Análisis de los microcurrículos implementados a partir de los propósitos y estructura

Victory Song (Nu 21.27-30) is essentially a taunt-song. Taunt elements are especially evident in the Song of the Sea (Ex 15.4-5, 9-10,l4f.). Craigie considers the Song of Lamecb (Gen 4,23-4) to be an ancient example of taunt-song (II3).

In a historical context ire may note the taunts directed against the Jerusalem garrison by Assyrian emissaries (2 K 18.17-35; 19.10-13). Significantly, the curse-taunt tradition is taken up in later Old Testament literature. S. Mowinckel notes that the ancient idea and form of the curse are reflected in the expressing of a cursing wish against the enemy which is apparent in many of the Psalms of personal lament (ll4). In another series of Psalms the curse takes the form of a prayer for Yahweh to take action against the enemy (I1 5).

Themes and motifs in the prophetic writings indicate the importance of the pejorative and denigrating word against the enemy. By their very nature the prophetic oracles against the nations are essentially pronouncements of doom, and therefore in a sense may be seen as

equivalent to the ancient battle-curse (1 1 6). Thus it is variously indicated in the oracles that the enemy city or land is in fact

cursed: cities and land are made desolate by war, they are devoid of human habitation, they become the dwelling-place of wild creatures

(1 1 7). Similarly the motif of total annihilation is indicative of the ancient herem-curse (II8).

A unique feature of the prophetic prediction and warning of doom and disaster for the nations is the characteristic description of the effect of their downfall upon those who observe it. Thus passers-by will be astonished at the sight, will wag their heads, will hiss

(presumably the reference is to the drawing in of the breath in horror or astonishment), the hearer’s ears will tingle (1 1 9).

Further, the nations are to become "a reproach and a proverb" (jer 24.9; Ezk 5.14,15; cf 1 K 9.7 = 2 Chr 7*20), "a taunt and a curse"

(jer 24.9; 44.22; Bzk 5.15), "a derision" (jer 48.39), **an execration and an astonishment, a curse and a reproach" (jer 44.12); (in these passages, apart from a reference to Moab (Jer 48.39), the judgment is upon Israel and Judah).

The prophetic oracles also preserve and develop specific taunt elements. Thus, the enemies are characterised as weak and helpless, overcome by fear, trembling and confusion; their transitory nature

is especially derided (l 20). In addition, enemy warriors are said to be like women (is 1 9.I6; Jer 50,37; Nah 3*13); their distress will be as the pangs of childbirth (is 13*8? Jer 48.4l; 49.22b,24; 50.43;

23

Battle tactics and strategy

Although not strictly speaking indicative of holy war, the following examples of strategic practice provide important corroboration of the primitive nature of Hebrew warfare as well as evidence of the reality of the fighting (vide infra p p6 0-6l).

Initial disruption of the enemy by a small force

A notable battle practice is the tactic of engaging and disrupting the enemy’s front-line by means of a relatively small force while holding the main body of the army in reserve for the pursuit and final rout. This may well be the real strategy of Gideon’s reduction of his original forces to three hundred picked men (ju 7.2-8). These | mount the initial attack (vv 19-22), after which a vastly increased ; number, including reservists summoned by messengers from neighbouring ! communities, join in the pursuit and slaughter of the enemy ( w 23f f ) . ! A distinct holy war motif is apparent in Yahweh’s promise to deliver \

the enemy by a small force (%nr 2,7). |

A comparable strategy is presented in Ahab's battle against Ben-hadad | (l K 20.15,17,19-20). Here the "n^ farim", a force of only two hundred and thirty-two warriors, spearhead the attack, disrupting the enemy

j

and putting them to flight, then the militia ("all the people, all

Israel" w 15b, 19b,20f. ) pursue and destroy them. Again the holy war i motif is evident, although less explicitly stated, in the divine ÿ promise to deliver the enemy by a small force (v 14).

Ambush tactics

Some evidence of ambush tactics is found in the following passages: Josh 8.14-22; Ju 20.29-43; 2 Chr 13.13? cf Ju 9-32,34,43.

We may also note the use of outflanking movements to cut off the enemy’s retreat (Ju 7 «24). Similar flanking movements are indicated

in the deployment of the afmy in three columns. This technique was used to advantage by Gideon (Ju 7«16,19-22), Abimelech (ju 9.43 — V 34 indicates four sections, cf w 36f, ), Saul (1 Sam 11.11), and David (2 Sam 18.2).

Siege warfare

The indications in Joshua-Judges are that the earliest Hebrew armies were without knowledge of siege tactics and unaccustomed to laying

g

- '

siege to cities. This accounts for the strategy employed in the taking of the city of Ai (Josh 6.15-22): Joshua draws away the city garrison with part of his army; the remainder, from ambush positions, |

enter and destroy the city; the decoy troops turn and face the enemy, %

and at the same time the contingents which took the city attack the J enemy from the rear.

In the idealised war-narrative of the Battle of Jericho no mention whatever is made of a siege. After the ritualistic perambulation of >

the city the walls fall down, the city is taken and the inhabitants ^ are slaughtered (josh 6.20f) (l2l).

According to Joshua 10.19 Joshua is concerned that the enemy should be defeated before they are able to reach their defenced cities;

when the survivors do in fact reach their cities Joshua’s men break 1

off the engagement ( w 20b-21). In the same chapter, as a sequel to the slaughter of the kings, verse 28 notes simply that Joshua "took Halckedah and smote it with the edge of the sword". (por the same

general phraseology note also: Josh 10.29f,31,32,34f,36f,38f; $

11.10,12). The notable feature of these battle narratives is that there is no explicit reference to siege-works and no instance of a technical siege-terminology apart from general phrases such as

"encamped against",, "fought against", or "took the city"; the main emphasis is on the final act of herern-slaughter,

Little development towards siege practice is apparent in the Book of Judges. Thus, for the first part of the attack on Shechem no direct siege is indicated. The initial engagements take place outsine the city (Ju 9'39f;43,44b). Verse 45 states in general terms that:

"Abimelech fought against the city all that day and took the city". The final action is only slightly more explicit in the matter of

siege procedure; branches are cut from trees for the burning of the

fortified tower of Shechem (vv 48f). During a similar attempt to burn down the tower in Thebez Abimelech is killed by a mill-stone dropped from the wall (Ju 9*51ff). This incident clearly shows that Abimelech and his men had no proper siege-works or any kind of

defence against stones or weapons thrown from the walls.

Por the period of the monarchy the books of Samuel and kings present in the main only general references to siege (122). In one instance

(which recalls Josh 10.19) David orders Abishai to pursue the rebel

Sheba ben Bichri before the latter can occupy fortified cities ( 2 Sam 20.6). On the other hand there are two references to the

raising of earthworks ( 7? 4^ D _{•• T : ■ > - T} ) against citv walls (2 Sam 20.15? V-_iî 2 K 1 9 . 3 2 = Is 3 7 .3 3).

The technical terminology of siege warfare is explicit in a few

passages ir Lzekiel (1 2 3). 3

ÿ -c

The Deuteronomic war code incorporates formal regulations for siege warfare (Dt 20.10-20). In keeping with the theological tone and

emphasis of the writers, these regulations are less concerned with the technical strategy of siege than with the final act of ritual slaughter and the humane treatment of women prisoners (for the latter

cf Dt 21.10-14 ). A humanitarian motive is also disceimible in the

unique law prohibiting the cutting down of fruit trees for the

building of siege-works. This ordinance reflects the interests of a settled community rather than the context of invasion and conquest; we may contrast the Indiscriminate destruction of trees, along with

the spoiling of fields and wells, reported in the action against the cities of Moab (2 K 3.19,25)* Furthermore, the reference to wooden siege-works (Dt 20.20, the only other such reference is in Jer 6 .6 )

presupposes a siege technique in advance of the practice (i.e. the throwing up of a mound, 2 Sam 20.15; 2 K 19,32) indicated for the

monarchic period. An earlier practice is also indicated in the fact ₁ that the cutting of wood reported in Judges 9.48f., is not for the j

construction of siege-works but for the burning of the city keep. | Another characteristic feature of the Deuteronomic siege-law is that | distant cities are to be treated differently from those near at hand | (Dt 20.10-15,16f); von Rad rightly notes the theoretic nature of this j

distinction (124). j

The use of trumpets

An important and varied role is assigned to the t37umpet in ancient Hebrew warfare. Two types of instrument are presented in the Old

Testament, The earliest references show that the ram’s horn ( *7Di*-^) !

(1 2 5) is essentially the battle-trumpet, and its use is consistently

attested throughout the holy war tradition from the earliest war-

J

narratives to the latest post-exilic prophetic writings. Later and

slightly less frequent reference is made to priestly ceremonial j trumpets ( V H ) . These are in fact the instruments of the ; second Temple and are featured particularly in the Priestly Code (126) and in the Chronicler’s work. The occur mainly (but not

exclusively) in the context of cultic rites and festivals. Their basically cultic and ceremonial provenance is further indicated in

that they invariably appear in conjunction with other musical ,

instruments (l2?)• ^

The military function of the _T" is variously indicated. ] Undoubtedly the most primitive usage is preserved in the narrative

of Gideon’s night-attack on the Midianites. A notable feature here 4

• • ■ '26'''"'^

horn (1 2S) (ju 7,16,18,19,20,22). The purpose of the sounding of

horns, breaking jars, and showing torches simultaneously from three i

sides of the enemy camp is essentially to create panic and . |

confusion (vv 21f),

By contrast, the equally idealistic presentation of the Battle of V

Jericho features the horn as an integral part of the cultic |

perambulation of the city. Consonant with the cultic nature of this 'U

pre-battle ceremony is the fact that it is seven priests who carry |

the horns (Josh 6.4,6,8,13,16,20; note the regulation laid down by the Priestly tradition in Nu 10.8 with reference to the ceremonial trumpets).

In more realistic terms other Old Testament war-narratives indicate as a primary function of the horn the summoning of the battle levy

(Ju 3.27; 6.34; 1 Sam 13.3f; 2 Sam 20.1f; cf 2 Sam 15.10) (129).

According to a much later passage, Nehemiah 4.l4(EVV 20), the

will sound battle-stations for the defence of the walls of Jerusalem, -g

Signals for breaking off pursuit (2 Sam 2.28; 18.16) and for the

withdrawal of troops (2 Sam 20.22) are also given by the horn. y

Sufficient evidence in the prophetic writings confirms the importance

of the war-trumpet in the holy war tradition. The call of the _ir

to prepare for war is clearly indicated in several passages (1 3 0), Two explicit references associate the horn with the Day of Yahweh

(Joel 2.1 ; Zeph 1 ,16; cf Is 2 7 «13, Joel 2.15). Noteworthy also are 3

two references to Yahweh coming as a warrior complete with I D /66/

(Zech 9.14; Ps 4 7 «6(BW 5).

With reference to the use of _; in a war context, two notable

examples are found in the Chronicler’s history. Second Chronicles 13.12,14 clearly indicate the use of the ceremonial trumpets by priests prior to and during battle. Even more significant is the

evidence of 2 Chronicles 20.28 . Here the ti'umpet does not appear in connection with the summoning of troops to battle or as a tacticalÿ signal in battle, but in the context of victory thanksgiving and in

association with other musical instruments (vide supra, note (1 2 7);

the reference to trumpet and horn in Ps 98.6 may originally belong

to the celebration of victory).

In its detailed intructions for the use of the ceremonial trumpets

the Priestly Code conveniently summarises the holy war tradition of |

battle-trumpet. According to Numbers 10 the are to be

used to summon the community (#1*1VI vv 2,3) or general assembly

( 4^ ^ V 7), to call the chiefs of the "thousands" (131 ) of Israel (v 4), and to signal breaking camp (vv 2,5,6). More generally they are to be sounded on purely ceremonial occasions (v 10). The most significant reference for our study, however, is in verse 9 * Here

Battie-shout

the meaning, indeed the raison d ’etre, of the war-trumpet is made clear. In the press of battle the trumpet-call is to "serve as a reminder on your behalf before Yahweh your God, and you will be delivered from your enemies" . Tliere would seem to be a twofold significance here, pointing conclusively to the talking up by the priestly tradition of original elements of the holy war tradition. Firstly, the sounding of the trumpet "for remembrance" is in a sense equivalent to the ancient appeal to Yahweh or "cry to Yahweh" before battle (vide supra pp 1 ; note also the recurrence of the "cry to Yahweh" in the battle episode 2 Chr 13.14 , supra p 26).

Secondly, as with the ancient practice of war-speech and oracular enquiry (vide supra pp 18-2l), the trurapet-call-appeal of Numbers 10.9 is answered by the words of victory-assurance (albeit in slightly altered fomn): "...and you will be delivered from your enemies". Exactly the same kind of assurance accompanies the call to battle-

stations in Nehemiah 4.1 4feW20) î**Wherever the trumpet sounds, rally to us there, auid our God will fight for us". Again, in 2 Chronicles 13 , after the sounding of the trumpets and the battle-shout, Yahweh intervenes on behalf of the men of Judah, smites Jeroboam and Israel, and, here precisely in the wording of the ancient war tradition,

"delivers them into their hand" ( w l4ff).

In this connection also it may be suggested that the miraculous collapse of the walls of Jericho relates in a similar way to the

preliminary cultic procession and following trumpet-blast and battle- shout. Yahweh’s intervention in response to a cultic appeal is also ‘

''il illustrated in 1 Samuel 7*10 : as Samuel offers sacrifice Yahweh , thunders against the Philistines and throws them into confusion. 1

■I

In document Reflexión analítica y contextual del proyecto educativo del programa de contaduría publica Universidad del Valle [recurso electrónico] (página 124-200)