RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
War, Hebrew Warburton
bravery, strength, dexterity, and quickness. Occasionally a duel between chosen champions decided the battle (I Sam. xvii.; II Sam. ii. 14sqq.). Though the Hebrews were behind the Assyrians in cruelty, their treatment of the conquered was harsh. While the latter cut off the heads and hands of the fallen as trophies, the former seem to have done this only in exceptional cases (I Sam. xvii. 5 sqq., xxxi. 9; II Sam. xx. 22); possibly it was an old custom to cut off the foreskins of the fallen foe (I Sam. xviii. 25, 27); not seldom the captive kings or generals were killed (Josh. x. 24 sqq.; Judges vii. 25), though the Hebrew kings bore a reputation for mildness (I Kings xx. 31). Sometimes the entire captive host was slain (Judges vii. 25; Josh. x. 24 sqq.), and severe practises of other kinds are known (Judges i. 6-7; I Sam. xi. 2). Asarule the captives became slaves, yet the usually mild Deuteronomy (xx. 13-14) enjoins the enslaving of women and children only. For examples of other horrors of war cf. II Kings vii. 12, xv. 16; Isa. xiii. 16; Hos. x. 14; Amos i. 18. The land of the enemy was ravaged, the trees cut down, the wells stopped up (Deut. xx. 19; Judges vi. 4; II Kings iii. 19, 25), while cities and villages were burned (Judges ix. 45; I Mace. v. 28). The subjected people were put under ransom of a large sum or under tribute (iI Kings xviii. 14; Isa. xxxii. 18), for the payment of which hostages were taken (II Kings xiv. 14). Victory was celebrated with song and dance (Ex. xv.; Judges v.; I Sam. xviii. 6 sqq.). The burial of the fallen was a sacred duty (I Kings xv.); the host mourned fallen leaders (II Sam. iii. 31), whose weapons were buried with them.
V. Religious Significance of War: In common with other Semites, Hebrews regarded war as a sacred thing, a concern of Yahweh (Ex. xvii. 16; Num. xxi. 14; I Sam. xxv. 28); hence in Deborah’s song those are cursed who remained away from the battle (Judges v. 23). Israel’s foes are also Yahweh’s (Judges v. 31; I Sam. xxx. 26). As “ Lord of hosts ” and “‘ God of the armies of Israel” (I Sam. xvi. 45) Yahweh participated in the battle; and cast stones upon the enemy to assist his people (Josh. x. 11). His presence with the army was believed to be a literal fact, in common with the ordinary belief of the times, and he was represented by the ark, which by the enemy was taken as the presence of God himself (I Sam. iv. 6-7). War was therefore one of the religious institutions of Israel; the warrior was obligated to perform certain cultic duties before battle, being consecrated to God (Josh. iii. 5; Isa. xiii. 3), men spoke of “sanctifying war” (Joel ii. 9, A. V. margin; Jer. vi. 4); and the warrior was to remain ceremonially pure during the war (Smith, Rel. of Sem., p. 455; cf. II Sam. xi. 6 sqq.). From this standpoint has been explained the exemption from warlike duties of those newly married, or who had just built a house; and this, too, explains the fact that the camp is sacred (Deut. xxiii. 10 sqq.). Thus is explained also the custom of the ban; all booty belongs to Yahweh, hence the extreme form of the ban was the killing of all which had life and burning of everything else (Josh. vi. 17; I Sam. vi. 3; ef. Deut. xiii. 16-17). Limitations of the -ban are found in Deut. vii. 27 sqq.; while historical
practise or prescription is found in Num. xxxi. 7 sqq., 17-18; Josh. viii. 2, 27-28, xi. 10 sqq.; Judges xxi. 11 sqq. In all probability practise was milder than theory, the desire for booty having its influence. The destruction of a part of the booty signifies consecration of that part to Yahweh, and parallel for the Hebrew custom is found in the Moabite Stone (q.v.), which declares that Mesha devoted 7,000 men to his god Chemosh (lines 3, 11, 12, 16-17). (I. BENZINGER.) Brsutioarapuy: F. Schwally, Semitische Kriegsaltertiimer,
part i., Der heilige Krieg in Israel, Leipsic, 1901; J. L.
Saalschtitz, Mosaisches Recht, pp. 258-286, 641 saq., Ber-
lin, 1846-48; S. Spitzer, Das Heer- und Wehr-Gesetz der
alten Israeliten, 2d ed., Pressburg, 1879; Benzinger, Arch-
dologie, pp. 279-308; Nowack, Archiiologie, i. 357-375;
DB, i. 154-156, 346, 703, iv. 892-897; HB, i. 312-316,
605-607, ii. 1918, 2013, iii. 4463-65, iv. 5261-70, 5275;
JE, ii. 120-122, xii. 463-466; and, for comparative pur-
poses, A. Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, pp. 520sqq., New
York, 1894.
WARBURTON, WILLIAM: Church of England bishop of Gloucester; b. at Newark-upon-Trent (17 m. ne. of Nottingham) Dec. 24, 1698; d. at Gloucester June 7, 1779. His father, an attorney, had him educated for the law, which he probably practised 1719-23; but he had always a passionate liking for theology, and was ordained deacon, 1723, and priest, 1727; he became rector at Greaseley, Nottingham, 1726; was rector at Brant-Broughton, 1728-30; and at Frisby, 1730-56; became chaplain to the Prince of Wales, 1738; preacher to Lincoln’s Inn, 1746; chaplain to the king, 1754; prebendary of Durham, 1755; dean of Bristol, 1757; and bishop of Gloucester, 1760. In the retirement of country life during the earlier years of his activity he prosecuted his studies with great diligence, and wrote those works which have perpetuated his memory. The first of these was The Alliance between Church and State; or the Necessity and Equity of an established Religion, and a Test Law demonstrated, from the Essence and End of civil Society wpon the fundamental Principles of the Laws of Nature and Nations (1736), in which, while taking high ground, as the title indicates, he yet maintains that the State Church should tolerate those who differed from it in doctrine and worship. Soon thereafter came his great work, The Divine Legation of Moses, Demonstrated on the Principles of a Religious Deist, from the Omission of the Doctrine of a Future State of Rewards and Punishments in the Jewish Dispensation. Books i—ill. appeared in vol. i. (1737-88); books iv., v., vi., in vol. ii. (1741); books vii. and viii. never appeared; book ix. was first published in his Works (1788; 10th ed. of the entire work, ed. James Nichols, 3 vols., 1846). The treatise was directed against the Deists (see Drrsm), especially their doctrine of the Old Testament and their stress upon the omission of mention of immortality in the Old Testament. Warburton turns the tables upon them by constructing, out of the very absence of such statements, a proof of the divinity of the Mosaic legislation. The first three books deal with the necessity of the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments to civil society from (1) the nature of the thing, (2) the conduct of the ancient lawgivers and founders of civil policy, and (3) the opinions and conduct of the ancient sages and
Warburton ar