Scripture and Violence

Julia Snyder, Daniel H. Weiss

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781351024204
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education Teaching Methods

In the public sphere, it is often assumed that acts of violence carried out by Muslims are inspired by their religious commitment and encouraged by the Qur'an. Some people express similar concerns about the scriptures and actions of Christians and Jews. Might they be right? What role do scriptural texts play in motivating and justifying violence in these three traditions?

Scripture and Violence explores the complex relationship between scriptural texts and real-world acts of violence. A variety of issues are addressed, including the prevalent modern tendency to express more concern about other people's texts and violence than one's own, to treat interpretation and application of scriptural passages as self-evident, and to assume that the actions of religious people are directly motivated by what they read in scriptures. Contributions come from a diverse group of scholars of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity with varying perspectives on the issues.

Highlighting the complex relationship between texts and human actions, this is an essential read for students and academics studying religion and violence, Abrahamic religions, or scriptural interpretation. Scripture and Violence will also be of interest to researchers working on religion and politics, sociology and anthropology of religion, socio-political approaches to scriptural texts, and issues surrounding religion, secularity, and the public sphere. This volume could also form a basis for discussions in churches, synagogues, mosques, interfaith settings, and government agencies.

The editors of Scripture and Violence have also set up a website including lesson plans/discussion guides for the different chapters in the book, available here: https://www.scriptureandviolence.org/scripture-and-violence-book-and-chapter-discussion-guides

1
INTRODUCTION

Scripture and violence – is there a bomb in this text?¹

Julia Snyder

What role do scriptural texts play in motivating or justifying violence? Does something in the Qur’an make Muslims likely to perform acts of violence? Are the biblical texts read by Jews and Christians equally dangerous? Why do many people seem to think that devotion to scriptural texts leads to violence? How should one respond when someone expresses concerns about these books? These are the sorts of questions addressed in this volume.

Philip and the Qur’an

In 2016, I was living in Germany. One day, I was talking with Philip, a Syrian man who had grown up in a Christian family and had come to Germany as a refugee. “Does your sister want to come to Europe, too?” I asked. “She has four children,” he replied, “and the journey is too dangerous. Muslims don’t worry as much about losing a child, so they come all the time.” I remonstrated with him for suggesting that Muslims do not care about their children, but he remained unconvinced. Then he announced, “The Qur’an says it’s okay to kill people of other faiths.”

This was not the first time I had heard someone suggest that Muslims are more accepting of violence than others, and that this is somehow evidenced by the Qur’an. One regularly encounters such suggestions online, in the media, and in conversation. I have heard remarks about “the Qur’an and violence” made by both Europeans and North Americans, “liberal” and “conservative,” “religious” and “non-religious,” from a range of educational and socio-economic backgrounds.

Not everyone who makes comments about “the Qur’an and violence” would be prepared to point to actual scriptural passages, but one can certainly find texts where violence is mentioned in the Qur’an, as well as in the scriptures of Jews and Christians. For example:

Wherever you encounter the idolaters, kill them, seize them, besiege them, wait for them at every lookout post.

(Qur’an 9:5, trans. Abdel Haleem) ²

In the towns of the peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as a heritage, you shall not let a soul remain alive. No, you must annihilate them … as the Lord your God has commanded you.

(Deuteronomy 20:16–17 NJPS) ³

Peter said to [Sapphira], “How is it that you [and your husband] have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? …” Immediately she fell down at his feet and died.

(Acts 5:9–10 NRSV)

Many remarks one hears about “scripture and violence” imply that contemporary Jews, Christians, and Muslims who affirm such passages as “scripture” might be more inclined to engage in violent acts than others.

So how should I have responded to Philip’s remark about the Qur’an? What would you have said? And how does one best reply to other statements people make about “scripture and violence”? This book is designed to help us think through these sorts of questions, which turn out to be more complicated than one might think.

Summary of the volume

This volume explores the complex relationship between scripture and real-world acts of violence. The focus is not on violence depicted in these texts, but on assumptions about how they might inspire violent acts today. Is there reason for concern? The overall perspective taken in this volume is that the Bible and the Qur’an are neither intrinsically dangerous nor inherently safe, and that the relationship between scripture and violence is more complicated that many people assume – including “religious” and “non-religious” people, “liberal” and “conservative.” Perhaps you are skeptical that any significant connection between scripture and real-world violence exists. Or maybe you think that reading certain texts probably does, could, or should make people more likely to perform violent acts. Regardless, we hope the essays in this volume will spur you to consider the issues from new perspectives. The various contributions will encourage you to think deeply about what it means to read, interpret, and engage with texts. Some of the essays will highlight the societal tendency to speak as if other people’s scriptures are a cause for concern, in contrast to one’s own favorite texts (scriptural or otherwise). Others will point to the challenge of developing a satisfying response to such concerns that does not itself reflect a simplistic understanding of the relationship between ancient texts and contemporary actions.

Our goal is not to arm readers for black-and-white polemics either for or against the Bible or the Qur’an, but to help readers think through the issues. We hope in turn to encourage healthier, more productive types of conversation about these fraught topics on both individual and societal levels, in the interests of justice, peace, and better interreligious relations. This is especially important in the current world climate, where characterizations of “Muslims,” “Jews,” “Christians,” “religious people,” etc. continue to impact everyday social interactions, as well as public policy on matters ranging from headscarves and halal meat to immigration and overseas military engagement.

Topics covered in this introductory essay

This introductory essay will briefly survey some of the many topics that need to be addressed if one wants to think seriously about “scripture and violence.” I will first make a few general comments about “violence.” What is it? Is it something “religious” communities have a unique responsibility to address? I will then explore some questions more specifically about “scripture and violence,” many of which will be taken up again in later chapters. What role do passages from the Bible and the Qur’an play in motivating or justifying violence in the world today? What is involved in interpreting and applying scriptural texts? And what leads people to think, say, or imply that those who consider certain scriptures “sacred” might be more inclined to violence – or less inclined to violence – than others? After offering a few thoughts on those issues, I will introduce the other contributions to the volume.

Before I begin, a note on terminology. Both Jews and Christians use the term “Bible” to refer to their sacred texts, but different people include different sets of texts in the collection. For some, the “Bible” includes only the texts sometimes referred to as the “Hebrew Bible” – equivalent to some versions of the “Old Testament” – while the “Bible’’ for others includes the “Hebrew Bible” and the “New Testament.” Still others have “Bibles” that include additional texts known as “Apocrypha” that are not part of either the “Hebrew Bible’’or the “New Testament.” All of this makes it difficult to find a quick way to refer to the scriptures of Jews and Christians. For the sake of brevity, I will use the term “Bible” for all of the above. When I refer to the “Bible’’ in this essay, I am thinking of any collection of texts a Jew or Christian might designate with that term.

I would also like to clarify up front that my overall intent in this introduction is to give an overview of the wide range of questions that need to be asked if one wants to analyze the relationship between scripture and violence in a robust, holistic manner. Some of the individual observations may initially appear self-evident, but I have included them to make sure that one does not forget to think about these issues when assessing real-life cases, which tend to be very complex and can trigger strong emotions. Moreover, I encourage you to consider whether there are areas in which your explicit attitudes – your readiness to affirm the ideas I discuss – may exist alongside lingering implicit biases for or against certain scriptures or people from certain religious communities.⁴ As you read, you could also consider whether your own words or instinctive responses sometimes reflect (at least to a degree) the same types of subconscious assumptions about “how texts work” that will be discussed.

What is “violence”?

So what is “violence”? Ask three people and you will get four different definitions. Is “violence” limited to physical actions that result in injury to other people? What about speech? Criticizing someone’s argument? Threatening, “Do this or else”? Excluding, marginalizing, or stereotyping? Withholding help from someone in need? Does “violence” include actions performed against cats or tree houses? Eating meat? Killing mosquitoes? What about mowing the lawn? Does surgery count as “violence,” or shoving someone out of the way of an oncoming car? Defending oneself against an aggressor or protesting a powerful oppressor? Actions that cause pain to oneself like hunger strikes or a 10K run? Some would define all of these as “violence,” while others would use the term more restrictively.

What is “violence”? I am going to leave that question open, but I invite readers to think about it for themselves, and about its implications for issues relating to “scripture and violence.” For the issues addressed in this introductory essay, a specific definition is not necessary. This essay presumes only a very vague consensus that there are at least some things that can be defined as “violence,” some of which would not exist in an ideal world.

Does it make sense to talk about “religious violence”?

Next, let’s consider the label “religious violence,” which one often hears invoked when “scripture and violence” is discussed. I contend that it is best not to use this term at all – in any context or conversation – because it is an artificial category that does not help us understand what is going on when violence occurs.

Let me explain. Suppose we tried to divide up all acts of violence performed in the world into two boxes, one labelled “religious” and one labelled “secular” (see Figure 1.1). What would happen? We would soon realize that deciding which acts to put in which box ends up being rather arbitrary. One reason for this is that people who participate in “religious” communities also have other aspects of their identity. They are also citizens of Ireland or Mexico, members of political parties, climate activists, teachers, mechanics, fathers, mothers, rich, poor, etc. Moreover, there are always many factors and circumstances that lead up to a particular act of violence – there is never just one “reason” someone does something. Due to this complexity of human identity and motivation, it would not make sense to label a particular act of violence “religious violence” merely because the individual who carried it out happened to be Jewish or Christian or Muslim. Nor would it be helpful to talk about “religious violence” even in cases where the person performing the act explicitly cited a “religious” motivation, since the label “religious violence” would imply that this was the only salient factor.

FIGURE 1.1 What are the pitfalls of trying to divide up acts of violence into these boxes?

To illustrate, imagine a man named Andy. Andy is a Christian who goes to church every Sunday and loves Jesus. As a child, he was beaten by his father. Now he is serving as a soldier in Iraq, and is under a lot of strain. One day, a fellow soldier – a particularly obnoxious man who recently criticized Andy’s accent and questioned his expertise – insults Jesus in Andy’s presence. Andy hits him. Would we want to put Andy’s act in the “religious violence” box? What about the “secular violence” box? Most of us will tend to think that neither label captures the whole reality of the situation. Now suppose instead that this was a story about a Muslim named Ahmed. Would boxes for “religious violence” and “secular violence” be more helpful now? Obviously his particular religious affiliation should not make a difference in that regard.

But what if Andy and Ahmed were not soldiers in Iraq, but plumbers in New York, and had good relationships with their fathers? In situations where it is not blatantly obvious that a complex range of circumstances have led up to the violent act – and where “religion” initially seems to be the most prominent feature of the situation – does it become appropriate to use boxes for “religious violence” and “secular violence”? I would argue that these boxes are still unhelpful: the fact that all of the other relevant factors and circumstances are not immediately obvious to us does not mean they do not exist. I therefore suggest that if we want to understand what is going on fully in any particular incident of violence – and to figure out how to reduce the frequency of such incidents in the future – the best decision is simply to throw our boxes for “religious violence” and “secular violence” away and avoid using these terms entirely.

Another problematic aspect of the label “religious violence” is that it is usually used in connection with blaming other people for violence – e.g., “Muslims have a problem with violence,” “Extremists have a problem with violence,” “Religions have a problem with violence” – which can distract from all the ways one is complicit in violence oneself. Do we live in a nation with an active military, or where violence occurs in prisons, nursing homes, schools, or families? Are there cases of rape and slavery? If so, violence is “our problem” as members of society, regardless of whether or not we have a (particular) “religious” affiliation. And has violence ever been carried out on our behalf in the name of “freedom” or “security” – at home or abroad – or so that we can continue to live at our current standard of living? Is the absence of daily violence in our immediate surroundings the result of violence in the past or elsewhere in the world? Do we benefit from police brutality, weapons exports, and preemptive strikes, carried out by our own nation or another? If so, we should be wary of focusing too much on “those other people’s problem with violence” and of using the phrase “religious violence.” Too often, those are just strategies to avoid addressing problems closer to home or to justify policies that benefit oneself at the expense of others.⁵

A good discussion of all of these issues is provided by William Cavanaugh in The Myth of Religious Violence (Cavanaugh, 2009; summary in Cavanaugh, 2011). For all of these reasons, the current volume is about “scripture and violence,” but we will not try to separate acts of violence into boxes for “religious violence” and “secular violence.” In other words, it is not a book about “religious violence.”

We are also not trying to encourage finger pointing or social media blitzes where everyone blames someone else for violence. This volume does not argue that (particular) “religious” communities have a disproportionate need to work against violence, nor does it try to exempt any communities from responsibility. Rather, we are convinced that positive change is most likely when all members of society work together to make it easier for people to live more peaceably. Some such initiatives might be spearheaded by “religious” communities, while others can be undertaken by citizen bodies, student groups, book clubs, police forces, families, and other societal collectivities.

What do the Bible and Qur...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface
• List of contributors
• Copyright information
• List of abbreviations
• 1 Introduction: scripture and violence – is there a bomb in this text?
• 2 Reading and debating the Qur’an with ISIS
• 3 “And God said”: do biblical commands to conquer land make people more violent, or less?
• 4 Invoking the Qur’an in a Muslim debate over suicide attacks
• 5 Texts and violence in modern Israel: interpreting Pinchas
• 6 Why saying “only some Muslims are violent” is no better than saying “all Muslims are violent”
• 7 Left behind? The New Testament and American evangelical Christian support for war
• 8 “There never was and never will be”: violence and interpretive erasure in the Jewish tradition
• 9 Reading scripture reverentially but not univocally: why words in themselves are not dangerous
• 10 Wrestling with scripture and avoiding violence in the university classroom
• Index of subjects
• Index of biblical, Qur’anic, and classical rabbinic texts