Recent Research On Warfare in The Old Testament

Article
Currents in Biblical Research

Recent Research on Warfare 10(2) 171–216
© The Author(s) 2012
in the Old Testament Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermission.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1476993X11405906
cbi.sagepub.com
Charles Trimm
Wheaton College, USA
Abstract
In an introduction to the English translation of Gerhard von Rad’s classic work Holy War in
Ancient Israel, Ollenburger (1991) reviewed the major contributions on the topic of warfare
through to 1990. My article will update Ollenburger’s survey with new research on warfare
in the Old Testament from 1990 to 2010, treating historicity, broad histories of warfare,
and diversity of warfare. In addition, this article expands Ollenburger’s survey by looking
at recent research on other topics connected to warfare (herem, warfare in Psalms and
Chronicles, military history, and ethics), and at new perspectives on warfare (ancient Near
Eastern connections, feminism, peace, and early reception history).
Keywords
Ancient Near East, diversity, ethics, feminism, herem, holy war, military history, pacifism,
peace, warfare
Warfare plays an important role in the Old Testament, with its tales of celebrated
warriors, laments of besieged cities, and laws concerning warfare. The ethical
and historical implications of warfare in the Old Testament provide a rationale
for its significance in academic discussion. Ethically, the killing of the Canaanites
in holy war horrifies modern readers of the Old Testament, and cries out for
either explanation or condemnation. Historically, the Old Testament lacks a con-
sistent view of warfare, and scholars must find some way to account for these
differences. The importance of these reasons has created a large and diverse
amount of specialized material on warfare, as well as many introductory surveys
of warfare in the Old Testament (Carroll 1993; Hobbs 1995; Longman and Reid
1995: 13-88; King 2000; Bolin 2002; Hess 2008).
Corresponding author:
Charles Trimm, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois 60187, USA
Email: charlietrimm@gmail.com
172 Currents in Biblical Research 10(2)
The most famous work on warfare in the Old Testament has been Gerhard von
Rad’s Holy War in Ancient Israel, a brief, but comprehensive history of warfare
in Israel from the time of the judges to the post-exilic period. While von Rad’s
Holy War in Ancient Israel won immediate acclaim, the consensus proved to be
fleeting as scholars challenged piece after piece of his model. By the time
Ollenburger surveyed the research on warfare, he recognized that von Rad’s
model could no longer stand without significant changes. Ollenburger also noted
that no other comprehensive descriptions had arisen to take the place of von
Rad’s model, but he was hopeful that such a comprehensive picture could be
written (1991: 30-31).
In the twenty years since Ollenburger wrote his survey, the stream of scholar-
ship on warfare has continued unabated. The first section of this article will sum-
marize Ollenburger’s survey and update it with new research from 1990 to 2010
on historicity, broad histories of warfare, and diversity of warfare. In the second
section, this article will expand Ollenburger’s survey by looking at recent
research on other topics related to warfare, including herem (complete destruc-
tion of an enemy), warfare in Psalms and Chronicles, military history, and ethics.
The third section of the article will look at warfare from several new perspec-
tives, including ancient Near Eastern connections, feminism, peace, and early
reception history. Together, these three sections will provide us with the trajec-
tory of modern research on warfare in the Old Testament.
Survey of Histories on Old Testament Warfare

Focusing on works relating to history and warfare in the Old Testament, the same
topics addressed by Ollenburger, this section will summarize Ollenburger’s sur-
vey, and then review recent research on historicity, broad histories of warfare,
and diversity of warfare. Particular attention will be paid to the search for a new
consensus.
Old Testament Warfare Research Pre-1990

We begin with a short survey of prior research, in order to explain the back-
ground to more recent research. Those interested in a more detailed study on
research before 1990 can consult not only Ollenburger’s survey, but also
Sanderson’s bibliography of material relating to war, peace, and justice (1991).
Von Rad’s Holy War in Ancient Israel, first published in German in 1951, has
been the most important book in the modern study of warfare in the Old
Testament. According to von Rad, Israelite holy war was a ritual institution with
a highly schematic structure, even though each war was different. The ancient
form of holy war was strictly defensive, and was conducted by a twelve tribe
confederation (the amphictyony) under a confederation obligation. Charismatic
Trimm: Recent Research on Warfare in the Old Testament 173
leaders led militia troops in these holy wars with a psychological strength gained
from believing that this was the war of God.
The monarchy, however, changed the nature of war, with the rise of a profes-
sional army that replaced the militia, the addition of military technology (such as
chariots), and the lack of interest in ritual matters. The Solomonic Enlightenment
rewrote the earlier stories of holy war to emphasize the absolute miracle of Yhwh
in battles, the inaction of human warriors, and the faith of warriors after the
battle (rather than before the battle).
The prophets (especially Isaiah) reacted against these changes introduced by
the monarchy, bringing back the idea of holy war, as well as Israel’s need to trust
God rather than to fight, even though they ignored the ritual aspect of holy war.
The prophets also introduced the idea of eschatological holy war. After the defeat
of the professional army in 701 bce, Israel lacked sufficient money to raise a
mercenary army, and was forced to return to the militia of pre-monarchial times.
Also, the Deuteronomists brought back many of the ideas of holy war, although
they expanded the concept from defensive wars to include offensive wars of
religion. However, the Egyptian defeat of Josiah ended the institution of holy
war in Israel.
Although von Rad presented a coherent picture of warfare in the Old Testament
that many found convincing, criticism rapidly began to accumulate. Smend
(1970) argued that only individual tribes went to war, not the amphictyony as a
unit, severing the link between war and the amphictyony. Stolz (1972) went fur-
ther, rejecting the very idea of an Israelite amphictyony, and claiming that the
tribes had different ideas about warfare in early times. The theory of holy war
was not a recollection of a past standardized institution, but the creation of the
Deuteronomists based on the Jerusalem tradition of Yhwh as the divine warrior
(as seen in Psalms and Isaiah). Weimar (1976) argued that the holy war ideology
derived from a northern tradition of trust in Yhwh in battle (as seen in the
Exodus), which the prophets used to critique David’s method of fighting.
Several scholars critiqued von Rad’s model based on ancient Near Eastern
data. Weippert (1972) wrote an influential article arguing that Assyrian holy war
closely resembled Israelite holy war. G. Jones (1975) sought to combine a unique
Israelite view of warfare with a ritual understanding of war common to the
ancient Near East by formulating a two-stage process. The early wars of Israel
were Yhwh wars, and appeared similar to the wars of other nations; later, redac-
tors reformatted the early texts describing Yhwh wars to fit the unique holy war
scheme that von Rad claims to have discovered. The works of Cross (1973) and
Miller (1973) connected the mythology of the divine warrior with Israel’s expe-
rience of holy war, drawing on Ugaritic parallels.
Other scholars have attempted their own histories of warfare in the Old
Testament. Lohfink’s essay (1994; see also 1992) focused on warfare in the
Pentateuchal sources. He argued that warfare was a natural part of life for the
historical book of the Jehovist (Lohfink’s term for the Yahwist), although war
was not a central theme. According to Rose’s study (1976), the patriarchal narra-
tives were originally more martial, before they were painted with a pacifistic
brush. Originating in the later years of Josiah’s reign, Deuteronomy’s ideology
of warfare required Israel to fight personally. This ideology changed herem from
its earlier use (‘particular renunciation of looting based on a special vow or a
special prophetic saying in individual campaigns’ [Lohfink 1994: 190]) to a gen-
eral commandment applicable to the inhabitants of the land. It ended war with
the occupation of the conquered territory, rather than with a ritual victory cele-
bration. Josiah instituted these changes to justify his seizure of the land of the
northern kingdom from the Assyrians. The priestly attitude toward war empha-
sized divine action and human inaction. Instead of war between humans, P recalls
an archaic idea by showing a war between humans and animals (Gen. 9.2-3) that
culminates in violence against animals in sacrifice. The priestly history ignored
any warfare, and most likely originally included a narrative detailing the entry
into Canaan without any military activity. However, redactors ensured that when
the various sources were put together, the deuteronomistic view prevailed over
the priestly view.
Kang’s reconstruction of Israelite history of warfare (1989) was based on
ancient Near Eastern patterns of warfare. He argued that later ideas of divine war
and human inaction influenced the Exodus and Amalekite narratives (Exod. 14;
17.8-16). The wars of the conquest, the wars by the judges, and the wars by Saul
were an early preparatory stage of holy war, although the corresponding narra-
tives reflect later motifs. The real introduction of divine war in Israel came under
the kingship of David, because ideas of divine war first appeared in the nascent
stages of other empires in the ancient Near East.
Between 1950 and 1990, the study of ancient Israelite warfare saw the gradual
disintegration of a piece of art, as von Rad’s work collapsed under the weight of
criticism. The rest of this section will investigate whether another masterpiece
would take its place.
Historicity
Only a small part of the recent discussion on warfare has focused on the historic-
ity of warfare narratives. Sherlock (1993) is one of the few to attempt a history of
warfare in the entire Old Testament, based on the historicity of the warfare narra-
tives (see also Lind 1980). Israel in the pre-monarchic stage believed in Yhwh as
a divine warrior, and in divine initiative during warfare. Israel acquired the con-
cept of herem from other nations, but changed the meaning during the time of the
conquest from not taking prisoners to a complete destruction of an enemy as a
punishment for idolatry. The monarchy put an end to Yhwh war, although Yhwh
continued his involvement in warfare. The prophets used Yhwh war motifs to
speak against Israel, and Israel experienced what it was like to be Yhwh’s enemy
in the exile. The post-exilic period saw a shift to eschatological warfare.
Hay’s article, ‘What Really Happened at the Sea of Reeds’ (1964), is an exam-
ple of a scholarly work that paid close attention to the issue of the historicity of
early Israelite war narratives. However, scholars today spend little time discuss-
ing the historicity of war narratives from the period prior to the division of the
monarchy. For example, Van Seters (2009: 90-120) assigns the accounts of
David’s wars to a Persian context. Na’aman (2002) believes the account of
David’s wars was based on an early chronicle of Israelite kings, although not
much of the material can be assigned to David. Garsiel (2000; 2009) and Galil
(2007), however, defend the essential historicity of these accounts.
When biblical events begin to intersect with events recorded in extra-biblical
records during the divided monarchy, many scholars become more optimistic
about their historicity, although others remain skeptical (for example, see
Thompson 2007a; 2007b). Kelle’s Ancient Israel at War 853–586 bc (2007) sur-
veys the history of warfare in Israel. Discussions about specific battles can be
found in many articles, commentaries, and broader works on Israelite history.
Moore (2008) contends that histories of Israel often ignore the full effect of war-
fare on ancient Israelite society. Even though the number of relevant articles is
too large to list here, several of these wars have received special attention, includ-
ing: the war with Moab (Sprinkle 1999; Na’aman 2007; Lemaire 2007); the
Syro-Ephramite war (Irvine 1990; Cazelles 1991; Tomes 1993; Yamaga 2004-
2005); and Sennacherib’s invasion (Massmann 2002; Grabbe 2003; Ussishkin
2006; Faust 2008; Evans 2009).
Broad Histories of W
arfare
Many authors in the past twenty years have looked at the reconstruction of vari-
ous biblical authors’ attitudes toward war, using historical change to explain the
diverse attitudes toward warfare in the Old Testament. These studies are broad,
though not comprehensive, usually limiting themselves to one particular set of
data, such as Exodus 1–15, or the book of Joshua. However, even with their
reduced scope, these broad studies offer the foundation for a comprehensive his-
tory of ancient Israelite warfare.
Lingen’s Les Guerres de Yahvé (1990) focuses on stories telling of Yhwh’s
direct intervention in battle (Exod. 13–15, 17.8-16; Num. 21.1-3, 14; Josh. 10;
Judg. 4–5; 1 Sam. 7, 11, 16; 2 Sam. 5). He identifies the core of each story as
a battle account, to which post-exilic redaction added direct divine interven-
tion. Since the post-exilic community lacked military strength, the direct inter-
vention of Yhwh was introduced into old military stories to urge the people to
trust Yhwh.
Dozeman’s God at War (1996), a tradition-history study of the Exodus tradi-

tion, argues that there was a transition from divine warfare to human warfare.
The pre-exilic core of the story, based on a night liturgy, focused on the unilateral
power of Yhwh and the powerlessness and passivity of humans. The deuteron-
omistic version incorporated the Exodus into the newly formed salvation history
(including the wilderness wandering), downplayed the role of holy war, histori-
cized the mythic yam suf (‘Sea of Reeds’) of Exodus 15, and increased the role
of Israel by including the despoiling of Egypt and the crossing of the Sea. Yhwh
was still powerful, but he no longer acted by himself. The priestly history brought
holy war to the forefront, increased Israel’s involvement (through additions like
the reference to Israel’s armaments), and extended the power of Yhwh by show-
ing his judgment of other nations. Yhwh became relational and open to change.
‘The Song of the Sea’ reflects this trend, as the pre-exilic Exod. 15.1-12, 18
focuses on the sole power of Yhwh, while the later (Exod. 15.13-17) focuses on
Israel’s action and salvation history.
Campbell (2000) divides Joshua 1–12 into several layers. The first layer con-
tains a military conquest of the land, focusing on Israel’s participation. The sec-
ond layer consists of a series of sacral additions (for example, the crossing of the
Jordan and the destruction of Jericho), focusing on Yhwh’s intervention in war.
The Deuteronomists added material concerning Joshua’s role as a leader. The
fourth layer, which appears to be later because of its linguistic independence from
the Deuteronomists, included the extermination of the inhabitants of the land.
Many authors have argued that warfare texts in Deuteronomy and Joshua do
not record historical reality, but reflect later historical circumstances. Brett
(2004) contends that the warfare texts of Deuteronomy reflect an internal reform
against close kin who disagreed with a radical faith in Yhwh. Likewise, Suzuki
(1995) attributes the anti-Canaanite herem laws to Josiah’s attempt to reduce the
power of a Canaanite faction in Judah that resisted his reform. After the destruc-
tion of Judah, the Deuteronomists used herem to create Israel’s holy identity.
Rowlett (1996) argues that the book of Joshua was written to encourage devotion
to Yhwh and his king, Josiah. The violence of the book was a threat against those
who might disregard the central government’s authority. Hoffman (1999) sug-
gests that the herem laws were designed in the Persian period to argue against
xenophobia by showing that they had already been put into effect against the
Canaanites, meaning that the laws were no longer relevant, and that the commu-
nity should now welcome contemporary foreigners.
Other scholars have argued that redactors sought to tone down warfare texts or
subvert them. L. Stone (1991) contends that a middle stage in the redaction of
Joshua (between JE and the deuteronomistic stages) sought to downplay the vio-
lence of the earlier stage by employing ‘hearing’ clauses to contrast the positive
reception of Rahab and the Gibeonites with the rejection of Israel by the Canaanite
kings, and to construe all military activity after Ai as defensive. Similarly, Hawk
(2008) maintains that a late redactor of Joshua changed the enemy from the
Canaanites (represented by the Gibeonites, who lacked a king, and Rahab) to the
kings as a reaction against Ezra’s ethnocentrism. Römer (1998: 77-96) argues that
the God of the Conquest according to Josiah was a warrior God, but the exilic
Deuteronomists demilitarized the war stories; for example, Josh. 1.8 changed
Joshua from a military leader to a rabbi. Flannery (2008) infers that a redactor
critiqued Elijah for not following God’s plan. Elijah’s violent and confrontational
attitude and Obadiah’s pacifistic resistance represented two reactions to Ahab.
When Elijah did not understand what God was trying to show him, God acqui-
esced to Elijah’s violent plan. Since Ahab often followed Elijah’s directives, events
might have turned out differently if Elijah had done what God had commanded.
Several similarities are visible among all these studies. Many of them see a
broad trend of moving from an early view of synergistic fighting to a later view
of divine intervention in war. Most of the studies associate the warfare rhetoric
of Deuteronomy and Joshua with Josiah’s reign and a pre-exilic deuteronomistic
history. But even these basic similarities are not universally accepted. For exam-
ple, Dozeman places the synergistic style of warfare later, rather than earlier.
Hoffman dates the herem laws to the post-exilic period, and Campbell separates
the extermination of the Canaanites from the Deuteronomists. Few of these stud-
ies build on each other or present comprehensive histories in the style of von
Rad, and it appears that none of them are achieving a consensus.
Diversity
An increasingly popular manner of accounting for different perspectives on war
in the Old Testament suggests that different views about war coexisted in ancient
Israel. Different ideologies of war did not necessarily originate in different time
periods, but stemmed from various groups within Israel simultaneously advocat-
ing diverse views of warfare.
Some of these studies have been very narrow, such as Baumgart’s study (2004)
of the two war stories in 2 Kings 6, one of which is bloodless and ideal (2 Kgs
6.8-23), and one of which is bloody and realistic (2 Kgs 6.24–7.20). The combi-
nation brings hope to a terrible reality, but also keeps the ideal appropriate for a
real world. Other scholars have focused on how specific books of the Old
Testament present different views of war (see also the discussion of Crouch
[2009] below). In a brief dictionary article on warfare in the Old Testament, J.L.
Wright (2009) contrasts the varying views of war in different books, such as the
generally peaceful existence of the patriarchs in Genesis, versus the military
attitude of Israel in Exodus-Joshua. In a more detailed work (2008a), he studies
the relationship between kingship and military prowess in Judges and Samuel,
and finds several differences. In Samuel, we find a warrior who becomes king,
while in Judges, the leaders fight only after they are designated. In Judges, war
was sin, while in Samuel, it was an unavoidable evil. Meier (1991) compares
kings as warriors in Samuel and Kings. In Samuel, the king is a mighty military
leader, but in Kings, the kings are either distanced from the military (Solomon),
or are defeated (e.g., Josiah), breaking the link between a successful king and the
ideal of a warrior king. Rudavsky (1998) argues that the book of Esther subtly
condemns the command to eradicate the Amalekites by comparing Xerxes’ treat-
ment of Vashti with Yhwh’s treatment of Saul.
On a larger scale, Wood’s Perspectives on War in the Bible (1998) emphasizes
the diversity of approaches to warfare in the Bible: (1) ancient Israel active in
holy war (most wars in the Old Testament); (2) ancient Israel passive in holy war
(Exodus; apocalyptic wars); (3) war as vengeful and total (Amalekite battles;
herem); (4) war as redemptive and inclusive (Isa. 2.2-4; 11.1-9); (5) pacifism
(patriarchs; Elisha’s non-violence); and (6) motifs of just war (Jephthah’s speech;
Amos 1–2; Deut. 20).
The seminal work focusing on diversity is Niditch’s War in the Hebrew Bible
(1993a; see also her summary article [2007]). Niditch lists seven different coex-
isting perceptions of war in the Old Testament.
(1) In the ancient idea of herem, the Israelites killed their enemies as a sacri-
fice because God delighted in human sacrifice. This understanding of war
is based on making a vow with God that they would dedicate the best
spoils to God if he would give them victory, as seen in Jephthah’s vow and
the Moabite Inscription. The Israelites valued the sacrificial victims
highly because God desired only the best (see also Wiley 2005 on herem
as sacrifice).
(2) However, a later understanding of herem, which developed under the
Deuteronomists, associated it with the justice of God. The enemy was
depersonalized and viewed as sinful, unclean, and worthy of death, as
seen in the story of Achan (Josh. 7).
(3) Numbers 31 exhibits the priestly ideology of war. Israelite warriors were
to keep the young virgin women alive, because a woman was marked
permanently after sexual relations, and the warriors purified themselves
after the battle, implying that war defiled them.
(4) The bardic tradition of war, perhaps arising in the royal courts, focused on
the exploits of the warriors performing glorious deeds, such as the stories
of David’s mighty men. Abner even calls the battle between the twelve
champions ‘sport’ (2 Sam. 2.14). These stories exhibit a kernel of just war
theory by paying attention to non-combatants and fairness in battle.
(5) The trickster was the underdog who resorted to guerrilla warfare against
an oppressor, such as the battles of Shechem (Gen. 38), Ehud (Judg. 3),
Jael (Judg. 4–5), and Samson (Judg. 13–16). Many of these stories also
contain sexual themes.
(6) If the trickster was the ideology of the underdog, expediency was the ide-
ology of the strong. Due to their greater strength, the oppressor could
attack at will and use total war because the conflict needed to end quickly,
such as the battles of Abimelech (Judg. 9), the Danites (Judg. 18), and
David against his enemies while he was living among the Philistines (1
Sam. 27). The Chronicler subtly argues against expediency by removing
this type of story.
(7) Non-participation was usually accomplished by a divine miracle killing
the enemy directly (2 Chron. 20), differentiating it from non-violence.
Other hints of this ideology are the critique of the attack on Shechem
(Gen. 49), Amos’s condemnation of the nations’ actions in war (Amos
1–2), and the Chronicler’s non-participation in war.
Section Conclusion
The study of the history of warfare in ancient Israel has continued unabated.
Although many are still endeavoring to construct a broad history of warfare in
the Old Testament, few are attempting a comprehensive history. A consensus to
replace von Rad has not been forthcoming, although several general trends can
be identified. To be specific, many scholars believe that warfare transitioned
from an early view of synergistic fighting to a later view of divine intervention
in war, and that the warfare rhetoric of Deuteronomy and Joshua should be asso-
ciated with Josiah’s reign rather than historical reality. Another important trend
is the employment of synchronic diversity, rather than historical development, to
explain the diverse perspectives on war in the Old Testament.
Other Topics
In addition to the history of ancient Israelite warfare, several other specific topics
require attention for the purposes of this article. While Ollenburger’s review
article focuses on history and warfare, the topics of herem, warfare in Psalms and
Chronicles, military history, and ethics have also been important for the study of
warfare, and continue to be discussed in recent work.
Herem in Israelite Warfare

Stern’s The Biblical Herem (1991; see also 1989; 1990; 1999), the most exten-
sive recent study of herem, builds on the work of Brekelmans (1959). He
concludes that the Israelites acquired the idea of herem from the surrounding
nations (although it was not a common part of warfare), and that the central
idea of herem was the mythic belief of bringing order to chaos (concretely
represented by foreign enemies). The dedication of spoils to the deity was the
price for the assistance of the deity in war. Stern argues that Deuteronomy 20
dates from the time of Jeroboam II, and was intended to convince the Israelites
to relegate herem to the past, and not to retaliate against the Moabites’ use of
herem.
The function of herem continues to attract attention. Monroe (2007), based
partly on a parallel to herem in a Sabean text, argues that herem helped form a
state by binding a people to its land by means of its god. Nelson (1997) contends
that herem was not a warfare concept or a sacrifice, but a ‘culture map category’,
parallel to ‘holy’ and ‘unclean’. Others seek to separate herem from the killing of
humans. N. MacDonald (2003: 108-22) interprets herem as a metaphor for reli-
gious devotion to Yhwh, in which the only things destroyed are religious para-
phernalia. Likewise, according to Earl (2009), Deuteronomy 7 defines the
content of the Shema (‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one’ [Deut.
6.4]), and commands separation from the nations, but not their destruction.
Understanding herem is complicated by the different portrayals of herem in
the Old Testament. Some attribute the differences to historical evolution. For
example, Gangloff (2004) sees four stages in the progression of the herem idea.
First, herem began as a sacrifice to deity. Second, the Deuteronomists invented
the violent use of herem in the Deuteronomists’ depiction of a bloody conquest.
Third, the exilic redaction of the deuteronomistic history reverses the claim that
all the Canaanites had been killed, and blames the Canaanites for the sin of the
Israelites that sent them into exile. Herem became an instrument of cultic purifi-
cation. Fourth, the post-exilic priestly code used herem as a way to confiscate
material for the temple.
Others believe that different concepts of herem coexisted. Niditch (1993a:
28-77) identifies two types of herem. One type, an ancient practice, views herem
as God’s portion, an offering of the defeated enemy to the God who made victory
possible, and who delights in human sacrifice. The sacrifice to God of the most
valuable part of the spoil (the humans) allowed the Israelites to take the remain-
ing spoil for themselves. The second type regards herem as God’s justice, view-
ing the enemy (or Israelite apostates) as unclean sinners deserving of God’s
judgment. The Israelites enacted God’s justice against their enemies, but were
prohibited from taking spoils because of the danger of uncleanness.
Glick (2007; see also Park 2007) also identifies two types of herem: sacred
herem, a voluntary handing over of items to Yhwh (Lev. 27; Num. 21.1-3), and
sin herem, a commanded handing over based on sin (Exod. 22.19[20]; Deut.
7.13; 1 Sam. 15). Joshua 6–7 incorporates elements of both types of herem. Glick
also believes that herem in narrative marks important turning points: the begin-
ning of success in battle (Num. 21.1-3); the beginning of the conquest of Canaan
(Josh. 6); and the switch from a focus on the community to the failure of an indi-
vidual (1 Sam. 15).
Warfare in Psalms and Chronicles

Many recent studies have looked at warfare in individual books or narratives,
such as Exodus (Dozeman 1996), Joshua (Hoffmeier 1994; Rowlett 1996;
Campbell 2000; Brueggemann 2009; Earl 2010), or Judges (Sasaki 2001; Scherer
2005). This section examines the studies relating to Psalms and Chronicles, two
of the more popular areas of research on warfare.
E. Kim (1999) exploits the idea of holy war to explain the rapid shift in mood
from complaint to rejoicing in lament psalms (such as Ps. 3). Even when the
battle appeared hopeless and led to complaint, the warrior could rejoice because
of his faith in Yhwh the divine warrior. Adam (2001) concludes that the human
king and the divine king were both warriors fighting chaos, such as in Psalm 18.
Brettler (1993) examines Psalms 4, 46, 83, and 144, and finds several common
characteristics of the divine warrior among these psalms: Yhwh’s humiliation of
the enemy, the connection of divine fighting with a theophany, and the identifica-
tion of Yhwh as the supreme warrior. However, the psalmists do not usually
depict him as using human weapons. Ballard (1999) looks at the divine warrior
motif in the Psalms, and finds that this motif largely coheres with other ancient
Near Eastern concepts of a divine warrior. Yhwh, Israel’s divine warrior, acts as
judge of the nations and of evil (Pss. 7.10-12; 110.6), king (Ps. 44.5), protector
of his people (Pss. 7.2; 144.2), and peacemaker through war (Pss. 46.10; 76.4).
Klingbeil’s Yahweh Fighting from Heaven (1999) studies the metaphors of
Yhwh as God, as Warrior, and as God of Heaven, in Psalms and in ancient Near
Eastern iconography. God as warrior imagery appears extensively in the first two
books of Psalms, but disappears in the final two books. Klingbeil finds that the
same pattern exists in the ancient Near East, where earlier images were more
aggressive than later images. Klingbeil concludes that the psalmists used ancient
Near Eastern images to describe Yhwh, although they used those images to
emphasize the sovereignty of Yhwh.
Scholars have also devoted extensive attention to warfare in Chronicles,
focusing on the Chronicler’s ideology of war, which emphasizes the work of
God in delivering the Israelites when they are faithful to him. Because of the
focus on the work of Yhwh in these wars, some have seen the Chronicler as being
inclined toward Israelite non-participation in warfare (Niditch 1993a: 134-49;
Ruffing 1992), although others deny any quietist streak in Chronicles (Knoppers
1993; J.W. Wright 1997). Many scholars speculate about the purpose of the war
reports: enforcing ethnic boundaries between Judaeans and the other nations
(Siedlecki 1999); encouraging the militarily impotent post-exilic community to
trust Yhwh (Beentjes 2003); fortifying Israelite identity against their Transjordanian
neighbors (P. Davies 1992); or establishing a narrative norm of a united Israel at
peace under the historical Davidic monarchy, which was accompanied by proper
personnel in the Jerusalem Temple, and was dependent upon the faithfulness of
Yhwh (J.W. Wright 1997; see also Knoppers 1993).
Military History
Military history analyzes the military aspects of the battles, such as military
equipment, military organization, fortifications, and tactics. The nature and pau-
city of sources compared to more recent wars complicates this perspective on
warfare in the ancient Near East (as demonstrated by the virtual absence of arti-
cles about the ancient Near East in the Journal of Military History). However,
some still approach warfare from this military history angle by investigating two
areas. Following the classic work of Y. Yadin (1963), many researchers explore
military equipment and fortification, largely depending on archaeology and ico-
nography to explain the relevant Old Testament episodes (Eph‘al 1996, 2009;
Emery 1998; Seevers 1998; Cornelius 1999; Garsiel 2000, 2009; R. Gabriel
2003: 17-57; King 2007; Millard 2009; Rocca 2010). Although it is more literary
than archaeological, Hurowitz’s study (2007) of the job of the arms bearer (to
kill a mortally wounded leader) also fits into this category. These studies have
been well received due to their foundation in archaeology.
The other area of investigation is Israelite military tactics, based on the
description of battle in the Old Testament and on traditional military tactics.
Most of these studies discount divine intervention and seek to find military strat-
egy behind the miracles. For example, Spero (2006) presents a ‘rational explana-
tion’ for the fall of Jericho, although he says that Yhwh might have revealed this
plan to Joshua. He speculates that the spies returned to Rahab’s house before the
battle and undermined the wall at her house. The loud noise the Israelites made
on the seventh day was the signal to the spies to collapse the wall. G. Stone
(1994) studies several battles in the Old Testament to mine military guidance
from them, drawing parallels with later battles in history, and emphasizing such
tactics as guarding the flanks and using surprise. Berginer and Cohen (2006)
speculate that Goliath suffered from a visual impairment and that David removed
his heavy armor to give himself a military advantage. An extreme example of
this approach is the use of Lanchester modeling to determine that each slinger on
average killed sixteen warriors per day in the story of Judges 20 (David 1995),
although the detailed equations in the article will be comprehensible only to bib-
lical scholars with a background in mathematics.
R. Gabriel’s The Military History of Ancient Israel (2003) is the most compre-
hensive work in this category, surveying Israelite warfare from the Exodus
through Solomon. His hermeneutic is as follows:
To help the reader see the story with a soldier’s eye I thought it useful if, for the
moment at least, the reader could be convinced to set aside any reliance upon divine
explanations for these events and see them instead as the plans and perspectives of a
combat field commander. Whenever I thought it helpful, therefore, I have attributed
the commands of Yahweh and Moses as reported in the Hebrew text to the ‘General’.
(p. 71)
For example, Gabriel understands the crossing of the Reed Sea to be a classic
example of a night water crossing, with the pillar of fire acting to blind the
Egyptians so that they could not see what the Israelites were doing (pp. 74-81).
The battle against the Amalekites was a rearguard action against an enemy attack
while protecting the withdrawal of a column. Moses stood at the top of a moun-
tain to encourage his troops and to deceive the enemy into thinking that he had
more troops under his control (pp. 81-86).
However, recent studies of Israelite tactics in warfare have not been well
received. Smith-Christopher (2008) strongly rebukes the study of military tactics
in the Old Testament, because it rationalizes the miracles in the story. A sensible
military background to a miracle should not be used as a proof of its historicity.
He also urges for a moratorium on maps showing the movement of troops in
biblical stories, since troop movement in battle narratives related to ritual action
rather than military strategy. A different kind of critique springs from Berman’s
Narrative Analogy in the Hebrew Bible (2004), which looks at six battle narra-
tives that occur after an equivalent non-battle narrative, such as the battle at Ai
(Josh. 8) after the Achan affair (Josh. 7). He finds that these battle narratives usu-
ally explicate the preceding non-battle narrative, meaning that the battle narra-
tives cannot be separated from their contexts, and that the focus of the narratives
is not on valor or battle tactics.
Even military historians do not seem to find this approach convincing, as evi-
denced by a scathing review of Gabriel’s book in the Journal of Military History
that highlights the problem this type of research has with the text:
In the process of using his fertile imagination to rewrite the story, Gabriel is willing to
discard most of the modern literature on Near Eastern archaeology and literary
criticism while claiming to follow the Old Testament. On the other hand, he has no
problem discarding the biblical texts once they, too, prove inconvenient. (Sheldon
2005: 200)
Ethics
The discussion about the ethics of warfare in the Old Testament continues at full
speed, although no more than a few brief pointers can be given here. The reaction
of scholars to the ethics of war ranges from rejection of Yhwh, to a defense of
virtually every aspect of war in the Old Testament, as seen in E. Davies’s survey
(2005) of various ways to understand morally dubious passages of the Old
Testament, using Joshua’s conquest as a test case. E. Davies lists the following
approaches: the evolutionary approach, the cultural relativists’ approach, the

canon-within-a-canon approach, the holistic approach, the paradigmatic approach,
and the reader-response approach. He defends the reader-response approach,
because it follows a model of later biblical authors, assuming a critical stance
toward earlier texts, and because it continues to treat all texts seriously.
On one end of the spectrum are those who reject monotheism altogether.
Among reasons for doing so, some authors (e.g., Avalos 2005 and R. Schwartz
1997; see the responses of Moberly 2007 and Volf 2008) contend that monothe-
istic traditions make claims regarding their exclusive ownership of privileged
scriptures, sacred lands, and possibilities for salvation. Since many instances of
human violence have erupted over scarce resources (material and symbolic), some
opponents of monotheistic religions claim that monotheistic traditions unduly add
to the competitive arena by establishing claims that are unwarranted when consid-
ered through an empirico-rationalist lens, and as such should be dismissed.
Meltzer argues that the polytheistic ancient Near East, because of its greater
level of openness, occupied a higher moral ground than the monotheistic reli-
gions today: ‘Despite all of these frictions, however, one gets the impression that
much of the cultural interaction that went on was constructive and healthy, char-
acterized by much cultural cross-fertilization and enrichment’ (2004: 106).
Others do not necessarily reject monotheism, but believe that the God of the
Bible could not have commanded genocide, relegating the warfare of the Old
Testament to strictly human sources (Cowles 2003; P. Anderson 2004; Morriston
2009; Rauser 2009).
An important part of this critique of the Old Testament has been the misuse of
warfare texts to justify current wars. For example, several German Old Testament
scholars (Eissfeldt 1915; Gunkel 1916; Kittel 1916) used Israelite holy war to
encourage their countrymen to fight in World War I (Mitchell 1995; Washington
1997: 332-42; Scherer 2008). Greenberg (1995) castigates modern Jews who use
warfare in the Old Testament as an argument for continued warfare today,
because the heart of the Old Testament concerns social issues, such as loving
your neighbor and caring for the foreigner, rather than attacking your neighbor.
Bekkenkamp and Sherwood (2003) edited a collection of essays on the modern
use of biblical stories and terminology of violence, including topics like: messi-
anic violence in the movie The Matrix, the role of Phinehas in contemporary
white supremacy, and modern conceptions of martyrdom. Deist (1994) writes
about the use of Deuteronomy in South Africa to support apartheid, particularly
the notion of a divinely instituted natural order, the legality of discrimination, the
prohibition of mixing with other groups, and ownership of land.
However, many have continued to defend the ethics of warfare in the Old
Testament (Lilley 1997; Holloway 1998; Gard 2003; Longman 2003; Merrill
2003; Copan 2008: 25-26, 2009; C. Wright 2008: 76-108; C. Jones 2009), appeal-
ing to such factors as the wickedness of the Canaanites, the hyperbolic nature of
the conquest narrative, the divine prerogative, the lack of noncombatants killed,
the centrality of faith rather than ethnicity as a criterion for destruction, and the
fulfillment of promises to the patriarchs. Lyons (2003) conducts a metacommen-
tary on the defense by three evangelical scholars of the ethics of herem: Kaiser
(1983: 172-80), Craigie (1978), and Longman (Longman and Reid 1995), show-
ing how they defend the historicity and ethics of herem in a variety of ways.
Section Conclusion
Many topics related to warfare have continued to attract scholarly attention,
although few general trends can be found among these diverse topics. The
research on herem and Chronicles follows a trend in Old Testament study, mov-
ing from questions of historicity to questions of the function of warfare narrative
in its literary context. The military history research based on archaeology contin-
ues strongly, but investigations of military tactics based on reading the biblical
text as history have fallen on hard times, because of their dependence on historic-
ity and their frequent simultaneous rejection of divine influence.
New Perspectives
Research on warfare in the Old Testament has not only continued since von Rad
and Ollenburger, but it also has begun traveling in new directions. This section
looks at several of these new perspectives, including ancient Near Eastern con-
nections, feminism, peace, and early reception history. While some of these top-
ics have been addressed in the past, they have received particular attention in
recent times.
Ancient Near Eastern Connections

In recent years, one of the most popular research methods has been the compari-
son of warfare in the Old Testament with warfare in the ancient Near East. Early
on, von Rad (1951) discounted the influence on Israelite holy war from other
nations, as seen in his discussion of the battle in Judges 9:
Thus, correspondingly, these non-cultic military activities, carried out by mercenaries,

were devoid of any sacral consecration. The assumption that they might have been
carried out in the name of Baal-berit (‘lord of the covenant’) would be absurd, even
apart from the fact that Baals do not conduct holy wars. (1991: 63-64)
However, as noted above, Weippert’s seminal article (1972) showed that Assyrian
warfare looked very similar to Israelite warfare, and most now see continuity
between Israel and the ancient Near East (although, see the discussions of Otto
1999 and Van der Deijl 2008 below). For example, Kang’s (1989) view of the
history of Israelite warfare depends on its similarity with ancient Near Eastern
warfare. If divine war first appeared in the ancient Near East during the forma-
tion of an empire, Kang claims that the same must be true for Israel.
Based on this belief in similarity between cultures, many scholars have stud-
ied various topics in the ancient Near East in order to elucidate warfare in the Old
Testament. One of the more interesting of these is Smoak’s (2008) identification
of the curse ‘you shall build a house but not live in it’ (Deut. 28.30) as a military
defeat, based on the Assyrian practice of destroying vegetation and houses at the
end of a siege. Another fascinating parallel is Fleming’s (1999) comparison of
the seven-day interval in the siege of Jericho to other routine seven-day intervals
in battle, implying that it did not derive from a cultic context.
Other studies exploring ancient Near Eastern parallels focus on a variety of top-
ics. Elgavish (2002) discusses the taking of spoils. Adam (2001) and Niehaus
(1994) describe the close connection between the king and the god, and the need
for both to be war leaders. Numerous scholars address the definition of herem
(Stern 1991; Roszkowska-Mutschler 1992; Greenberg 1993; Smith 1995; Del
Monte 2005; Monroe 2007). Nissinen (2003) treats the command, ‘Fear not’. Oded
(1993) considers peace in the context of ancient Near Eastern warfare. Dubovský
(2006) investigates parallels to the Neo-Assyrian intelligence services.
An important avenue of research in this area is the Chaoskampf myth, in
which the divine warrior defeats chaos. Many have seen some form of Chaoskampf
in the Old Testament (Batto 1992; Podella 1993; B. Anderson 1994; Wyatt 1998;
Bauks 2001; Averbeck 2004; Nel 2006; Ortlund 2010; Routledge 2010), although
others reject it (Tsumura 2005; Watson 2005). Frymer-Kensky (1998) argues that
the Chaoskampf myth enacts a cycle of violence, and the time has come for a
new foundational myth (see also Trudinger’s ecojustice hermeneutic [2001] that
rejects the Chaoskampf myth).
Clines (1995) takes the similarities even further by arguing that not only
should we read the biblical texts in light of the ancient Near East, we should also
read them from the perspective of the inhabitants of the ancient Near East. For
example, he reads Psalm 2 from the perspective of the imaginary MLF (the
Moabite Liberation Front), demonstrating how Psalm 2 resembles standard
imperial language in the ancient Near East.
Another avenue of research uses these parallels to date biblical texts. For
example, Van Seters (1990) supplies Neo-Assyrian parallels to Joshua’s cam-
paign in Canaan (such as crossing a river at flood stage) to show that the book of
Joshua was written following Neo-Assyrian patterns. He also dates the David
story to the Persian period, partly based on the use of mercenaries in the narrative
(2009: 99-118). However, other scholars have responded that such parallels are
not sufficiently specific to date the texts, because similar parallels can also be
found in the second millennium (Hoffmeier 2003). Younger’s detailed study
(1990; see also 2008) of conquest accounts among the Assyrians, the Hittites, the
Egyptians, and the Israelites indicates a common ancient Near Eastern hyper-
bolic mode of speaking about conquest. In another attempt at dating based on
extra-biblical parallels, scholars have dated Goliath’s armor to the early monar-
chy (Millard 2009), the late monarchy (Finkelstein 2002), or the sixth century
(A. Yadin 2004).
However, other works find a contrast between biblical material and the rest of
the ancient Near East. For example, Hasel (2002; 2005; 2008) argues that the
command not to cut down fruit trees in a siege (Deut. 20.19-20) was an anti-
Egyptian polemic from the second millennium; Wazana (2008) argues that it is a
first millennium anti-Assyrian polemic; and J.L. Wright (2008b) disagrees with
both, seeing it as part of an inner-biblical discussion about destroying a life sup-
port system when facing a difficult siege.
Two recent dissertations focusing on comparing warfare in the Old Testament
with the broader ancient Near East illustrate the disagreement about how closely
Israelite warfare resembles that of the ancient Near East. Van der Deijl’s Protest
or Propaganda (2008) compares warfare in the book of Kings with several
ancient Near Eastern war accounts. He uses a narrative approach to study how
these accounts fit into their context and what the authors intended to highlight in
the accounts. He finds that the war accounts fall into six different genres, each
with a different type of author and a different goal.
According to Van der Deijl, the war texts of the great kings (Sennacherib,
Esarhaddon, and Ashurbanipal) served their imperialism, addressing both the
subjected nations and the people at home. The key problem they faced was rebel-
lion (sin against order). The vassal kings (Mesha, Kulamuwa, and Zakkur) used
their war texts to prove their legitimacy by emphasizing their divine election
through the role played by the deity in the war. The priests and the prophets
(Nabonidus, the Cyrus Cylinder, and Assyrian prophecies) directed their texts to
the court, reminding the king that divine election comes with a specific goal
(such as care for a temple). The chronicler (Babylonian Chronicles) was a vari-
ant of the priest, focusing on the Akitu festival and the effect of its (non)obser-
vance. The war narratives in Kings are part of the exile genre, in which Yhwh
controls history, but gives his people freedom to follow his word, although pun-
ishment came when they disobeyed. The narratives use a much larger number of
characters than ancient Near Eastern accounts, refuse to de-humanize the enemy
or glorify war, and recount war for purposes other than ascribing victory to the
king. Van der Deijl concludes that the Israelite view of warfare borrowed from
ancient Near Eastern ideologies of warfare, but used it to create a new and dis-
tinct ideology.
On the other hand, in her War and Ethics in the Ancient Near East (2009),
Crouch emphasizes the continuity between Israel and Assyria. Half of her study
analyzes the ethics related to warfare in the annals of five Assyrian kings (Tiglath-
pileser III, Sargon II, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal), and finds that
Enuma Elish operated as a foundational narrative for Assyrian warfare ideology.

When chaos threatened the world, a hero (Marduk) took military action to defeat
chaos and become king. Like Marduk, the Assyrian king was ethically required
to conquer chaos (human enemies) through military means, thereby bringing
order to the world. Crouch also describes how historical events changed the eth-
ics of war, noting how each king tailored such factors as the treatment of prison-
ers, the employment of extreme violence, and the use of mythic language to fit
his historical context.
The other half of Crouch’s dissertation focuses on the Israelite and Judaean
ethics of war in the late monarchy, and distinguishes several diverse views of
war. She also sketches a preliminary social background for each view, because a
disregard for variable social backgrounds has previously deceived some scholars
into thinking that Israel had distinctive views on war (2009: 194-95). The royal
ideology of war is based on Chaoskampf motifs that give a cosmic imperial pro-
gram to the king. Even the pacifist texts (Pss. 46.10, 68.3) assume the Israelite
conquest of the world. Another view of warfare is the natural law ideology
(Amos 1–2), which condemns other nations for their violent actions in war. In
contrast to the royal view, which subsumes all other ideologies under its own
ideology, the natural law view is universal and is not dependent on an Israelite
king who restores order, but rather features Yhwh judging his enemies under a
lex talionis principle (‘an eye for an eye’ or equitable retribution). However, like
the royal ideology, Yhwh directs the brunt of the punishment at the elite of the
enemy. Nahum presents a third ideology that combines elements of the natural
law theology (lex talionis) with royal ideology (cosmological language and the
appearance of an Israelite king to judge chaos [Assyria]). Eventually, when the
king was removed in the exile, the natural law ideology prevailed over the royal
ideology. In Crouch’s view, war in the Old Testament shows a high level of con-
tinuity with the ancient Near East, although her limited focus leaves open the
possibility that other perspectives on war in the Old Testament might conflict
with those of the ancient Near East.
Feminism
A fresh perspective of research on warfare in the Old Testament derives from the
rise of feminism in biblical studies, asking questions about the role of women in
warfare and the rhetoric of warfare. Many of these studies are largely descrip-
tive. Keefe (1993) shows how narrators used the rape of a woman in three stories
(Gen. 23; Judg. 19; 2 Sam. 13) to graphically illustrate the fragmentation of the
community due to warfare. Smith-Christopher (2004) wonders whether the treat-
ment of defeated enemies might help to explain the punishment of the woman in
Ezekiel 16. The public stripping was not a punishment for adultery, but exempli-
fied defeat in battles, as reliefs often feminized defeated warriors by depicting
them without clothes (although females in these same reliefs were usually
clothed). The public stripping was not normal or accepted, but was a horrible
part of defeat in warfare.
Chapman’s The Gendered Language of Warfare in the Israelite-Assyrian
Encounter (2004) finds that the use of gendered language of warfare in Assyrian
royal inscriptions and reliefs, Isaiah 1–39, Zephaniah, and Nahum all drew on
the shared literary convention of treating the defeated enemy like a woman.
However, the Assyrians used gender to describe their own absolute power, while
biblical authors, representing the defeated nation, transferred the all-powerful
masculinity to their god and the defeated femininity to Jerusalem. Bergmann
(2007) advances Chapman’s discussion by differentiating between two meta-
phors involving females and war. One metaphor valorizes warriors by compar-
ing them to women giving birth, emphasizing a crisis point. The other metaphor
compares warriors to women, feminizing them in an insulting fashion by associ-
ating strength and victory with males, and weakness and defeat with females.
Other scholars have seen hope for the subversion of patriarchy in some of the
stories about women and war. Ashman (2003) seeks to demonstrate that the com-
mon patriarchal paradigm of women as passive victims in war was undermined
by the women in the book of Judges, such as Jael and Delilah, who turned the
tables on their enemies and made them into passive victims. Yee (1993) shows
how a woman warrior occupies the liminal area between male and female, lead-
ing to many contradictory interpretations of the women in Judges 4. Kelle (2008)
finds that the imagery of violence against females occurs only in relation to cities
(usually capitals) that would be destroyed, and that represent the male political
elite. The prophets used patriarchal imagery to combat patriarchal authority by
feminizing the male elite, in order to disengage the people from the ruling elite
and to convince them to trust Yhwh.
On the other hand, the relationship between women and war in the Bible has
caused others to respond more negatively to the Old Testament. Thistlethwaite
(1993) defines rape in the Bible as theft of sexual property, and concludes that
the ancient Israelites did not consider rape in war to be rape, because no property
holder remained to be offended. Warfare for Israel was the defeat of chaos, which
could be conveniently symbolized as a woman. Therefore, controlling the cha-
otic sexual nature of the female (rape) was part of the conquest of chaos, and
served the purpose of holy war. Washington (1997, 1998) looks at the connection
between women and violence in the Bible, and finds that the Old Testament is a
place ‘where a capacity for violence is synonymous with manliness, and where
violence against a feminine object, above all, consolidates masculine identity’
(1997: 326). He rejects the association of masculinity with violence and feminin-
ity with vulnerability, and encourages us to read against the grain, with the
humiliated woman rather than with the male victor.
Peace
Many of those who defend the ethics of the Old Testament turn quickly to the
emphasis on peace in the Old Testament, although some scholars, such as Rodd
(2001: 185-206), do not believe that the peace texts can carry the weight assigned
to them. The most thorough work focusing on peace in the context of warfare in
the Old Testament has been Lind’s Yahweh is a Warrior (1980). The patriarchs
were peace-loving people, implying that J was probably written during a time of
weakness, such as the time of the Judges. The Exodus was a powerful historical
act of God that influenced the rest of history, setting the foundational pattern for
Israelite warfare: God performed a miracle, and the Israelites trusted him.
Fighting occurred only after the victory had already been won. The kingship,
which brought the rise of a standing army and a decline in trust in Yhwh, was the
great downfall of Israel. The book of Daniel continues with the tradition by
emphasizing how Yhwh acts while his people are passive and trust him, in con-
trast to the fighting Maccabees.
Like the diversity of warfare texts, the peace texts also display a rich multi-
plicity. Leiter’s Neglected Voices: Peace in the Old Testament (2007), similar to
Niditch’s study of warfare (1993a), focuses on the synchronic diversity of views,
and identifies five typologies of peace in the Old Testament: (1) individuals act-
ing nonviolently in tense situations; (2) peace sometimes following violence
(either after victory or defeat); (3) the prophets speaking of a future ideal peace;
(4) several genres (legal, prophetic, and wisdom) mandating peace; and (5) the
seeking of peace in the community. See also Oeming’s description (2006) of four
pathways to peace: political, wisdom, cultic, and eschatological.
Most advocates of peace look to the prophets for their inspiration, especially
Isaiah. Grimm (2008) speculates that the description of the servant of Yhwh (Isa.
42.1-4) was directly opposed to warfare. For example, the clause ‘he will not cry
out’ (v. 2) is a negation of the action of the war leader who cries out before battle
to muster the troops (Judg. 7.23), and the object of the statement ‘he will not lift
up’ (Isa. 42.2) refers to the Ark of the Covenant or shofar, both used in warfare.
Leiter (2004) argues that prophecies of peace in Isaiah were intentionally placed
in the first half of the book to balance the prophecies of judgment, which domi-
nate the first half of the book. The prophecies of peace take precedence in the
second half of the book, and the book ends with a note of peace, encouraging
God’s people to live in harmony. Carroll R. (2008) maintains that Isaiah takes a
negative view of Israel’s military preparations for battle with the Assyrians, and
calls on Israel to trust in Yhwh, opposing a realist stance that requires war because
of the presence of sin in the world. His work on Amos (1995, 1996) also shows
how a holistic reading of that book displays Amos rejection of militarism.
However, others have been more skeptical about this foundation for peace.
Roberts (2004) argues that the background to beating swords into plowshares
(Isa. 2; Mic. 4) is an imperial peace under a sovereign Yhwh, who adjudicates

between the nations. The texts cannot be read as a command to reject war; instead,
Yhwh demands righteousness, rather than a renunciation of violence (Mic. 5.7-8
depicts Israel using violence against their enemies). The peace texts do not prom-
ise that obedience will bring that disarmament. Kamionkowski (2007) sees the
peace promised in Isa. 2.2-4 as forced submission to Yhwh. The removal of the
violence of war comes only through the violence of forcing everyone to serve
Yhwh. Allegiance has merely been transferred from Assyria to Israel.
Others have looked elsewhere in the Old Testament for a foundation for peace.
Otto’s Krieg und Frieden in der Hebräischen Bibel und im Alten Orient (1999;
see also 1994, 1996) bases the desire for peace in the Old Testament on several
different texts. He argues that the Old Testament contrasts with the ancient Near
Eastern view that the king was responsible for defeating chaos through violence,
thereby bringing order to the world. In Hosea 11, God did not exact vengeance
against disobedient Israel, but took them back (see also Hos. 14). Deuteronomy,
based on a loyalty oath of a vassal to a great king, subverts loyalty oaths alto-
gether, demanding exclusive allegiance to Yhwh, rather than to a human over-
lord. Psalms 46 and 93 praise Yhwh for the universal peace he brings to the
world through his reign as king, and place the responsibility to defeat chaos on
Yhwh, rather than on the king. Psalm 72 critiques militarism by subtly invoking
Ashurbanipal’s coronation hymn, while ignoring the sections on expanding his
reign throughout the world, and focusing on the well-being of personae miserae.
The vision of peace in Isa. 2.2-4 directly opposes Persian imperialism based on
militarism. In Isa. 52–55, the servant (Zion) and Yhwh suffered for the many, and
brought peace to the nations. All of these texts break the cycle of violence as the
everlasting love of God transcends the temporary anger of God.
Ollenburger (2009) appeals to the creation account to set a precedent of peace
for the Old Testament. Rakel (2004) argues that the victory celebrations after
battle praising God for his victory in battle were a subtle critique of warfare, as
these hymns often removed the human element and focused only on the power
of God. Braulik (1997; 2004) shows how Deuteronomy 29–30 portrays a non-
violent homecoming for Israel after the exile, not a violent conquest. Brueggemann
(2009) finds the divine command to hamstring captured horses (Josh. 11.6) to be
opposed to the monarchy and militarism, because horses and chariots were tools
of oppression. God allows violence, but only controlled violence that ends domi-
nation. The Septuagint translation of ‘Yhwh is a man of war’ (Exod. 15.3) as ‘the
Lord breaks wars’ (the same phrase appears in Judg. 9.7, 16.2) has led some to
see this as a pacifistic translation (Lust 2004a: 168; 2004b: 140), although
Perkins (2007) argues that this is not a statement of rejection of war, but an
expression that indicates Yhwh wins wars. As noted above, several scholars have
argued that redactors sought to limit the violence in the text (L. Stone 1991;
Römer 1998: 77-96; Flannery 2008; Hawk 2008).
Collins, in his 2002 presidential address to the Society of Biblical Literature,

argues (2003) that we should sideline the violent texts, and focus on the texts that
call us to love our neighbor (see also Collins 2004). But, conceding that this
preference for peace texts over war texts is somewhat arbitrary, his conclusion
moves in a different direction:
The Bible has contributed to violence in the world precisely because it has been taken
to confer a degree of certitude that transcends human discussion and argumentation.
Perhaps the most constructive thing a biblical critic can do toward lessening the
contribution of the Bible to violence in the world is to show that such certitude is an
illusion. (2004: 32-33)
Avalos (2005: 170) even contends that the unverifiability caused by not knowing
whether the peace texts subvert the violence texts or vice versa causes as much
violence as the violent texts.
Those interested in focusing on peace recognize the large amount of violence
found in the Old Testament, and respond to it in several ways. One of the sim-
plest ways of dealing with this violence is simply to reject it, and read war texts
against the grain from the perspective of the peace texts (Van Dyk 2003). Another
approach is to caution readers about the danger of violent texts in the Bible, and
the connection between violence and deity for modern readers (Vervenne 1991;
2003). Bergant (1994) alerts readers to the rhetoric associated with the divine
warrior, and tentatively suggests that speaking of God as a warrior may no longer
be appropriate in our modern context.
A third approach is to work through the violent texts from the perspective of
peace. Martens (2008) sees peace (shalom) as the center of the Old Testament. He
looks at violence in three categories: (1) human violence resulting from sin; (2)
human violence at the command of God, intending to restrain evil; and (3) divine
violence associated with the divine warrior, removing human violence when God
fought for his people. The divine warrior eventually became the divine martyr on
the cross, breaking the cycle of violence. The most extensive example of this
approach is P. McDonald’s God and Violence (2004), an exegesis of a large num-
ber of violent texts that questions their attitude toward violence. She lacks a
consistent answer for violent texts, but deals with each individually. For example,
the drowning of the Egyptians in the Red Sea is defended as the culmination of
Pharaoh’s militarization of a non-violent conflict. But the danger of using milita-
ristic language for Yhwh is seen when the Israelites misunderstand Yhwh to be
the cause of long-term animosity toward the Amalekites (2004: 73-97).
Early Reception History

Another increasingly popular avenue of research is the reception history of bibli-
cal texts. An exhaustive account cannot be given here, but this section will look
at some of the research on the early religious traditions of Judaism, Christianity,

and Islam, focusing in particular on the Second Temple period.
Batsch’s La guerre et les rites de guerre dans le judaïsme du deuxième Temple
(2005) shows the wide diversity of views on warfare in Second Temple Judaism.
Elssner’s Josua und seine Kriege in jüdischer und christlicher Rezeptions
geschichte (2008) is a review of the reception history of the book of Joshua,
focusing on early Judaism and Christianity (see also Berthelot’s study [2007] of
the book of Joshua in 1 and 2 Maccabees). Kvasnica (2008) looks at three Second
Temple texts on plundering, and finds that, in contrast to the Old Testament, they
had ethical qualms about plundering. Studies of the portrayal of various wars in
the work of Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus have been popular, including the
battles with: the Amalekites (Begg 1996, 1997; Feldman 2002a, 2004; Maier
2004); Sihon and Og (Feldman 2002b); the Midianites (Begg 2007b); the com-
mand to wipe out the seven nations of the Canaanites (Feldman 2003); the fall of
Jericho (Begg 2005); the exploits of Deborah and Jael (Begg 2007a); and the
Benjamite war (Begg 1998). Angel (2006) surveys the evidence for the
Chaoskampf myth from 515 bce to 200 ce, and Whitney (2006) looks at Leviathan
and Behemoth in Second Temple and early rabbinic Judaism.
Many have studied apocalyptic warfare at Qumran as described in the War
Scroll (1QM), often emphasizing that the Qumran attitude toward war was
opposed to that of the Maccabees, as the War Scroll removes warfare from
humans, placing it into the hands of God and his heavenly army at the end of
time (P. Davies 2000; Alexander 2003; Batsch 2005: 165-209; Bolotnikov 2005;
Harrington 2006; Lichtenberger 2006; Schultz 2009). In the New Testament,
Longman and Reid (1995: 91-192) conduct a study of Jesus as the divine warrior
and Christians as soldiers of Christ. Park (2007) believes herem is an important
idea for Luke-Acts, where the burning of the magicians’ scrolls (Acts 19.19)
reflects mandatory herem, the Ananias and Sapphira story describes voluntary
herem becoming mandatory herem (like the Achan story), and the death of Jesus
represents both mandatory and voluntary herem.
Earl (2010; see also his study on Deut. 7 [2009]) studies Joshua from an
explicitly Christian perspective, using ancient Christian interpretation as a guide.
Rather than describing history, Joshua developed a collective memory for Israel.
The main point of Joshua concerns finding rest in covenantal life with Yhwh,
symbolized by crossing the Jordan, and the book exhorts Israel to reenact the
conquest by entering new life. Within Christianity, idolatry moves from an exter-
nal focus (kill the Canaanites) to an internal focus (kill the old self), and from the
key determination being one’s response to herem, to one’s response to Jesus.
Conversion in Joshua refers only to the Israelites’ view of Rahab, not Rahab’s
following of Yhwh; hence, the book helps the church today redefine its perspec-
tive on outsiders.
Several authors have looked at how Judaism struggled with the ethical aspects
of warfare in the Old Testament. Sagi (1994) studies how later Jewish tradition
dealt with the moral problem of the commanded destruction of the Amalekites.
Krygier (2005) reviews several rabbinical commentaries on the commanded
destruction of the Canaanites. Firestone (2006) analyzes how the rabbinic tradi-
tion and modern Judaism have responded to warfare in the Bible. Finally, others
look at war in the Old Testament, comparing it with war in the Quran (Firestone
1996; Granados R. 2002).
Section Conclusion
The new perspectives on warfare have enriched the study of warfare, although it
has also increased the diversity of viewpoints on warfare in the Old Testament
(see, for example, the variety of attitudes toward the Old Testament, exemplified
by those writing on feminism and warfare). New perspectives have paid closer
attention to the context of both the biblical text (as it relates to the ancient Near
Eastern context), and the modern context of the reader (as it relates to contempo-
rary issues, such as feminism). Many scholars are paying a higher regard to the
role of the reader, especially those who advocate reading against the grain of the
text, as well as those who are interested in earlier readers of the text (reception
history). Peace studies have become more popular as scholars search the Old
Testament for peace motifs, although other scholars doubt how welcome the
peace texts would be for the rest of the world.
Conclusion
As the approximately three hundred entries in the bibliography indicate, scholars
and publishers are still very interested in warfare in the Old Testament. Against
the backdrop of historical modes of thought, historical research continues
answering questions that were prominent in previous generations. However, the
hoped-for new consensus has not yet arrived, although several trends are popu-
lar, such as moving from an early view of synergistic fighting to a later view of
divine intervention in war, associating the warfare rhetoric of Deuteronomy and
Joshua with Josiah’s reign and the deuteronomistic history, the movement of
questions of historicity to the monarchy and later, and the focus on synchronic
diversity rather than historical development.
Perdue’s aptly titled book, The Collapse of History (1994), demonstrates that,
for doing biblical theology, history is no longer the essential driving force.
Similarly, Old Testament warfare research is no longer dominated by a historical
approach. Furthermore, Perdue’s Reconstructing Old Testament Theology (2005)
demonstrates that biblical theology did not pass away after the collapse of his-
tory, but a multitude of diverse voices arose to continue and develop the
discussion. Likewise, research on warfare in the Old Testament has been enriched
by a similar diversity of voices. The new approaches have not brought greater
unity, as confirmed by the diverse conclusions among the work on feminism in
warfare, but this diversity has uncovered much new and interesting data.
Following hermeneutical trends, more attention has been paid to the context,
both the context of the biblical text (ancient Near Eastern connections), and the
modern context. The reader has also attracted more attention, whether it is early
readers (reception history), or contemporary readers. It appears that a particular
view of warfare in the Old Testament will not reach a consensus in the near
future, but a rich diversity has arisen to advance the discussion for years to come.
Bibliography
Adam, K.
2001 Der Königliche Held: Die Entsprechung von Kämpfendem Gott und
Kämpfendem König in Psalm 18 (WMANT, 91; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag).
Alexander, P.S.
2003 ‘The Evil Empire: The Qumran Eschatological War Cycle and the Origins
of Jewish Opposition to Rome’, in S.M. Paul et al. (eds.), Emanuel: Studies
in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov
(VTSup, 94; Leiden: Brill): 17-31.
Ames, F.R.
2008 ‘The Meaning of War: Definitions for the Study of War in Ancient Israelite
Literature’, in Kelle and Ames (eds.) 2008: 19-32.
Anderson, B.W.
1994 ‘The Slaying of the Fleeing, Twisting Serpent: Isaiah 27: 1 in Context’, in
L.M. Hopfe (ed.), Uncovering Ancient Stones: Essays in Memory of H. Neil
Richardson (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns): 3-15.
Anderson, P.N.
2004 ‘Genocide or Jesus: A God of Conquest or Pacificism?’, in Ellens (ed.) 2004:
4.31-52.
Angel, A.R.
2006 Chaos and the Son of Man: The Hebrew Chaoskampf Tradition in the Period
515 bce to 200 ce (London: T&T Clark).
Ashman, A.
2003 ‘Women in the Bible as Victims of War’, Beit Mikra 48: 169-83. [In Hebrew]
Asurmendi, J.
2005 ‘Elisée et la guerre: 2 R 3: 4-27’, BibInt 13: 1-12.
Ausloos, H.
1999 ‘Exod 23, 20-33 and the “War of YHWH”’, Bib 80: 555-63.
Avalos, H.
2005 Fighting Words: The Origins of Religious Violence (Amherst, NY: Prometheus).
Averbeck, R.E.
2004 ‘Ancient Near Eastern Mythography as it Relates to Historiography in
the Hebrew Bible: Genesis 3 and the Cosmic Battle’, in J.K. Hoffmeier
and A. Millard (eds.), The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing

Methodologies and Assumptions (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans): 328-56.
Ballard, H.W., Jr
1999 The Divine Warrior Motif in the Psalms (BIBAL Dissertation Series, 6;
Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL).
Barré, M.L.
2006 ‘Yahweh Gears Up for Battle: Habakkuk 3,9a’, Bib 87: 75-84.
Batsch, C.
2005 La guerre et les rites de guerre dans le judaïsme du deuxième Temple (JSJSup,
93; Leiden: Brill).
Batto, B.F.
1992 Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition (Louisville:
Westminster/John Knox).
Bauks, M.
2001 ‘“Chaos” als Metapher für die Gefährdung der Weltordnung’, in B. Janowski
and B. Ego (eds.), Das biblische Weltbild und seine altorientalischen Kontexte
(FAT, 32; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck): 431-64.
Baumgart, N.C.
2004 ‘Gottes Gegenwart im Krieg: Zum Zusammenhang zwischen den Erzählungen
2 Kön 6,8-23 und 6,24-7,20’, in F. Hossfeld and L. Schwienhorst-Schönberger
(eds.), Das Manna Fällt auch heute noch: Beiträge zur Geschichte und
Theologie des Alten, Ersten Testaments. Festschrift für Erich Zenger
(Herder’s Biblical Studies, 44; Freiburg: Herder): 57-76.
Bechmann, U.
2005 ‘Die kriegsgefangene Frau (Dtn 21,10-14)’, BK 60: 200-204.
Becker-Spoerl, S.
1996 ‘Krieg, Gewalt und die Rede von Gott im Deboralied (Ri 5)’, BK 51: 101-106.
Beentjes, P.C.
2003 ‘War Narratives in the Book of Chronicles: A New Proposal in Respect of
their Function’, HvTSt 59: 587-96.
Begg, C.T.
1996 ‘Saul’s War with Amalek according to Josephus’, Laur 37: 387-415.
1997 ‘Israel’s Battle with Amalek according to Josephus’, JSQ 4: 201-16.
1998 ‘Josephus’ Account of the Benjaminite War’, Liber Annuus Studii Biblici
Franciscani 48: 273-304.
2005 ‘The Fall of Jericho according to Josephus’, Estudios Bíblicos 63: 323-40.
2007a ‘Josephus’ and Philo’s Retelling of Numbers 31 Compared’, ETL 83: 81-106.
2007b ‘The Exploits of Deborah and Jael according to Josephus’, Laur 48: 3-28.
Bekkenkamp, J., and Y. Sherwood (eds.)
2003 Sanctified Aggression: Legacies of Biblical and Post Biblical Vocabularies
of Violence (JSOTSup, 400; London: T & T Clark).
Bergant, D.
1994 ‘Yahweh: A Warrior God?’, in M.E. Miller and B.N. Gingerich (eds.), The
Church’s Peace Witness (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans): 89-103.
Berginer, V.M., and C. Cohen
2006 ‘The Nature of Goliath’s Visual Disorder and the Actual Role of his Personal
Bodyguard: ‫( נשא הצנה‬I Sam 17: 7, 41)’, ANES 43: 27-44.
Bergmann, C.D.
2007 ‘“We Have Seen the Enemy, and He is Only a ‘She’”: The Portrayal of Warriors
as Women’, CBQ 69: 651-72. [Repr. in Kelle and Ames (eds.) 2008: 129-42]
Berman, J.
2004 Narrative Analogy in the Hebrew Bible: Battle Stories and their Equivalent
Non-battle Narratives (VTSup, 103; Leiden: Brill).
Berthelot, K.
2007 ‘The Biblical Conquest of the Promised Land and the Hasmonaean Wars
according to 1 and 2 Maccabees’, in G.G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér (eds.),
The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology. Papers of the
Second International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa,
Hungary, 9-11 June, 2005 (JSJSup, 118; Leiden: Brill): 44-60.
Bolin, T.M.
2002 ‘Warfare’, in J. Barton (ed.), The Biblical World (London: Routledge): 2.33-52.
Bolotnikov, A.
2005 ‘The Theme of Apocalyptic War in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, AUSS 43: 261-66.
Bornapé, A.
2005 ‘El problema del herem en el Pentateuco y su dimension ritual’, Davar Logos
4: 1-16.
Braulik, G.
1997 ‘Die Völkervernichtung und die Rückkehr Israels ins Verheissungsland:
hermeneutische Bemerkungen zum Buch Deuteronomium’, in M. Vervenne
and J. Lust (eds.), Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift
C. H. W. Brekelmans (BETL, 133; Leuven: Leuven University Press): 3-38.
2004 ‘The Destruction of the Nations and the Promise of Return: Hermeneutical
Observations on the Book of Deuteronomy’ (trans. H. Friedl), Verbum et
Ecclesia 25: 46-67.
Brekelmans, C.
1959 De Herem in Het Oude Testament (Nijmegen: Centrale Drukkerij).
Brett, M.G.
2004 ‘Genocide in Deuteronomy: Postcolonial Variations on Mimetic Desire’, in
M.A. O’Brien and H.N. Wallace (eds.), Seeing Signals, Reading Signs: The
Art of Exegesis. Studies in Honour of Antony F. Campbell (JSOTSup, 415;
New York: T & T Clark): 75-89.
Brettler, M.Z.
1993 ‘Images of Yhwh the Warrior in Psalms’, Semeia 61: 135-65.
Brisman, L.
1999 ‘Sacred Butchery: Exodus 32: 25-29’, in C. Seitz and K. Greene-McCreight
(eds.), Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans): 162-81.
Brueggemann, W.
2009 Divine Presence amid Violence: Contextualizing the Book of Joshua (Eugene,
OR: Cascade).
Bruin, W.M.D.
1999 ‘Die Freistellung vom Militärdienst in Deut. xx 5-7: Die Gattung der Wirkungs
losigkeitssprüche als Schlüssel zum Verstehen eines alten Brauches’, VT 49:
21-33.
Butticaz, S.
2002 ‘Josué et la rhétorique de la violence: le cas de la prise d’Aï en Jos 8/1-29’,
Études théologiques et religieuses 77: 421-27.
Cairus, A.E.
1999 ‘The Trees which are Not People (Deut 20: 19): An Ancient Mistranslation?’,
Asia Adventist Seminary Studies 2: 19-22.
Campbell, A.F., S.J.
2000 ‘The Growth of Joshua 1–12 and the Theology of Extermination’, 2000:
2.72-88.
Carroll, R.
1993 ‘War in the Hebrew Bible’, in J. Rich and G. Shipley (eds.), War and Society
in the Greek World (Leicester-Nottingham Studies in Ancient Society, 4;
London: Routledge): 25-44.
Carroll R., M.D.
1995 ‘Reflecting on War and Utopia in the Book of Amos: The Relevance of a
Literary Reading of the Prophetic text fro Central America’, in Carroll R.,
Clines, and Davies (eds.), 1995: 105-21.
1996 ‘The Prophetic Text and the Literature of Dissent in Latin America: Amos,
García Márquez, and Cabrera Infante Dismantle Militarism’, BibInt 4: 76-100.
2008 ‘Impulses toward Peace in a Country at War: The Book of Isaiah between
Realism and Hope’, in Hess and Martens (eds.) 2008: 59-78.
Carroll R., M.D., D.J.A. Clines, and R.R. Davies (eds.)
1995 The Bible in Human Society: Essays in Honour of John Rogerson (JSOTSup,
200; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
Cazeaux, J.
2001 La guerre sainte n’aura pas lieu (LD, 185; Paris: Cerf).
Cazelles, H.
1991 ‘La guerre syro-ephraïmite dans le contexte de la politique internationale’, in
D. Garrone and F. Israel (eds.), Storia e tradizioni di Israele: scritti in onore
di J. Alberto Soggin (Bresciae: Paideia): 31-48.
Chapman, C.R.
2004 The Gendered Language of Warfare in the Israelite-Assyrian Encounter
(HSM, 62; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns).
Chen, P.L.
2001 ‘Familial Guilt and Responsibility in Light of the Biblical Herem with Special
Reference to Joshua 5: 13–8: 29’ (PhD dissertation, Trinity Evangelical Divin
ity School).
Christensen, D.L.
1975 Transformations of the War Oracle in Old Testament Prophecy: Studies in
the Oracles against the Nations (HDR, 3; Missoula: Scholars).
Clements, R.E.
2000 ‘Achan’s Sin: Warfare and Holiness’, in D. Penchansky and P.L. Redditt (eds.),
Shall Not the Judge of All the Earth Do What is Right? Studies on the Nature
of God in Tribute to James L. Crenshaw (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns): 113-26.
Cline, E.H.
2000 The Battles of Armageddon: Megiddo and the Jezreel Valley from the Bronze
Age to the Nuclear Age (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).
Clines, D.J.A.
1995 ‘Psalm 2 and the MLF (Moabite Liberation Front)’, in his Interested Parties:
The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup, 205;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 244-75. [Orig. 1995, in Carroll, Clines,
and Davies (eds.), 1995: 158-85]
Collins, J.J.
2003 ‘The Zeal of Phineas: The Bible and the Legitimation of Violence’, JBL 122:
3-21.
2004 Does the Bible Justify Violence? (Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
Copan, P.
2008 ‘Is Yahweh a Moral Monster? The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics’,
PhilChr 10: 7-37.
2009 ‘Yahweh Wars and the Canaanites: Divinely Mandated Genocide or
Corporate Capital Punishment? Responses to Critics’, PhilChr 11: 73-90.
Cornelius, S.
1999 ‘The Iconography of Weapons and Warfare in Palestine/Israel c. 1500–1200
bce’, JNSL 25: 263-75.
Cowles, C.S.
2003 ‘The Case for Radical Discontinuity’, in Cowles et al. (eds.) 2003: 11-46.
Cowles, C.S. et al. (eds.)
2003 Show Them No Mercy: Four Views on God and Canaanite Genocide (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan).
Craigie, P.C.
1978 The Problem of War in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
Crawford, S.W. et al. (eds.)
2007 “Up to the Gates of Ekron”: Essays on the Archaeology and History of
the Eastern Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin (Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society).
Cross, F.M.
1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of
Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).
Crouch, C.L.
2009 War and Ethics in the Ancient Near East: Military Violence in Light of
Cosmology and History (BZAW, 407; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter).
David, I.
1995 ‘Lanchester Modeling and the Biblical Account of the Battles of Gibeah’,
Naval Research Logistics 42: 579-84.
Davies, E.W.
2005 ‘An Examination of Some Proposed Solutions’, CBR 3.2: 197-228.
Davies, P.R.
1992 ‘Defining the Boundaries of Israel in the Second Temple Period: 2 Chronicles
20 and the “Salvation Army”’, in E.C. Ulrich (ed.), Priests, Prophets, and
Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism
in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp (JSOTSup, 149; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press): 43-54.
2000 ‘The Biblical and Qumranic Concept of War’, in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The
Hebrew Bible and Qumran (Richland Hills, TX: Bibal): 1.209-32.
De Vries, S.J.
2004 ‘Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament: In Ritual and Warfare’, in Ellens
(ed.) 2004: 1.99-121.
Deist, F.E.
1994 ‘The Dangers of Deuteronomy: A Page from the Reception History of the
Book’, in F.G. Martínez et al. (eds.), Studies in Deuteronomy: In Honour of
C. J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (VTSup, 53; Leiden:
Brill): 13-29.
Del Monte, G.F.
2005 ‘The Hittite Herem’, in L.K. Kogan et al. (eds.), Memoriae Igor M. Diakonoff
(Babel und Bibel, 2; Annual of Ancient Near Eastern, Old Testament and
Semitic Studies; S. Orientalia et Classica; Papers of the Institute of Oriental
and Classical Studies, 8; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns): 21-45.
Dietrich, W.
1996 ‘The “Ban” in the Age of the Early Kings’, in V. Fritz and P.R. Davies
(eds.), The Origins of the Ancient Israelite States (JSOTSup, 228; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press): 196-210.
Dozeman, T.B.
1996 God at War: Power in the Exodus Tradition (New York: Oxford University
Press).
Dubovský, P.
2006 Hezekiah and the Assyrian Spies: Reconstruction of the Neo-Assyrian
Intelligence Services and its Significance for 2 Kings 18–19 (BibOr, 49;
Rome: Pontificio Istituto biblico).
Earl, D.
2009 ‘The Christian Significance of Deuteronomy 7’, Journal of Theological
Interpretation 3: 41-62.
2010 Reading Joshua as Christian Scripture (Journal of Theological Interpretation
Supplement Series, 2; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns).
Eissfeldt, O.
1915 Krieg und Bibel (Religionsgeschichtliche Volksbücher für die Deutsche
Christliche Gegenwart, 5; Tübingen: Mohr).
Elgavish, D.
2002 ‘The Division of the Spoils of War in the Bible and in the Ancient Near East’,
ZABR 8: 247-73.
Ellens, J.H. (ed.)
2004 The Destructive Power of Religion: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and
Islam (4 vols.; Westport, CN: Praeger).
Elssner, T.R.
2008 Josua und seine Kriege in jüdischer und christlicher Rezeptionsgeschichte
(Theologie und Frieden, 37; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer).
Emery, A.
1998 ‘Weapons of the Israelite Monarchy: A Catalogue with its Linguistic and
Cross-Cultural Implications’ (PhD dissertation, Harvard University).
Eph‘al, I.
1996 Siege and its Ancient Near Eastern Manifestations (Jerusalem: Magnes). [In
Hebrew]
2009 The City Besieged: Siege and its Manifestations in the Ancient Near East
(CHANE, 36; Leiden: Brill).
Evans, P.S.
2009 The Invasion of Sennacherib in the Book of Kings: A Source-Critical and
Rhetorical Study of 2 Kings 18–19 (VTSup, 125; Leiden: Brill).
Faust, A.
2008 ‘Settlement and Demography in Seventh-Century Judah and the Extent and
Intensity of Sennacherib’s Campaign’, PEQ 140: 168-94.
Fearer, T.L.
1993 ‘Wars in the Wilderness: Textual Cohesion and Conceptual Coherence in
Pentateuchal Battle Traditions’ (PhD dissertation, Claremont Graduate
University).
Feldman, L.H.
2002a ‘Josephus’s View of the Amalekites’, BBR 12: 161-86.
2002b ‘The Portrayal of Sihon and Og in Philo, Pseudo-Philo and Josephus’, JJS 53:
264-72.
2003 ‘The Command, According to Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus, to
Annihilate the Seven Nations of Canaan’, AUSS 41: 13-29.
2004 “Remember Amalek!” Vengeance, Zealotry, and Group Destruction in the
Bible According to Philo, Pseudo-Philo, and Josephus (Monographs of the
Hebrew Union College, 31; Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press).
Finkelstein, I.
2002 ‘The Philistines in the Bible: A Late-Monarchic Perspective’, JSOT 27: 131-67.
Firestone, R.
1996 ‘Conceptions of Holy War in Biblical and Qur’ānic Tradition’, JRE 24:
99-123.
2006 ‘Holy War in Modern Judaism? “Mitzvah War” and the Problem of the
“Three Vows”’, JAAR 74: 954-82.
Flannery, F.
2008 ‘“Go Back by the Way You Came”: An Internal Textual Critique of Elijah’s
Violence in 1 Kings 18-19’, in Kelle and Ames (eds.) 2008: 161-74.
Fleming, D.E.
1999 ‘The Seven-Day Siege of Jericho in Holy War’, in R. Chazan, W.W. Hallo and
L.H. Schiffman (eds.), Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic
Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns): 211-28.
Fretheim, T.E.
2004 ‘God and Violence in the Old Testament’, Word and World 24: 18-28.
Frymer-Kensky, T.
1998 ‘Creation Myths Breed Violence’, Bible Review 14.3: 17, 47.
Gabriel, I.
1990 Friede über Israel: Eine Untersuchung zur Friedenstheologie in Chronik I
10-36 (ÖBS, 10; Klosterneuburg: Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk).
Gabriel, R.A.
2003 The Military History of Ancient Israel (Westport: Praeger).
Galil, G.
2007 ‘War, Peace, Stone and Memory’, PEQ 139: 79-84.
Galpaz, P.
1993 ‘The Victory Stela of King Piye: The Biblical Perspective on War and Peace’,
RB 100: 399-414.
Gangloff, F.
2004 ‘Joshua 6: Holy War or Extermination by Divine Command (Herem)?’,
Theological Review 25: 3-23.
Gard, D.L.
2003 ‘The Case for Eschatological Continuity’, in Cowles et al. (eds.) 2003: 111-44.
Garsiel, M.
2000 ‘David’s Warfare against the Philistines in the Vicinity of Jerusalem (2 Sam
5,17-25; 1 Chron 14,8-16)’, in G. Galil and M. Weinfeld (eds.), Studies in
Historical Geography and Biblical Historiography: Presented to Zecharia
Kallai (VTSup, 81; Leiden: Brill): 150-64.
2009 ‘The Valley of Elah Battle and the Duel of David with Goliath: Between
History and Artistic Theological Historiography’, in G. Galil, M. Geller, and
A. Millard (eds.), Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of
Bustenay Oded (VTSup, 130; Leiden: Brill): 391-426.
Glick, M.
2007 ‘Herem in Biblical Law and Narrative’ (PhD dissertation, University of
Pennsylvania).
Grabbe, L.L. (ed.)
2003 “Like a Bird in a Cage”: The Invasion of Sennacherib in 701 bce (JSOTSup,
363; London: Sheffield Academic Press).
2007 Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty (Library of Hebrew
Bible/Old Testament Studies, 421; London: T & T Clark).
Granados R., J.M.
2002 ‘“Guerra santa” en el Antiguo Testamento y en el Corán’, Theologica
Xaveriana 141: 15-30.
Greenberg, M.
1993 ‘Is There a Mari Parallel to the Israelite Enemy-herem?’, ErIsr 24: 49-53. [In
Hebrew]
1995 ‘On the Political Use of the Bible in Modern Israel: An Engaged Critique’, in
D.P. Wright et al. (eds.), Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical
Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob
Milgrom (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns): 461-71.
Grimm, W.
2008 ‘Er nicht! Der Gottesknecht als Verweigerer des Heiligen Kriegs: Ein neues
Verständnis von Jes 42,1-4’, BN 138: 47-61.
Gunkel, H.
1916 Israelitisches Heldentum und Kriegsfrömmigkeit im Alten Testament
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Harrington, D.J.
2006 ‘“Holy War” Texts among the Qumran Scrolls’, in P.W. Flint, E. Tov, and
J.C. VanderKam (eds.), Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, and the
Septuagint Presented to Eugene Ulrich (VTSup, 101; Leiden: Brill): 175-83.
Hasel, M.G.
2002 ‘The Destruction of Trees in the Moabite Campaign of 2 Kings 3: 4-27: A
Study in the Laws of Warfare’, AUSS 40: 197-206.
2005 Military Practice and Polemic: Israel’s Laws of Warfare in Near Eastern
Perspective (Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press).
2008 ‘Assyrian Military Practices and Deuteronomy’s Laws of Warfare’, in Kelle
and Ames (eds.) 2008: 67-82.
Hauspie, K. (ed.)
2004 Messianism and the Septuagint: Collected Essays (BETL, 178; Leuven:
Leuven University Press).
Hawk, L.D.
2008 ‘Conquest Reconfigured: Recasting Warfare in the Redaction of Joshua’, in
Kelle and Ames (eds.) 2008: 145-60.
Hay, L.S.
1964 ‘What Really Happened at the Sea of Reeds’, JBL 83: 397-403.
Herzog, C., and M. Gichon
1997 Battles of the Bible (2nd edn; London: Greenhill). [Orig. 1978, New York:
Random House]
Hess, R.S.
2008 ‘War in the Hebrew Bible: An Overview’, in Hess and Martens (eds.) 2008:
19-32.
Hess, R.S., and E.A. Martens (eds.)
2008 War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century (BBRSup, 2;
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns).
Hobbs, T.R.
1989 A Time for War: A Study of Warfare in the Old Testament (Wilmington: M.
Glazier).
1995 ‘BTB Readers Guide: Aspects of Warfare in the First Testament World’, BTB
25: 79-90.
Hoffman, Y.
1999 ‘The Deuteronomistic Concept of the Herem’, ZAW 111: 196-210.
Hoffmeier, J.K.
1994 ‘The Structure of Joshua 1–11 and the Annals of Thutmose III’, in A.R.
Millard, J.K. Hoffmeier, and D.W. Baker (eds.), Faith, Tradition, and
History: Old Testament Historiography in its Near Eastern Context (Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns): 165-80.
2003 ‘Understanding Hebrew and Egyptian Military Texts: A Contextual
Approach’, in W.W. Hallo and K.L. Younger, Jr (eds.), The Context of
Scripture (3 vols.; Leiden: Brill): 3.xxi-xxvii.
Holloway, J.
1998 ‘The Ethical Dilemma of Holy War’, Southwestern Journal of Theology 41:
44-69.
Hurowitz, V.A.
2007 ‘The Biblical Arms Bearer (‫’)נושא כלים‬, in Crawford et al. (eds.), 2007: 344-49
Irvine, S.A.
1990 Isaiah, Ahaz, and the Syro-Ephraimitic Crisis (SBLDS, 123; Atlanta: Scholars).
Johnston, G.H.
2002 ‘Nahum’s Rhetorical Allusions to Neo-Assyrian Conquest Metaphors’, BSac
159: 21-45.
Jones, C.
2009 ‘We Don’t Hate Sin So We Don’t Understand What Happened to the Canaanites:
An Addendum to “Divine Genocide” Arguments’, PhilChr 11: 53-72.
Jones, G.H.
1975 ‘Holy War or Yahweh War’, VT 25: 642-58.
Kaiser, W.C., Jr
1983 Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).
Kamionkowski, S.T.
2007 ‘The “Problem” of Violence in Prophetic Literature’, in D.A. Bernat and J.
Klawans (eds.), Religion and Violence: The Biblical Heritage (RRBS, 2;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 38-46.
Kang, S.
1989 Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East (BZAW, 177;
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter).
Keefe, A.A.
1993 ‘Rapes of Women/Wars of Men’, Semeia 61: 79-97.
Kelle, B.E.
2007 Ancient Israel at War 853–586 bc (Essential Histories, 67; Oxford: Osprey).
2008 ‘Wartime Rhetoric: Prophetic Metaphorization of Cities as Female’, in Kelle
and Ames (eds.) 2008: 95-112.
Kelle, B.E., and F.R. Ames (eds.)
2008 Writing and Reading War: Rhetoric, Gender, and Ethics in Biblical and
Modern Contexts (SBLSymS, 42; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature).
Kim, E.K.
1999 ‘Holy War Ideology and the Rapid Shift of Mood in Psalm 3’, in S.L. Cook
and S.C. Winter (eds.), On the Way to Nineveh: Studies in Honor of George
M. Landes (ASOR Books; Atlanta: Scholars Press): 77-93.
Kim, W.
2004 ‘The Rhetoric of War in the Book of Joshua’, in H.N. Wallace and M.A.
O’Brien (eds.), Seeing Signals, Reading Signs: The Art of Exegesis. Studies
in Honour of Antony F. Campbell (JSOTSup, 415; London: T & T Clark):
90-103.
Kim, W. et al. (eds.)
2000 Reading the Hebrew Bible for a New Millennium: Form, Concept, and Theological
Perspective (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity; Harrisburg: Trinity).
King, P.J.
2000 ‘Warfare in the Ancient Near East’, in L.E. Stager, J.A. Greene, and M.D.
Coogan (eds.), The Archaeology of Jordan and Beyond: Essays in Honor of
James A. Sauer (Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Levant, 1;
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns): 266-76.
2007 ‘David Defeats Goliath’, in Crawford et al. (eds.), 2007: 350-57.
Kittel, R.
1916 Das alte Testament und unser Krieg (Leipzig: Dörffling and Franke).
Klingbeil, M.
1999 Yahweh Fighting from Heaven: God as Warrior and as God of Heaven in
the Hebrew Psalter and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography (OBO, 169;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Knierim, R.P.
1994 ‘On the Subject of War in Old Testament and Biblical Theology’, Horizons
in Biblical Theology 16: 1-19. [Repr. in Kim et al. (eds), 2000: 1.73-88]
Knoppers, G.N.
1993 ‘“Battling against Yahweh”: Israel’s War against Judah in 2 Chr 13: 2-20’,
RB 100: 511-32.
1999 ‘Jerusalem at War in Chronicles’, in R.S. Hess and G.J. Wenham (eds.), Zion,
City of Our God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans): 55-76.
Kreuzer, S.
2006 ‘Saul—Not Always—at War: A New Perspective on the Rise of Kingship in
Israel’, in C.S. Ehrlich and M.C. White (eds.), Saul in Story and Tradition
(FAT, 47; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck): 39-58.
Krüger, T.
2007 ‘“They Shall Beat Their Swords into Plowshares”: A Vision of Peace through
Justice and its Background in the Hebrew Bible’, in Raaflaub (ed.) 2007: 161-71.
Krygier, R.
2005 ‘Did God Command the Extermination of the Canaanites? The Rabbis’
Encounter with Genocide’, Conservative Judaism 57: 78-94.
Kunz, A.
2001 Zions Weg zum Frieden: Jüdische Vorstellungen vom endzeitlichen Krieg
und Frieden in hellenistischer Zeit am Beispiel vom Sacharja 9-14 (Beiträge
zur Friedensethik, 33; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer).
Kvasnica, B.
2008 ‘Shifts in Israelite War Ethics and Early Jewish Historiography of Plundering’,
in Kelle and Ames (eds.) 2008: 175-98.
Leiter, D.A.
2004 ‘Visions of Peace in Isaiah’, in J. Kaltner and L. Stulman (eds.), Inspired
Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. Essays in Honor of Herbert B.
Huffmon (JSOTSup, 378; London: T & T Clark): 244-52.
2007 Neglected Voices: Peace in the Old Testament (Scottdale: Herald).
Lemaire, A.
2007 ‘The Mesha Stele and the Omri Dynasty’, in Grabbe (ed.) 2007: 135-44.
Lemos, T.M.
2006 ‘Shame and Mutilation of Enemies in the Hebrew Bible’, JBL 125: 225-41.
Liau, T.
1993 ‘Theology of Warfare in Deuteronomy’, Taiwan Journal of Theology 15: 61-81.
Lichtenberger, H.
2006 ‘Friede durch Krieg? Vom imaginierten Krieg zum imaginierten Frieden in
Qumran’, BK 61: 144-49.
Lilley, J.P.U.
1993 ‘Understanding the Herem’, TynBul 44: 169-77.
1997 ‘The Judgment of God: The Problem of the Canaanites’, Them 22: 3-12.
Lind, M.C.
1980 Yahweh is a Warrior: The Theology of Warfare in Ancient Israel (Scottdale,
PA: Herald).
Lingen, A.V.D.
1990 Les Guerres de Yahvé: L’implication de Yhwh dans les guerres d’Israël selon
les livres Historiques de l’Ancien Testament (LD, 139; Paris: Éditions du Cerf).
Liver, J. (ed.)
1973 Military History of the Land of Israel in Biblical Times (Tel Aviv: Israel
Defense Forces). [In Hebrew]
Lohfink, N.
1989 ‘Der “heilige Krieg” und der “Bann” in der Bibel’, Internationale kirchliche
Zeitschrift 18: 104-12.
1992 Krieg und Staat im alten Israel (Beiträge für Friedensethik, 14; Barsbüttel:
Institut für Theologie und Frieden).
1994 ‘The Strata of the Pentateuch and the Question of War’, in Theology of the
Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy (trans. L.M.
Maloney; Edinburgh: T & T Clark): 173-226. [Orig. 1983: ‘Die Schichten des
Pentateuch und der Krieg’, in N. Lohfink (ed.), Gewalt und Gewaltlosigkeit
im Alten Testament (QD, 96; Freiburg: Herder): 51-110]
1995 ‘The Destruction of the Seven Nations in Deuteronomy and the Mimetic
Theory’, Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis and Culture 2: 103-17.
Longman, T., III
2003 ‘The Case for Spiritual Continuity’, in Cowles et al. (eds.) 2003: 159-90.
Longman, T., III, and D.G. Reid
1995 God is a Warrior (Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology; Grand
Rapids: Zondervan).
Lust, J.
2004a ‘Messianism in the Septuagint: Isaiah 8: 23B-9: 6 (9: 1-7)’, in Hauspie (ed.)
2004: 153-69. [Orig. 1998, in J. Karsovec (ed.), The Interpretation of the
Bible: The International Symposium in Slovenia (JSOTSup, 289; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press): 147-63]
2004b ‘Septuagint and Messianism, with a Special Emphasis on the Pentateuch’,
in Hauspie (ed.) 2004: 129-51. [Orig. 1997, in H.G. Reventlow (ed.),
Theologische Probleme der Septuaginta und der hellenistischen Hermeneutik
(Veröffenlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie, 11;
Gütersloh: Kaiser): 26-45]
Lyons, W.L.
2003 ‘Between History and Theology: The Problem of Herem in Modern
Evangelical Biblical Scholarship’ (PhD dissertation, Florida State University).
MacDonald, N.
2003 Deuteronomy and the Meaning of “Monotheism” (FAT, 2.1; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck).
Maier, J.
2004 ‘Amalek in the Writings of Josephus’, in his Studien zur jüdischen Bibel und
ihrer Geschichte (SJ, 28; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter): 219-36.
Martens, E.A.
2008 ‘Toward Shalom: Absorbing the Violence’, in Hess and Martens (eds.) 2008:
33-58.
Massmann, L.
2002 ‘Sanheribs Politik in Juda: Beobachtungen und Erwägungen zum Ausgang
der Konfrontation Hiskias mit den Assyrern’, in U. Hübner and E.A. Knauf
(eds.), Kein Land für sich allein: Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan,
Israel/Palästina und Ebirnâri für Manfred Weippert zum 65. Geburtstag
(OBO, 186; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht): 167-80.
McDonald, P.M.
2004 God and Violence: Biblical Resources for Living in a Small World (Scottdale,
PA: Herald).
Meier, S.
1991 ‘The King as Warrior in Samuel-Kings’, HAR 13: 63-76.
Meltzer, E.S.
2004 ‘Violence, Prejudice, and Religion: A Reflection on the Ancient Near East’,
in Ellens (ed.) 2004: 2.99-109.
Merrill, E.H.
2003 ‘The Case for Moderate Continuity’, in Cowles et al. (eds.) 2003: 61-98.
Miles, J.
2004 ‘The Disarmament of God’, in Ellens (ed.) 2004: 1.123-68.
Millard, A.
2009 ‘The Armor of Goliath’, in J.D. Schloen (ed.), Exploring the Longue Durée:
Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns): 337-44.
Miller, P.D
1973 The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (HSM, 5; Cambridge: Harvard University
Press).
Mitchell, G.
1995 ‘War, Folklore and the Mystery of a Disappearing Book’, JSOT 68: 113-19.
Moberly, R.W.L.
2007 ‘Is Monotheism Bad for You? Some Reflections on God, the Bible, and Life
in Light of Regina Schwartz’s The Curse of Cain’, in R.P. Gordon (ed.),
The God of Israel (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications, 64;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 94-112.
Monroe, L.A.S.
2007 ‘Israelite, Moabite and Sabaean War-herem Traditions and the Forging of
National Identity: Reconsidering the Sabaean Text RES 3945 in Light of
Biblical and Moabite Evidence’, VT 57: 318-41.
Moore, M.B.
2008 ‘Fighting in Writing: Warfare in Histories of Ancient Israel’, in Kelle and
Ames (eds.) 2008: 57-66.
Morriston, W.
2009 ‘Did God Command Genocide? A Challenge to the Biblical Inerrantist’,
PhilChr 11: 7-26.
Na’aman, N.
2002 ‘In Search of Reality behind the Account of David’s Wars with Israel’s
Neighbours’, IEJ 52: 200-24.
2007 ‘Royal Inscriptions versus Prophetic Story: Mesha’s Rebellion according to
Biblical and Moabite Historiography’, in Grabbe (ed.) 2007: 145-83.
Nannini, D.
2002 ‘La guerra santa en el Antiguo Testamento’, Revista Bíblica 64: 161-74.
Nel, M.
2006 ‘Daniel 7, Mythology and the Creation Combat Myths’, OTE 19: 156-70.
Nelson, R.D.
1997 ‘Herem and the Deuteronomic Social Conscience’, in J. Lust and M. Vervenne
(eds.), Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W.
Brekelmans (BETL, 133; Leuven: Leuven University Press): 39-54.
2003 ‘Divine Warrior Theology in Deuteronomy’, in B.A. Strawn and N.R. Bowen
(eds.), A God So Near: Essays on Old Testament Theology in Honor of
Patrick D. Miller (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns): 241-59.
Niditch, S.
1993a War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence (New York:
Oxford University Press).
1993b ‘War, Women, and Defilement in Numbers 31’, Semeia 61: 39-57.
2007 ‘War and Reconciliation in the Traditions of Ancient Israel: Historical,
Literary, and Ideological Considerations’, in Raaflaub (ed.) 2007: 141-60.
Niehaus, J.J.
1994 ‘The Warrior and his God: The Covenant Foundation of History and
Historiography’, in A.R. Millard, J.K. Hoffmeier, and D.W. Baker (eds.),
Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in its Near
Eastern Context (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns): 299-312.
Niessen, C., and G. Hentschel
2008 ‘Der Bruderkrieg zwischen Israel und Benjamin (Ri 20)’, Bib 89: 17-38.
Nissinen, M.
2003 ‘Fear Not: A Study on an Ancient Near Eastern Phrase’, in M.A. Sweeney
and E.B. Zvi (eds.), The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-
First Century (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans): 122-61.
Noort, E.
1994 ‘Das Kapitulationsangebot im Kriegsgesetz Dtn 20: 10ff. und in den
Kriegserzählungen’, in F.G. Martínez et al. (eds.), Studies in Deuteronomy: In
Honour of C. J. Labuschagne on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (VTSup,
53; Leiden: Brill): 197-222.
Oded, B.
1993 ‘“And I Will Give Peace in the Land” (Lev. 26: 6)—Assyrian Perspective’,
ErIsr 24: 148-57. [In Hebrew]
Oeming, M.
2006 ‘Suche Frieden und jage ihm nach! (Ps 34,15): Der umstrittene Weg zum
Frieden im Alten Testament’, BK 61: 126-29.
Ollenburger, B.C.
1991 ‘Gerhard von Rad’s Theory of Holy War’, Introduction to von Rad 1991:
1-33.
1994 ‘Peace and God’s Action against Chaos in the Old Testament’, in M.E. Miller
and B.N. Gingerich (eds.), The Church’s Peace Witness (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans): 70-88.
2009 ‘Creation and Peace: Creator and Creature in Genesis 1-11’, in J. Isaak (ed.),
The Old Testament in the Life of God’s People: Essays in Honor of Elmer A.
Martens (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns): 143-58.
Ortlund, E.
2007 ‘Intentional Ambiguity in Old Testament and Ugaritic Descriptions of Divine
Conflict’, UF 38: 543-56.
2010 Theophany and Chaoskampf: The Interpretation of Theophanic Imagery
in the Baal Epic, Isaiah, and the Twelve (Gorgias Ugaritic Studies, 5;
Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias).
Otto, E.
1994 ‘Das Kriegslager-die Wiege der altisraelitischen JHWH-Religion?: Tendenzen
der Kriegsüberwindung im Alten Testament und ihre Begründungen’, in
H.M. Niemann, M. Augustin, and W.H. Schmidt (eds.), Nachdenken über
Israel, Bibel und Theologie: Festschrift für Klaus-Dietrich Schunck zu sei-

nem 65. Geburtstag (BEATAJ, 37; Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang): 357-73.
1996 ‘Krieg und Religion im Alten Orient und im alten Israel’, in P. Herrmann (ed.),
Glaubenskriege in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht): 37-47.
1999 Krieg und Frieden in der Hebräischen Bibel and im Alten Orient: Aspekte für
eine Friedensordnung in der Moderne (Theologie und Frieden, 18; Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer).
Park, H.D.
2007 Finding Herem?: A Study of Luke-Acts in the Light of Herem (Library of New
Testament Studies, 357; London: T & T Clark).
Perdue, L.G.
1994 The Collapse of History: Reconstructing Old Testament Theology (OBT;
Minneapolis: Fortress).
2005 Reconstructing Old Testament Theology: After the Collapse of History (OBT;
Minneapolis: Fortress).
Perkins, L.
2007 ‘“The Lord is a Warrior”—“The Lord Who Shatters Wars”: Exod 15: 3 and
Jdt 9: 7; 16: 2’, BIOSCS 40: 121-38.
Pitkänen, P.
2007 ‘Memory, Witnesses and Genocide in the Book of Joshua’, in J.G. McConville
and K. Möller (eds.), Reading the Law: Studies in Honour of Gordon J.
Wenham (Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, 461; New York:
T & T Clark): 267-82.
Podella, T.
1993 ‘Der “Chaoskampfmythos” im Alten Testament: Eine Problemanzeige’, in
M. Dietrich and O. Loretz (eds.), Mesopotamica–Ugaritica–Biblica:
Festschrift für Kurt Bergerhof zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres am 7.
Mai 1992 (AOAT, 232; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener): 283-330.
Raaflaub, K.A. (ed.)
2007 War and Peace in the Ancient World (The Ancient World: Comparative
Histories; Malden: Blackwell).
Rakel, C.J.
2003 Über Schönheit, Macht und Widerstand im Krieg: Eine feministisch-intertex-
tuelle Lektüre (BZAW, 334; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter).
2004 ‘Die Feier der Errettung im Alten Testament als Einspruch gegen den Krieg’,
in Das Fest: Jenseits des Alltags (Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie, 18;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag): 169-201.
Rauser, R.
2009 ‘“Let Nothing That Breathes Remain Alive”: On the Problem of Divinely
Commanded Genocide’, PhilChr 11: 27-41.
Reventlow, H.G.
1994 ‘The Biblical and Classical Traditions of “Just War”’, in H.G. Reventlow, Y.
Hoffman, and B. Uffenheimer (eds.), Politics and Theopolitics in the Bible
and Postbiblical Literature (JSOTSup, 171; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press): 160-75.
Reviv, H.
1992 ‘Military Elite and Politics: Dismal Episodes in the History of the Northern
Kingdom’, in M. Fishbane and E. Tov (eds.), “Sha’arei Talmon”: Studies in the
Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to Shemaryahu Talmon
(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns): 93*-97*. [In Hebrew; English abstract p. xx]
Roberts, J.J.M.
2004 ‘The End of War in the Zion Tradition: The Imperialistic Background of an
Old Testament Vision of World Wide Peace’, HBT 26: 2-23.
Rocca, S.
2010 The Fortifications of Ancient Israel and Judah 1200–586 bc (Oxford:
Osprey).
Rodd, C.S.
2001 Glimpses of a Strange Land: Studies in Old Testament Ethics (Edinburgh: T
& T Clark).
Rogerson, J.W.
1993 ‘The Enemy in the Old Testament’, in A.G. Auld (ed.), Understanding Poets
and Prophets: Essays in Honour of George Wishart Anderson (JSOTSup,
152; Sheffield: JSOT): 284-93.
Römer, T.
1998 Dieu obscur: Le sexe, la cruauté et la violence dans l’Ancien Testament
(Essais Bibliques, 27; Geneva: Labor et Fides).
Rose, M.
1976 ‘Erwägungen zu den Patriarchen-Erzählungen der Genesis’, BZ 20: 197-211.
Roszkowska-Mutschler, H.
1992 ‘Some Remarks on the Execration of Defeated Enemy Cities by the Hittite
Kings’, JACiv 7: 1-12.
Routledge, R.
2010 ‘Did God Create Chaos? Unresolved Tension in Genesis 1–2’, TynBul 61:
69-88.
Rowlett, L.L.
1996 Joshua and the Rhetoric of Violence: A New Historicist Analysis (JSOTSup,
226; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press).
Rudavsky, D.C.
1998 ‘In Defense of Tradition: Haftarat Zachor in the Light of Purim’, Judaism 47:
80-87.
Ruffing, A.
1992 Jahwekrieg als Weltmetaphor: Studien zu Jahwekriegtexten des chronist-
ischen Sondergutes (SBB, 24; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk).
Sagi, A.
1994 ‘The Punishment of Amalek in Jewish Tradition: Coping with the Moral
Problem’, HTR 87: 323-46.
Sanderson, J.E.
1991 ‘War, Peace, and Justice in the Hebrew Bible: A Representative Bibliography’,
a supplemental bibliography in von Rad 1991: 135-66.
Sasaki, T.
2001 The Concept of War in the Book of Judges: A Strategical Evaluation of the
Wars of Gideon, Deborah, Samson, and Abimelech (Tokyo: Gakujutsu Tosho
Shuppan-sha).
Schäfer-Lichtenberger, C.
1994 ‘Bedeutung und Funktion von Herem in biblisch-hebräischen Texten’, BZ 38:
270-75.
Scherer, A.
2005 Überlieferungen von Religion und Krieg: Exegetische und religionsgeschich-
tliche Untersuchungen zu Richter 3-8 und verwandten Texten (WMANT,
105; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener).
2008 ‘Zu Rudolf Kittel: Alttestamentliche Kriegeskonzepte im Spiegel der
Zeitgeschichte’, in T. Wagner, D. Vieweger, and K. Erlemann (eds.), Kontexte:
Biografische und forschungsgeschichtliche Schnittpunkte der alttestamentli-
chen Wissenschaft. Festschrift für Hans Jochen Boecker zum 80. Geburtstag
(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener): 115-30.
Schultz, B.
2009 Conquering the World: The War Scroll (1QM) Reconsidered (STDJ, 76;
Leiden: Brill).
Schwartz, B.J.
2004 ‘Reexamining the Fate of the “Canaanites” in the Torah Traditions’, in C.
Cohen, A. Hurvitz, and S.M. Paul (eds.), Sefer Moshe: The Moshe Weinfeld
Jubilee Volume: Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East, Qumran, and
Post-Biblical Judaism (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns): 151-70.
Schwartz, R.
1997 The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism (Chicago: University
of Chicago).
Seevers, B.
1998 ‘The Practice of Ancient Near Eastern Warfare with Comparison to the
Biblical Accounts of Warfare from the Conquest to the End of the United
Monarchy’ (PhD dissertation, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School).
Sheldon, R.M.
2005 ‘Review of The Military History of Ancient Israel, by Richard A. Gabriel’,
Journal of Military History 69: 197-204.
Sherlock, C.
1993 The God Who Fights: The War Tradition in Holy Scripture (Rutherford
Studies in Contemporary Theology, 6; Lewiston: E. Mellen).
Shmuelevitz, A.W., M. Gichon, and J. Wallach (eds.)
2007 Battlefield: Decisive Battles in the Land of the Bible (Tel Aviv: University of
Tel Aviv). [In Hebrew]
Siedlecki, A.
1999 ‘Foreigners, Warfare and Judahite Identity in Chronicles’, in M.P. Graham
and S.L. McKenzie (eds.), The Chronicler as Author: Studies in Text and
Texture (JSOTSup, 263; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 229-66.
Smend, R.
1970 Yahweh War and Tribal Confederation: Reflections upon Israel’s Earliest
History (Nashville: Abingdon).
Smit, J.H.
1994 ‘Aspects of Ancient Near Eastern Warfare in Jeremiah 2–25’ (PhD disserta-
tion, University of Stellenbosch).
Smith, M.S.
1995 ‘Anat’s Warfare Cannibalism and the West Semitic Ban’, in S.W. Holloway
and L.K. Handy (eds.), The Pitcher is Broken: Memorial Essays for Gosta W.
Ahlstrom (JSOTSup, 190; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 368-86.
Smith-Christopher, D.L.
2004 ‘Ezekiel in Abu Ghraib: Rereading Ezekiel 16: 37-39 in the Context
of Imperial Conquest’, in S.L. Cook and C.L. Patton (eds.), Ezekiel’s
Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality (SBLSymS, 31; Atlanta:
Society of Biblical Literature): 141-58.
2008 ‘Gideon at Thermopylae? On the Militarization of Miracle in Biblical
Narrative and “Battle Maps”’, in Kelle and Ames (eds.) 2008: 197-212.
Smoak, J.D.
2008 ‘Assyrian Siege Warfare Imagery and the Background of a Biblical Curse’, in
Kelle and Ames (eds.) 2008: 83-91.
Spero, S.
2006 ‘Why the Walls of Jericho Came Tumbling Down’, JBQ 34: 86-91.
Sprinkle, J.M.
1999 ‘2 Kings 3: History or Historical Fiction?’, BBR 9: 247-70.
2000 ‘Deuteronomic “Just War” (Deut. 20,10-20) and 2 Kings 3,27’, ZABR 6:
285-301.
Steinberg, N.
1999 ‘The Problem of Human Sacrifice in War: An Analysis of Judges 11’, in S.L.
Cook and S.C. Winter (eds.), On the Way to Nineveh: Studies in Honor of
George M. Landes (ASOR Books, 4; Atlanta: Scholars Press): 114-35.
Stern, P.D.
1989 ‘1 Samuel 15: Towards an Ancient View of the War-Herem’, UF 21: 413-20.
1990 ‘The Cherem in 1 Kgs 20: 42 as an Exegetical Problem’, Bib 71: 43-47.
1991 The Biblical Herem: A Window on Israel’s Religious Experience (BJS, 211;
Atlanta: Scholars).
1999 ‘Isaiah 34, Chaos, and the Ban’, in R. Chazan, W.W. Hallo, and L.H.
Schiffman (eds.), Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic
Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns): 387-400.
Stevenson, J.S.
2002 ‘Judah’s Successes and Failures in Holy War: An Exegesis of Judges 1:
1-20’, Restoration Quarterly 44: 43-54.
Stolz, F.
1972 Jahwes und Israels Kriege: Kriegstheorien und Kriegserfahrungen im
Glauben des alten Israels (ATANT, 60; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag).
Stone, G.R.
1994 ‘Great Bible Battles’, Buried History 30: 11-33.
Stone, L.G.
1991 ‘Ethical and Apologetic Tendencies in the Redaction of the Book of Joshua’,
CBQ 53: 25-35.
Suzuki, Y.
1995 ‘A New Aspect of h.rm in Deuteronomy in View of an Assimilation Policy of
King Josiah’, AJBI 21: 3-27.
Thistlethwaite, S.B.
1993 ‘“You May Enjoy the Spoil of Your Enemies”: Rape as a Biblical Metaphor
for War’, Semeia 61: 59-75.
Thompson, T.L.
2007a ‘A Testimony of the Good King: Reading the Mesha Stele’, in Grabbe (ed.)
2007: 236-92.
2007b ‘Mesha and Questions of Historicity’, SJOT 21: 241-60.
Tomes, R.
1993 ‘The Reason for the Syro-Ephraimite War’, JSOT 59: 55-71.
Trudinger, P.L.
2001 ‘Friend or Foe?: Earth, Sea and Chaoskampf in the Psalms’, in N.C. Habel
(ed.), The Earth Story in the Psalms and the Prophets (Earth Bible, 4;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 29-41.
Tsumura, D.T.
2005 Creation and Destruction: A Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf Theory in the
Old Testament (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns).
Ussishkin, D.
2006 ‘Sennacherib’s Campaign to Philistia and Judah: Ekron, Lachish, and
Jerusalem’, in O. Lipschits et al. (eds.), Essays on Ancient Israel in its Near
Eastern Context: A Tribute to Nadav Na’aman (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns):
339-57.
Valentine, L.
2006 ‘War and Resistance in the Old Testament’, in P. Buckley and S.W. Angell
(eds.), Quaker Bible Reader (Richmond, IN: Earlham School of Religion):
60-81.
Van der Deijl, A.
2008 Protest or Propaganda: War in the Old Testament Book of Kings and in
Contemporaneous Ancient Near Eastern Texts (SSN, 51; Leiden: Brill).
Van Dyk, P.
2003 ‘Violence and the Old Testament’, OTE 16: 96-112.
Van Seters, J.
1990 ‘Joshua’s Campaign of Canaan and Near Eastern Historiography’, SJOT 2:
1-12.
2009 The Biblical Saga of King David (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns).
Vera, J.L.
1997 ‘Exode 13,17–14,31 et la bataille de Qadesh’, in M. Sigrist (ed.), Études
égyptologiques et bibliques: à la mémoire du Père B. Couroyer (CahRB, 36;
Paris: J. Gabalda): 29-42.
Vervenne, M.
1991 ‘“Satanic Verses”? Violence and War in the Bible’, in R. Burggraeve and
M. Vervenne (eds.), Swords into Plowshares: Theological Reflections on
Peace (Louvain Theological and Pastoral Monographs, 8; Louvain: Peeters):
65-126.
2003 ‘Violent Imagery in the Hebrew Bible: Satanic Verses or Anti-metaphors?’
in K. Kiesow and T. Meurer (eds.), Textarbeit: Studien zu Texten und ihrer
Rezeption aus dem Alten Testament und der Umwelt Israels (AOAT, 294;
Münster: Ugarit-Verlag): 523-43.
Volf, M.
2008 ‘Christianity and Violence’, in Hess and Martens (eds.) 2008: 1-18.
Von Rad, G.
1991 Holy War in Ancient Israel (trans. M.J. Dawn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
[German orig. 1951; 3rd edn 1958: Der Heilige Krieg im alten Israel
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht)]
Walton, J.H.
2008 ‘Creation in Genesis 1: 1–2: 3 and the Ancient Near East: Order out of Dis-
order after Chaoskampf’, Calvin Theological Journal 43: 48-63.
Walzer, M.
1992 ‘The Idea of Holy War in Ancient Israel’, JRE 20: 215-28.
Washington, H.C.
1997 ‘Violence and the Construction of Gender in the Hebrew Bible: A New
Historical Approach’, BibInt 5: 324-63.
1998 ‘“Lest He Die in Battle and Another Man Take Her”: Violence and the
Construction of Gender in the Laws of Deuteronomy 20–22’, in V. Matthews,
B.M. Levinson, and T. Frymer-Kensky (eds.), Gender and Law in the
Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (JSOTSup, 262; Sheffield: Sheffield
Watson, R.S.
2005 Chaos Uncreated: A Reassessment of the Theme of ‘Chaos’ in the Hebrew
Bible (BZAW, 341; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter).
Watts, J.D.W.
2001 ‘Jerusalem: An Example of War in a Walled City’, in L.L. Grabbe and
R.D. Haak (eds.), ‘Every City Shall be Forsaken’: Urbanism and Prophecy
in Ancient Israel and the Near East (JSOTSup, 330; Sheffield: Sheffield
Wazana, N.
2008 ‘Are Trees of the Field Human? A Biblical War Law (Deuteronomy 20:
19-20) and Neo-Assyrian Propaganda’, in M. Cogan and D. Kahn (eds.),
Treasures on Camels’ Humps: Historical and Literary Studies from the
Ancient Near East Presented to Israel Eph’al (Jerusalem: Magnes): 274-95.
Weimar, P.
1976 ‘Die Jahwekriegserzählungen in Exodus 14, Josua 10, Richter 4 und 1 Samuel
7’, Bib 57: 38-73.
Weinfeld, M.
1993 ‘The Ban on the Canaanites in the Biblical Codes and its Historical
Development’, in A. Lemaire and B. Otzen (eds.), History and Traditions of
Early Israel: Studies Presented to Eduard Nelson, May 8th, 1993 (VTSup,
50; Leiden: Brill): 142-60.
Weippert, M.
1972 ‘Heiliger Krieg in Israel und Assyrien: Kritische Anmerkungen zu Gerhard
von Rads Konzept des Heiligen Krieges im alten Israel’, ZAW 84: 460-93.
Whitney, K.W.
2006 Two Strange Beasts: Leviathan and Behemoth in Second Temple and Early
Rabbinic Judaism (HSM, 63; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns).
Wiley, H.L.
2005 ‘The War Herem as Martial Ritual Service and Sacrifice’, Proceedings –
Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies 25: 69-76.
Wilt, T.L.
1993 ‘Jonah: A Battle of Shifting Alliances’, in P.R. Davies and D.J.A. Clines
(eds.), Among the Prophets: Language, Image and Structure in the Prophetic
Writings (JSOTSup,144; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 164-82.
Winandy, P.
1998 ‘God and War in the Old Testament’, Journal of the Adventist Theological
Society 9: 318-25.
Wood, J.A.
1998 Perspectives on War in the Bible (Macon: Mercer University Press).
Wright, C.J.H.
2008 The God I Don’t Understand: Reflections on Tough Questions of Faith
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan).
Wright, J.L.
2008a ‘Military Valor and Kingship: A Book-Oriented Approach to the Study of a
Major War Theme’, in Kelle and Ames (eds.) 2008: 33-56.
2008b ‘Warfare and Wanton Destruction: A Reexamination of Deuteronomy 20:
19-20 in Relation to Ancient Siegecraft’, JBL 127: 423-58.
2009 ‘War, Ideas of’, in New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols.;
Nashville: Abingdon): 5.800-805.
Wright, J.W.
1997 ‘The Fight for Peace: Narrative and History in the Battle Accounts in
Chronicles’, in M.P. Graham, K.G. Hoglund, and S.L. McKenzie (eds.),
The Chronicler as Historian (JSOTSup, 238; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press): 150-77.
Wyatt, N.
1998 ‘Arms and the King: The Earliest Allusions to the Chaoskampf Motif and their
Implications for the Interpretation of the Ugaritic and Biblical Traditions’, in
M. Dietrich and I. Kottsieper (eds.), ‘Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf’:
Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient (AOAT, 250; Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag): 833-82. [Repr. 2005, in ‘There’s Such Divinity Doth Hedge
a King’: Selected Essays of Nicolas Wyatt on Royal Ideology in Ugaritic and
Old Testament Literature (Burlington, VT: Ashgate): 151-89]
Yadin, A.
2004 ‘Goliath’s Armor and Israelite Collective Memory’, VT 54: 373-95.
Yadin, Y.
1963 The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands in the Light of Archaeological Study (2
vols.; trans. M. Pearlman; New York: McGraw-Hill).
Yamaga, T.
2004-2005 ‘The So-Called Syro-Ephraimite War in the Books of Kings and in the Books
of Chronicles’, AJBI 30-31: 31-60.
Yee, G.A.
1993 ‘By the Hand of a Woman: The Metaphor of the Woman Warrior in Judges
4’, Semeia 61: 99-132.
Younger, K.L., Jr
1990 Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical
History Writing (JSOTSup, 98; Sheffield: JSOT).
2008 ‘The Rhetorical Structuring of the Joshua Conquest Narratives’, in R.S. Hess,
G.A. Klingbeil, and P.J. Ray, Jr (eds.), Critical Issues in Early Israelite
History (BBRSup, 3; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns): 3-32.
Zevit, Z.
2007 ‘The Search for Violence in Israelite Culture and in the Bible’, in D.A. Bernat
and J. Klawans (eds.), Religion and Violence: The Biblical Heritage (RRBS,
2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press): 16-37.

Recent Research On Warfare in The Old Testament

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Recent Research On Warfare in The Old Testament

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Recent Research On Warfare in The Old Testament

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article

Currents in Biblical Research

Survey of Histories on Old Testament Warfare

Old Testament Warfare Research Pre-1990

Dozeman’s God at War (1996), a tradition-history study of the Exodus tradi-

Herem in Israelite Warfare

Warfare in Psalms and Chronicles

approaches: the evolutionary approach, the cultural relativists’ approach, the

Ancient Near Eastern Connections

Thus, correspondingly, these non-cultic military activities, carried out by mercenaries,

Enuma Elish operated as a foundational narrative for Assyrian warfare ideology.

(Isa. 2; Mic. 4) is an imperial peace under a sovereign Yhwh, who adjudicates

Collins, in his 2002 presidential address to the Society of Biblical Literature,

Early Reception History

at some of the research on the early religious traditions of Judaism, Christianity,

and A. Millard (eds.), The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing

Israel, Bibel und Theologie: Festschrift für Klaus-Dietrich Schunck zu sei-

You might also like