Abstract

Michael Walzer's endeavor to disentangle and explain the conflicting scriptural stories of the conquest of Canaan is resourceful and instructive but unfinished. The adequacy of his account as a means of coming to terms with the historica witness is compromised by what he does "not" examine: he does not, for example, examine very closely the lineaments of the program of limited war he praises, does not convey the complexity of the cultic pratice of "herem" and does not take account of the impact of the failure of the Israelite experiment in royal statehood.more importantly, by treating the passages regarding holy war as an embarrassing problem to be solved, he leaves dangling the function of these texts in the life of the faith community.