This volume sets out to explore the complex relations between scriptural texts and real-world acts of violence. It contains ten essays, beginning with an introductory overview by Julia Snyder. Three of the essays deal with Islam, three with Judaism, two with Christianity, and one with the university classroom.

In the Islamic tradition, Omar Shaukat, in “Reading and Debating the Qu'ran with ISIS,” reports on actual conversations with members of ISIS. He argues that scriptural interpretation was not their primary motivating factor, but rather a desire to be involved in political and social reform. In a similar vein, Sara Omar, in “Invoking the Qu'ran in a Muslim Debate over Suicide Attacks,” finds that people on opposing sides sometimes cite the same verses and that political arguments are usually developed at greater length. In “Why Saying ‘Only Some Muslims Are Violent’ Is No Better than Saying All Muslims Are Violent,’” Nauman Faizi objects to all forms of essentializing statements about Muslims.

In the Jewish tradition, Daniel H. Weiss, in “‘And God Said’: Do Biblical Commands to Conquer Land Make People More Violent, or Less?,” and Laurie Zoloth, “‘There Never Was and Never Will Be’: Violence and Interpretive Erasure in the Jewish Tradition,” emphasize how rabbinic tradition found ways to neutralize ostensible divine commands to do violence. Laliv Clenman, in “Texts and Violence in Modern Israel: Interpreting Pinchas,” notes a case where an anonymous poster cited the story of Phineas in Numbers 25 to justify killings at a Pride parade in Jerusalem in 2015. She argues, however, that this use of Scripture is out of keeping with normative rabbinic tradition.

Turning to Christianity, Jacob L. Goodson, in “‘Left Behind?’ The New Testament and American Evangelical Christian Support for War,” points out that Christians as well as Muslims and Jews can cite Scripture in support of violent policies. Conversely, Jim Fodor, in “Reading Scripture Reverentially but Not Univocally: Why Words in Themselves Are Not Dangerous,” argues that, in the Anglican tradition, Scripture reading is part of a larger pattern of communal worship and Scripture is interpreted in that context.

Finally, Marianne Moyaert, in “Wrestling with Scripture and Avoiding Violence in the University Classroom,” finds that both religious and secular students tend to assume that texts have self-evident meanings, and they fail to recognize the importance of the context from which one reads.

With the exception of the Goodson piece on American evangelicals, all of these essays tend to loosen the connection between Scripture and violence and argue that violent writings do not necessarily lead to violent actions. They make some good points. Both Jewish and Christian traditions have often used interpretive techniques to avoid the literal meaning of the text or restrict its application. Violent people are seldom motivated primarily by Scripture and seldom deterred by it when it urges moderation. Ideology trumps exegesis. It is also true that much liturgical reading of Scripture in the Christian tradition treats it as phatic communication, nodding reverentially while paying little attention to its actual content. Nonetheless, this is a one-sided collection. Even when Scripture is not the primary motivating factor, it often lends legitimation to violence, as in the case cited by Clenman. Most obviously lacking here is attention to the long history of the use of Scripture, in all three traditions, in support of violent action. In light of that history, the claim of Fodor that words in themselves are not dangerous is either naive or disingenuous. And if there is any evidence that violent divine commands ever made anyone less violent, I am not aware of it.

In all then, these essays are thoughtful representatives of one side of a debate. There are many books that are equally one-sided in indicting Scripture, so this volume too is a valuable contribution.