Violence and the Old Testament Peet van Dyk (Unisa) ABSTRACT The article focuses on extreme forms

of violence, primarily physical violence, for example war and rape. The issue of violence is investigated in terms of in-group and out-group violence and how modern and ancient societies (including Israel) often viewed or view violence differently in different contexts. It is furthermore argued that Old Testament texts about violence should be balanced against the Old Testament ideal of peace. In rare cases where texts condone violence they should be read against the grain of the text and be criticised in the light of other Biblical texts. A INTRODUCTION It has often been maintained by Christians and Biblical scholars alike that the Old Testament is a book of violence. In the early Christian church Marcion totally denounced the Old Testament because he thought it was unChristian (Gunneweg 1978:115-117) and since then many others have criticised it as a book about wars, the killing of rivals and the raping of women. In this regard Exodus 15:3 and Isaiah 42:13, which describes God as a man of war have often been quoted, while Psalm 137:8-9 is probably an extreme example of the commendation of acts of acute brutality. It condemns Babel for what it has done to Judah and then looks towards the destruction of Babel in the following words: O daughter of Babylon, you devastor! ... Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock! (Ps 137:8-9). It is therefore important for Christians and Jews to take cognisance of these texts dealing with violence and interpret them against the customs and social institutions of their time. Furthermore they also need to judge these Old Testament texts against the ethical norms of modern societies. This is especially compelling because Old Testament texts are often wrongly quoted to justify wars and other violent acts.

B VIOLENCE AND THE MODERN DEMOCRATIC IDEAL Violence can be defined as the hurting of other people or forcing them to do something against their will (Nrnberger et al 1989). Violence can either be psychological or physical, and can involve actual force, or alternatively may entail coercion, that is, intimidating people to do something that they do not want to do.

This can, for example, be done by threatening the use of violence against them, or by stating or implying measures to damage their position. When violence becomes an integral part of a society or organisation, it is called institutional or structural violence. It is clear from the above description that violence can therefore constitute overt acts of aggression (easily identified as such) or can have more subtle forms, for example, in the case of cunning forms of sexual harassment. However, it is equally clear that using force (either psychological or physical) is part of all societies. We are all limited in our own personal will and freedom by the laws and norms of our society and if we do not adhere to these we are punished by society. In contemporary just and democratic societies violence by the authorities is, however, severely limited. The following may be stated as principles for such a limitation in a modern democratic society: $ The laws of the society must be promulgated by the legal representatives of the community. The role of legal representatives, and how they are appointed or elected may differ from society to society, but the democratic ideal is that all people should have a say in their election process and should be able to remove such representatives from their office, if they no longer satisfy the electorate. $ Violence used by authorities should be appropriate to the type of transgression and physical violence should be avoided whenever law enforcement can be done through other means of persuasion. $ The enforcing of the laws and customs of a society should only be applied by officials of the government and these officials could be held responsible for their acts. $ Violence (or force) should not be used unfairly against minority groups and/or disadvantaged groups while unfairly advantaging majority groups (i e, the protection of minority rights). Violence therefore becomes unacceptable when it is uncalled for (i e, primarily

used to terrorise people), when it hurts people unnecessarily, when it is not applied by the legal representatives of a community (and therefore not necessarily applied in agreed-upon cases or on behalf of the community) when excessive, compared to the transgression, or used unfairly to advantage one person or group, while disadvantaging another person or group. To deal with all the above-mentioned forms of violence within the Old Testament context falls outside the scope of this article. For the purpose of this article I will therefore focus only on extreme acts of violence, such as physical violence against persons with the intention of harming them (e g rape) or aggression and war between groups. C DIFFERENT MANIFESTATIONS OF VIOLENCE To divide all people into an in-group or an out-group is basic human behaviour which may serve various psychological functions. For example, belonging to a

group may increase self-esteem, safety and security (Baron & Byrne 1987:160-161). When we can readily classify people as either friendly (i e, members of the ingroup) or as potentially hostile (i e, the out-group) it makes us feel more secure, because we think we know whom we can trust or should distrust (Worchel, Cooper & Goethals 1988:610-611). How one judges acts of violence is often determined by the fact whether the violence occurred between members of the same in-group or were committed between members of out-groups. For convenience sake it is therefore useful to categorise acts of violence according to the context in which they take place (Worchel, Cooper & Goethals 1988:470). The two major categories are: Interpersonal violence and intergroup violence. 1 Interpersonal violence Interpersonal violence is the most basic form of violence and occurs when people strike out against each other in anger or for some other mainly personal reason. When interpersonal violence occurs within the same family, clan, tribe or between people known to belong to the same group, it can be termed in-group violence, because it occurs within a significant group to which both parties belong. The basic motivation for this kind of violence is of a personal nature and takes place where one person acts violently against another person for various personal reasons, for example, in anger, because of various psychological conflicts within the person or between the two parties and/or because of competition and status within the group. When conflict or violence takes place between two persons who were previously unknown to each other (and intergroup factors do not play a role) it is different from in-group violence in the sense that it takes place for no personal reasons other than to vent anger or to correct a real or imagined act which was interpreted as

inconsiderate or as hostile. Individual competition for scarce resources, road rage and various other forms of conflict between previously unknown individuals fall within this category. 2 Intergroup violence Although acts of violence are of course always perpetrated between actual individuals, violence against outsiders and intergroup violence are primarily motivated by competition, animosity, or hatred between what is (at that moment) perceived as an in-group and an out-group (Worchel, Cooper & Goethals 1988:610611). Intergroup violence can either take place between two individuals (belonging to different groups), or it can be an act of violence by a group on an individual outsider, or it can take place between various members of different groups (e g in the case of war). In traditional communities the outside group is often defined as non-related people (i e, people outside ones own clan or kin). A further development from this

basic pattern is the establishment of more complex political structures such as peoples or nations. Individuals, belonging to the same people, share the same culture and language, but are not necessarily closely related to each other. In South Africa this expansion of the in-group towards peoples mostly took place during the early 1800s when the Zulu, Swazi and other kingdoms were established through the centralisation of power. An even more abstract construct is that of a nation. A nation includes people from different languages and cultures, who share the same geographical area and identify themselves as one nation (or are forced to do so). This is often the case in modern multi-cultural societies which often came about either because of earlier arbitrary colonial boundaries (Pakenham 1991) or have emerged due to immigration. In-groups and out-groups can be defined differently in various circumstances. For example, a clan may raid a neighbouring clan (belonging to the same larger group of people) to attain more land or cattle, but in other circumstances the two clans may stand together to repel the attack from a third outsider (Baron & Byrne 1987:159). The only relatively stable in-group is probably that of a clan, or of bloodrelated family, while other groups may be defined according to convenience or special circumstances and may range from fairly temporary associations to more permanent groupings. In many cases violence between members of different groups are motivated merely by the fact that the outsider(s) belongs to the out-group. Some forms of racism, sexual violence and rape may be classified as violence against the individual outsider. A special case in both ancient and contemporary societies is violence against the sojourner or migrant, who lives among people of a different group. Such a stranger may either be a fleeting visitor, a temporary inhabitant, or a more permanent resident.

Group-on-group violence is defined as violence which ensues because of conflict between groups (and not merely between individuals of different groups). It often stems from intergroup competition and may take the form of raids, skirmishes or full-scale warfare (e g international conflict). It is important to note that members of a group are expected to adhere to the norms (implicit or explicit rules) of the group (Baron & Byrne 1987:379) also with regard to the usage of violence. In general it can be expected that the usage of violence against a known or recognisable member of the in-group, will be least acceptable, while violence against unknown individuals (where group membership does not play a role), individuals of out-groups and between groups, may become progressively more permissible in terms of the norms of a group. These possible differences in norms concerning violence will now be investigated in various Old Testament texts.

D INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE AND THE OLD TESTAMENT 1 General Most religious and ethical systems condemn in-group violence, except when such force is perceived as just which may be the case when the rights of the group must be protected against the excesses or transgression of an individual. Acts by insiders which transgress the norms or customs of the group and thereby threaten the harmony or purity of the group, are punished (usually by some form of violence). Murdering or stealing from a person belonging to your own group is an example of where in-group violence (or force against the perpetrator) is generally accepted as justified in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, physical assault of other people is condemned in most cases and in general the principle is applied that a person should pay for any damage which he or she may have caused, by inflicting the same kind of injury on him/her (the well-known concept of an eye for an eye) (e g Ex 21:12-27; Lv 24:17-20; Nm 31:19; 35:16-18) . For example, when somebody murdered another person he/she was also put to death. In the case of accidental death, various measures were put in place to protect a person against blood revenge (e g the system of free cities). Although the Old Testament laws regarding physical assault can be considered as fair, they were nonetheless often brutal, whereas Christian ethical principles go beyond them, by also emphasising forgiveness and the turning of the other cheek. In general one can, however, say that in-group violence was not acceptable in Israelite society although punishment of such violent acts was sometimes rather brutal. 2 Violence and the rape of women Women often endure many forms of non-physical violence against them. This was especially true in the patriarchal society of the Old Testament where women were disempowered by their lack of social status or by the severe limitations put on their

freedom of choice in terms of occupation, marriage, social status, etcetera. Nonphysical violence ranged from subtle forms of coercion to severe psychological brutality. These more subtle forms of violence were (and are) problematic in almost all contemporary and ancient patriarchal societies. It therefore warrants a separate and more extensive discussion, which falls, however, outside the scope of this article (see the following authors for more detail: Bach 1998; Exum 1993). This current discussion will be limited to physical violence against women, especially rape and how it was viewed in the Old Testament. Before dealing with Old Testament attitudes towards the raping of women, one should briefly discuss the legal and social position of women in Old Testament times. Within the Israelite patriarchal society, women were to a large extent disempowered and their fates linked to those of their husbands or fathers. Widows or single women were very vulnerable and often exposed to severe poverty, lack of social status and sometimes dependent upon the alms of their neighbours. Women

usually did not inherit property or land (except when their father had no sons, see Lv 27:8), and were to some extent treated as the property of men. (It would be an overstatement to say, however, that under Israelite law women were fully regarded as the property of their fathers or husbands, but it was at least true to some degree.) Although there were some constraints put on men regarding the treatment, divorce and discarding of women, it still remains true that women often did not have much choice in what happened to them or how they were treated. When a woman was married to a kind and loving husband, this lack of selfdetermination would not have been a big problem. Even within patriarchal societies the wishes of a daughter or wife were often taken into consideration. However, in the case of an unloving marriage, the position of a woman may have become an acute problem, raising the question of whether a system which allows this, should be tolerated. Feminist theologians (e g Bach 1998 and Exum 1993) have forcefully expressed the conviction that the underlying social context of Biblical narratives (e g the disempowered position of women) should not be accepted by the contemporary reader, but should be exposed and corrected. Clines (1992:79-98) calls this type of exegesis reading against the grain of a text and argues that it is sometimes the responsibility of an Old Testament reader to do it. Rape in the Old Testament took place in different contexts. In some cases rape took place within the same clan or tribe and can therefore be classified primarily as a form of interpersonal violence, although an element of intergroup violence male versus female violence also formed part of the act. In other cases rape took place within the context of a group (e g gang rape) and may primarily have been motivated by male group aggression towards a member of an outside group (i e, a member of the female group). Such forms of group rape may inter alia serve the

purpose of strengthening the bonds between members of a gang or may be an expression of aggression between groups. Within the context of group-on-group conflict (e g war) rape becomes an act of pure intergroup violence. The raping of a woman, belonging to the in-group is generally condemned by the Old Testament, and in fact by most societies. It is, however, important to note that the raping of a woman is in the first place viewed by Israelite law as the violation of the rights of another man: First, the economic rights of a womans father, who would afterwards find it difficult to find somebody to marry his daughter and hence may have to provide for her for the rest of her life, or alternatively may have to accept a lower brides price for her. Second, the marriage rights of her husband, or the man betrothed to her, were violated by the raping of a woman (also see Bach 1998). When a married or betrothed woman was raped (i e, the woman was outside the city and screamed, but nobody could hear her), the rapist was put to death (Dt 22:25), because he had violated the sexual rights of the husband or future husband. However, if an unmarried woman, or an unbetrothed woman, was raped only the economic rights of the father were violated and, according to this line of

thinking, these rights could still be rectified by forcing the rapist to pay the usual brides price or to marry her, without the option of later being able to reject her (Dt 22:29). Seen from the perspective of a man, and within the context where women were at least partly treated in economic terms by the law, these laws made perfect sense. Seen from the perspective of Israelite women it at least protected women to some extent from being sexually abused by men, because the penalties for raping a woman (from the in-group) were relatively severe. But this does not detract from the fact that this view of women, and the regulations regarding rape, would be regarded by most contemporary egalitarian societies as totally insufficient and at least to some extent as unethical. Not only did it treat women as second class citizens, but they were totally disempowered by the fact that they only had indirect legal protection through the legal rights of their fathers or husbands.

E VIOLENCE AND RAPE OF OUTSIDERS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT In many traditional societies the protection and rights of outsiders, living or visiting a community, were and are much more uncertain. Often the sojourner or immigrant was not at all protected by the law, or was regarded as a secondclass citizen. It is therefore important to consider the plight of outsiders within the laws and customs of Ancient Israel. The sojourner (ger in Hebrew) refers to a person who is either forced by natural disasters (e g drought and famine in the case of Naomi) to relocate to another country, is a seeker of asylum, or is fleeing away from blood revenge (Khler & Baumgartner 1958:192). In the book of Deuteronomy it is clearly stated that God protects the right of the sojourner and that it is the religious duty of Israelites to love the sojourner, include him in their religious festivals and make provision for his livelihood (Dt 10:18-19;

14:29; 16:11-14; 24:17-21; 26:12; 27:19). Similar sentiments are expressed in other parts of the Pentateuch (Lv 19:33-34; 24:22), as well as in the Prophets and Psalms, where the sojourner is always grouped with powerless insiders (widows and orphans), as those who need special protection (Jr 7:6; 22:3; Zch 7:10; Ml 3:5; Ps 94:6; 146:9). In these texts the Israelites were called to a higher system of ethics, than the one usually to be expected in other communities within the Ancient Near East. The Old Testament (especially Deuteronomy) goes beyond the usual taboo of violence against insiders, but also wants to limit violence against individuals belonging to outside groups. Not only is it expected from Israelites to refrain from violence, but they are also urged to protect actively the rights of outsiders, to treat them fairly and to love them. This should be regarded as a major advance over and above the usual ethical principles of ancient and traditional societies. Two incidents in the Old Testament illustrate that this protection of the sojourner was not only part of esoteric laws, but were ingrained in the mores of Israelite society. Both involved the potential male rape of a sojourner. It is a wellknown phenomenon that outsiders (e g a man who does not belong to the same

prison gang, group or nation) are sometimes raped by other men. Like the raping of women, this kind of rape is probably in the first place not a sexual act the perpetrators are usually not homosexual but an act of aggression and humiliation. As such it may serve the social function of strengthening the bond between members of a gang and a way of defining the in-group against other groups or outsiders. The first Old Testament episode is the Sodom and Gomorrah incident (Gn 19). Although many commentators have interpreted this text primarily as a condemnation of homosexual behaviour, this is not the case. From the context it is clear that the male inhabitants were probably not homosexual men, but were planning an act of violence against outsiders (in this case the messengers from God). The purpose of the story is therefore to illustrate the important Israelite ethical principle that one is responsible for the sojourners in your midst and that it is your duty to protect them. The extreme measures of Lot to offer his two daughters as substitutes to the threatening men of Sodom and Gomorrah, serve the narrative purpose of illustrating the innocence of Lot. The incident was thus viewed in a positive light by the original (male) readers/listeners of the text. Contemporary feminist theologians (e g Bach 1998; Exum 1993) have, however, correctly criticised the narrator of the text (and its male perspective), because the text violates women by using Lots offer as a positive narrative element. However, the story nonetheless had a positive outcome because Gods messengers prevented the rape of the daughters and escaped by causing blindness to the attackers. The seriousness, with which this incident was regarded by Israelite tradition, is illustrated by the fact that God totally destroys the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. The text therefore judges violence against powerless outsiders as the epitome of lawlessness and chaos, something that is not to be tolerated in Israel.

A similar incident is recorded in Judges 19-21, where a Levite (a member of a powerless group without any land and therefore often mentioned in conjunction with sojourners, widows and orphans) from the area of Ephraim (and his concubine) are forced to stay overnight in the Benjaminite city of Gibeah. It is interesting to note that the Levite specifically refused to stay overnight in the nonIsraelite city of Jebus, exactly because he was aware of the potential dangers for an outsider to stay in a strange city (Bach 1998). Although the Benjaminites of Gibeah were strictly speaking part of the in-side group of Israel, the incident is placed during the time when there was still a lack of cohesion between the different tribes. The later actions of the Benjaminites also showed that they placed themselves outside and against the rest of Israel (e g by refusing to hand over the perpetrators) and by preparing for war. The aggression of the Benjaminite men against the Levite and his concubine is therefore best interpreted as violence against outsiders. The story as a whole served the purpose of restoring the unity in Israel by forcing the Benjaminites back into the confederation of twelve tribes. This could only be done by punishing their transgression of an accepted Israelite ethical principle. The fact that the incident

could spark a major war, illustrates in what serious light Israel regarded the important ethical principle of protecting outsiders. The fact that the Benjaminites were supposed to be part of the in-group, but seceded from it by their actions, made the incident even more unacceptable, hence their severe punishment. Feminist interpretation has condemned the way in which the narrator silently accepted the practice of using women (the concubine and the daughter of the host) as shields to protect the life of a man (Bach 1998). This criticism of the narrator is again appropriate in the light of other higher ethical principles within the Bible. When trying to answer the question, how the narrator could keep quiet about such an atrocity, one should recognise the socio-historical context of the time. Within the patriarchal society of the narrator and audience, the horrible incident is somewhat softened for the listener by characterising the woman (who was raped) as a concubine and as a faithless woman. She is therefore not entirely innocent and does not really deserve the sympathy of the listeners (i e, from the male perspective of the narrator) (Bach 1998). The fact that the Levite is willing to sacrifice his concubine to protect himself was therefore probably not questioned by the first audience, because the marital rights of the Levite have already been violated by the fact that she has slept with other men before she ran away (Jdg 19:2). It is therefore not expected by the (male) audience that the Levite should be overly protective of the chastity of his concubine. At the most she was regarded by the narrator and the first audience as the unfortunate victim of an act of atrocity by the men of Gibeah. In this way the narrator probably wished to reduce the horror of the story to its readers (because in future Benjamin must still be part of the greater Israel) but in the process probably heightened the horror of contemporary readers in the process! By also excluding the daughter of the host from the gang rape, the narrator furthermore tried to focus the

story not so much on the plight of two helpless women, but on the transgression of the ethical principle that violence should not be perpetrated against outsiders (Bach 1998).

F GROUP-ON-GROUP VIOLENCE WITHIN THE OLD TESTAMENT The perpetrators of group-on-group violence is often judged less harshly in ancient communities, except of course when judging another group for mistreating your own group (e g the Edomites in Am 1). According to this view, killing and raping become more acceptable when they take place within the context of intergroup conflict or war. It is also telling that the perpetrators from group-ongroup violence are often excluded from any personal guilt after such group conflicts. This perception of war was at least present to some degree in Israels view of warfare, especially in the case of the so-called holy war. In the following discussion the various traditions and ideologies about war in Ancient Israel will be analysed (Niditch 1993).

1 War and the Old Testament In her comprehensive study on War in the Hebrew Bible, Susan Niditch (1993) identifies at least seven different ideologies regarding war in the Old Testament. These ideologies (or perceptions) with regard to war are not necessarily exclusive of each other, and to some extent may even have co-existed with one another. One may therefore expect some of them to have operated simultaneously within the same era and within the same society. Even more interesting is the suggestion by Niditch (1993:155) that these different views on war may be representative of the internal psychological struggle within each one of us, that is, as we grapple with the internal conflict between compassion and enmity. a The ban (herem) as a sacrifice Within Israels war traditions the total ban or annihilation of the enemy (herem) is sometimes interpreted in terms of a blood sacrifice. According to this view the Israelites are to offer the total destruction of their enemies as a sacrifice to the deity who has granted them the victory (Niditch 1993:151). The irony of this view is that human life is regarded as extremely precious and therefore also as the most valuable of all offerings which can be made to God. The psychological advantage of this view is that a soldier can avoid all responsibility for killing others and that the killer does not need to face the ethical dilemma of deciding who should be killed and whose life should be spared. In this way the enemy is dehumanised (but not demonised), because the killing was demanded by God and is therefore legitimate. This view of war and violence is very old and probably came from the era of tribal warfare against non-related tribes and clans. The brutality of genocide (like the case in the ban) will today be regarded by most theologians as unethical and in conflict with the fact that God does not want any human offerings (see Gn 22). It is, however, clear that the total annihilation of

the enemy was seen as acceptable by Ancient Israel, at least during a time of holy war. However, even more disturbing is the fact that it may lie within the human psyche sometimes to convince itself that genocide is required for the ultimate good of the world. It is, however, interesting that even within this appalling ideology the notion is imbedded that human life is precious and with this it brings a sense of doubt about the killing of people and the usage of violence. It is, however, clear that the author of the text did NOT describe the ban as an example of a negative Israelite practice. In the light of the other ethical principles of the Bible it is, however, the task of the contemporary reader of the Old Testament to read the description of war as a bloody sacrifice to God, against the grain of the text (Clines 1992). That is, the reader is justified to reject this view in the light of Biblical ethics as a whole. b The ban (herem) is demanded by Gods justice A second form of rationalisation about war sees the ban (herem) in terms of Gods justice. Embedded in this view is the belief that violence and war are usually not

acceptable, but that they are unfortunately sometimes necessary. In terms of the Deuteronomic ethics, that good deeds are blessed and bad deeds are punished by God, just wars were therefore seen as punishment of the enemy (Niditch 1993:152). According to this view, enemies killed during a just war deserved it, because they were bad or evil (i e, the enemy is demonised or perceived as bad people). In this way Israelite soldiers could pose themselves as instruments furthering Gods justice and thereby avoid all personal guilt. The enemy is unclean, lessthan-human and it is required by God that they should be eradicated. This view of justified violence was of course also applied to the enemy within, or to a fellow Israelite who defiled the community by transgressing its ethical code and laws. The Deuteronomic view of war was advocated by authors, who probably retained some of Israels earlier conquest traditions, during which time the ban against the Canaanite enemy was often applied. War was, however, only justified when it purified contaminating influences (from outside or inside) and thus aided in the establishment of a clean and pristine people of God (Niditch 1993:152). The view that war is an instrument of Gods justice and that God is therefore fighting on the side of the just, is an attractive conviction to which religious people have always easily succumbed. Not only does it make people feel good because they are supposed to be special and preferred by God but also because they think that they are actively fighting for God. By fighting they are striving to ensure that justice prevails and at the same time they are protecting their own community against the forces of evil. It is therefore not surprising that many a war has been fought where both sides have claimed that God was on their side! This fact illustrates the amount of self-delusion and propaganda that are often required before groups will engage in what is supposed to be a just war. c The Priestly authors view of war

Akin to the Deuteronomic ideology, is that of the Priestly author (P). In Numbers 31 P also regards the ban as justified, because the enemy (Midianites) were sinful and deserving of Gods vengeance (Niditch 1993:152). The concept of purity is important to P and it was deemed necessary to purify the land by fire and water. The Priests view of the ban is, however, softened by the fact that not all people are to be killed during the ban all virgin girls could be spared. The rational behind this demand lies in Ps emphasis on clean and unclean. Hence girls who have not yet been soiled by the enemy could still be absorbed into Israel after a period of purification. The same is true for booty that could be purified and used to the advantage of God and his people. Another important aspect of the Priests ideology of war was that it rendered all soldiers unclean. It was therefore required of them to be cleansed first (Nm 31:19, 20, 24). This probably shows that the very act of killing in war rendered the ancient Israelite soldier unclean (Niditch 1993:153). This late-Biblical ideology of war therefore includes an aspect of humanity, by appreciating the humanness of the

enemy and expressing a reverence for life. Death rips the orderly fabric of the universe, even though it may sometimes be necessary to eliminate the impure enemy by killing them. The Priestly ideology of war therefore gives expression to the paradoxes implicit in Israelite views about war and violence. Humans should therefore never be too comfortable about killing and violence, even if it is deemed absolutely necessary and justified. d The heroic view of war In many of the heroic traditions of Israel (called the bardic tradition by Niditch) the courage, daring, leadership and skills of warriors are glorified. It portrays the image of war as mens games with an emphasis on fair play, respect for the opponent and it involves stylised war behaviour such as taunting (e g the description of Gideons and Davids soldiers as men of valour: Jdg 6:12; 1 Sm 14:22; 16:18; 2 Sm 17:10; 23:22; 24:9). This romantic view of war probably had its origin in the royal courts of Israel (Niditch 1993:153) and is still today an important strategy of governments by which they try to make war more acceptable and palatable to their soldiers. It is also an important myth persisting in many Hollywood movies, that war is all about honour, bravery and other desirable human attributes. Fortunately the twentieth century has somewhat exploded this myth, first by such literary works as A farewell to arms (Ernest Hemingway 1935), Catch-22 (Joseph Heller 1964) and second by the American experience of the Vietnam War. New upsurges of jingoism and the glorification of war are, however, almost inevitable whenever countries come into conflict with each other (e g the first and second Gulf wars). e Tricksterism and warfare The ideology of tricksterism usually comes to the fore when one of the enemies is far weaker than the other party (Niditch 1993). Examples of these in the Old Testament are: The killing of the men of Shechem after the raping of Dinah in

Genesis 34; the story of Samson and the Timnites (Jdg 13-16); the assassination of Sisera by Jael (Jdg 4-5); and the Ehud and Eglon story in Judges 3. The whole book of Esther can also be read as a subtle form of tricksterism, to assure the survival of the Jews. In these stories the underdog can only resort to tricking the stronger enemy, for example, by guerrilla warfare, the assassination of leaders, or other means of deceit. This view of war contains no ethic of conduct and displays no guilt for the killing of an enemy. It rather revels in the cleverness of the underdog by succeeding to beat the stronger enemy, irrespective of the methods used. It is therefore a classical expression of the slogan: the end justifies the means. In modern day conflicts, terrorism is an example of how weaker groups can get back at stronger groups or countries. Although some terrorist organisations refrain from attacking so-called soft targets (i e civilians) this is usually rather the exception than the rule. The total disregard for life or methods used was, for example, illustrated by the Lockerby aircraft bombing and the September 11 attack on the United States of America. In both cases a relatively weak organisation used

tricksterism to attack one of the strongest countries of the world. This was done because the attackers perceived the USA as the ultimate evil and bully of this world. f Expediency in war The idea of expediency in warfare (i e, war is hell so lets get it over with) expresses the view that once one is involved in a war, one could (and should) use the most effective methods of achieving ones goals, even though it may involve brutal tactics (shock and awe). The idea is to strike hard and thereby try to win victory as quickly as possible. This ideology of war is usually associated with the more powerful party and treats war as business as usual. The adherents of this view therefore usually do not feel the need to justify war, even though it may be an offensive war (Niditch 1993:154). To some extent this kind of warfare is mindless in the sense that it does not bring ethics or humanness into play, but is just concerned with scoring victory as quickly as possible, without thinking about the violence and killing it involves, or questioning any aspect of warfare. The incident in Judges 9, where Abimelech tried to establish a kingdom by brutal force (murder and burning), is an example of this ideology of war. However, the negative outcome and the brutal way in which Abimelech was killed, is a clear critique by the text on this view (Niditch 1993:124). It should, however, be noted that in Abimelechs case the brutality was directed against fellow Israelites or insiders, which may account for his harsh treatment by the narrator. In other places within the Old Testament such implied criticism against the ideology of expediency in war is, however, not necessarily part of the text (e g the barbarism of king Menachem in 2 Ki 15:16). However, the way in which the Chronicler has left out some of the brutalities committed by David is evidence of his critique on the brutality of war. For example, the treatment of the blind and lame in the attack on

Jebus (2 Sm 5:7-8 vs 1 Chr 11:4-8) and Davids cruel treatment of the prisoners (2 Sm 8:2 vs 1 Chr 18:2). g A tradition of non-participation The option of non-participation in war (as expressed in some texts of the Old Testament) is ironic in the sense that Israel is saved from having to kill their enemies, but this fact does not limit the extent of violence. In these cases, God kills the enemy through a miracle or in another violent way of direct intervention. One of the positive aspects of the ideology is, however, the view that humans should not only rely on their own strength, but should ultimately put their trust in God. It is therefore to some extent a view opposed to military power and suggests that humans are not always forced to fight wars (Niditch 1993:154). God loves those who are helpless and faithful and will intervene on their behalf (e g 2 Chr 20). This is therefore an important correction on the glorification of violence and the trust in ones own power and strength.

From the above analysis of war against outsiders, it is clear that brutality in war against outsiders was not treated as harshly by the Israelites as violence perpetrated against insiders or sojourners living among the Israelites. Group-ongroup conflict was often justified and rationalised in terms of Gods demand for justice. Although Niditch does not want to arrange the different ideologies about war chronologically, it is nonetheless clear that more primitive views about war existed during earlier times (although they may have persisted in later times). On the other hand implicit critique against brutality in war (also against outsiders) probably evolved only later in Israels history and represented higher ethical ideals with regard to warfare. 2 Raping of women during war It is disconcerting to note that even Israelite traditions probably viewed violence against outsider women (i e rape) during war in a less serious light! Alice Bach (1998:5) calls this an expression of the standard cultural myth ... that rape is an unavoidable consequence of war. The Sisera incident in Judges 4-5 is an example of this view within the Canaanite context. In the story Siseras mother (a Canaanite) waited for her son to return after enjoying the spoils of war. Within the context of the story it is clear that this refers to the practice in the Ancient Near East for soldiers to rape the women of their defeated enemies. This practice probably also existed among Israelite soldiers, as may be implied by the attacking and taking (raping?) of the virgin women of Jabesh-Gillead (Jdg 21) (Bach 1998:5). The existence of this custom is also illustrated by the fact that Israelite soldiers could take virgin women from among the ranks of their defeated enemy (Nm 31:18).

G THE CONCEPT OF PEACE (SHALOM) IN THE OLD TESTAMENT Although it is true that the Old Testament contains many passages about physical

violence and war, it is nonetheless true that it does not consider war as inevitable or as the ideal. In the light of this fact it is one-sided to brand the whole Old Testament as a violent book. Without any doubt the ideal throughout the Old Testament is that of peace, order and love. Hanson (1984:341) puts it as follows: If one were to choose a single word to describe the reality for which God created the world, and in which He seeks to sustain the community of those who respond to his initiating grace ... that would be shalom. The Hebrew term shalom has a much broader meaning than the English word peace, with which it is usually translated (Chester 1989:470). In the prophetic texts (Is 2:2-4 and Mi 4:1-4) it denotes a time of cessation of warfare and the onset of universal harmony (Chester 1989:471). In these texts the prophets use the graphic image of swords and spears that would be beaten into farming instruments (ploughshares and pruning-hooks) to illustrate the peace that would exist. Peace is the end of destruction and turmoil and the beginning of harmony free from threat or conflict.

Peace is always associated in the Old Testament with justice and righteousness, and includes a concern for the poor and oppressed (Is 9:7; 11:3-5; 55:12; 56:1; 63:21-23, Ezk 34:16). Peace is therefore not a superficial empty slogan, but can only exist when people live in harmony with God, nature and each other (Chester 1989:472). Peace should not only be defined in a negative way, as the absence of violence, but also positively in terms of the striving towards happiness and harmony. While the faithful strive with their whole hearts to establish peace on earth, they should, however, remain realistic about it. The visions of total peace in Isaiah 2 and Micah 4 are eschatological, that is, it is an ideal that will never be fully realised in this life, but will only come about in the life hereafter. We are reminded of this fact in Joel 3:10 where the reversal of the image of peace (i e, that farming instruments should be beaten into swords and spears) has a sobering effect on readers. Joel definitely reckons with the unfortunate fact that war will never be totally eliminated in this life (Chester 1989:471). Peace is therefore a prophetic vision, something to strive for.

H CONCLUSIONS From the above discussion it is clear that one cannot properly understand the Old Testaments view with regard to violence and war if it is not interpreted within the socio-historical context of its time. This means that the beliefs and convictions of the Israelite society will be embedded within the texts dealing with violence and war. This world-view of the Israelites is not necessarily normative to the contemporary Old Testament reader, but should be criticised from the larger ethical picture presented within the whole of the Old Testament (and in the case of Christians, in the New Testament). In practice this means that the Old Testament exegete should balance the texts about violence and war against those texts in the

Old Testament where peace is the ideal as well as the Deuteronomic imperative that one should not only love ones neighbour, but also the stranger (sojourner) who lives among ones people. It also means that Old Testament exegetes will sometimes need to read against the grain of texts (Clines 1992:82-83). This type of Old Testament exegesis takes the socio-historical context of the Bible seriously. This is asked for by the method of social-scientific criticism (Elliott 1993), which accepts that the Old Testament will include the world-view of its authors and readers and that this is not necessarily normative. In those cases where the Old Testament is critical of the customs and views of the Ancient Near East and the Israelite society it is therefore even more significant. For example, where it criticises the popular view that different laws and ethical principles regarding violence should apply to insiders over and against that of outsiders (sojourners). However, in other cases the silence of the narrators regarding violence and brutality against women, and the excesses in warfare should be exposed by the exegete and be criticised from the larger picture of ethical principles

proposed by the Bible. In a sense one can say that some ethical principles have not fully percolated to all individual texts within the Old Testament, either because the author did not realise the full implications of an ethical principle for his or her time, or because the principle was neglected or unknown at the time. Specific Biblical texts always offer incomplete ethical guidelines and should therefore be read against the larger background of the Bible as a whole. The social scientific approach to the Bible (Elliott 1993) is therefore very important, because this not only helps to identify different ideologies within the Biblical texts, but also tries to understand them against the social institutions, customs, belief system and economic circumstances of their time. Read in this way the Old Testament can be properly understood, but even more important, Old Testament exegetes can use different texts to re-tell a more complete story of the Old Testament (Von Rad 1975). Why did later editors of the Bible not correct earlier texts that dealt uncritically with violence and brutality in war? The answer to this is that later editors often did remove or change unacceptable incidents in earlier texts, but that all such elements were not necessarily changed or removed. Niditch (1993) sees the presence of both negative and positive ideologies about war as an important literary device. Stories or narratives always have much more persuasive power than mere laws or dogma. If a person is told that he or she should not steal, it usually does not have the same impact than telling him or her a story. For example, a story about a person who started stealing, who thought he could get away with it and become rich and successful, but eventually was caught, lost all his possessions and the respect of the community, is probably more effective than just stating the law. In the same way, the Old Testament includes stories about violence and wars to remind believers how easy it is to succumb to the lure of violence. The different ideologies of war within

the Old Testament contribute towards a complex picture where different ideologies co-existed, contradicted and overlapped each other in a paradoxical way, that is, within the same community or even in the same person (Niditch 1993). One of the most important arguments made by this article is that ethical principles regarding violence should extend across the borders of ones own group. Within the South African context it is therefore important that the ubuntu principle should not only be applied to the in-group (clan or language group), but also to the society at large. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bach, A 1998. Rereading the body politic: Women and violence in Judges 21. Biblical Interpretation 6, 1-19. Baron, R A & Byrne, D 1987. Social psychology: Understanding human interaction. 5th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Chester, A 1989. The concept of peace in the Old Testament. Theology XCII (750), 466481.

Clines, D J A 1992. Images of Yahweh: God in the Pentateuch, in Hubbard, R L, Johnston, R K & Meye, R P (eds), Studies in Old Testament theology, 79-98. Nashville: Word Publishing. Elliott, J H 1993. What is social-scientific criticism? Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Exum, J C 1993. Fragmented women: Feminist (sub)versions of Biblical narratives. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press. Gunneweg, A H J 1978. Understanding the Old Testament. London: SCM Press. Hanson, P D 1984. War Interpretation XXXVIII (4), 341362. and peace in the Hebrew Bible.

Heller, J 1964. Catch-22. London: Corgi. Hemingway, E 1935. A farewell to arms. London: Penguin. Khler, L & Baumgartner, W 1958. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. Leiden: Brill. Niditch, S 1993. War in the Hebrew Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, Nrnberger, K, Tooke, J & Domeris, W (eds) 1989. Conflict and the quest for justice. Pietermaritzburg: Encounter Publications. Pakenham, T 1991. Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball Publishers. The scramble for Africa 1876-1912.

Von Rad, G 1975. Old Testament theology, vol 1. London: SCM Press. Worchel, S, Cooper, J & Goethals, G R 1988. Understanding social psychology. 4th ed. Chicago: Dorsey.

P J van Dyk, Department of Old Testament, University of South Africa, P O Box 392, Unisa 0003, Pretoria, Republic of South Africa. E-mail: vdykpj@unisa.ac.za