A Time for War: A Study of Warfare in the Old Testament (review)

Abstract

Hebrew Studies 32 (1991) 127 Reviews of Mot").1 He preferred the derivation from Akkadian $aJamu, "be dark" (p. 92, n. 16). He (with all other scholars) translated 14:13a, 'l'lEl~n "'RrD:l ln' 'c, "Would that you might hide me in Sheol," and then proceeded with the usual contorted explanation. But could not ...:llEl~ mean the same as (1)0 lEl~ as in 17:4a, ,,~ ru~ C:l" ';', "for their heart (= mind) You have hidden from (= to) reason"? Why should 'l'lEl~ "'RrD:l 1"' '0 not be translated "0 that from Sheol You would hide me" as I have proposed (Michel 1970:176,322; and 1987:315, 325)1 Walter L. Michel Lutheran School ofTheology at Chicago Chicago, IL 60615 A TIME FOR WAR: A STUDY OF WARFARE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. By T. R. Hobbs. Old Testament Studies 3. Pp. 248. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1989. Paper, $15.95. This book on warfare in the Hebrew Bible is a clear and very useful study. It is highly focused, but at the same time it deals suggestively with a number of topics and issues related to warfare such as violence, leadership, and ideology. For the sake of convenience I will divide this review into three parts: (1) a sketch of the thesis, content, and argument; (2) an indication of aspects of the study that I consider important for contemporary biblical interpretation; and (3) a comment on an issue which in my view should be approached much differently. The author's purpose "is to introduce the reader to the historical and cultural context of warfare in the Old Testament" (p. 13), at the conclusion of which he sketches some theological implications, particularly for the Christian reader of the Bible. Hobbs draws upon various models of society and history in order to present what he calls a "military historical" approach to the topic (p. 25). He surveys textual and non-textual evidence pertaining to the period of the judges and the monarchy and comments at length on organization and leadership, material, strategy and tactics, and I Walter L. Michel. "Slmwt. 'Deep Darkness' or 'Shadow of Death'?" Biblical Research 29 (1984):5-20. Hebrew Studies 32 (1991) 128 Reviews the role of war in the fonnation of biblical literature. He concludes with a chapter on "Old Testament Warfare and New Testament Insights," Hobbs argues that in general the OT does not oppose warfare but presupposes it as part of the human condition. Warfare was employed in the time of the judges as a legitimate means of defense of the Israelite community against aggression. During the monarchic period kings and their counselors used it as a tool of aggression against neighbors, and warfare became part of an imperial ideology. Prophets raised their voices in protest against such self-aggrandizement and typically delivered oracles of judgment according to which other nations, at YHWH's behest, would defeat and destroy Israel. Even these prophets, however, did not condemn the very existence of warfare, and "in the post-exilic visions of restoration, the prophets also resorted to the ... language of empire to envision a restored Judah and Jerusalem" (p. 222). Although the author does not, as far as I can tell, offer an original thesis of his own, he has certainly brought disparate sorts of material together in a new way and presented his thesis with great clarity and thorough documentation . Here I would simply note some of the most interesting aspects of the book from my standpoint: (1) the common structure of empires in tenns of the king vis-a-vis other offices (drawing upon Eisenstadt; see especially pp. 54-55); (2) leadership and motivation, with particular reference to the question of the role of religion (discussing numerous writers on warfare, leadership, and group psychology; pp. 89-108); (3) ideology (Shils) and the "centre-periphery" model of imperial political systems (Liverani; pp. 186-198); (4) questioning the existence of "holy war" as an ancient Israelite institution (pp. 203-206); and (5) the ambiguity of apocalyptic in the NT (pp. 230-233). I will conclude with a brief comment on an interpretive issue about which I disagree sharply with Hobbs. I think the...