Part 1

Erroneous Minimization?

In Bowen’s chapter, he begins by alleging that, “evangelicals to receive a certain amount of indoctrination about God’s commands of violence in the OT…both from the text and pulpit”.[5] He adds,

These conscious or unconscious apologetic approaches to the OT’s violent commands are not only incredibly effective, but also emotionally satisfying. One can rest assured God had a morally justifed reason for bringing the violent judgment that he did.[6] 

Here I think that Bowen confuses two distinct, yet related, concepts: judgement, which we can call a determinative action of God; and execution, which is what follows from that judgement. That is, we have the record of God’s judgement of the nations of Canaan (eg Leviticus 18), and then we have the execution of that judgement summed up in the conquest narratives. These sometimes get rolled up into one term, but they are in fact two distinct actions. 

Bowen seems to imply that God (Yahweh) was wrong to judge these nations, that the judgement itself is violence, not just the execution. But herein lies the conundrum for Bowen: is violence ever justified?

If someone were physically attacking his wife and children, would Josh respond violently? 

Perhaps he would say that the question isn’t fair, but the question remains to be answered. And if the answer is “no”, then the objection and the assertion is a moot point, because by assuming that he has any moral justification to judge the commands of God is to act violently, thereby refuting his judgement. And if the answer is “yes” then whether or not he agrees with the justification makes and judgement about them similarly moot and begs the question, “By what standard?”

In either situation, whether negatively or positively, the logic fails by the standard it imposes in order to answer the question. That is, if judgement itself is a type of violence, and it is absolutely wrong to do violence, then to judge any action is violence. But if violence is sometimes necessary and can be justified, which requires judgement, then it’s not an act of violence to judge but instead requires one to justify the standards for judgement in order to act violently.

And this brings us to the question, By what standard?

Two Different Standards?

Undoubtedly the problem comes in when one is examining the justification, as Bowen notes,

“…[T]here are usually…rationalizations in the texts themselves attempting to explain God’s commands, although they rarely meet our modern standards of moral justifcation for the violence inflicted upon the victims.[7] 

This, of course, should cause someone to question whether or not our “modern standards” are valid standards compared to those of even the biblical age. What makes our standards correct and theirs wrong?

Here again is simply an appeal for a necessary justification. If cultures determine the values to which they hold, then the justification for a particular action is irrelevant. Bowen gives evidence for this his own presentation, noting that Assyrian rulers often invoked similar justifications:

Any military conquest, therefore, was said to be done on behalf of and by the command of the god … This divine mandate resulted in the subjugation of countries and people groups in the periphery, including those nations to the west of Assyria; this subjugation resulted in divine commands for the vassals themselves.[8] 

A thoughtful reader would simply note that the sauce is both for the goose and the gander, and well enough. What does that prove, exactly?

Bowen adds that the tendency in the ANE was once a kingdom—like Assyria—was a certain size, it began to expand outward and exert control over neighboring regions establishing vassal states that they held to account by the invoking loyalty oaths.[9] He continues noting that should these vassals break their oaths, that would be considered as a sin against their god(s) and make them subject to retribution.[10] Bowen cites several instances of dramatic retellings of these events, ending with,

Of course, no historian today would take this information in the Assyrian texts at face value. To read the internal monologue of the repentant Kassite king Kashtiliash IV and conclude Tukulti-Ninurta I was therefore perfectly in the right for waging war against him would be foolish. These texts were written from a very specific vantage point with particular goals and purposes in mind, including providing a justification for the military conquests of the Assyrian state.[11] 

Well, that just begs the question of, why not?

To admit that the narratives were written for a purpose (to inform the reader of events) needs to assume that there is some degree of veracity to the claim not merely for the justification but also to the cause. In this example instance, Bowen states the purpose but then dismisses the reasons given as if they’re illegitimate. 

Assyria, like every nation, had to possess some necessary compulsion to justify their aggression, not merely to the public, but to the divine court as the appearance of naked aggression was not to be tolerated and was considered to be an act of barbarism.[12] But this assumes an established nation-state acting against another, and that the aggression is subsequent to the establishment of a vassal kingdom that is subject to terms of a treaty or covenant.The expansion of the kingdom needed to be perceived as defensive thereby making the expansion a demonstration that the kingdom was not to be trifled with.[13]

To dismiss their justification, whether one considers it historically necessary or dismisses it fails to recognize that they felt the need to justify it against their immediate critics. The question is, why?

You can either agree with their reasons or not. You can either take their reasons at face value or not. But for a historian of any meaningful sort to dismiss their reasons is to undermine the function of the historian.[14] 

The problem with invoking a comparison between the Assyrian justification (defensive expansion/the expansion of creation order[15]) and the biblical narrative is found in answering the question of, whose kingdom is in view?

And that is a question that we shall endeavor to answer in the next post of this series.

Notes

  1. Joshua A. Bowen. “Your Eye Shall Have No Pity’: Old Testament Violence and Modern Evangelical Morality” p. 177-199. Misusing Scripture: What Are Evangelicals Doing With The Bible (Ed. Mark Elliot, Kenneth Atkinson, & Robert Rezetko. Rutledge. 2023. p.177
  2. Ibid. (emphasis original)
  3. Ibid, p. 185 (emphasis added)
  4. Ibid, p. 187
  5. Ibid.
  6. Ibid, p. 187-8
  7. Ibid, p. 188-9 (emphasis added)
  8. Mario Liverani. Assyria: The Imperial Mission, trans by A. Trameri & J.Valk. Eisenbrauns. 2017. p. 123, 117-8
  9. Liverani (p. 118ff) notes that there is a “motif of recovering lost lands” in the literature that is subsequent to expansion and almost alway follows a forced, defensive contraction.
  10. “What is a Historian and How Do You Become One?” https://online.norwich.edu/what-historian-and-how-do-you-become-one (Accessed March 2024)
  11. Liverani, p. 13-14