Gordon K. Oeste

William J. Webb

Christians cannot ignore the intersection of religion and violence. In our own Scriptures, war texts that appear to approve of genocidal killings and war rape raise hard questions about biblical ethics and the character of God. Have we missed something in our traditional readings? Identifying a spectrum of views on biblical war texts, Webb and Oeste pursue a middle path using a hermeneutic of incremental, redemptive-movement ethics.

Wrestling with Troubling War Texts

Bloody, Brutal, and Barbaric?

This book explores the portrayal of the rise, reign, and demise of Abimelech in Judges 9 and asks about whose interests this portrayal may have served. The negative depiction of Abimelech's kingship in this chapter, coupled with Gideon's rejection of kingship in Judges 8:22-23, has led interpreters to view the passage as anti-monarchic. This perspective clashes with the pro-monarchic stance of Judges 17-21. However, while the portrayal of Abimelech's kingship is negative, it may yet have served as a legitimation strategy for the monarchy. In support, this study examines Judges 9 through three methodological lenses: a narrative analysis, a rhetorical analysis and a social scientific analysis. In addition, anthropological data on early and developing states shows that such states attempt to prevent fissioning (the tendency inherent within political systems to break up and form other similar units) by subverting local leaders, groups, and institutions, and so legitimate the centralization of power. When read in this light, Judges 9 supports monarchic interests by seeking to subvert localized rule and alliances in favor of a centralized polity.

Windows on Abimelech's Rise and Demise in Judges 9

Legitimacy, Illegitimacy, and the Right to Rule

This book explores the portrayal of the rise, reign, and demise of Abimelech in Judges 9 and asks about whose interests this portrayal may have served. The negative depiction of Abimelechs kingship in this chapter, coupled with Gideons rejection of kingship in Judges 8:22-23, has led interpreters to view the passage as anti-monarchic. This perspective clashes with the pro-monarchic stance of Judges 17-21. However, while the portrayal of Abimelechs kingship is negative, it may yet have served as a legitimation strategy for the monarchy. In support, this study examines Judges 9 through three methodological lenses: a narrative analysis, a rhetorical analysis and a social scientific analysis. In addition, anthropological data on early and developing states shows that such states attempt to prevent fissioning (the tendency inherent within political systems to break up and form other similar units) by subverting local leaders, groups, and institutions, and so legitimate the centralization of power. When read in this light, Judges 9 supports monarchic interests by seeking to subvert localized rule and alliances in favor of a centralized polity.

Gordon K. Oeste

About

Books

Join the club