteronomy 7:1-6 is followed by a promise of collective blessings for faithful observance (7-26) and collective punishment for disobedience (Deuteronomy 8).7 Most important is Deuteronomy 7:22-23, which reads

The LORD your God will clear away these nations before you little by little; you will not be able to make a quick end of them, otherwise the wild animals would become too numerous for you. But the LORD your God will give them over to you, and throw them into great panic, until they are destroyed.

The first verse clarifies that the Lord “clears away” the nations and does so “little by little.” It means not only is the Lord the active cause of destruction, but also the Lord is in charge of when the destruction will occur. In the second verse, the Lord explains “little by little”: it is an incremental inhabitation, presumably peaceful, that is necessary to prevent an outbreak of chaos. The chaos of destruction, caused by the Lord, is inflicted upon the nations, who are thrown into a great panic.

One passage within Deuteronomy that shapes the interpretation of our text is Deuteronomy 20, “Rules of Warfare.” Recent research shows that a curse is found in these rules.8 We may discover that herem can be construed as a curse. Other passages outside Deuteronomy shape herem in Deuteronomy 7:1-6, particularly in passages in Joshua9 and Ezra.10 Joshua seems to soften the herem of this text and Ezra appears to harden it.

The term herem is challenging to translate. It is translated differently as a noun and a verb. According to J.P.U. Lilley, “where the word herem/haharîm is used with its full religious force (and always, in its nominal form), it means uncompromising consecration without the possibility of recall or redemption.”11 Jacobson and Chan translate herem as “the ban,” indicating “a being or thing that is off limits to human beings because it is devoted to God alone.”12 Note that the scholars have not defined herem, principally, as a term for destruction.

Historical Context:

Dating the Book of Deuteronomy is difficult, partly because it is a composite work. The central portion is most often placed between the reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah.13 This view is supported by Weinfeld, in the Anchor Bible—Deuteronomy, who has an extensive analysis that ties the covenant of Deuteronomy with vassal treaties of Esarhaddon (VTEs), fealty oaths imposed by the retiring king on his vassals with his successor.14 Sandra Richter has challenged this from an economic perspective, garnering much opposition, dating Deuteronomy far back to an iron-age bartering time.15 The controversy is an interesting contrast in dating from economic and political contexts. It may be that source documents from an earlier age were used to construct 7th-century literature or reflected life in some rural localities. Regardless, the scholarly consensus is the 7th century.

From a historical perspective, herem is of utmost importance, also known as “the ban.” It is not likely that herem, as it is read literally, ever occurred in Israel,16 and most certainly did not occur with the inhabitation of Canaan. The point must be explicitly stressed that archeological evidence does not support significant destruction in pre-monarchical times. This is why the commentary in The Oxford Annotated Bible and the Jewish Study Bible is ambiguous. Their statement about the herem “requirement for destruction is anomalous” makes it seem that herem in Deuteronomy is deviating from what is normal. There was no normal herem in Israel; herem did not occur. Anything less explicit is ambiguous.

Accounts of herem may have originated long before the writing of Deuteronomy, but its function in pre-exilic writings changed after the exile.17 herem was a cultic institution commonly found in the Ancient Near East., primarily to restore order.18 In some cases, herem was used to destroy a population. That would have been common knowledge for the people of Israel. However, Israel used herem as a literary term defining loyalty to the covenant.19 For Israel, it was a literary device justifying a threat of “a special dispensation of divine warfare focused primarily upon land conquest, purification, and repopulation.20

This “special dispensation of divine warfare” needs clarification. herem was not about war. Instead, it was about sacrifice, justice, and purity. Three scholars offer support. Frédéric Gangloff has asserted that herem in Hebrew scripture has three distinct characteristics that provide a justification for the Lord carrying out destruction: (1) Cursing: the Herem as a sacrifice to YHWH, (2) Just Deserts: the Herem as an expression of YHWH’s justice, and (3) Cultic promotion: the Herem as an instrument for the propaganda of cultic purification.21 Jason Tatlock has argued that the second and third characteristic of herem is revealed in the ritual sacrifice of “religiously errant individuals like murderers and others who went against their form of Yahwism.”22 Henrietta Wiley concurs and quotes Susan Niditch’s book War in the Hebrew Bible, which examines the complex ethics of Israelite warfare using Tatlock’s three conceptual models of sacrifice, justice, and purity.23 So we may regard herem as an “internal war,” much like our contemporary “war on poverty” or “war on drugs.” Herem, as described by Gangloff, Tatlock and Wiley, is about the Ancient Near East concern for restoring order.

This is supported by the fact that Israel did not target the foreigner. Foreigners were not expected to be loyal to the covenant. But the covenant demanded Israel respect the foreigner. Mark Glanville writes,

“A reversal of the concepts of Israelite and Canaanite declared in piercing tones that the land belongs to those who are faithful to the Deuteronomic vision. While, on the one hand, the ethic of incorporating the signals that the texts have a metaphorical function, on the other hand, the texts hold Israel to the Deuteronomic vision of enfolding displaced people as kindred.”24

For the Deuteronomic writer, herem was a method to define the peaceful co-existence of Israelite and Canaanite. The relationship between Israel and the foreigner is also a factor in herem as it plays into the Ancient Near East custom of gift exchange. Herem is a method of assuring that exchanged gifts (with foreigners) do not cause an exchange of deities.25 Another Ancient Near East custom that relates to herem is taboo.26 These points also support herem as a literary device to define relationships with foreigners in Israel (respect their rights, exchange gifts, and perhaps intermarry, but do not exchange gods), which is not a historical fact.

To conclude, quoting C. Sherlock, herem was “not a 'contagion' or breaking out of ruthless destruction, but rather a term used in literature to indicate the relationship between Yahweh and a person or thing that lay in opposition to Yahweh,”27 Herem was used by the Deuteronomist to shape the life and identity of Israel.28 Herem (hrm) defines the relationship in negative terms, but there is a positive counterpart, qds, defining YHWH’s ownership of Israel.29 Deuteronomy, a “late development,” presents more radical commandments than Exodus regarding intermarriage and holiness requirements.30 But both are literary devices, not historical facts.

Form, Structure, Movement

Form. Although the literary form of the Book of Deuteronomy is a sermon by Moses, the form we find in Deuteronomy 7:1-6 is part of a valedictory speech given at the time of succession. Valedictory speeches were typical in Egypt and Assyria, and it is clear that this speech was modeled after similar forms in the ANE. Weinfeld writes, “ideology by means of programmatic speeches [were commonly] put into the mouths of leaders and great personalities.”31 In this case, the great personality is Moses.

There are, however, inconsistencies in the wisdom conveyed in this second speech of Deuteronomy. The instruction to destroy an entire population does not align with the overall spirit of Hebrew scripture, and Hoffman has noted that “Uneasiness with this law is reflected in the Talmud and the traditional Jewish interpretations.”32 The solution offered by Hoffman is

“that the inconsistencies indicated above within Deuteronomy are a consequence of later additions to the original Deuteronomic legislation…. suggesting that they belong to a Deuteronomistic editorial phase of Deuteronomy … [which] inserted the law of the herem in the book of Deuteronomy … its non-historiographical, but rather ideological motivation [is] … there are no more Canaanites, Girgashites, Perizites, etc., and consequently any law and not only the law of the herem — is no longer valid. In other words: the Deuteronomist used a kind of Machiavellian tactic. When depicting Moses as a militant nationalist who claimed that the Canaanites should be destroyed, the Deuteronomist pragmatically preached against the concurrent political implication of this same notion by removing its actual relevance. In other words, the Deuteronomist raised the herem concept in a polemic against supporters of a nationalistic, anti-foreigners policy.”33

The assessment is that this passage, besides being primarily wisdom literature, may also be a rhetorical device inserted by an opponent to the restrictions imposed by Ezra34, asking, “Who needs the herem when the Canaanites no longer exist?” This is the most innovative idea found in the research.

Structure. O’Connell identified an extremely complex asymmetrical concentric form, where the sevenfold enumeration of nations in v1 corresponds to the sevenfold repetition of terms in v18-24. O’Connell also references another structure previously noted in 1965, a concentric frame in the text found in v 2,3,5, corresponding to v 25a, 25b, and 26.35

Movement. Three movements and a summation are discernable:36

  1. v1-2a. A long temporal clause: “When the LORD your God brings you into the land that you are about to enter and occupy, and he clears away many nations before you … then you must utterly destroy them.”
  2. v2b-4. Three prohibitions: make no covenant, show no kindness, and do not intermarry.
  3. v5. The call for herem.
  4. v6. A summation that explains why they must do these things. “The verse says two things about Israel, one regarding their identity, and the other the source of that identity as the chosen, prized possession of YHWH.

Detailed Analysis

Our pericope has only six verses. I will draw from a Jewish source.37 According to the JPS Torah Commentary, “Moses repeats, with some variation, God’s earlier instructions about destroying the Canaanites and their religious objects, and he explains the reasons for these actions. These instructions are based on Exodus 23:24,32-33 and 34:12-16.” (84).

“When the Lord your God brings you to the land” This passage in Exodus begins “I am going to send an angel in front of you” indicating that the Deuteronomist writer is less concerned about an intermediary to the Lord.

“He clears away” The Hebrew term for clears away is נָשַׁל nâšal; a primitive root; to pluck off, i.e. divest, eject or drop: — cast (out), drive, loose, put off (out), slip (Strongs 5394). Note that the task of ejecting the inhabitants of Canaan is the Lord. The corresponding verse in Exodus is “and I blot them out.”

“and when the LORD your God gives them over to you” According to Exodus the Canaanites were to be expelled from the land; here they are to be killed. In this and the following comments, “Canaanites” refers to all the nations of the promised land. (85)

“gives”: Strong’s definition is נָתַן nâṯan; a primitive root; to give, used with greatest latitude of application (put, make, etc.). Is it possible that the writer implies that when the Lord “gives,” the destruction has already occurred? If so, the “utterly destroy” which follows must mean something other than destruction.

“then you must utterly destroy them” Deuteronomy 20:17-18 explains that these steps are required because of the Canaanites’ abominable religious rites, such as child sacrifice, necromancy, and other occult arts. (85).

“utterly destroy”: Strong’s translation of חָרַם ḥâram is a primitive root; to seclude; specifically (by a ban) to devote to religious uses (especially destruction); physical and reflexive, to be blunt as to the nose: — make accursed, consecrate, (utterly) destroy, devote, forfeit, have a flat nose, utterly (slay, make away). If nâṯan above is interpreted as the Lord has already destroyed the nations, then the ḥâram used here would be interpreted as utterly devoted or consecrated to the Lord.

“Do not intermarry with them … for that would turn away your children” The problem with intermarriage is not ethnicity but apostasy (85).

“from following me.” When transmitting God’s commands, Moses often switches between speaking of God in the third person and quoting Him directly (85).

“altars, pillars, sacred poles, idols” Even the physical objects of Canaanite religion must be eliminated. The common practice of taking them as booty or bringing them as offerings to the victor’s god is forbidden because anything associated with the religion of the Canaanites is repugnant to the Lord (see vv.25-26). (86)

“For you are a people holy to the LORD your God” Strongs definition for holy is קָדוֹשׁ qâḏôš; or קָדֹשׁ qadosh; sacred (ceremonially or morally); (as noun) God (by eminence), an angel, a saint, a sanctuary: — holy (One), saint. The requirement to be holy is due to Israel’s privileged status; because Israel is consecrated to the Lord, it must shun all activities that are incompatible with that relationship. Qadosh has the sense of “betrothed,” which expresses the idea that when a man betroths a woman she becomes “forbidden to others like something consecrated.” (86)

“For the Lord has chosen you” Moses is at pains to point out that this privilege was not due to Israel’s own merits but was a source of obligations that precondition its well-being. (87)

Synthesis/Conclusion

Several points have been made in our study:

  1. There is no archeological evidence that the inhabitation of Canaan by Hebrew people caused the killing of the Canaanite people.
  2. Verse 3 of our text, which prohibits intermarriage, indicates that herem in v2 could not mean to “utterly destroy.” Herem must have a broader range of interpretations that acknowledge the co-existence of Canaanite and Hebrew people.
  3. Verse 4 of our text, cautioning against apostasy, is explicitly linked to herem in v2. Herem is not an instruction for destruction. Instead, it is an instruction to remain loyal to the Lord and the covenant.
  4. Deuteronomy 7:22-23 clearly states that whatever destruction may occur, the Lord will do it, and the Lord will choose the appropriate time.
  5. We should interpret this as a warning to Israel not to plunder what the Lord has destroyed.

If herem in Deuteronomy does not mean “holy war,” and if it does call for loyalty to the covenant with the Lord, we must ask how? In what way does herem garner loyalty? Why has the Deuteronomic writer used it, and what is the writer trying to accomplish?

Herem was in Israel, as it was throughout the entire Ancient Near East, a method of establishing order. Herem was a justification for the punishment for disloyalty, a method to prevent apostasy. The Deuteronomic law was God’s law, given credence by attributing it to Moses, who had received it directly from the Lord at Mount Horeb, and passed on by Moses as a valedictory speech as he was about to pass on the torch to his successor.

Reflection

Dov Waxman starts his book The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: What Everyone Needs to Know with the observation that conflict in the Near East between Israelis and Palestinians and Israelis and Arabs is not the deadliest conflict in the region, but that it is the most destabilizing and the longest running in modern times. It is also, he asserts, the most intractable and controversial.38 To resolve their conflict, the Israelis and Palestinians need all the help they can get from the world community.

What they don’t need, from either Muslims or Christians, are misguided notions of divine justification for ethnic purity. Forty years ago, E.P. Sanders challenged the anti-Semitism he observed in biblical scholarship. And there is no doubt that biblical scholars have acknowledged mistakes and corrected many misguided conclusions. But we must do better. We must assess how the theological concept of holy war, as conveyed in Christian commentary, is received today by everyday people who look to Scripture for guidance. I would hope that Jews and Muslims would do the same.

This study has called into question the adequateness of biblical commentary about herem. It certainly has not provided substantial answers, but it has at least raised the possibility that Canaanites and Israelites once lived in harmony. This is when biblical scholars and theologians should focus on uncovering how that harmony was achieved.

Footnotes

  1. Shade, “Euthyphro’s Dilemma and Divine Herem: An Exploration of Biblical Genocide,” 39
  2. Scheffler, “Reflecting on (Non-)Violence in the Book of Deuteronomy in (Old Testament) Canonical Context,” 591
  3. Levanson, “Is There a Counterpart in the Hebrew Bible to New Testament Antisemitism,” 249. This is regretable because Sanders challenged prejudice in contemporary scholarship about a biblical text; Levenson is challenging prejudice in the biblical text itself. The comparision is outrageous.
  4. See the Appendix for the biblical text and study bible commenary.
  5. Anchor Bible v5, Deuteronomy, inside cover
  6. New International Commentary on the Old Testament (NICOT), 430-1
  7. Krašovec, “Is There a Doctrine of ‘Collective Retribution’ in the Hebrew Bible,” 2
  8. Quick, “Averting Curses in the Law of War (Deuteronomy 20),” 213
  9. Firth, “Reading Deuteronomy after Joshua: On Reversing the Interpretative Flow,” 10
  10. Hoffman, “The Deuteronomistic Concept of the Herem”
  11. Lilley, “Understanding the Ḥerem,” 177
  12. Jacobson & Chan, “Introducing the Old Testament,” 193
  13. Weinfeld, “"Deuteronomy, Book Of." The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary: D–G,” p 15 (electronic download)
  14. Weinfeld, “Anchor Bible v5, Deuteronomy 1-11,” 6
  15. Richter, “The Question of Provenance and the Economics of Deuteronomy: The Neo Babylonian and Persian Periods.” 549
  16. Earl, “The Christian Significance of Deuteronomy 7,” 44
  17. Gangloff, “Joshua 6: Holy War or Extermination by Divine Command (Herem),” 16-17
  18. Ibid. 9
  19. Glanville, “חרם (Ḥērem) as Israelite Identity Formation: Canaanite Destruction and the Stranger (גר, Gēr),.” 569-70
  20. Dunham, “Yahweh War and Ḥerem: The Role of Covenant, Land, and Purity in the Conquest of Canaan,” 28
  21. Gangloff, 18-20
  22. Tatlock, “The Deuteronomistic Endorsement of Sacrificing Errant Individuals as Reflected by the Hebrew Terms Ḥērem and Bi’ēr,” 297
  23. Wiley, “The War Ḥērem as Martial Ritual Service and Sacrifice,” 69-70
  24. Glanville, 570
  25. Monroe, “Israelite, Moabite and Sabaean War-Ḥērem Traditions and the Forging of National Identity,” 321
  26. Sherlock, “The Meaning of Hrm in the Old Testament,” 13
  27. Sherlock, 15
  28. Earl, 445-6
  29. Sherlock, 16
  30. von Rad, Barton, et. al, “Deuteronomy : A Commentary,” 67-9
  31. Weinfeld, 4-5
  32. Hoffman, 197
  33. Hoffman, 201-206
  34. Hoffman, 205-6
  35. O’Connel, “Deuteronomy VII:1-26: Asymmetrical Concentricity and the Rhetoric of Conquest,” 249
  36. NICOT, 432-447
  37. Unless otherwise noted, all references in the Detailed analysis are from: Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy = דברים: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. 1st ed. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1966), pp 84-7
  38. [38] Dov Waxman, The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, preface.

Bibliography

Monographs/Reference

  • Arnold, Bill T. 2022. The Book of Deuteronomy, Chapters 1-11. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Pages 369-533.
  • Barker, Paul A. 2004. The Triumph of Grace in Deuteronomy : Faithless Israel, Faithful Yahweh in Deuteronomy. Miltin Keynes: Paternoster. Pages 55-106.
  • Harrelson, Walter J. The New Interpreter’s Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003
  • Jacobson, Rolf A., and Michael J. Chan. 2023. Introducing the Old Testament : A Historical, Literary, and Theological Survey. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Publishing Group.
  • Jewish Publication Society. 2014. The Jewish Study Bible. Edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler. Second edition. Oxford: New York, New York : Oxford University Press.
  • Rad, Gerhard von, Dorothea M. Barton, and גרהרד ון רד. 1964. Deuteronomy : A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. Pages: 11-31, 62-72
  • Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy = דברים : The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1966. Pages 436-445.
  • Waxman, Dov. 2019. The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict : What Everyone Needs to Know. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Weinfeld, Moshe. 1991. Anchor Bible v5, Deuteronomy 1-11 : A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New Haven: Yale University Press. Pages: 15-84.
  • Weinfeld, Moshe. "Deuteronomy, Book Of." The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary: D–G. Ed. David Noel Freedman... Doubleday: Yale University Press, 1992.

Articles

  • Dunham, Kyle C. “Yahweh War and Ḥerem: The Role of Covenant, Land, and Purity in the Conquest of Canaan.” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 21 (2016): 7–30. https://search-ebscohost-com.smsu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cpid&custid=s8993911&db=lsdar&AN=ATLAiGFE171211000810&site=ehost-live.
  • Earl, Douglas. “The Christian Significance of Deuteronomy 7.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 3, no. 1 (Spr 2009): 41–62. https://search-ebscohost-com.smsu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0001822156&site=ehost-live.
  • Firth, David G. 2022. “Reading Deuteronomy after Joshua: On Reversing the Interpretative Flow.” European Journal of Theology 31 (1): 6–20. doi:10.5117/ejt2022.1.002.firt.
  • Gangloff, Frédéric. 2004. “Joshua 6: Holy War or Extermination by Divine Command (Herem).” Theological Review 25 (1): 3–23. https://search-ebscohost-com.smsu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cpid&custid=s8993911&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0001456139&site=ehost-live.
  • Glanville, Mark R. 2021. “חרם (Ḥērem) as Israelite Identity Formation: Canaanite Destruction and the Stranger (גר, Gēr).” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 83 (4): 547–70. https://search-ebscohost-com.smsu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cpid&custid=s8993911&db=lsdar&AN=ATLAiFZK210913000092&site=ehost-live.
  • Hoffman, Yair. 1999. “The Deuteronomistic Concept of the Herem.” Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 111 (2): 196–210. https://search-ebscohost-com.smsu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cpid&custid=s8993911&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0000989805&site=ehost-live.
  • Krašovec, Jože. “Is There a Doctrine of ‘Collective Retribution’ in the Hebrew Bible.” Hebrew Union College Annual 65 (1994): 35–89. https://search-ebscohost-com.smsu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cpid&custid=s8993911&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0001217932&site=ehost-live.
  • Levenson, Jon D. “Is There a Counterpart in the Hebrew Bible to New Testament Antisemitism.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 22, no. 2 (Spr 1985): 242–60. https://search-ebscohost-com.smsu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cpid&custid=s8993911&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0000951081&site=ehost-live.
  • Lilley, J P U. 1993. “Understanding the Ḥerem.” Tyndale Bulletin 44 (1): 169–77. https://search-ebscohost-com.smsu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cpid&custid=s8993911&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0000864417&site=ehost-live.
  • McLaughlin-Sheasby, Amy. “Between Text and Sermon: Deuteronomy 7:12-16.” Interpretation 77, no. 3 (July 2023): 272–74. doi:10.1177/00209643231167131.
  • Monroe, Lauren A S. 2007. “Israelite, Moabite and Sabaean War-Ḥērem Traditions and the Forging of National Identity: Reconsidering the Sabaean Text RES 3945 in Light of Biblical and Moabite Evidence.” Vetus Testamentum 57 (3): 318–41. https://search-ebscohost-com.smsu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cpid&custid=s8993911&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0001603017&site=ehost-live.
  • O’Connell, Robert H. “Deuteronomy VII:1-26: Asymmetrical Concentricity and the Rhetoric of Conquest.” Vetus Testamentum 42, no. 2 (April 1992): 248–65. https://search-ebscohost-com.smsu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cpid&custid=s8993911&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0000850432&site=ehost-live.
  • Quick, Laura Elizabeth. 2020. “Averting Curses in the Law of War (Deuteronomy 20).” Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 132 (2): 209–23. doi:10.1515/zaw-2020-2001.
  • Richter, Sandra L., “The Question of Provenance and the Economics of Deuteronomy: The Neo Babylonian and Persian Periods.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Volume 82, Number 4, October 2020, pp. 547-566
  • Scheffler, Eben. 2014. “Reflecting on (Non-)Violence in the Book of Deuteronomy in (Old Testament) Canonical Context.” Old Testament Essays (New Series) 27 (2): 579–96. https://search-ebscohost-com.smsu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cpid&custid=s8993911&db=lsdar&AN=ATLAn3784544&site=ehost-live.
  • Shade, Jeffrey. 2005. “Euthyphro’s Dilemma and Divine Herem: An Exploration of Biblical Genocide.” Journal of Theta Alpha Kappa 29 (2): 40–53. https://search-ebscohost-com.smsu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cpid&custid=s8993911&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0001870060&site=ehost-live.
  • Sherlock, Charles. 1982. “The Meaning of Hrm in the Old Testament.” Colloquium 14 (2): 13–24. https://search-ebscohost-com.smsu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cpid&custid=s8993911&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0000795154&site=ehost-live.
  • Tatlock, Jason. “The Deuteronomistic Endorsement of Sacrificing Errant Individuals as Reflected by the Hebrew Terms Ḥērem and Bi’ēr.” Journal of Semitic Studies 65, no. 2 (Fall 2020): 297–324. doi:10.1093/jss/fgaa023.
  • Waaijman, Kees. 2016. “Holiness in Spirituality.” HTS Theological Studies 72 (4): 1–7. doi:10.4102/hts.v72i4.3463.
  • Wiley, Henriette L. 2005. “The War Ḥērem as Martial Ritual Service and Sacrifice.” Proceedings 25: 69–76. https://search-ebscohost-com.smsu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cpid&custid=s8993911&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0001524620&site=ehost-live.

separator