Global Hermeneutics? - International Voices in Biblical Studies ...

BAUMANN 21
becomes less—and less severe—in the process described in the Bible. 17 In the early
history of Israel God uses violence (e.g. in the “Holy War”); then there are more
traces of inner-biblical criticism of divine violence (e.g. in the Servant of the Lord
in Dt-Isa), until divine violence reaches its end in Jesus being crucified. This
strategy is also in danger of favouring anti-Judaism.
The theory of the cultural anthropologist René Girard 18 is well known mainly
in the Catholic discussion on divine violence. In Girard’s concept (VI) it seems
possible to put an end to all forms of violence by making a sacrifice—which in the
Christian context is Jesus of Nazareth. This is, of course, another interpretation of
the Old Testament from the New Testament perspective and therefore bears the
same problems already mentioned above (IV). Another critical point is, then, that in
Girard’s scheme violence is looked at without recognising the historical context of
biblical texts. 19 Cultural differences between ancient Israel and today’s societies are
not relevant in this model. Sociological and anthropological research has shown,
however, that violence is closely linked to specific sociological conditions and
problems. This raises doubt whether there can be a general approach—like
Girard’s—to all forms of violence.
A number of scholars are able to look positively at Old Testament texts of
violence and divine violence. In this view (VII) the texts mirror historical violence
present in all ancient Near Eastern societies, including ancient Israel. 20 Old
17 E.g. Lohfink in one of his earlier works (Weltgestaltung und Gewaltlosigkeit); see
Michel’s critique (Gott und Gewalt, 2, note 10): “1. Dass die Problembeschreibung so stark
auf die sozial- und tiefenpsychologischen Ansätze Girards rekurriert, begrenzt mit Sicherheit
die mögliche interpretative Kraft von Lohfinks Beobachtungen und Hypothesen. 2. Die
Verschlingung der Gewaltproblematik in die Perspektive einer erlebbaren, aber
religionssoziologisch recht enggefaßten Gewaltlosigkeitsutopie hinein … schwächt ab, was
zuvor stark gemacht wurde. 3. Die hermeneutische Vorordnung des NT vor das AT in
Sachen ‘Gewalt’ … reduziert das AT im wesentlichen eben doch, allen gegenteiligen
Beteuerungen zum Trotz, auf einen Anweg der ‘Entlarvung der Gewalt’ ….”
18 E.g. R. Girard, Violence and the Sacred (trans. P. Gregory; Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1977 [Paris 1972]); for the German reception see e.g. R.
Schwager, Brauchen wir einen Sündenbock? Gewalt und Erlösung in den biblischen
Schriften (München: Kösel, 1978).
19 For more critical points see U. Rüterswörden, “Das Ende der Gewalt? Zu René
Girards Buch,” in Der eine Gott der beiden Testamente (eds. I. Baldermann et al.; JBTh 2.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1987), 247–256.
20 This position can be found in a number of approaches: Lohfink, Weltgestaltung und
Gewaltlosigkeit, 49–53; W. H. Schmidt, “Gott und das Böse. Hinweise auf das Alte
Testament,” EvTh 52 (1992), 7–22 (p. 21); E. Zenger, Ein Gott der Rache? Feindpsalmen
verstehen (Freiburg: Herder, 1994), 162, 165; M. Görg, Der un-heile Gott. Die Bibel im
Bann der Gewalt (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1995), 25; S. Krahe, Ermordete Kinder und andere
Geschichten von Gottes Unmoral (Würzburg: Echter, 1999), 9, 120; and—partly—O. Fuchs,
“Macht und Gewalt in biblischen Texten. Eine praktisch-theologische Auseinandersetzung