Problemas socioambientales derivados de la Minería

case of betrothal (and marriage, Dt 24.5), the underlying and original rationale is connected most probably with the concept of sexual ? defilement and the sex tabu of the ancient cultic warrior (cf supra p 38). House-building and vineyard—planting may not seem at first " sight to have any comparable cultic basis. We may presume, however, that these categories (along with the betrothed and newly wed) receive some cultic significance from the very fact that they are inaugural , undertakings rendering the respective men ritually tabu as far as

military service is concerned. J. Pedersen considers that the sin involved in the non-fulfilment of an undertaking would present a

kh

specifically, G. von Rad, following F . Schwally, notes that the

bridegroom, according to primitive belief, was particularly vulnerable.-^ to demonic powers (2 4 3). This may well have applied equally to men

committed to other inaugural activities, in which case such men would have been regarded as potentially dangerous to the army and to the 4 sacral enterprise of war. On the other hand another factor may be

relevant to the exclusion of the house-builder and vineyard-planter ? from military service, namely the fundamental rejection of permanent houses and the cultivation of the vine by representatives of ancient nomadic Yahwism, notably the Rechabites and possibly (with reference |

to the vine) the ancient nazirite warriors (214).

In connection with warrior disqualification we must note the deliberate dismissal of men who were afraid. In the tradition of the wars of the Judges, Gideon dismisses from his potential force all who are afraid

(ju 7»3)* Even in this earlier passage, however, the dismissal has already lost any primitive sacral motivation, and is presented in the context of the reduction of the size of the army and in line with the holy war concept that numbers are unimportant (ibid w 2,4a,7; vide supra p 21 & note (IO8)). The Gideon episode, therefore, would seem to combine two aspects of ancient holy war : the concept that victory does not depend on numbers, and the practice of dismissing from service anyone ritually unfit.

Provision is also made in the Deuteronomic war code for the dismissal of men who were afraid (Dt 20.8). In its present form, this regulation presents only superficial resemblance to the three identical formulât-' ions recorded in verses 5-7 • This fact, along with the repetition of , the introductory reference to the officers addressing the men, would seem to indicate a later insertion (215). On the other hand, by reason of its content, the regulation may be understood in terms of dismissal ■ rather than exemption, and, more importantly, the accompanying

explanation, albeit still a rationalising one, namely the demoralising effect of cowards in battle, does in fact make the army the focus of concern in contrast with the presentation of the three categories of release. Behind the presentation of verse 8, therefore, may lie a much older ordinance which required the dismissal of those who were afraid, in the interest of the sacral integrity of the army: in other words, fear, just as much as a.ny category of ritual defilement, rendered a man unfit for military service.

In addition, there may be some formative link between the dismissal of those who were afraid and the ancient war-speech injunction not to be afraid (vide supra p 20 & note (99 )). The consistent occurrence ^ of this injunction in ancient war practice, and of the "do not fear"

45

motif throughout the tradition-history of holy war, implies that ^ men who were afraid were in fact unfit for wars in which victory C was guaranteed by Yahweh. It is hardly coincidental, therefore, ;3 that the Deuteronomic war-rule combines the injunction "fear not" i (as part of the priest’s address, Dt 20.3) with the officers’ dismissal of those who were afraid (ibid v 8) (216).

Ritual for the return from battle

The procedure for warriors returning to camp or home after battle receives surprisingly little mention in the Old Testament. Even the Deuteronomic war code, despite its emphasis on camp purity (Dt 23.10-15) gives no indication of any kind of purificatory rites for returning

warriors. The ancient war narratives are also silent on this point. | Some regulations are briefly outlined in the idealistic legislation ^ of Numbers 31.19-24 (p); men who have killed, or who have touched a corpse, must remain outside the camp for seven days; on the third and seventh day ritual cleansing is necessary for themselves, their

clothing, captives, and any article of booty brought back. This purificatory procedure, however, merely represents the application

to warriors of the general rule dealing with defilement through contact with a corpse (Nu 19*11-19(P); cf less explicitly, Nu 5*2). One might

therefore question the reality and practicability of such a procedure, especially since the seven-day ritual exclusion contradicts the more natural and realistic evidence depicting spontaneous victory celebrat­

ion and the welcome of warriors upon their immediate return from

battle (vide supra pp 32f ) . The immediate and unrestricted return of warriors from battle is further indicated in what seems to be an

ancient formula for dismissing troops, namely, the command "Return to your tents” (2 1 7).

46