Collective and Individual Responsibility: A Description of Corporate Personality in Ezekiel 18 and 20 (Studia Semitica Neerlandica)

Collective and Individual Responsibility

Studia Semitica Neerlandica Editor-in-Chief

Prof. dr. K. A. D. Smelik Editorial Board

Prof. dr. P. C. Beentjes, Prof. dr. W. J. van Bekkum, Dr. W. C. Delsman, Prof. dr. H. Gzella, Prof. dr. J. Hoftijzer, Prof. dr. J. Van Steenbergen, Prof. dr. E. Talstra, Prof. dr. M. Tanret, Prof. dr. K. R. Veenhof

VOLUME 53

Collective and Individual Responsibility A Description of Corporate Personality in Ezekiel 18 and 20

By

Jurrien Mol

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2009

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Mol, Jurrien. Collective and individual responsibility : a description of corporate personality in Ezekiel 18 and 20 / by Jurrien Mol. p. cm. — (Studia Semitica Neerlandica, ISSN 0081-6914 ; v. 53) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-17043-8 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T. Ezekiel XVIII, XX—Criticism, interpretation, etc. 2. Responsibility. 3. Sociology, Biblical. I. Title. II. Series. BS1545.52.M65 2009 224’.4066—dc22 2009017577

ISSN 0081-6914 ISBN 978 90 04 17043 8 Copyright 2009 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS Acknowledgements ............................................................................ Abbreviations .....................................................................................

vii ix

Introduction ........................................................................................ History of Scholarship .................................................................. Toward a New Approach .............................................................

1 2 6

Chapter One Ezekiel 18 and 20. Textual Criticism, Philology and Grammar ............................................................... Ezekiel 18—Translation ............................................................... Notes on Ezekiel 18 ...................................................................... Ezekiel 20—Translation ............................................................... Notes on Ezekiel 20 ......................................................................

13 13 17 39 45

Chapter Two Ezekiel 18 and 20. A Structural Analysis ........... The Structure of Ezekiel ............................................................... The Structure of Ezekiel 1–24 ..................................................... Ezekiel 1–24 .................................................................................... Ezekiel 18 and 20 within Ezekiel 1–24 ...................................... The Structure of Ezekiel 18 .......................................................... The Structure of Ezekiel 20 .......................................................... Appendix I—Diagram 3: Synopsis Ezekiel 20:5–26 ................ Appendix II—Diagram 4: Ezekiel 1–24 .....................................

69 70 72 74 76 78 87 108 110

Chapter Three Corporate Personality ......................................... Henry Wheeler Robinson—Life and Work .............................. The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality ................. The Group and the Individual in Israel .................................... Background and Sources of the Hypothesis of the Corporate Personality .................................................................................. Résumé ............................................................................................

111 111 114 121 124 143

Chapter Four Application of the Corporate Personality ......... Application by Wheeler Robinson ............................................. Application by Other Scholars ....................................................

145 145 162

vi

contents

Chapter Five Critique of the Corporate Personality ................ Rogerson’s Discussion of the Corporate Personality .............. Theories of Lévy-Bruhl ................................................................. Weighing the Critique .................................................................. Farewell to or Redefining of the Corporate Personality? .......

187 190 195 198 203

Chapter Six Ezekiel 18 and 20. Collective and Individual Responsibility ................................................................................. Preliminary Matters ...................................................................... Ezekiel 18 ........................................................................................ Ezekiel 20 ........................................................................................ Ezekiel 18 and Ezekiel 20 ............................................................. Résumé ............................................................................................ Corporate Personality ...................................................................

209 209 218 228 235 245 246

Conclusion ..........................................................................................

257

Bibliography ........................................................................................

265

Index of Authors ................................................................................

283

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Words of gratitude are due to the editorial board of Studia Semitica Neerlandica for the invitation to publish in this series my reworked and translated thesis of 2002, which was written in Dutch. I owe a special word of gratitude to prof. dr. Klaas Smelik, chairman of the editorial board, for his encouragement to persevere in finding funds to realize this endeavor. Funds were provided by ‘Ridderlijke Duitsche Orde Balije van Utrecht’ and ‘Fonds Christelijke Belangen’ for which I am grateful beyond saying. Special thanks I offer to the translator dr. Martin Kessler for his constructive way of working and to Liesbeth Kanis of Brill Publishers for her support during the preparation of the manuscript. Final words of gratitude I owe to Loes, Matthijs, and Thomas—my wife and sons—for their patience with me while finishing this project. Soli Deo Gloria Jurrien Mol

ABBREVIATIONS AB ABD ABS AnBib AOAT ASA ATA ATD ATSAT BASOR BAT BBB BDB BETL BHK BHS BJRL BKAT BN BOT BST-OT BT BWANT BZ BZAW BZTS CahRB CBET CBQ ConBOT

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. 1992. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York Archaeology and Biblical Studies Analecta biblica Alter Orient und Altes Testament Association of Social Anthropologists of the Commonwealth Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen Das Alte Testament Deutsch Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments Bonner biblische Beiträge Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. 1951–1979. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniesium Biblia Hebraica. Edited by R. Kittel Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament Biblische Notizen De Boeken van het Oude Testament The Bible Speaks Today: Old Testament Series The Bible Translator Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Bonner Zeitschrift für Theologie und Seelsorge Cahiers de la Revue Biblique Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series

x COut CRINT CTM, A

abbreviations

Commentaar op het Oude Testament Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum Calwer Theologische Monographien, Reihe A: Bibelwissenschaft DCH Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 1993–. Edited by D. J. A. Clines. Sheffield DDD2 Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 1999. Edited by K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst. 2d ed. Leiden EB Echter Bibel EdF Erträge der Forschung ETL Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses EvT Evangelische Theologie FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament FB Forschung zur Bibel FOTL The Forms of the Old Testament Literature FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments GAT Grundrisse zum Alten Testament GBS Guides to Biblical Scholarship GKC Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. 1910. Edited by E. Kautzsch. Translated by A. E. Cowley. 2d ed. Oxford HAL Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm. 1967– 1996. Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexicon zum Alten Testament. Leiden HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Testament HTKNT Herders theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament ICC International Critical Commentary Int Interpretation Interpretation Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching IRT Issues in Religion and Theology ITC International Theological Commentary JANESCU Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society Jastrow Jastrow, M. S.a. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. Reprinted. Israel

abbreviations JBL JBLMS JBS JETS JHS JM

JSOT JSOTSup JTS K KAT KeH KEK KHC LBS LHBOTS LXX MOT MT NAC NCB NEchtB NedTT NICOT NIGTC NSK-AT NTVT OBO OTG OTL OtSt OTWSA POut Q RB

xi

Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Biblical Literature, Monograph Series Jerusalem Biblical Studies Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Hebrew Scriptures Joüon, P. 2000. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Subsidia Biblica 14/1, 14/2). Translated and Revised by T. Muraoka. 2 Vols. 2d ed. Rome Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series Journal of Theological Studies Ketib Kommentar zum Alten Testament Kurzgefaßtes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (Meyer-Kommentar) Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament Library of Biblical Studies Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies Septuaginta Mastering the Old Testament (Formerly: The Communicator’s Commentary Series, Old Testament) Masoretic Text New American Commentary New Century Bible Neue Echter Bibel Nederlands theologisch tijdschrift New International Commentary on the Old Testament New International Greek Testament Commentary Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar—Altes Testament Het Nieuwe Testament vertaald en toegelicht Orbis biblicus et orientalis Old Testament Guides Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studiën Die Ou Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrika De Prediking van het Oude Testament Qere Revue biblique

xii RecSR RGG3

RGG4 RIDA SBB SBL SBLDS SBLSP SBS SBTS ScEccl Schneider ScrHier SH(C)ANE SJLA SJSJ SKKAT SNTSMS SOTSMS SSN Str-B

SWBAS TeT TGl THAT

ThR TOTC TWAT VT

abbreviations Recherches de science religieuse Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. 1986. Edited by K. Galling. 7 vols. 3d ed. Unabridged study edition. Tübingen Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. 1998–2007. Edited by H. D. Betz et al. 9 vols. 4th ed. Tübingen Revue internationale des droits de l’antiquité Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Sources for Biblical and Theological Study Sciences ecclésiastiques Schneider, W. 1982. Grammatik des Biblischen Hebräisch. 5th ed. Munich Scripta hierosolymitana Studies in the History (and Culture) of the Ancient Near East Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism Stuttgarter kleiner Kommentar, Altes Testament Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series Society for Old Testament Studies Monograph Series Studia semitica neerlandica Strack, H. L., and P. Billerbeck. 1986. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vols. 9th ed. Munich Social World of Biblical Antiquity Series Tekst en Toelichting Theologie und Glaube Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament. 1978 1979. Edited by E. Jenni, with assistance from C. Westermann. 2 vols. 3d and 2d ed. Munich Theologische Rundschau Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. 1970–. Edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Stuttgart Vetus Testamentum

abbreviations VTSup WBC WdF WMANT YOSR ZABR ZAW ZTK

xiii

Supplements to Vetus Testamentum Word Biblical Commentary Wege der Forschung Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Yale Oriental Series, Researches Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

INTRODUCTION When reading Ezekiel 18 and 20, one notices that chapter 18 deals with individual responsibility, but in chapter 20 collective responsibility is the subject. The presence of these two levels of responsibility within a single literary work has led to different views. Globally, two approaches may be distinguished. On the one hand, the presence of both individual and collective responsibility in Ezekiel may be viewed as a contrast. In the course of history, this contrast has been explained differently. It may reveal an inconsistency in the thought of the prophet Ezekiel, or a development in his thoughts with the progress of time, or situation-bound prophecies which produced a certain measure of inconsistency. It is also possible that in Ezekiel, as a literary work, various redactions may be recognized (whether or not they originated with the prophet himself ), which explain the differences in the vision of responsibility as well as the inconsistency. On the other hand, the presence of both individual and collective responsibility may be seen as a given which demands a coherent explanation. This approach does not take its departure from a perceived inconsistency either in the thought of the prophet or in the book, depending on one’s vision of Ezekiel. From this approach flows a need for further explanation of the relationship between the two levels of responsibility. A proposal for a further explanation is the hypothesis of the ‘corporate personality’ as Henry Wheeler Robinson presented it in 1935 at the Internationale Tagung Alttestamentlicher Forscher in Göttingen. In his hypothesis, Wheeler Robinson offered a framework within which the individual and the collective may stand alongside each other without any tension. The core of this hypothesis consists in the possibility of a smooth transition from the individual to the collective and vice versa. The hypothesis is thus also significant for the understanding of the relationship between individual and collective responsibility in Ezekiel, since responsibility may be borne either by an individual or by a collective. Wheeler Robinson’s hypothesis has found many followers in countless areas of investigation. This is not only the case in Old Testament scholarship, but also in particular with New Testament studies. This hypothesis is also discussed and contradicted. The latter relates

2

introduction

particularly to its foundations which Wheeler Robinson borrowed from the results of contemporary anthropological studies. A key position is provided by the work of Lucien Lévy-Bruhl. On the basis of the discussion of the foundations, John Rogerson has suggested that the term ‘corporate personality’ be avoided altogether in Old Testament scholarship. The hypothesis should no longer be used to clarify the relationship between the individual and the collective in the Old Testament. Rogerson’s suggestion has not found general acceptance in the scholarly discussion. The continuing use of the term ‘corporate personality’ demands a comprehensive testing of the hypothesis and its basis. The existing use of the term must be judged on the basis of the related conclusions. From this follows agreement with Rogerson’s suggestion not to use Wheeler’s Robinson’s hypothesis any longer. However, this need not lead to the abolition of the term ‘corporate personality’ as a useful expression for the verbalizing of a vision of the relationship between individual and collective responsibility in Ezekiel 18 and 20. To express it differently: the term ‘corporate personality’ is, in its redefined form, clarifying for the understanding of the relationship of the individual to the collective (which bears responsibility). With this it needs to be indicated as to what the term ‘corporate personality’ contains and how it is to be based. Ezekiel 18 and 20 offer possibilities for redefinition because they offer examples of collective and individual responsibility. Therefore, the study of Ezekiel 18 and 20 needs to precede determining whether these chapters offer a reliable textual basis toward a vision of the relationship between individual and collective responsibility in Ezekiel, with the use of the term ‘corporate responsibility.’ An overview of the field of Ezekiel scholarship is also relevant for arriving at a position within which the results may be described. History of Scholarship At the end of the nineteenth century Smend’s view of Ezekiel was generally held. He claimed: “Not a single section could be removed without endangering the entire work.”1 From the beginning of the 1 Smend 1880 (XXI): “Man könnte kein Stück herausnehmen ohne das ganze Ensemble zu gefährden.” Contrary opinions were not or hardly taken seriously during the nineteenth century. Cf. Lang 1981a (1–2).

introduction

3

twentieth century, critical analysis began to disturb this harmonious picture, a disturbance which may be judged to be complete. With this concise conclusion Pohlmann begins his redaction-historical study of Ezekiel.2 Hölscher was actually the first one to put the critical knife into Ezekiel.3 He arrived at the conclusion that only one seventh of the book could have originated with the prophet. As the criterion for the drawing of his critical analysis he drew a distinction between prose and poetry. Since then it was no longer possible to approach Ezekiel as Smend did in 1880. The book of Ezekiel is not the diary of the prophet or an anthology of his sayings, but the product of compositional labor. Though this conclusion is endorsed by most scholars, no statement is thereby made on the origin of the composition. Scholars have different and even opposing views on the composition. All of this explains the difficulty of the grouping of various positions.4 Four proposals contribute toward a division of the different results of investigation. Lang distinguishes three positions: moderate (Herrmann and Fohrer), radical (Hölscher) and bridging or combining (Zimmerli).5 Lang shares the view of Fohrer.6 He draws his conclusions concerning the origin of the book along the lines of Herrmann.7 Fohrer claims: It may . . . be assumed that Ezekiel himself fixed his words and accounts in written form and reports before or after their oral proclamation, although he was neither involved in their order and combination nor in the structuring of the entire material.8

2

See Pohlmann 1992 (3), and further id. 2006. Cf. Childs 1983 (357). See Hölscher 1924. 4 See Lust, ed. 1986; Feist 1995 (12); Kutsko 2000 (10). Darr 1994 (21) pleads for a fruitful interaction between various positions. Kutsko 2000 (23) perceives a consensus. 5 See Lang 1981a (2–18). 6 See id. 1981b (127). 7 Herrmann 1924 (XXXIV): “Überblickt man noch einmal die Analyse des ganzen Buches, so wird man alles in allem sagen müssen, daß das Buch weithin als die von Ezechiel selbst veranstalltete Sammlung seiner schriftlichen Aufzeichnungen über profetische Erlebnisse, Worte und Handlungen gelten darf; die Einordnung . . . kann durchaus als von der Hand des Ezechiels herrührend begriffen werden.” 8 Fohrer 1955 (XI): “Es ist . . . anzunehmen, daß Ez seine Worte und Berichte selbst vor oder nach ihrer mündlichen Verkündigung schriftlich niedergelegt und in dieser Form einzeln hinterlassen hat, jedoch weder an ihrer Ordung und Zusammenfassung noch an der Gliederung des gesamten Stoffs beteiligt gewesen ist.” For a detailed discussion see id. 1952 (27–104). 3

4

introduction

The position of Zimmerli in his commentary may be rightly labeled bridging or combining.9 He attempts to do as much justice to the historic prophet as to the later editors of the material. With the term ‘Fortschreibung’ (continuation) he indicates the way “from prophetic word to prophetic book.”10 This process had its origin already during the life of the prophet and appears to be limited, both as regards to time as well as to personal responsibility. The time is limited to the period of Ezekiel’s life and that of his contemporaries. The personal responsibility for the process is limited to him and his disciples. Hossfeld speaks of three positions in scholarship which roughly coincide with the ones by Lang.11 Hossfeld indicates the positions with the most articulate representatives of their particular position. Greenberg and Becker represent the extreme view and Zimmerli represents the bridging position. Hossfeld joins the approach by Zimmerli, who in his opinion is the one treating the complex texts adequately. Becker distinguishes four positions which he posits on a sliding scale.12 The most extreme ones are formed by, on the one hand the concept that we have to do with “a literary unified work which essentially derives from the prophet himself,”13 and on the other hand the view that the redactional material has skirted the limit of pseudepigraphy.14 These are respectively the first and fourth positions in Becker’s scheme.15 He counts Greenberg and himself as representatives of the two most extreme positions, which in respect to the literary unity of the book may view each other as allies. Both intermediate positions Becker lists on the basis of the criterion as to what extent the work is viewed as deriving from the historical Ezekiel, or to what extent it is the result of redactional labor. The position is determined depending on whether the genuine word of the historical prophet or the redaction has the upper hand. Representing the second position are Kraetzschmar and

9

See Zimmerli 1969a, id. 1969b. Id. 1969a (104*–114*): “vom Prophetenwort zum Prophetenbuch.” 11 See Hossfeld 1986 (151–152). 12 See Becker 1986 (136–150). Cf. Mein 2001 (50): “Hence it is safer to speak of a ‘spectrum’ or ‘continuum’ of Ezekiel research where different studies can be located.” 13 Becker 1986 (137): “[E]in im wesentlichen vom Propheten selbst stammendes und literarisch einheitliches Werk.” 14 E.g. Torrey 1930 (reprinted 1970) and Feist 1995. 15 See Becker 1992. 10

introduction

5

Herrmann, but the representative par excellence is Zimmerli. The third position is represented by Hölscher.16 A more recent sketch is by Joyce.17 He claims that scholarship has developed in two different directions. The one direction he associates with the work of Garscha,18 who continues in the line of Hölscher. Garscha claims a greater measure of stratification in the text, which is the result of successive redactions. A conclusion comparable to that of Garscha is stated by Pohlmann,19 though he discovers other redactions than does Garscha. Both scholars agree as to the duration of the history of the redaction, which in their view, covers several centuries.20 The other direction has an important representative in Greenberg.21 He describes his approach as holistic interpretation. It abandons hypotheses such as the one by Garscha. Structural analysis of the text and the study of rhetorical structures lead him to presuppose: that the present Book of Ezekiel is the product of art and intelligent design. . . . A consistent trend of thought expressed in a distinctive style has emerged, giving the impression of an individual mind of powerful and passionate proclivities. . . . The persuasion grows on one as piece after piece falls into the established patterns and ideas that a coherent world of visions is emerging, contemporary with the sixth-century prophet and decisively shaped by him, if not the very words of Ezekiel himself.22

The study of rhetorical structures and techniques in the book of Ezekiel was advanced by Renz along the way of “a rhetorical critical approach.”23 He concludes that the book of Ezekiel is to be approached as a “rhetorical unit,” i.e. an integrated whole, not to be equated with a literary unity, however.24

16 A further refinement may be found in Lust 1986 (1–3): five parts on a sliding scale, comparable to that of Becker, and Feist 1995 (12–15): five “models of reading.” Though different from each other, both approaches fail to create a greater measure of clarity. 17 See Joyce 1989 (28–31), and also Mein 2001 (41–50). 18 See Garscha 1975. 19 See Pohlmann 1992. 20 See ibid. (254). Thus also Krüger 1989 (305–306) in reference to Garscha. 21 E.g. in his commentary: Greenberg 1986, id. 1997. 22 Id. 1986 (26–27). Similar Boadt 1996 (215–216) and Rösel 2000 (162). A related question under discussion concerns the personality of the prophet. The most divergent hypotheses have been presented about his spiritual and/or physical condition. See Halperin 1993 (7–38). 23 Renz 1999 (11). 24 See ibid. (22, 23, 249).

6

introduction Toward a New Approach

The sketch by Joyce offers a benchmark to arrive at a position. He proceeds from the two clearest distinct approaches to Ezekiel: the text as literary unit as opposed to the text in its redactional strata. With this polarized rendering of the ways of approach, sufficient clarity has not yet been achieved. The paradigms handled by scholars cannot always be accommodated exclusively with the approach of the text as literary unit, or with the approach of the text in its redactional stratification,25 because scholars judge particularly the history and the result of the literary formation differently. Joyce had brought clarification with his discussion of the position of Becker beside Garscha and Greenberg, because the positions which these three scholars assume, illustrate the complexity of the paradigms.26 Becker arrives at a conclusion, which is diametrically opposed to Greenberg’s, but then stands diametrically opposed to the conclusion of Garscha. The diametrical difference between Becker and Greenberg is based on a criterion which differs from the one between Becker and Garscha. This illustrates the difficulty of coming to an insightful division of the positions under investigation. It is striking that difference of opinion with the one leads to agreement on that point with another. The paradigms overlap on one point, while they exclude each another on another point. Becker and Greenberg have in common, that both have their starting point in the unity of the work. According to both scholars the realization of unity runs, however, along strictly different lines. With their conclusion they stand together opposed to Garscha who posits a large measure of stratification in the text. Becker and Garscha agree on the point of redactional activity of the text by later hands.27 On this point they are allied against Greenberg. This relates to the lines along which the literary form has come about. In the ‘field of force’ of this particular triangular relationship Joyce posits his thesis, which characterizes the Ezekiel tradition as a definite homogeneity.28 25

See Feist 1995 (176–177). Joyce 1995 includes Becker in his discussions. Joyce also observes the complexity of the paradigms. 27 Followed by De Jong 2007 (15). 28 See Joyce 1995 (118). Diametrically opposed is Krüger 1989 (305) who posits great tension in the final redaction of the book in its canonical form. 26

introduction

7

Where Greenberg assumes, on the basis of the homogeneity, that we have to do with the prophet’s own words, Becker opts for an apocalyptic pseudepigraphical work—characterized by total redactionality—which he dates somewhere in the fifth century B.C. The striking agreement between both scholars in their approach is, as mentioned, based on the fact that both Greenberg and Becker approach the text ‘holistically.’ According to Joyce, Garscha arrives at his view of a great stratification of the text precisely because it is so homogeneous.29 In Joyce’s opinion, it is this homogeneity, which de facto leads Greenberg to assume that everything comes from the prophet himself.30 Even so, Greenberg himself leaves a little wiggle room on this point. Becker is completely clear: homogeneity is the result of total redactional activity. Joyce, in his research, assumes the existence of primary material and secondary editing within the homogeneity. Where possible, the distinction must be made with the understanding that certain pronouncements will be rare because of the homogeneity of the textual material. For this careful approach, Joyce refers to Clements, who does justice both to the fact of redactional editing and the homogeneity of the Ezekiel tradition.31 In a lucid article, Clements expounds how a place may be given to both the homogeneity of the textual material in Ezekiel and the redactional activity, which is recognizably present.32 The most persuasive vision of the genetic history of the book of Ezekiel is that of Clements, with which Joyce agrees.33 The Forschungsbericht by Joyce on the other hand has been simplified too much with its twofold division of the critical study of Ezekiel. In fact, Joyce himself comes to the same conclusion, by qualifying both Greenberg’s approach as that of Garscha as insufficient, and choosing a different position himself. This leads to a tripartite form with the approach of Clements as the most likely one within the triangular relationship between Greenberg, Garscha and Becker.

29 30 31 32 33

See Joyce 1989 (31). Cf. De Vries 1962. See ibid. (31). See Clements 1986. Cf. Childs 1996. See ibid. passim. See also Renz 1999 (10 n.32); Mein 2001 (50); Mol 2002 (13–16).

8

introduction

The point of departure for the vision of Clements of the genetic history of Ezekiel is twofold.34 On the one hand he is of the opinion that scholars have leaned too long and too heavily on the hypothesis of disciples of prophets and prophetic schools, where the spoken prophecies were retained in their poetic form in a continuous process of memorization. Ezekiel contains many examples of connections with other corpora of texts, which make unlikely the idea of a prophetic school, chiefly operating by itself. The circle, within which the texts of Ezekiel were handed down and formulated, is wider than those of a school of prophets or a group of prophet’s disciples. The agreements with texts of the priestly school (with Lev 17–26 as a school example) point to a wider circle. Thus do also the agreements with Jeremiah, of which a Deuteronomistic edition is assumed, on the basis of which for example a Jeremiah school is unlikely. On the other hand he is of the opinion that the editing of the text of Ezekiel cannot sufficiently be explained with the model of the Fortschreibung such as Zimmerli has developed. The secondary editing of the texts is not a process of addition to the existing primary material. Rather, the secondary editing has as its goal to fit the primary material into the whole of the prophetic message, as this is formulated in the prophetic literature. This is not about an agglomerative process around a core of primary material. The secondary editing bears the marks of commentary on the primary material adapted to a new situation, in a new context. This has happened in a process of de-contextualization of the original prophecy away from the clear historical and political context within which it was placed originally, and a subsequent recontextualization, in which the original prophecy is provided with (new) commentary so that the re-contextualization might be meaningful for the new historical and literary contexts, within which the prophecy has been placed. This explains in the vision of Clements why the texts of Ezekiel show a high measure of homogeneity. On this point there is agreement with Greenberg, who requests attention for the literary structures in the texts. There is a clear difference of opinion between Clements and Greenberg concerning the origination of these literary structures. Greenberg proceeds from a careful structure, planned by the prophet himself. Clements sees the literary structures as a mark of the techniques and

34

See Clements 1982, id. 1986.

introduction

9

concerns of the circle of writers, which is responsible for the literary formation of the book.35 In this connection, Clements uses Zimmerli’s term Fortschreibung but he means thereby a commenting on the primary material (the original sayings of the prophet) in a pesher-like manner.36 Whether Ezekiel himself has set this process in motion, or that this was done by a wider circle, makes little or no difference. The central point is, that the work of the original prophet was retained with the characteristics of oral prophecy and that the editing of these prophecies is recognizable and may be understood as literary activity. This literary activity is responsible for the homogeneity of the text. In the light of Clements’ approach, the following description is applicable to the genesis of Ezekiel. Ezekiel, in the form delivered to us by the Masoretes, is the product of literary activity,37 which was developed by a circle of writers, which might be placed within the circles of the priestly school.38,39 The literary activity of this circle of writers may be given a terminus ante quem with a high degree of certainty. This may be derived from the great ‘Restoration Program’ for the temple cult in Jerusalem, described in Ezekiel 40–48, the most recent part of the book. The completion of the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem and the restoration of the sacrificial service in 516/5 B.C.E. seems the most likely indication for the terminus ante quem.40 On the basis of this it seems likely that the ‘Restoration Program’ was completed about the year 538 B.C.E., the

35 Cf. Renz 1999 (15): “[T]he book of Ezekiel was to function not only as an archive, but also as an argument, interpreting Ezekiel’s prophetic ministry for the following generation.” Expanded in ibid. (242–245). Cf. also Schöpflin 2006 (27–28). 36 See Clements 1986 (290). 37 The text of Ezekiel, in the LXX tradition, reflects an earlier stage of the genesis of the textual corpus, which is known in the MT. We can only say this much and little more (cf. Lust 1986 [19] and Dijkstra 1999 [115]). The point of departure for this investigation is the composition in the MT. 38 See Clements 1986 (126). For the relationship of Ezekiel to P (and H and their mutual relationship, cf. Knohl 1995 [202]); Hurvitz 1982 (155), id. 1988 (92); Levitt Kohn 1999 (507), id. 2002a; Van Seters 1999 (89). The attention paid to the agreement between Ezekiel and P should not lead to the lack of consideration that Ezekiel was influenced by the Deuteronomistic manner of thought. For this see e.g. Matties 1990 (13–17); Hossfeld 1995 (271–295); Levitt Kohn 1999 (501–502, 509–511), id. 2002b. 39 Albertz 1992 (446): “Ezechiel-Schule”; Van Seters 1999 (72, 89): “Ezekiel and his school.” This ‘school of Ezekiel’ should not be conceived as a chiefly independently operating school of prophets (see above, the remark by Clements about prophet schools). 40 See Clements 1982 (131). Similar Boadt 1996 (214).

10

introduction

year of Babylon’s fall, which event provided hope for the restoration of the Jerusalem temple cult. In anticipation of this, the aimed for restoration of cultic life in Jerusalem was formulated in priestly circles among Jewish exiles in Babylonia. The ‘Restoration Program’ is a form of literary commentary on and an application of Ezekiel’s prophecies, which were directed toward the hope of restoration of the Jerusalem cult.41 The conclusion of the terminus ante quem (516 B.C.E.) and the probable completion of the literary form about 538 B.C.E. may be generalized in reference to the whole of the book.42 The place of the literary form is the same as where Ezekiel performed his prophetic activities. The data in the book itself does not leave any doubt for asserting Ezekiel’s prophetic activity.43 As a member of a priestly family in Jerusalem, Ezekiel was led into exile in 597 B.C.E. In 593 B.C.E. he followed his call to the prophetic office and his service lasted to 571 B.C.E., the year when his final prophecy was dated (Ezek 29:17).44 This makes Ezekiel the prophet of the exiles in Babylonia. The priestly circles among the exiles (the priestly school) gave its form to the tradition of Ezekiel’s prophecies; they preserved them and thus their literary form was created. We may be certain that Babylonia is the place where the Ezekiel tradition was preserved. The unity or homogeneity of this tradition points to the work of a school, as described by Clements. The manner in which they revised and edited Ezekiel’s prophecies is clear. They have edited the original message of the prophet and adjusted it to the time and the situation in which they found themselves. In reference to the authenticity this means that the book is not the work of the prophet himself. The authentic material had its literary form edited, at the outset likely by the prophet himself, but surely not in the present form. The conclusion that we have to do with a pseudepigraphic work on the basis of this consideration would be too sweeping. Authentic material from the prophet has been preserved in the present literary form. The interpretation of the textual material takes place on the basis of the present literary form in the MT. The homogeneity of the book points to a holistic approach to the text as the indicated way. The 41 42 43 44

See Clements 1982 (132). See ibid. (132). Joyce 1998 (329) supports this conclusion. See Clements 1982 (127). A clear overview may be found in Renz 1999 (27–38). Cf. Clements 1982 (127).

introduction

11

existence of authentic material and secondary editing in the texts is not denied thereby. Where necessary, the synchronic approach will be supplemented by the diachronic way. This will be in order in cases where a difference exists between the vision of the prophet and the circles of the priestly school, which was responsible for the book as we have received it.45 The vision of the relationship between individual and collective responsibility in Ezekiel, viewed in this light, is the vision which prevailed in the circles of the priestly school in Babylonia—a vision, based on the authentic prophecies of Ezekiel, from which it derives its authority, and is placed in the rendering of the prophetic message which became Scripture, in the context of the Babylonian exile.46 A drastic move in significance is unlikely, because the authority of the literary form is derived from authentic prophecies. Moreover, the context of the secondary material appears to have been provided by that of authentic prophecies.47 On the basis of this we may assume a large measure of congeniality between the prophet Ezekiel and the circles of the priestly school in Babylonia.

45

Cf. Joyce 1995 passim. See Clements 1982 (121). 47 Id. 1986 (291): “On the contrary there is a recognizable phenomenon which characterizes this (secondary—JM) material so that its context, so far as this is made up of specific ideas and themes, is provided by the original authentic saying of the prophet.” This applies to Ezek 1–24, to which Clements has limited his study. Ezek 18 and 20 apply to this comment as well. 46

CHAPTER ONE

EZEKIEL 18 AND 20 TEXTUAL CRITICISM, PHILOLOGY AND GRAMMAR To ascertain whether Ezekiel 18 and 20 offer a reliable textual basis for a view of the relationship between individual and collective responsibility in Ezekiel, this chapter offers text-critical, philological and grammatical notes to the MT of these two chapters.1 Text emendations and text-critical proposals for emendation are, globally viewed, of marginal significance. The representation of the references to God and the divine name is handled in the following manner: ‫ יְ הוָ ה‬with ‘Lord;’ ‫ ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬with ִ ‫ ֱא‬with ‘God.’2 This representation ‘Lord God;’ ‫ ֲאד ֹנָ י‬with ‘Lord;’ ‫ֹלהים‬ does justice to the rules for the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, as it is indicated in the MT. Ezekiel 18—Translation 1. And the word of the Lord happened to me to say: 2. What are you doing, that you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying: Fathers eat unripe fruit, and the teeth of the children become dull. 3. As I live, —Saying of the Lord God— it shall surely not be thus, that you will use this proverb anymore in Israel. 4. See, all lives are mine, the life of the father as well as the life of the son is mine. The sinful life, it will die.

1 Detailed in Barthélemy 1992: Ezek 18 (126–139), Ezek 20 (156–160). Notation MT: dash (-); representing translation: asterisk (*). The critical apparatus in the BHS follows K. Elliger. Mentioning of his name without any addition refers to the critical apparatus. 2 Cf. Rösel 2000 (153–163). Rösel represents ‫ אדני‬with ‘my Lord’ to emphasize the proximity of the prophet to his Lord. See also K. Spronk, “Lord,” DDD2:531–533.

14

chapter one

5. Suppose there is a righteous man, then he does justice and righteousness, 6. he does not eat on the mountains, and he does not raise his eyes to the dung gods of the house of Israel, and he does not dishonor the wife of his friend, and he does not approach a menstruating woman, 7. and he does not oppress anyone, he returns a pledge entrusted for a debt, he does not commit robbery, he gives his bread to someone who is hungry, and he clothes a naked person with a garment, 8. he does not lend at interest, and does not take usury, he withdraws his hand from injustice, he does reliable justice, among people mutually, 9. he walks in my statutes, and keeps my ordinances by acting faithfully. A righteous man he is, he shall surely live. Saying of the Lord God. 10. But if he generates a violent person, someone who sheds blood, and who does only one of these things, 11. —He, however, did not do all of these things— for he does eat on the mountains, and dishonors the wife of his friend, 12. he oppresses the poor and the needy, he commits robbery, he does not return a pledge, and he raises his eyes to the dung gods, he does horror, 13. he gives at interest and takes usury, and shall he live? He shall not live, he has done all these horrors, he shall surely suffer death, his blood shall be upon him. 14. But see, he generates a son, and he sees all the sins of his father, which he has done.

textual criticism, philology and grammar

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

15

And he sees them, but does not do such things. He does not eat on the mountains he does not raise his eyes to the dung gods of the house of Israel, he does not dishonor the wife of his friend, he does not oppress anyone, he does not take a pledge at all, he does not commit robbery, he gives his bread to one, who is hungry, and he clothes a naked person with a garment, he withdraws his hand from injustice, he does not take interest or usury, he keeps my statutes, he walks in my ordinances. He shall not die in the guilt of the sin of his father, he shall surely live. Suppose his father practices extortion, commits robbery from a brother, and he does what is not good in the midst of his people. And see, then he dies in the guilt of his sins. And you say: Why does not the son load himself with the guilt of the sin of the father? But the son does justice and righteousness, he keeps all my ordinances, and does them. he shall surely live. The sinful life, it shall die. A son does not load himself with the guilt of the sin of the father, and a father does not load himself with the guilt of the sin of the son. Righteousness of the righteous one shall be upon him, and guilt of the guilty one shall be upon him. Suppose the guilty one shall turn away from all of his sins which he did, and keeps all of my ordinances,

16

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

chapter one and does justice and righteousness, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All of his misdeeds, which he did, are not attributed to him. In his righteousness which he does, he shall live. Would I indeed eagerly want the death of a guilty one? Saying of the Lord God. Much rather that he turns away from his way and live? And if the righteous one turns away from his righteousness and does injustice, according to all horrors, which the guilty one does, shall he do them and live? All the righteous deeds which he did, will not be remembered, in his unfaithfulness, in which he was unfaithful, and in his sin, in which he sinned, in these he shall die. And you say: The way of the Lord does not conform to rule. Listen, house of Israel! My way does not conform to rule? Are they not your ways which do not conform to rule? If the righteous one turns away from his righteousness and does injustice, then he dies for them. In his injustice that he did, he dies. And when a guilty one turns away from his guilt, which he did, and he does right and righteousness, that one shall keep himself alive. And he sees and turns away from all of his misdeeds, which he did. He shall surely live, he shall not die. And the house of Israel says: The way of the Lord does not conform to rule. My way does not conform to rule, house of Israel? Are they not your ways which do not conform to rule? Therefore, everyone according to his ways I judge you, house of Israel. Saying of the Lord God. Turn back and face about from your misdeeds,

textual criticism, philology and grammar

17

And do not let it become for you an occasion for the guilt of sin. 31. Cast away from you all your misdeeds, with which you have acted wrongfully, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. Why should you die, house of Israel? 32. For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone. Saying of the Lord God. Face about therefore and live! Ezekiel 18:1 – Chapter 18 opens with the Wortereignisformel.3 This formula occurs forty-one times in Ezekiel in the same form as in this verse with ‫וַ יְ ִהי‬, and nine times with ‫ ָהיָ ה‬, for a total of fifty. The formula indicates the beginning of a new section.4 The formula, as it has acquired its form in the MT, probably has a prophetic origin, because a secular parallel is lacking.5 * The opening with ‫( וַ יְ ִהי‬imperfect consecutive) indicates the introduction of a new section, see GKC §111f.6 * ‫ ֵלאמֹר‬is consciously reproduced in the translation of the Wortereignisformel (unlike many translations where it has been reduced to a colon) and translated as ‘to say,’ so that the ‘event’ character of the ‘word of the Lord’ is clearly brought to the fore. The event has a purpose, namely, ‘to say (something).’ This goal is grammatically expressed in the infinitive construct, see GKC §114f. Ezekiel 18:2

ָ ‫ ַמ‬should be understood as a way of creating extra empha* ‫ה־לּ ֶכם ַא ֶתּם‬ sis on the person who is indicated by the suffix, which precedes the separate personal pronoun in the same status, cf. Hag 1:4, see GKC §135d+g.

3 4 5 6

See Neumann 1973 (171–217); Seidl 1979 (20–47, esp. 45–46). See Zimmerli 1969a (38*); Hossfeld 1977 (26–30). See Greenberg 1986 (83). References are made according to the relative paragraphs of the grammars.

18

* –

–

–

–

chapter one With Zimmerli ‫ ַא ֶתּם‬should be taken as the subject of an asyndetic ָ ‫ ַמ‬.7 Thus, the divine relative nominal sentence connecting to ‫ה־לּ ֶכם‬ speech obtains, by means of repetition, the urgent character which is aimed at. ַ ‫ מ ְֹשׁ ִלים ֶא‬the figura etymologica is recognizable in a In ‫ת־ה ָמּ ָשׁל‬ somewhat freer meaning, see GKC §117r; cf. JM §125p.8 The strengthening of the use of this proverb, which is expressed in the above mentioned form of the figura etymologica, disappears if Elliger is followed. The parallelism which is obtained in agreement with 12:22 on the basis of the LXX is possible, but not necessary.9 The MT merits preference. ָ ‫ ֶבּ‬on the basis of υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου in The proposed addition of ‫ן־א ָדם‬ the LXX is likewise intended to create the parallelism with 12:22.10 This proposal is not urgent, though this address is common in the book of Ezekiel in the MT after the Wortereignisformel. After 17:11 the address is also lacking (the LXX adds there also υἱὲ ἀνθρώπου), cf. 19:1; 37:4. ָ ‫ ֶבּ‬should be understood as the omission of a The lack of ‫ן־א ָדם‬ retarding element from the text to obtain greater directness. This directness receives extra emphasis by the use of the figura etymologica. The reading of the LXX ἐν τοῖς υἱοῖς where the MT reads ‫ ַא ְד ַמת‬, should be taken as the lectio facilior as a result of harmonization with other places, where the LXX reads υἱοὶ Ισραηλ (3:1; 4:3; 12:24; 27:17; 44:28; cf. also 44:13; 47:13) contrary to the common verbal use in Ezekiel: ‫ ֵבּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬, ‫ ַא ְד ַמת יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬, ‫ ֶא ֶרץ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬, ‫ ָה ֵרי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬.11 The reading of the LXX should therefore not be followed. ‫ ַא ְד ַמת יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬is unique to Ezekiel (seventeen times) and does not occur outside of Ezekiel in the MT. The use of ‫ ַא ְד ַמת‬creates a strong bond to the geographical territory, which covers Israel. This difference as opposed to ‫ ֶא ֶרץ‬would surely be clear to the exiles.12 The expression connotes the incomparable, God-given land.13 7

See Zimmerli 1969a (392). See JM 161i for the use of the participle of ‫ משׁל‬after the introductory question ‫ה־לּ ֶכם‬ ָ ‫ ַמ‬. 9 Citations LXX: Ezekiel after Ziegler, ed. 1977, other texts after Rahlfs, ed. 1979. 10 See Cooke 1936 (202); Elliger. 11 Cf. Zimmerli 1969a (392). 12 Cf. ibid. (168–169); Greenberg 1986 (145). 13 See J. G. Plöger, “‫ ֲא ָד ָמה‬,” TWAT I:100. 8

textual criticism, philology and grammar

19

* ‫ל־א ְד ַמת יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ַ ‫ ַﬠ‬: the preposition in this combination is much discussed.14 Of the possible meanings in this combination, two may be considered for this passage: ‘in/on/upon’ and ‘concerning/about.’ The addressees (Ezekiel’s partners in conversation/opponents in exile), who are suggested by the context, justify the choice for ‘concerning/ about.’15 – The proverb deviates from Jer 31:29. Instead of an imperfect, Jeremiah has a perfect of ‫אכל‬. The LXX with ἔφαγον makes us suspect a perfect (‫) ָא ְכלוּ‬. The imperfect tenses point to the normally repeated occurrences of what is described, see GKC §107g (cf. GKC §106k+l for the use of the perfect and the use of the imperfect in place of the perfect); JM §113c (cf. JM §112e for the perfect). Instead of ‫( ָבנִ ים‬in Jeremiah) we find here ‫ ַה ָבּנִ ים‬. The article is here used to identify ‫ ָבנִ ים‬with those to whom this divine saying is directed. These are the ones which are meant by ‫ ַא ֶתּם‬at the beginning of the verse. The article contains a demonstrative aspect which characterized it from its origin and it points back to the persons mentioned already, see GKC §126a+d; JM §137fI.1+2; Schneider §52.2. * The word ‫ בּ ֶֹסר‬is quite rare in the MT: Isa 18:5; Jer 31:29,30; Job 15:33. In each case the word occurs in a context of judgment and guilt. It is here rendered ‘unripe fruit.’16 Ezekiel 18:3

ָ ‫ ַח‬, which is confirmed by the – This verse begins with the oath ‫י־אנִ י‬ frequently occurring formula ‫נְ ֻאם ַאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬. The oath occurs sixteen times in Ezekiel, of which thirteen times in combination with the confirmation formula. All thirteen times it is used, in combination with the oath which the formula uses, with ‫ ֲאד ֹנָ י‬. The confirmation formula occurs eighty-one times in Ezekiel in the form in this verse, as ‫נְ ֻאם יְ הוָ ה‬. – The proposal by Elliger to delete ‫ ֲאד ֹנָ י‬on the basis of the LXX lacks sufficient support.17 Thus also in the vv.23,30 and 32.

14

See Scatolini 2003; Lust 2008. Pace Scatolini (416, n.78); Lust 2008. See Alaribe 2006 (63, 139). 16 See HAL (135), s.v. ‫בּ ֶֹסר‬. 17 See Zimmerli 1969b (1250–1258, 1265); Boadt 1978 (494–496); Lust 1996 (138– 145); Rösel 2000 (150–151). 15

20

chapter one

* After the oath follows a strong denial with ‫ ִאם‬, see GKC §149a; JM §165a; Schneider §53.5.3.2.18 – The translation of the verse after the confirmation formula is uncertain on account of ‫ ְמשׁ ֹל‬: should this form be understood as an infinitive construct, as is done in BDB (605), s.v. II ‫ ָמ ַשׁל‬Qal, or as an imperative, as in HAL (611), s.v. I ‫ משׁל‬qal, or should it be read, with Elliger, as a participle ‫ מ ֵֹשׁל‬as in the Peshitta and the Targum, or should it be deleted from the text? The relatively rare occurrence of the verb ‫ משׁל‬in the sense of ‘using a proverb’ makes a choice difficult. Removal of ‫ משׁל‬from the text produces a lectio facilior and is to be rejected on this ground. Additionally, there is the fixed combination in Ezekiel of ‫משׁל ָמ ָשׁל‬, so that the removal is unacceptable also on concordant grounds. The word is therefore to be retained in any case. A change in the participle appears to be intended to remove the problem, so that also in this sense, we have a lectio facilior. The rendering of the LXX ἐὰν γένηται ἔτι λεγομένη appears to be suggested by similar considerations, or should have to refer to a passive participle. The Qal imperative of ‫ משׁל‬occurs in 17:2 and 24:3 as a commission from the Lord to the prophet. The context of this verse is not a commission to the prophet to perform a ‫ ָמ ָשׁל‬before his hearers. In the construction of this verse, no meaningful significance appears to connect it to the imperative. * The view to understand ‫ ְמשׁ ֹל‬as an infinite construct appears the most probable.19 For the use of the infinitive construct in this manner, see GKC §114a; JM §124b+i; Schneider §49.3.2.1. The verbal character of the infinite construct is expressed in the object accusative ‫ַה ָמּ ָשׁל‬ ‫ ַהזֶּ ה‬even if the nota accusativi ‫ ֵאת‬is lacking, see GKC §115b; JM §124i.

18 19

See also Van Leeuwen 1973 (34–38, esp. 35–36). See also Aalders 1955 (295).

textual criticism, philology and grammar

21

Ezekiel 18:4 – In Ezekiel, ‫ ֵהן‬in the sense of ‘see!’ is a hapax legomenon. The LXX presupposes with ὅτι the causal ‫ ִכּי‬in the Vorlage.20 * The construction ‫ וּכ‬ ְ . . . ‫ ְכּ‬, which is translated ‘both . . . and,’ declares the named items as being identical to a certain degree. This does not mean that the life of the father is identical with the life of the son, but that they are of the same value and in that sense identical, see JM §174i. – In the LXXA, from Jer 38:30 (LXX) an application of ‫ ָמ ָשׁל‬is added to the end of this verse: καὶ τοῦ φαγόντος τὸν ὄμφακα αἱμωδιάσουσιν οἱ ὀδοντες αὐτοῦ. In this chapter, this application does not occur. Ezekiel 18:5 * The use of ‫ ִכּי‬is conditional. This use is the rule in the casuistic legal style, see HAL (449), s.v. ‫ ִכּי‬11; BDB (473), s.v. ‫ ִכּי‬2.b, where the subject often precedes for clarity and emphasis (‫ ָא ָדם ִכּי‬in Lev 1:2; 13:2, ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ ִכּי‬in Lev 2:1; 4:2; 5:1,4,15), see GKC §1591+bb; JM §167i. The translation ‘suppose’ expresses the casuistic style. In vv.18 and 21, based on the same consideration, the translation is given in the casuistic style (cf. 3:19 ‫וְ ַא ָתּה ִכּי‬, 14:9,13). The protasis is formed by ‫ ;וְ ִאישׁ ִכּי־יִ ְהיֶ ה ַצ ִדּיק‬the apodosis of the conditional sentence begins ִ with ‫ וְ ָﬠ ָשׂה‬and continues up to and including ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי ָשׁ ַמר ַל ֲﬠשׂוֹת‬ ‫ ֱא ֶמת‬in 9a. ְ ‫ ָﬠ ָשׂה ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬occurs also in Ezekiel in 18:19,21,27; * The phrase ‫וּצ ָד ָקה‬ 33:14,16,19; 45:9. With the exception of the last reference, the context of the phrase is comparable to this verse. Jeremiah uses the same phrase four times: Jer 22:3,15; 23:5; 33:15, in addition the phrase occurs sporadically (varied or not vis-à-vis the sequence in this verse). The use of the phrase in this context may be labeled a stylistic element of Ezekiel. The LXX represents the phrase with κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνη in this verse (the LXXB contracts the expression to a single δικαιοσύνη or knows another Vorlage). In 18:19,21 the same phrase in the MT is

20 The LXX has understood ‫ ֵהן‬in a meaning which is not impossible, but which does not fit in the context. See Labuschagne 1973 (6).

22

chapter one represented in the LXX as δικαιοσύνη καὶ ἔλεος, while 18:27 has the same phrase as this verse. In 33:14,16,19 and 45:9 we have the same phrase as in this verse. Ezekiel 18:6

* In Ezekiel the difference between ‫ ֶאל‬and ‫ ַﬠל‬is vague, so that the words may be used with the same meaning; cf. vv.11 and 15 (see also 1:17,20 with ‫ ַﬠל‬instead of ‫ ֶאל‬and 2:6 ‫ ֶאל‬instead of ‫) ַﬠל‬. See also DCH I (260), s.v. ‫ ֶאל‬. * The change between perfect and imperfect in 18:6–9 is of subordinate significance in this context, see JM §112d(n. 1). – Elliger proposes a change from ‫ ֶה ָה ִרים‬into ‫ ַה ָדּם‬on the basis of 33:25. He argues this on the basis of Lev 19:26 (note that in 33:25 a change ֶ ‫ ַﬠ‬is proposed on the basis of this text). to ‫ל־ה ָה ִרים‬ The consistent use of ‫ ֶה ָה ִרים‬in this chapter (vv.11 and 15) pleads for maintaining the MT. The LXX reads in the corresponding places ἐπὶ τῶν ὀρέον, which agrees with ‫ ֶה ָה ִרים‬of the MT. – A change from ‫ נִ ָדּה‬into ‫ ְבּנִ ָדּ ָתהּ‬in agreement with the formulation of Lev 15:20 is unnecessary, even though the LXX with ἐν ἀφέδρῳ οὖσαν points to a formulation which agrees with Lev 15:20. It is possible to place a situation in apposition to the person, see GKC §131c; JM §131b+c.21 * A characteristic word in the vocabulary of Ezekiel is ‫לּוּלים‬ ִ ִ‫גּ‬.22 Of the forty eight times the word occurs in the MT, thirty nine times it is found in Ezekiel. The polemical and contemptuous character of the term is expressed with the translation ‘dung gods,’23 see HAL (185), ִ ִ‫גּ‬. s.v. ‫לּוּלים‬

21

See Zimmerli 1969a (393). See H. D. Preuss, “‫לּוּלים‬ ִ ִ‫גּ‬,” TWAT II:2 and Bodi 1993 (481–510). The vocalization, ִ ‫( ִשׁ‬e.g. in Ezek 20:7,8). See also Greenberg according to Bodi, is according to ‫קּוּצים‬ 1986 (132). 23 Bodi 1993 (481, 510): “boules de fumier” / “shitgods.” 22

textual criticism, philology and grammar

23

Ezekiel 18:7 – The phrase ‫ ֲחב ָֹלתוֹ חוֹב‬has led to the necessary discussion on account of the feminine ‫ ֲחב ָֹלה‬, which is a hapax legomenon and because of ‫חוֹב‬, which may be conceived as a participle or a substantive and of which the place needs to be explained in the sentence construction.24 If the MT is maintained, the phrase must be understood as an appositional construction, as intended in GKC §131r: “While even in these examples the deviation from the ordinary use of the language (cf. §135 n) is strange, it is much more so in ‫ ֲחב ָֹלתוֹ חוֹב‬Ez 187, i.e. according to the context his pledge for a debt.” The exceptional nature of the construction cannot be denied. On the basis of the versions, Elliger proposes to read ‫ ֲחבֹל ַה ַחיָּ ב‬: the pledge of the debtor. The Vorlage of the LXX appears to know this reading: ἐνεχυρασμὸν ὀφείλοντος ἀποδώσει. The Vulgate reads: pignus debitori reddiderit.25 ‫ ֲחבֹל‬is continually used in the parallels within this chapter: in vv.12,16 and 33:15. The feminine ‫ ֲחב ָֹלה‬, if it is retained, is a hapax legomenon.26 Only in later times the feminine occurs.27 ‫ חוֹב‬is also a hapax legomenon. The proposed emendation to ‫ַחיָּ ב‬ is only known in middle-Hebrew, see HAL (283), s.v. ‫חוֹב‬, and also produces a hapax legomenon for the MT. This reading, presupposed by the LXX and the Vulgate is to be understood as an attempt to smooth a difficult passage. Allen views the present construction as an attempt to relate meaning (‫ )חוֹב‬to a mistake which the copyist neglected, when he wrote ‫ חב‬instead of ‫ חבל‬with v.16 in mind.28 In spite of the unusual construction, the MT is to be maintained (pace Zimmerli) and to be translated in the sense of Allen’s translation as “he returns the pledge entrusted to him.”29

See Hitzig 1847 (123) and BDB (295), s.v. ‫ ;חוֹב‬HAL (293), s.v. ‫חוֹב‬. Cited according to Weber, ed. 1975. 26 See Greenberg 1986 (329) on the alternating use of ‫ גְּ זֵ ָלה‬in 18:7,12 (pl.?), 16 and ‫ גֵּ זֶ ל‬in 18:18. 27 See Jastrow (416), s.v. ‫בוֹלה‬ ָ ‫ ֲח‬. 28 See Allen 1994 (265), id. 1995 (7). 29 Id. 1994 (264). Cf. DCH III (152), s.v. ‫ ֲחב ָֹלה‬: “his pledge [as to his] debt” and DCH III (169), s.v. ‫חוֹב‬. 24 25

24

chapter one

– The LXX adds the copula καὶ before ἅρπαγμα to cancel the asyndeton. The LXX is inclined to do this frequently: vv.8,9,12,15,16,17,18. Ezekiel 18:8 – Before ‫ ַבּנֶּ ֶשְׁך‬the LXX reads καὶ τὸ ἀργύριον αὐτοῦ. This is to be understood as an explicative addition to the text.30 * The word ‫ ָﬠוֶ ל‬occurs twenty one times in the MT, of which ten times in Ezekiel with a concentration in chapters 18 and 33. The combination with ‫עשׂה‬, which occurs in vv.24 and 26 (twice) and in 3:20; ְ ‫ ָﬠ ָשׂה ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬, see v.5 33:13 (twice), 15,18, is the perversion of ‫וּצ ָד ָקה‬ for this expression. * The words ‫ נֶ ֶשׁ ְך‬and ‫ ַתּ ְר ִבּ ית‬occur in Ezekiel only together (in vv.18:8,13,17; 22:13). * The combination ‫ ְל‬. . . ‫ ֵבּין‬has the same meaning as the combination ‫וּבין‬ ֵ . . . ‫ ֵבּין‬, see JM §133d; BDB (107), s.v. ‫ ַבּיִ ן‬1.b; DCH II (146), s.v. ‫ ֵבּין‬2. Ezekiel 18:9 – The proposal by Elliger and Zimmerli to read ‫ ָה ַלְך‬instead of ‫יְ ַה ֵלְּך‬ on the basis of dittography and in comparison with v.17 does not need to be followed.31 The exchange between perfect and imperfect does not require an emendation, see JM §112d(n. 1). The LXX with πεπόρευται presupposes the Qal perfect ‫ ָה ַלְך‬. – Following the reading αὐτά in the LXX, ‫ ֶא ֶמת‬which would be the result of metathesis, would have to be emended to ‫א ָֹתם‬.32 V.19 is a parallel passage, which prompts the remark that in this verse, ‫א ָֹתם‬ ַ ‫ ְבּ ֻח‬at the beginning of the verse, as in v.19 but does not refer to ‫קּוֹתי‬ ִ which directly precedes and to which ‫ ָשׁ ַמר‬is connected. to ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי‬ ַ ‫ל־ח‬ ֻ ‫ ָכּ‬. This is no true parallelism, In v.19 ‫ ָשׁ ַמר‬is connected to ‫קּוֹתי‬ but a variation of words. Remaining use of the expression ‫עשׂה ֶא ֶמת‬ is late and rare: Neh 9:33.33

30

See Cooke 1936 (203). See Zimmerli 1969a (393). 32 See Cooke 1936 (203); Zimmerli 1969a (393); Allen 1994 (265); Elliger. 33 See DCH I (329), s.v. ‫ ֶא ֶמת‬where the connection with ‫ עשׂה‬is translated: “behave reliably (towards).” 31

textual criticism, philology and grammar

25

A certain parallelism with the previous verse pleads against emendation. V.8 has an expression using the same words: ‫יַ ֲﬠ ֶשׂה ִמ ְשׁ ַפּט‬ ‫ ֱא ֶמת‬which could be varied with the combination in this verse: ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי ַשׁ ַמר ַל ֲﬠשׂוֹת ֱא ֶמת‬ ִ . ‫ ֶא ֶמת‬is in this case to be understood as a verbal accusative with ‫ ַל ֲﬠשׂוֹת‬, see GKC §118m+q, Schneider §50.2 (esp. §50.2.1.). The phrase ‫ ָשׁ ַמר ַל ֲﬠשׂוֹת‬occurs frequently in Deuteronomy to indicate the keeping of God’s commandments (e.g. Deut 5:1; 6:3,25; 7:11; 8:1 etc.) and may be rendered “doing carefully.”34 The addition of ‫ ֶא ֶמת‬as adverbial accusative should be understood as an almost pleonastic strengthening of the expression. The MT in its present form is preferable to the emendation. * The use of the infinitive absolute ‫ ָחי ֹה‬strengthens the idea in the expressed verb, see GKC §§113l-n, 117p; JM §§123e, 125q; Schneider §50.4.2. Paronomasia of the infinite absolute results in a figura etymologica. – The LXX deletes ‫ ֲאד ֹנָ י‬, see v.3. Ezekiel 18:10 – The connection of ‫ ֵבּן‬and ‫ ָפּ ִריץ‬by means of a maqqef is noteworthy, because ‫ ֵבּן‬stands in the absolute state and remains thus vocalized. ‫ ֵבּן‬is used in this context as an indication of a category of quality, see JM §129j; BDB (121), s.v. ‫ ֵבּן‬8: “‫ ֵבּן‬as n. relat. followed by word of quality, characteristic, etc”; HAL (132), s.v. ‫ ֵבּן‬7: “Belonging to a category, kind, skill.”35 The LXX expresses the tendency in a striking manner with υἱὸν λοιμὸν (cf. Acts 24:5).36 – The sentence ‫ וְ ָﬠ ָשׂה ָאח ֵמ ַא ַחד ֵמ ֵא ֶלּה‬can hardly be viewed as correct.37 The difficulty appears from the text in the LXX with ἁμαρτήματα, which is to be understood as an explanatory phrase, unless another Vorlage must be supposed. ‫ ָאח‬is not to be understood as an exclamatory particle in this context. The best solution is to view it as a case of miswriting. The

HAL (1463), s.v. ‫ שׁמר‬qal 5: “sorgfältig tun.” HAL (132), s.v. ‫ ֵבּן‬7: “Zugehöriger zu Kategorie, Art, Geschick.” 36 For ‫ ָפּ ִריץ‬see Harland 1996 (530–534): “violent man,” “one who sheds blood.” 37 See Cooke 1936 (203); Zimmerli 1969a (393); Greenberg 1986 (331); Allen 1994 (266); Elliger. 34 35

26

chapter one

intention was to write ‫ ֵמ ַא ַחד‬but the first letters were written: ‫אח‬. The word was not finished and a new beginning was made.38 The fact that a number of manuscripts corresponding to Lev 4:2 read ‫ ֵמ ַא ַחת‬does not need to be followed in this text.39 * The use of the partitive preposition ‫ ִמן‬before ‫ ֶא ַחד‬is for strengthening the expression,40 see GKC §§119w(n. 2), 139d; JM §133e and carries the meaning ‘only, only one of’ (=ullus).41 Ezekiel 18:11 – The opening of this verse generates quite a few perplexities relative to the subject ‫ וְ הוּא‬whereby this verse opens: is the father intended or the son? The LXX renders a paraphrase: ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ τοῦ πατρός αὐτοῦ τοῦ δικαίου οὐκ ἐπορεύθη, which appears to have been influenced by deuteronomistic language.42 * In its content this sentence is the opposite of v.10b. The opening of this verse is a nearer definition of the ‫ ַצ ִדּיץ הוּא‬in v.9 and the subject ‫וְ הוּא‬, with which this verse opens, is the same as that of v.10a ִ ְ‫)ו‬.43 The subject of the sentence is the father with extra emphasis (‫הוֹליד‬ ֵ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫ ֶא‬points to the same on the righteousness of the father, ‫ל־א ֶלּה‬ as ‫ ֵמ ַא ַחד ֵמ ֵא ֶלּה‬in v.10b, namely the doing of wrong things and the refraining of doing good things. The absolute opposition between the father and the son becomes clear by saying that the son ‘does only one of these things’ and the father ‘has not done all of these things,’ in the form of a chiastic construction. – For the use of ‫ ֶאל‬in the sense of ‫ ַﬠל‬, see v.6. – For ‫ ֶה ָה ִרים‬, see v.6. * ‫ ִכּי גַ ם‬elaborates the conclusion of v.10: ‫ ִכּי‬is causal and joins v.10; ‫ גַּ ם‬is emphatic with an adversative meaning in this context.44 The

38 39 40 41 42 43 44

See Greenberg 1986 (331); Allen 1994 (266), id. 1995 (5–6). See id. 1994 (266). Pace Zimmerli 1969a (393), who drops the preposition ‫ ִמן‬before ‫ ֶא ַחד‬. Pace Allen 1994 (266). Cf. Rom 5:18. See Zimmerli 1969a (394). Pace Dijkstra 1986 (167). See HAL (188), s.v. ‫ גַּ ם‬8.

textual criticism, philology and grammar

27

son does precisely what his father had carefully avoided.45 Thus, the opposition between the father and the son is again indicated. Ezekiel 18:12 – The plural ‫ גְּ זֵ לוֹת‬only occurs here in the MT.46 By joining vv.7 and 16, and 33:15 it is proposed to read ‫גְּ זֵ ָלה‬. With ἅρπαγμα the LXX also has a singular. By maintaining the MT, this plural may be understood as a plural of strengthening or generalization, see GKC §124e; JM §136j. The occurrence of these kinds of plurals belongs in poetic texts, e.g. Ps 12:6; 35:10; 37:14; 40:18; 70:6; 109:16; Job 24:14; Prov 31:9. Related to the beginning of the verse in poetic vocabulary is the maintaining of the plural worthy of consideration. – The change from perfect to imperfect is not impossible in similar summations of rules of commands, see v.6. The proposal by Cooke to change ‫ יָ ִשׁיב‬into ‫ ֵה ִשׁיב‬,47 which is supported by a reference to the LXX with ἀπέδωκε, on the basis of the change of perfects and imperfect is not compelling in this context. Ezekiel 18:13 – The form and the position in the sentence (with the atnaḥ ) of ‫ וָ ָחי‬are controversial. The present form might have originated by metathesis, producing a reading of ‫ ָחיוֹ‬. Moreover, the atnaḥ would have to be moved to ‫יִ ְחיֶ ה‬.48 With this the figura etymologica preferred in this chapter would be restored, as it is present in vv.9,17,19,21 and 28,49 preceded or not by emphatic ‫ הוּא‬which the LXX represents with οὗτος in the rendering of this passage: οὗτος ζωῇ οὐ ζήσεται. On the other indicated places in this chapter ζωῇ ζήσεται is the rendering of the figura etymologica in the MT.

45 46 47 48 49

See Aalders 1955 (299). Attested in Late Hebrew, see Jastrow (230), s.v. ‫ילה‬ ָ ֵ‫גְּ ז‬, ‫גְּ זֵ ָלה‬. See Cooke 1936 (203). See Zimmerli 1969a (394). See Cooke 1936 (203).

28

chapter one

Maintaining the MT is preferable.50 ‫ וָ ָחי‬would then be conceived as a question which introduces the apodosis with ‫ו‬.51 The same use is noted in v.24. ָ (Hofal imperfect) to ‫( יָ מוּת‬Qal imperfect) makes – The change of ‫יוּמת‬ this reference agree with vv.17,21,24 and 28. Based on concordant considerations the use of the Qal would have been expected. By changing to Qal, this would be the second case of metathesis in this verse. The use of the Hofal gives the expression the sense of a judicial exeֵ ‫ל־ה‬ ַ ‫ ָכּ‬, will surely suffer cution. The person, who has done ‫תּוֹﬠבוֹת ָה ֵא ֶלּה‬ the death penalty (cf. Exod 21:12; Lev 20:10; Deut 17:6; 21:22). Maintaining the MT is recommended, because the expression ‫ ָדּ ָמיו בּוֹ יִ ְהיֶ ה‬. follows. These words indicate the indemnification of the executor of the death penalty (cf. Lev 20:9,11,12,13,16,27). By the change to the Qal the indemnification formula is superfluous, because the Qal indicates the divine execution of the death penalty. The LXXB has θανατωθήσεται which presupposes the Hofal. * The use of the plural ‫ ָדּ ָמיו‬in the indemnification formula is to be understood as a plural of result or local extension. The plural ‫ָדּ ִמים‬ is an indication of ‘blood that has been poured out,’ ‘a bloodstain,’ of ‘a bloody deed,’ and of ‘blood guilt.’52 Particularly with the indemnification formula it is understood that the blood guilt rests on the head of the one who suffers the death penalty, see GKC §124n; JM §136b. Ezekiel 18:14 * ‫ וְ ִהנֵּ ה‬points in this case very emphatically to a new situation, which is different from the case described previously (‫ ו‬is here used antithetically, see GKC §154a). It is even possible that ‫ וְ ִהנֵּ ה‬bears a conditional aspect: ‘But if he generates a son . . .’53

50

See Allen 1994 (266). See Aalders 1955 (299). Pace Cooke 1936 (203); Zimmerli 1969a (394); HAL (296), s.v. ‫ ַחי‬II.4. 52 DCH II (444), s.v. ‫דּם‬:ָ “3. bloodguilt (oft. pl.; distinction from §2 not alw. clear) . . . Ezk 1813.” Cf. DCH II (443), s.v. ‫ ָדּם‬: “2. bloodshed, blood as shed by violence (sg. or pl. (. . .)) Ezk 1810.” 53 See Cooke 1936 (203); Zimmerli 1969a (391); Greenberg 1986 (323). Comparing with ‫ וְ ִאישׁ ִכּי‬in v.5 we might translate here: ‘But suppose that . . .’ Cf. Allen 1994 (264). 51

textual criticism, philology and grammar

29

– The first word in the second half of the verse is controversial: is it to be read ‫ וַ יִּ ְר ֶאה‬with the MT according to codex Leningradensis (=BHS) and codex Aleppo, or ‫ וַ יִּ ָרא‬following many manuscripts and the LXX (καὶ φοβηθῇ) and the Vulgate (timuerit)?54 The form ‫וַ יִּ ְר ֶאה‬, though it occurs, see GKC §75t (cf. JM §79m), is used less for the third person masculine singular (cf. v.19: ‫וַ יַּ ֲﬠ ֶשׂה‬ and v.28). Apocope is frequent in the imperfect consecutive for verbs ‫ל׳׳ה‬, see GKC §75k; JM § 17f; Schneider §39.3. Against the emendation of the MT, as it has come down in the codices Leningradensis and Aleppo, pleads the less common ‫ירא‬ (1:22; 2:6; 3:9; 11:8). More convincing is the lack of ‫ ירא‬in a comparable context as in this chapter (the seeing of the horrors which are done), e.g. in 8:6 (twice), 9,12 (twice), 13,15 (twice), 17; 9:9; 14:22,23; 16:37,50; 20:28; 23:13,14 where ‫ ראה‬occurs. ‫ ירא‬does not have a pregnant meaning in Ezekiel, while ‫ראה‬, on the other hand, does (‫ ראה‬occurs more than seventy five times in Ezekiel).55 Remarkably, both forms of the imperfect occur in the same verse contiguously. Greenberg connects, quite emphatically, different meanings to the two forms of the imperfect, referring to Eccl 7:14 and v.28 for the particular meaning: ‫ראה‬, in the sense of ‘taking thought’ for the imperfect consecutive without apocope: “MT implies a higher motive—reflection—for the son’s choice of a righteous course and the repentance of the wicked man in vs. 28.”56 – The form ‫ ָכּ ֵהן‬occurs only once in the MT, see GKC §103l. Ezekiel 18:15 – This verse features the more correct proposition ‫( ַﬠל‬according to its original meaning) before ‫ ֶה ָה ִרים‬, see v.6. – Many manuscripts in the versions propose to read ‫ ֶאת־‬instead of ‫וְ ֶאת־‬, in agreement with v.6. The change does not influence the meaning. – A comparison with v.6 shows that the last part of the verse concerning the approach to a menstruating woman is lacking here. The summation shows variation in the use of words.

54 55 56

Codex Aleppo cited by Goshen-Gottstein and Talmon, eds. 2004. See H.-F. Fuhs, “‫ ָר ָאה‬,” TWAT VII:261–262. Greenberg 1986 (331). Allen 1994 (264) follows Greenberg.

30

chapter one Ezekiel 18:16

– A comparison with v.7 shows that perfect tenses are used here, while v.7 knows imperfect tenses, see v.6. * The figura etymologica ‫ ֲחבֹל לֹא ָח ָבל‬creates a climactic effect: he does not take a pledge at all. Ezekiel 18:17 – The opening of this verse has a problem: ‫ ֵמ ָﬠנִ י‬can hardly be correct. The Targum and the Peshitta correct the sense by adding a denial: he does not draw back his hand (from helping) from the poor. The Vulgate corrects by adding ‘iniuria:’ he draws back his hand from the doing of injustice to the poor; cf. 20:22; Josh 8:26. According to the LXX which reads καὶ ἀπὸ ἀδικίας, ‫ ֵמ ָﬠוֶ ל‬is to be read, in agreement with v.8.57 – Small variations continually appear to occur in the repetitions, see v.20. Ezekiel 18:18 – At the beginning of this verse, the LXX adds δὲ to accentuate the contrast with the son. * For ‫ ָא ִביו ִכּי־‬cf. v.5. – The words ‫ גֵּ זֶ ל ָאח‬create the necessary differences of insight. Mostly they are conceived as a miswriting of ‫גְּ זֵ ָלה‬,58 which also appears to be the basis of the LXX text: ἅρπαγμα. This chapter furthermore knows only the feminine in vv.7,12 and 16 (and 33:15. In 22:29, on the other hand, ‫)גָּ זֵ ל‬. Cf. v.10 where a different miswriting produces the same result, namely ‫ ָאח‬.59 Greenberg maintains the MT and sees in it a

57 Pace Aalders 1955 (300); Greenberg 1986 (332). The triad ‘hungry, naked, poor’ which Greenberg cites from Isa 58:7 (with ‫ ָﬠר ֹם‬and not ‫ ֵﬠיר ֹם‬as in v.16) occurs only once beside this reference. Additionally it may be affirmed that the triad of Isa 58:7 has not influenced vv.7 and 8, which does have ‫ ֵמ ָﬠוֶ ל יָ ִשׁיב יָ דוֹ‬. Maintaining the MT appears too forced. 58 See Cooke 1936 (204); Zimmerli 1969a (394); Elliger. 59 Cooke 1936 (204), calls this a “vox nihili.”

textual criticism, philology and grammar

31

unique expression which verbalizes “that all Israel are brothers.”60 The words relate to robbery of the fellow-citizen. Cf. Deut 22:2 ‫ָאח‬ for in the sense of fellow-citizen.61 ‫ ַﬠ ָמּיו‬supports the thought that the context is that of ‘fellow-citizens.’ See the following comment. The MT does not need to be emended. – The plural ‫ ַﬠ ָמּיו‬is represented by the LXX as τοῦ λαοῦ μου, where the people of God are intended (‘my people’). This is possibly a bending in the direction of people of God or haplography of the waw. The representation of the Vulgate (populi sui) may be a simplification or a haplography of the yod. The plural in the sense of ‘his people, his fellow-citizens’ does not occur elsewhere in Ezekiel, but it is not an uncommon significance of the plural, particularly in the priestly literature (Lev 17:9; 19:8,16; 21:1,4,14,15; 23:29). Family connections are to such an extent related to the context of this chapter, that it is justified to understand the plural in the sense of ‘fellow-citizens, people.’62 * Relative to the combination ‫ה־מת‬ ֵ ֵ‫וְ ִהנּ‬, a difference of opinion exists on ‫ ֵמת‬. Is this form a perfect or a participle? The form may be conceived as a perfect. For the suffix to determine the subject in the nominal sentence introduced by ‫וְ ִהנֵּ ה‬, is lacking, see JM §102k, Schneider §14.1. This would be necessary if this were a participle. However, the form may also be understood as a participle. A pronominal subject is often omitted in a nominal sentence, which is introduced by ‫ ִהנֵּ ה‬, see JM §§146h, 154c. The connection of ‫ִהנֵּ ה‬ with a third person masculine singular suffix, which would be needed when this were about a participle, is so rare (four times in the MT): Num 23:17; Job 2:6; 1 Chr 11:25 ‫ ִהנּוֹ‬, Jer 18:3 (K) ‫ ) ִהנֵּ הוּ‬that it would not hinder the understanding of ‫ ֵמת‬as a participle. The use of a participle in a nominal sentence occurs often, see GKC §116m; Schneider §44.3.2; 49.1.1.1. The temporal aspect must be determined from the context, because the participle may signify past, present or future, see GKC §116d; JM §121a. The LXX renders

60 Greenberg 1986 (332). For the alternating use of the fem. and the masc. see (329). 61 See also DCH I (173), s.v. ‫ ָאח‬I: “3. fellow member of a group, esp. a tribe or a nation.” 62 Cf. HAL (792), s.v. ‫ ַﬠם‬B.: “(väterliche) Verwandtschaft, Sippe.”

32

chapter one here ἀποθανεῖται, which indicates a future aspect.63 The construction of this verse may be understood as a futurum instans, also because of the previous ‫ ִהנֵּ ה‬, see GKC §116p. The meaning is therefore: he is at the point of death, he will die, and that will surely happen. In the translation, the present aspect of the futurum instans is emphasized. Ezekiel 18:19

– The preposition ‫ ְבּ‬in ‫ נָ ָשׂא ַבּ ֲﬠוֹן‬is not common in Ezekiel. Normally this preposition is lacking in the combination of these two words.64 Removing the preposition on the basis of the LXX, τὴν ἀδικίαν, must not be resorted to, because the preposition occurs three times within two successive verses. * The connection signifies ‘to carry along,’ ‘to share in:’ Num 11:17; Job 7:13. It is improbable that this fairly rare construction should be accorded preference in this place vis-à-vis the frequently occurring ‫ נשׂא ָﬠוֹן‬in Ezekiel, which signifies ‘to load the guilt of sin on oneself.’65 It is possible to understand the preposition as a ‫ ְבּ‬-instrumental, by which the object is introduced, see GKC §119q.66 The construction with ‫ ְבּ‬provides a somewhat greater independence, and therefore rather greater emphasis, of ‫נשׂא‬. In the translation this is reflected in: ‘to load oneself with the guilt of sin.’ ְ in the LXX is here ἔλεος and deviates with – The rendering of ‫וּצ ָד ָקה‬ this from the rendering in v.5. This rendering shows a move in the sense of the direction of ‘mercy’ and ‘alms.’67 – For the form ‫וַ יַּ ֲﬠ ֶשׂה‬, see v.14 relative to ‫( וַ יִּ ְר ֶאה‬cf. vv.14 and 28).

63

The Vg. opts for the temporal aspect of the past: mortuus, cf. GKC §116d. For the meaning see D. N. Freedman and B. E. Willoughby, “ ‫נָ ָשׂא‬,” TWAT V:633–640 (esp. the added remark by H. Ringgren) and Zimmerli 1969a (116–117). 65 See HAL (685), s.v. ‫ נשׂא‬qal 15.b; See Cohen 2003 (71 n.58) who states that Ezekiel ָ ‫נשׂא ֶא‬. is the author of the variant ‫נשׂא ַבּ ֲﬠוֹן‬, synonym of the classical ‫ת־ﬠוֹן‬ 66 Pace GKC 119m; DCH V (765), s.v. ‫נשׂא‬. Cf. Greenberg 1986 (332): “naśa b- does not have its usual meaning ‘share in, alleviate the burden of ’ [Num 11:17; Job 7:13], since that is not at issue; b- replaces the normal ’t [see Num 14:33f.] under the influence of the adjacent b‘wn in vss. 17f.” 67 Str-B 1:386–388 (Matt 6:1,2). Cf. Jastrow (1236), s.v. ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬, one of the meanings of ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬is: “. . . esp. almsgiving.” 64

textual criticism, philology and grammar

33

– The incongruence as here in ‫ א ָֹתם‬... ‫קּוֹתי‬ ַ ‫ל־ח‬ ֻ ‫ ָכּ‬occurs more often in Ezekiel: 13:20; 16:58; 20:16; 42:4,11; 43:11. Ezekiel 18:20 – For the preposition ‫ ְבּ‬in ‫ ַבּ ֲﬠוֹן‬, see v.19. – To bring congruence in the sentence with ‫ ַה ַצּ ִדּיק‬Q proposes to read ‫ ָה ָר ָשׁע‬instead of ‫ ָר ָשׁע‬. The congruence may also be reached by removing the article from ‫ ַה ַצּ ִדּיק‬. Both configurations of congruence occur in Ezekiel (3:18–21 without article; 13:22 without article; vv.26 and 27 without article; 33:12 with article).68 The representation of the LXX is the reason to propose the removal of the article,69 because this does not have an article in both locations: δικαιοσύνη δικαίου and ἀνομία ἀνόμου. The identical formulation in 33:12 supports Q, which is followed. The use of the article in ‫ ַה ַצּ ִדּיק‬and ‫ ָה ָר ָשׁע‬is to be understood as an indication of a class, see GKC §126m; JM §137i.70 Ezekiel 18:21

ָ ֹ ‫ ַחטּ‬instead of the singular ‫ ַח ָטּאתוֹ‬. – Q proposes to read the plural ‫אתיו‬ Q is probably intended for clarification what the consonantal text had already intended, namely, a plural. The defective writing ‫ ָו‬instead of ‫ ָיו‬is frequent with the third person masculine singular, see GKC §91k. The plural is also read by the LXX: τῶν ἀνομιῶν αὐτοῦ, and by the Vulgate omnibus peccatis suis. – The addition of the copula for ‫ לֹא‬in a number of manuscripts, in the LXX-B, in the Peshitta and in a number of manuscripts of the Vulgate serves to cancel the asyndeton.

68

The congruence is lacking in v.24. A possibility pointed out by Elliger. 70 Cf. Allen 1994 (266): “It is more natural in English to render the sg references in vv.20–28 as pl. Moreover, it better reflects the fact that alternative types of behavior are in view, rather than the behavior of individuals.” 69

34

chapter one Ezekiel 18:22

– In the LXX* ‫ לוֹ‬is lacking. The phrase ‫ נִ זְ ַכּר ְל‬also occurs in 33:16 (‫לוֹ‬ is also lacking there in the LXX*). With this meaning ‫ נִ זְ ַכּר‬occurs without ‫ ְל‬in 3:20; 18:24; 33:13 (21:29,37 in a different context). * ‫ ְל‬expresses a dative incommodi, see GKC §119s; JM §133d. In the translation this is expressed as ‘is attributed to.’71 Ezekiel 18:23 * The figura etymologica ‫( ֶה ָח פֹץ ֶא ְח פֹּץ‬which is preceded by the ‫ה‬-interrogative) expresses a certain denial, see GKC §150d. ‫ ֲהלוֹא‬in the second half of the verse expresses a certain affirmation, see GKC §150e. * The verb ‫ חפץ‬may be connected with a direct object, or as well with ‫ ְבּ‬. The combination with ‫ ְבּ‬has the significance ‘be pleased with,’ while the combination with a direct object has the meaning ‘to want eagerly.’72 – The emendation of the text to ‫ ְבּמוֹת‬is suggested by the parallel in v.32 and 33:11, and on the basis of ‫ ְבּשׁוּבוֹ‬in the second half of the verse.73 The theological content of the saying and the parallels incline to the probability of the emendation, but do not make this necessary. The MT makes good sense. – The LXX reads τοῦ ἀνόμου and presupposes the article with ‫ ָר ָשׁע‬. The parallel 33:11 also has ‫ ָה ָר ָשׁע‬, see v.20. – The plural ‫ ִמ ְדּ ָר ָכיו‬does not appear to be in place, because the comparable places 3:18,19; 13:22; 33:9 read the singular ‫ ִמ ַדּ ְרכּוֹ‬. The LXX also has a singular: ἐκ τῆς ὁδοῦ. The parallel 33:11 also has a plural ֶ ‫ ) ִמ ַדּ ְר ֵכ‬which is formed congruently with the imperative plural. (‫יכם‬ Normally, in Ezekiel ‫ ֶדּ ֶרְך‬is always in the singular connected with ‫ ִמן‬: 3:18,19; 7:27; 9:2; 13:22; 16:27; 33:8,9 (twice), 11; 43:2; 44:3 (twice); exceptions are this verse (if the MT is retained), 33:11 (where the LXX has a singular) and 36:32 (here, the LXX knows a plural). The reading of the singular merits preference on concordant grounds.

71 72 73

See HAL (259), s.v. I ‫זכר‬, nif. 3. See HAL (326), s.v. I ‫ ;חפץ‬BDB (342), s.v. I ‫ ָח ֵפץ‬. See Cooke 1936 (204); Zimmerli 1969a (395); Elliger.

textual criticism, philology and grammar

35

Ezekiel 18:24 – A gloss is seen in ‫ יַ ֲﬠ ֶשׂה וָ ָחי‬which disturbs the coherence of the text.74 The LXX lacks the expression. The words may also be understood as a retarding element in the text: ‫ יַ ֲﬠ ֶשׂה‬takes up the previous ‫ ָﬠ ָשׂה‬, whereby ‫ וָ ָחי‬is to be understood as a question as in v.13. – Q with this verse reads the plural ‫ ִצ ְדק ָֹתיו‬instead of K with the singular ‫ ִצ ְד ָקתוֹ‬. The plural ‫ ִתזָּ ַכ ְרנָ ה‬indeed demands a subject in the plural. The LXX has a plural: αἱ δικαιοσύναι. Q is probably intended to clarify what the consonantal text means, namely, a plural, see GKC §91k and v.21. Cf. 3:20; 33:13 where the same K/Q cases occur in combination with the same verb. ְ : ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις. This – The LXX also reads a plural for ‫וּב ַח ָטּאתוֹ‬ probably happens on account of the plural, as discussed above. The plural disturbs the parallelism with the previous part of the sense ָ ‫) ְבּ ַמ ֲﬠלוֹ ֲא ֶשׁ‬. The expression ‫ר־ח ָטא‬ ָ ‫ ַח ָטּאת ֲא ֶשׁ‬derives from (‫ר־מ ַﬠל‬ the priestly literature, in which the singular ‫ ַח ָטּאת‬is repeatedly used, see Lev 4:3,28 (twice), 35; 5:6,10,13; 19:22 (twice), also when the verb is plural, see Lev 4:14; Num 12:11. Though the context of the places cited deal in each case with a single sin, this has become a fixed expression, in which the singular is used. Ezekiel 18:25 – The expressions ‫ יִ ָתּ ֵכן ֶדּ ֶרְך‬and ‫ ֲה ַד ְר ִכּי לֹא יִ ָתּ ֵכן‬are read as plurals in the Peshitta and the Targum, cf. v.29. The LXX reads the singular in ֶ ‫ ַד ְר ֵכ‬the LXX reads the singular: ἡ ὁδὸς both cases. For ‫יכם לֹא יִ ָתּ ֵכנוּ‬ ὑμῶν οὐ κατευθύνει. These versions read either the plural in each case, or the singular, so that harmonization may be presupposed. The Vulgate follows the MT. – The phrase ‫ ֶדּ ֶרְך ֲאד ֹנָ י‬occurs, in addition to this verse, in v.29 and in 33:17,20.75 In all of these places the LXX reads ἡ ὁδὸς (τοῦ) κυρίου, but the translation circumscribes the name of God, so that on this basis it may not be concluded that the Tetragrammaton stood in the text originally. In many manuscripts the Tetragrammaton is to

74

See Cooke 1936 (201); Zimmerli 1969a (395). These are the only places in Ezekiel where ‫ ֲאד ֹנָ י‬is spoken by another one than the prophet. See Rösel 2000 (157–158). 75

36

chapter one

be found (cf. 33:17,20). Zimmerli understands the use of ‫ ֲאד ֹנָ י‬as a “toning down because of dogmatic considerations,”76 because the use of the Tetragrammaton in the context of a reproach was seen as offensive. * The imperative here expresses a certain irony, which is strengthened by the use of the particle ‫ נָ א‬in the form of ironic super-politeness, see GKC §110a+d; JM §144m. The plural of the imperative is used, because ‫ ֵבּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬is a collective, see GKC §145b+c. Ezekiel 18:26

ֶ ‫ ֲﬠ ֵל‬is problematic. To what does this suffix – The suffix plural ‫יהם‬ refer? The LXX does not have it here. Some manuscripts of the LXX simplify it to ἐν αὐτῷ which refers back to ‫ ָﬠוֶ ל‬.77 Other manuscripts (among them LXXB) have ἐν αὐτῷ in the last part of the sentence, which goes back to ἐν τῷ παραπτώματι (‫) ְבּ ַﬠוְ לוֹ‬. That might represent ‫ בּוֹ‬or ‫ ָﬠ ָליו‬in the Vorlage. ‫ מות ְבּ‬often occurs in Ezekiel. The plural suffix refers to the double movement in the previous part of the sentence, which is expressed with two verbs: ‘to turn away from’ and ‘to do.’78 Cf. 33:18,19, see GKC §135p. Cf. JM §149a which understands the plural suffix as pointing to a collective (‫) ָﬠוֶ ל‬. ֵ is to be understood as a perfect consecutive. * The form ‫וּמת‬ Ezekiel 18:27 – For the exceptional combination ‫ ָﬠ ָשׂה ִר ְשׁ ָﬠה‬cf. Mal 3:15,19 (and Prov 16:12). – In this verse occurs the (normal) apocopated form ‫ וַ יַּ ַﬠשׂ‬of the imperfect consecutive, cf. vv.14 and 18. ְ ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬in this verse again – The LXX represents the word pair ‫וּצ ָד ָקה‬ as κρίμα καὶ δικαιοσύνην, as in v.5. * ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬functions as a reflexive pronoun, which Hebrew does not know, see JM §146k.

76 77 78

v.24.

Zimmerli 1969a (395): “Abmilderung aus dogmatischen Rücksichten.” See Allen 1994 (267). See Fisch 1985 (113). Zimmerli 1969a (395) claims the suffix refers back to

textual criticism, philology and grammar

37

Ezekiel 18:28 – For the imperfect consecutive ‫ וַ יִּ ְר ֶאה‬without apocope, see v.14. The LXXB does not reflect this word. – Q ‫ וַ יָּ ָשׁב‬is presented instead of K ‫וַ יָּ שׁוֹב‬. The unabridged manner of writing of the imperfect is likely influenced by the preceding ‫וַ יִּ ְר ֶאה‬ and the occurrence of the unabridged manner of writing of the imperfect in vv.14 and 19. – To read ‫ ָחי ֹה‬instead of ‫ ָחיוֹ‬is unnecessary, cf. 3:21. Ezekiel 18:29 – The words ‫ יִ ָתּ ֵכן ֶדּ ֶרְך‬are read in the plural by the Peshitta and the Targum. This is to be understood as a harmonization, see v.25, where these versions also read the plural. – Relative to ‫ ֲאד ֹנָ י‬, see v.25 where a change to ‫ יהוה‬is proposed also. – The words ‫ ַה ְדּ ָר ַכי לֹא יִ ָתּ ְכנּוּ‬are read as singular by the LXX, in agreement with the remainder of the verse and v.25. Also, relative to the representation in the LXX we may consider it harmonization. The plural ‫ יִ ָתּ ְכנּוּ‬requires a subject in the plural according to the rule of congruence. This is how the division is breached between the simple ‘way of the Lord’ as opposed to the complex ‘ways of the house of Israel’ which is indeed present in v.25.79 The punctuation of ‫ יִ ָתּ ְכנּוּ‬is uncommon. ‫ יִ ָתּ ְכנוּ‬would be expected (cf. v.25). – The final part of the verse demonstrates incongruence. The subject ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ ַד ְר ֵכ‬in the plural (the LXX reads a singular) does not agree with the (singular) predicate ‫יִ ָתּ ֵכן‬. An emendation according to the parallel in v.25 is correct, see GKC §145u. – Possibly, a copyist has changed places between ‫ יִ ָתּ ְכנּוּ‬and ‫יִ ָתּ ֵכן‬. In that case the difference between the singular ‘way of the Lord’ and the plural ‘ways of the house of Israel’ is restored and the parallelism with v.25 is present again. ‫ הדרכי‬must then be vocalized as a singular.

79

Cf. Greenberg 1986 (334).

38

chapter one Ezekiel 18:30

– In the LXX* the concluding ‫ ָל ֵכן‬is lacking. – The LXX reads the singular τὴν ὁδὸν αὐτοῦ instead of the plural ‫ ִכּ ְד ָר ָכיו‬of the MT. Cf. vv.25 and 29 relative to the preference of the LXX for the singular. – The form ‫ יִ ְהיֶ ה‬prompts the question as to the subject. The rendering of the LXX points to the difficulty by using ἔσονται. The LXX ֶ ‫ ִפּ ְשׁ ֵﬠ‬as subject, which demands a continuation in the opts for ‫יכם‬ plural and thus brings the text grammatically in order. The Vulgate has ‫ ָﬠוֹן‬as subject. ‫ ָﬠוֹן‬is, however, the nomen rectum with ‫ ִמ ְכשׁוֹל‬,80 which the LXX confirms with the rendering κόλασιν ἀδικίας,81,82 in contrast to the Masoretic accentuation. The form may be understood as impersonal, see GKC §144b; JM §152d. The content is to be derived from the previous,83 as the LXX has also done. Ezekiel 18:31 – The textual emendation ‫ ִבּי‬for ‫ ָבּם‬is supported by the LXX which reads εἰς ἐμέ.84 For a comparison see Jer 33:8. ‫ פשׁע‬has then the meaning ‘to break with.’85 The MT is to be retained, with reference to ֶ ‫ל־פּ ְשׁ ֵﬠ‬ ִ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫ ֶא‬. The call is the conclusion of v.24. ‫ ָבּם‬points back to ‫יכם‬ sounded to cast away all misdeeds. Thus it is to be understood that this is referred back by means of ‫ ָבּם‬. * ‫ וְ ָל ָמּה‬introduces a question which has an affirmative tendency, see GKC §150e; BDB (254), s.v. ְ‫ ו‬4.

80

In all cases of Ezekiel: 7:19; 14:3,4,7; 44:12. This is also valid for the rendering in 7:19; 14:3,4,7; 44:12. 82 According to Cooke 1936 (204) the MT “treats ‫ עון‬as subject of ‫יהיה‬.” Allen 1994 (267): “. . . which is how the Masoretic accentuation construes, is to be preferred, with “iniquity” as subj.” 83 Cf. Fisch 1985 (114). 84 See Cooke 1936 (204); Zimmerli 1969a (395); Elliger. 85 See HAL (922), s.v. ‫ פשׁע‬qal 1. 81

textual criticism, philology and grammar

39

Ezekiel 18:32 * For ‫חפץ ְבּ‬, see v.23. * The words ‫ ְבּמוֹת ַה ֵמּת‬describe an indefinite pronoun, see GKC §§ 139d, 144e; JM § 155h. – The conclusion ‫ וְ ָה ִשׁיבוּ וִ ְחיוּ‬is lacking in LXXB. There is insufficient motivation for viewing it as a later expansion.86 The close subsumes important elements of the conclusion which is introduced by ‫ָל ֵכן‬ ֶ ‫ל־פּ ְשׁ ֵﬠ‬ ִ ‫ וְ ָה ִשׁיבוּ ִמ ָכּ‬and from the (v.30). As examples: from v.30: ‫יכם‬ beginning of this verse: ‫לֹא ֶא ְחפֹּץ ְבּמוֹת ַה ֵמּת‬. More phrases may be assigned to one of the two imperatives. * In the succession of the two imperatives, the second imperative expresses the certain fulfillment of what was stated in the first imperative as condition, see GKC §110f; JM §116f. * For the meaning of the ‫ ו‬in ‫וְ ָה ִשׁיבוּ‬, see GKC §154b; JM §117m. Ezekiel 20—Translation 1. And it happened in the seventh year, in the fifth (month) on the tenth of the month, that men from among the elders of Israel came to seek the Lord. And they sat down before my face. 2. And the word of the Lord happened to me, to say: 3. Son of man, speak to the elders of Israel and say to them: Thus says the Lord God: You have come to seek me? As I live, I do not let me be sought by you. Saying of the Lord God. 4. Do you speak justice over them? Do you speak justice, son of man? Let them know the abominations of their fathers! 5. And say to them: Thus says the Lord God: On the day that I chose Israel and I raised my hand to the offspring of the house of Jacob, and I revealed myself to them in the land of Egypt, 86

Pace Zimmerli 1969a (395–396).

40

6.

7.

8.

9.

10. 11.

12.

13.

chapter one and I raised my hand to them, saying: I am the Lord, your God. On that day I raised my hand to them, to lead them out of the land of Egypt, to a land, that I had searched out for them, that flows with milk and honey. It is a jewel among all lands. And I said to them: Let all cast away the monstrous idols from their eyes and do not draw defilement to yourself with the dung gods of Egypt. I am the Lord, your God. But they have behaved themselves rebelliously toward me, and did not want to listen to me, none of them cast away the monstrous idols from before their eyes, and the dung gods of Egypt they did not abandon. And I planned to pour out my wrath on them to complete my anger with them, in the midst of the land of Egypt. But I acted for the sake of my name, so that it would not be desecrated before the eyes of the nations, in whose midst they were, because I had revealed myself to them before their eyes to lead them out of the land of Egypt. And I led them out of the land of Egypt, and I brought them into the desert, and I gave them my ordinances and my laws I made them know, by which the man, who does them, lives. And also my Sabbaths I have given them to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I, the Lord, sanctify them. But they, the house of Israel, have behaved themselves rebelliously against me, in the desert, they did not walk in my ordinances, and my laws they have rejected, by which the man, who does them, lives.

textual criticism, philology and grammar

14.

15.

16.

17. 18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

41

And my Sabbaths they have greatly desecrated. And I planned to pour out my wrath on them in the desert, to annihilate them. But I acted for the sake of my name, so that it might not be desecrated before the eyes of the nations, because I had led them out before their eyes. But I raised my hand to them in the desert, that I would not bring them to the land, that I had given them, that flows with milk and honey. It is a jewel among all lands. Because my laws, they rejected, and in my ordinances, they did not walk, and my Sabbaths, they have desecrated, for their heart went after the dung gods. But my eye was sad about them, so that I did not destroy them, and I have not acted with annihilation towards them in the desert. And I have said to their sons in the desert: Do not walk by the rules of your fathers, and do not keep their laws, and do not draw defilement to yourself by their dung gods. I am the Lord, your God. Follow my ordinances, and keep my laws, and do them! And sanctify my Sabbaths, and they will be a sign between me and you, that you may know, that I, the Lord, am your God. But the sons have behaved rebelliously toward me, they have not followed my ordinances, they have not kept my laws, by doing them, by which the man, who does them, lives. And my Sabbaths they have desecrated, and I planned to pour out my wrath on them, to complete my anger with them in the desert. But I have turned my hand back, and I dealt for the sake of my name, so that it might not be desecrated before the eyes of the nations, because I had led them out before their eyes,

42 23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

chapter one I have also raised my hands to them in the desert to scatter them among the nations and to spread them among the lands because they had not obeyed my laws, and rejected my ordinances, and desecrated my Sabbaths and their eyes followed the dung gods of their fathers. Therefore I have given them rules which were not good, and laws by which they could not live. And I have defiled them by their gifts because they sacrificed every firstborn from the mother’s womb, that I might ruin them that they might know, that I am the Lord. Therefore, speak to the house of Israel, son of man, and say to them: Thus says the Lord God: Repeatedly your fathers have blasphemed me by this, that they were unfaithful toward me when I had brought them into the land over which I had raised my hand to give it to them. They saw every high hill and every richly branched tree and they slaughtered their sacrifices and there they gave their abominable gift, and there they placed their soothing vapors and poured out their libations. And I said to them: What is that high place you continually go to, which is called ‘high place’ to this day? Therefore, say to the house of Israel: Thus says the Lord God: You have defiled yourselves in the way of your fathers, and joined yourselves behind their monstrous idols! When you bear gifts, when you take your sons into the fire, you defile yourselves for the sake of all of your dung gods to this day.

textual criticism, philology and grammar

32.

33.

34

35.

36.

37. 38.

39.

43

And would I let myself be sought by you, house of Israel? As I live, saying of the Lord God. I do not let myself be sought by you. And what has arisen in your spirit will certainly not happen, so that you say: We wish to be like the nations, like the generations of the lands by serving wood and stone. As I live, —Saying of the Lord God— I will surely be king over you, with a strong hand and an outstretched arm and poured out wrath. And I will lead you out of the peoples, and I will gather you, from the lands, where you are scattered, with a strong hand, an outstretched arm and poured out wrath. And I will bring you to the desert of the peoples, and I will enter into judgment with you there, face to face. As I have entered into judgment with your fathers, in the desert of the land of Egypt, so I will enter into judgment with you. Saying of the Lord God. And I will make you pass under the staff, and bring you in the binding of the covenant, and I will purge from you the rebels and those who have broken with me from the land of their sojourn I will lead them out, but the land of Israel they will not enter, and you will know that I am the Lord. And you, house of Israel, thus says the Lord God: Go and honor, each one, his dung gods! But thereafter: If you do not listen to me . . . And you will not desecrate me with your gifts and dung gods.

44 40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

chapter one For on my holy mountain, on the high mountain of Israel, —Saying of the Lord God— there they shall honor me, all of the house of Israel, in its entirety, in the land there I will accept them with favor, and there I will demand your offerings and the best of your levy along with all of your holy dues. With a soothing odor I will accept you, when I have led you out of the peoples, and I have gathered you from the lands where you were scattered, and I will show myself to you as the Holy One before the eyes of the nations. And you shall know that I am the Lord, when I bring you to the land of Israel, to the land over which I have raised my hand, to give it to your fathers. And you will remember there your ways and your acts, by which you have defiled yourselves, and you will loathe yourself, for all the wickedness which you have done. And you shall know, that I am the Lord, when I will deal with you for the sake of my name, not according to your evil ways and corrupt acts, house of Israel. Saying of the Lord God. Ezekiel 20:1

* The opening with ‫ וַ יְ ִהי‬indicates the introduction of a new section, see 18:1 and GKC §111f. – This chapter contains one of the dated prophecies which occur in Ezekiel; see 1:1; 3:16; 8:1; 26:1; 29:17; 30:20; 31:1; 32:1,17; 33:21; 40:1. The LXXB misunderstands the dating, because ‘month’ is lacking with ‫ ַבּ ֲח ִמ ִשׁי‬and it renders τῇ πεντεκαιδεκάτῃ τοῦ μηνός. The lack of ‘month’ in the dating is not uncommon, see 1:1 and 8:1. The strict necessity of the notion of ‘month’ is lacking to understand the dating: both other elements of the dating are specified by means of ‫ַבּ ָשּׁנָּ ה‬ and ‫ ַלח ֶֹדשׁ‬. The third part can only refer to the month. Ordinals are

textual criticism, philology and grammar

45

always used to indicate the month, see GKC §134p; JM §142o. For the lack of ‫ יוֹם‬in the dating, see GKC §134n. For the use of ‫( ָﬠשׂוֹר‬a decade), see GKC §98b; JM §142o. – The LXX with ἐκ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων οἴκου Ισραηλ presupposes the reading ‫ ִמזִּ ְקנֵ י ֵבּית־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬. The MT knows both variants: in v.3 and 14:1 without ‫ ֵבּית־‬, in 8:11,12 with ‫ ֵבּית־‬. Ezekiel 20:3 – On the basis of many manuscripts and the versions it is proposed not to read ‫ ַדּ ֵבּר ֶאת‬but ‫ ַדּ ֵבּר ֶאל‬.87 The parallel in 14:4 has the same combination as this verse. The combination also occurs in 2:1; 3:22,24,27; 44:5, so that ‫ ֶאת‬may be maintained, though the combination with ‫ ֶאל‬occurs more frequently (2:2,7,8; 3:1,4,10,11; 11:25; 12:23; 20:27; 24:18; 32:21; 33:2; 37:19,21; 40:4,45; 41:22; 43:6). – The LXXA adds οἴκου in agreement with v.1. The Peshitta presupposes ‫ ְבּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬, an expression which occurs more frequently in Ezekiel: 4:13; 6:5; 35:5; 37:16,21; 43:7; 44:9,15; 47:22; 48:11, but not in combination with ‫זְ ֵקנִ ים‬. The MT should be maintained. * The consecutive perfect ‫ וְ ָא ַמ ְר ָתּ‬continues the imperative ‫ ַדּ ֵבּר‬and has consequently an imperative meaning; it is indicated as such in the translation, see GKC §112r. – For the lack of ‫( ֲאד ֹנָ י‬twice in this verse), see 18:3. ָ ‫ ַח‬, ‫ ִאם‬has a strong negative significance see * After the oath ‫י־אנִ י‬ 18:3. * The form ‫( ִא ָדּ ֵרשׁ‬Nifal) has a ‘tolerative’ significance in this verse, the so-called niphal tolerativum, see GKC §51c (“to allow oneself to be inquired of ”); JM §51c (“to allow oneself to be asked”). Cf. 14:23. Ezekiel 20:4 * The ‫–ה‬interrogative in this verse has “the force of an impassioned or indignant affirmation.”88 The question, strengthened by the doubling, has the force of a command.

87 88

See Cooke 1936 (223); Elliger. BDB (210), s.v. ‫ ֲה‬l.c.

46

chapter one

– The LXX presupposes with εἰ ἐκδικήσω αὐτους ἐκδικήσει that ‫ יהוה‬is the subject of the question. Besides, the punctuation of the sentence in the LXX differs from the accentuation of the MT. The LXX connects υἱε ἀνθρώπου with the continuation of the sentence. The MT ָ ‫ ֶבּ‬, by which is indicated that it belongs has the atnaḥ under ‫ן־א ָדם‬ with the previous and is subject of the double question. The LXX probably practices a great measure of freedom in its rendering; cf. 22:2 and 23:36 where ‫ ֲה ִת ְשׁפֹּ)וֹ(ט‬is rendered respectively παράδειξον and κρινεῖς. Cf. also 43:11 and 44:23 where the LXX renders ‫ידע‬ (Hifil) with γνωρίζειν. ֵ occurs frequently in Ezekiel with a concentration in chapters * ‫תּוֹﬠבֹת‬ 8 and 16.89 It is “a collective word for all cultically polluting sins.”90 A typical concretization of this collective concept, which occurs ִ ִ‫גּ‬, see 18:6.91 frequently in Ezekiel, is ‫לּוּלים‬ – The LXX appears to presuppose another Vorlage (‫ ָה ִﬠ ֵידם‬, Hifil imperative of II ‫‘ עוד‬to witness,’ cf. 16:2 in the LXX) with διαμάρτυραι αὐτοῖς, where the MT reads ‫יﬠם‬ ֵ ‫הוֹד‬ ִ , or opts for a free rendering. Ezekiel 20:5 * For the imperative meaning of ‫וְ ָא ַמ ְר ָתּ‬, see v.2. – The LXX does not reflect ‫ ; ֲא ד ֹנָ י‬see 18:3 and vv.27,30,31,32,33, 36,44. – The LXX reads τὸν οἶκον Ισραηλ which presupposes ‫ ֵבּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬, while the MT has ‫ ְביִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬. Possibly, ‫ ב‬should be understood as an abbreviation of ‫ ֵבּית‬or ‫ ; ְבנֵ י‬cf. 12:23 and 44:28 in the LXX. – The connection of ‫ בחר‬with ‫ ְבּ‬is regular, so that the MT at this point may be maintained; see HAL (115), s.v. II ‫ בחר‬qal 3.b. This is the only time the Deuteronomistic term for election is used in Ezekiel.92 The concept of election is not lacking in Ezekiel, cf. 16:4–14; 23:2–4. – For the first time ‫ וָ ֶא ָשּׂא יָ ִדי‬occurs in this verse, LXX renders it ἐγνωρίσθην. In its meaning it is drawn together with the following ‫וָ ִאוָּ ַדע‬, which is rendered as ἐγνώσθην. The second and third

See H. D. Preuss, “‫תוֹﬠ ָבה‬ ֵ ,” TWAT VIII:586–588. Zimmerli 1969a (154): “ein Sammelwort für alle kultisch verunreinigenden Sünden.” 91 See Preuss, TWAT VIII:587. 92 See H. Seebass, “‫ ָבּ ַחר‬,” TWAT I:603, 606. 89

90

textual criticism, philology and grammar

47

time (v.6) it is rendered as ἀντελαβόμην τῇ χειρί μου (different in vv.15,23,28 and 42: [ἐξ]ῆρα τὴν χεῖρά μου). The LXX misses the strong emphasis which is placed on the oath by the threefold rendering of the gesture of an oath, which is emphatically related to ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ֹלה‬ ֵ ‫ ֲאנִ י יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬, the content of the oath. The rendering of the LXX weakens the MT.93 * The words ‫ ְבּיוֹם‬and ‫( ַבּיּוֹם‬v.6) introduce two complementary parts, which together explain and unfold the concept of ‫בחר‬. “The effect of this gradual unfolding of baḥ ar is to underscore its weight and the complexity and close relation of its elements.”94 Ezekiel 20:6 * ‫ ַבּיּוֹם‬introduces the complementary part of v.5. ִ ‫נָ ָשׂ‬, see v.5. – Relative to ‫אתי יָ ִדי‬ – The LXX has ἡτοίμασα for ‫ ַתּ ְר ִתּי‬of the MT. The Targum and the Peshitta in this verse follow the parallel of v.15: ‫נָ ַת ִתּי‬. It is incorrect to read ‫ נָ ַת ִתּי‬in this place, because the LXX reflects that with the correct ἔδωκα in v.15. The rendering in v.15 presupposes another word than is rendered by the Targum and the Peshitta. The LXX uses mostly κατασκοπεῖσθαι to render ‫תור‬, but in view of the fact that the element of spying is not in the foreground in this context, a choice was made for a positively filled in translation with ἑτοιμαζειν.95 The MT is to be followed. * ‫ זָ ַבת ָח ָלב ְוּד ַבשׁ‬is used from the context of the promise of the land, for example in: Exod 3:8,17; 13:5; 33:3; Lev 20:24; Num 13:27; 14:8; Deut 6:3; 11:9; 26:9,15; 27:3. ‫ ָח ָלב ְוּד ַבשׁ‬are epexegetical genitives with the participle ‫ זָ ַבת‬which as a noun rules the genitive, see GKC §§116g, 128x; JM §121m; Schneider §49.1.3.1. – The LXX repeats γῆν for ῥέουσαν (‫)זָ ַבת‬, also in v.15, probably to thus restore the complete expression, which was separated in the ַ ‫ ֲא ֶשׁ‬. Cf. Lev 13:27 for the same MT by the insertion of ‫ר־תּ ְר ִתּי ָל ֶהם‬ situation.

93

See Viberg 1992 (27–31): the LXX has the tendency to “down-play the oath-taking by God” (30). 94 Greenberg 1986 (364). 95 See R. Liwak, “‫תור‬,” TWAT VIII:596.

48

chapter one

– The LXX renders ‫ ְצ ִבי‬with κηρίον (‘virgin honey’), also in v.15 which might refer to ‫( צוּף‬in the MT only in Ps 19:11; Prov 16:24) in the Vorlage. The reading of the LXX appears to be influenced by the previous expression. ‫ ְצ ִבי‬occurs more frequently in Ezekiel (7:20; 25:9; 26:20. Cf. Jer 3:19; Dan 8:9; 11:16,41,45, indicating Canaan as ‘jewel;’ and Isa 13:19; 23:9 indicating Babylon and Tyre). The MT may be maintained. ָ ‫ ְצ ִבי ִהיא ְל ָכ‬is necessary to describe * The preposition ‫ ְל‬in ‫ל־ה ֲא ָרצוֹת‬ the genitive because of the place of ‫ ִהיא‬according to JM §130a (n. 2). In this place the preposition ‫ ְל‬has the force of a preposition which expresses a relationship, in this case of separation with a meaning related to ‫ ִמן‬,96 as described in HAL (483), s.v. ‫ ְל‬5. Ezekiel 20:7 * The use of ‫ ִאישׁ‬is distributive: there is no one for which the call is not valid, see GKC §139b+c; JM §147d. ֵ ‫ ִשׁ‬which here occurs parallel to ‫לּוּלים‬ ִ ִ‫גּ‬, is another concretiza* ‫קּוּצי ֵﬠינָ יו‬ ֵ , see v.4. ‫ ִשׁקּוּץ‬occurs both as a parallel of ‫תּוֹﬠ ָבה‬ ֵ (5:11; tion of ‫תּוֹﬠבֹת‬ ִ ִ‫( גּ‬vv.7,8,30–31; 37:23, in 8:10 parallel to 7:20: 11:18,21) and of ‫לּוּלים‬ ‫) ֶשׁ ֶקץ‬.97 The verb ‫ טמא‬also occurs in four places (5:11; 20:7,30; 37:23), which belongs to the same word spectrum.98 The Hitpael of ‫ טמא‬is rendered with ‘drawing defilement to oneself.’ In this verse images ֵ ‫ ִשׁ‬.99 In of (unclean) animals (cf. 8:10) are indicated with ‫קּוּצי ֵﬠינָ יו‬ the translation, the aspects of ‘unclean’ and ‘idol’ are summarized in ‘monstrous idols.’ Ezekiel 20:8 * In combination with words which express or imply a hostile act, the preposition ‫ ְבּ‬has the meaning ‘against, opposite.’100 96

Cf. GKC §129a (n. 2). See also Bodi 1993 (492). 98 See G. André, “‫ ָט ֵמא‬,” TWAT III:352. 99 D. N. Freedman, “‫שׁקץ‬,” TWAT VIII:464: “Sie stellen nicht nur Götzen (gillûlîm), sondern auch abscheuliche Tiere (šæqæṣ) dar, was die Sündhaftigkeit Israels zum Ausdruck bringt.” 100 See BDB (89), s.v. ‫ ְבּ‬II.4. 97

textual criticism, philology and grammar

49

* The infinitive construct in ‫וְ לֹא ָאבוּ ִלּ ְשׁמ ַֹע‬, which is preceded by ‫ ְל‬, has the result that the ruling verb has greater independence, see GKC §114m (n. 1).101 The unwillingness to listen receives extra accenting. – The LXX and the Peshitta have no equivalent for ‫ ִאישׁ‬in their rendering. Possibly, it may have entered the text from v.7. If ‫ ִאישׁ‬does belong in the text, a third person masculine singular suffix (‫) ֵﬠינָ יו‬ might have been expected,102 conforming to v.7, instead of the third ֶ ֵ‫) ֵﬠינ‬. In this case the suffix is person masculine plural suffix (‫יהם‬ congruent to the verb ‫ ִה ְשׁ ִליכוּ‬. * The meaning of ‫ ִאישׁ‬is distributive as in v.7: no one is excepted from the expressed reproach. * The combination ‫ אמר ְל‬with infinitive has the meaning: ‘to be planning, to aim.’103 * I ‫ כלה‬has different aspects of meaning, of which one aspect takes the foreground, depending on the context. Here, the emphasis is on ‘to complete.’104 Ezekiel 20:9 * ‫ וָ ַא ַﬠשׂ‬shows the absolute use of ‫עשׂה‬, as it also occurs in 8:18; 36:22,32 ִ ‫ ִדּ ַבּ ְר ִתּי וְ ָﬠ ִשׂ‬in 17:24; 24:14; 36:36; 37:14). (cf. also the formula ‫יתי‬ – A change from ‫ וָ ַא ַﬠשׂ‬according to the Peshitta into ‫( וָ ֶאחו ֺס‬also in vv.14,17,22 and 44) is not to be followed. This is an interpreted rendering. In v.17 ‫ חוס‬and ‫ עשׂה‬occur together. – The form ‫( ֵה ֵחל‬Nifal infinitive construct, see GKC §67t), which also occurs in vv.14 and 22, does not need to be changed into a Hifil infinitive construct ‫ ָה ֵחל‬, as Bertholet proposes (also in vv.14 and 22).105 The Nifal of I ‫ חלל‬is used more often in Ezekiel: 7:24; 20:14,22; 22:16,26; 25:3. The LXX has βεβηλωθῇ, which points to a Nifal.

101

Cf. remarks on 18:19. See JM §147d. 103 See HAL (64), s.v. I ‫ אמר‬qal 5. For a hostile connotation of the combination see DCH I (324), s.v. ‫ אמר‬Qal: “8d. ‫ אמר ְל‬think to, propose to, sometimes perh. threaten.” 104 See F. J. Helfmeyer, “‫ ָכּ ָלה‬,” TWAT IV:172. In connection with ‫ ַאף‬there is a hostile tendency present in the combination, see DCH IV (416), s.v. ‫ כלה‬Pi.: “finish, end, . . . destroy, exterminate . . . Ezk 208.21.” 105 See Bertholet 1936 (70). 102

50

chapter one

* At the beginning of the second half of the verse ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬is used as a conjunction to indicate the reason, see HAL (95), s.v. ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬II.c, GKC §158b; Schneider §54.4.4.1. Ezekiel 20:10

ָ ‫הוֹצ‬ ִ ‫ ְל‬and ‫יאם ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ‬ ֵ ‫אוֹצ‬ ִ ָ‫ו‬ – The final words of v.9 ‫יאם ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬ ‫ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬, the first half of this verse, Bertholet sees as a doublet.106 However, the LXXB has a case of homoioteleuton here. The MT is to be retained. Ezekiel 20:11

ָ ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר יַ ֲﬠ ֶשׂה‬gives the goal of the * The phrase ‫אוֹתם ָה ָא ָדם וָ ַחי ָבּ ֶהם‬ ordinances (‫ ) ֻחקּוֹת‬and laws (‫ ;) ִמ ְשׁ ָפּ ִטים‬cf. vv.13 and 21 where the same phrase occurs. Ezekiel 20:12 – Possibly, ‫ וְ גַ ם‬marks the beginning of a gloss (thus Cooke).107 Cf. v.15, where the LXX does not have an equivalent either. There is no good reason to assume a gloss. The observance of Sabbaths plays a role in the entire chapter, see vv.13,16,20,21 and 24. * A difference of opinion is possible on the question as to whether the third person masculine plural suffix with the Piel participle of ‫קדשׁ‬ relates: to the people or to the Sabbaths? The context of the sentence justifies the idea that the reference is to the people.108 - The combination of ‫ ידע‬with ‫ ִכּי ֲאנִ י יְ הוָ ה‬occurs very frequently in Ezekiel. The words ‫ ֲאנִ י יְ הוָ ה‬are “a formula of the presentation of self,”109 which are included in a ‘recognition formula’ (Erkenntnisformel), which is characteristic for Ezekiel.

106

See ibid. (70). See Cooke 1936 (224). 108 Following BDB (873), s.v. ‫ ָק ַדשׁ‬, Pi. 4.d. Pace HAL (1003), s.v. ‫ קדשׁ‬pi. 1.a, which views the Piel of ‫ קדשׁ‬declaratively ‘für heilig erklären’ with reference to ‫ ַשׁ ָבּת‬, both in this verse and in v.20, where it does refer to ‫ ַשׁ ָבּת‬. 109 Zimmerli 1969a (57*): “eine Formel der Selbstvorstellung.” 107

textual criticism, philology and grammar

51

Ezekiel 20:13

ִ ‫וַ יַּ ְמ‬ – The LXX (B) reads at the beginning of this verse εἶπα . ‫רוּ־ב י‬ ‫ ֵבית־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬is understood by the LXX as ‫ וָ א ַֹמר ְל ֵבית־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬and has adapted the sentence up to ‫ ָה ָלכוּ‬using direct speech: Ἐν τοῖς προστάγμασί μου πορεύεσθε. The LXXA adapts the sentence to direct speech with a positive urging up to ‫ וָ ַחי ָבּ ֶהם‬to include subsequently a correct representation of the MT, which leads to a doublet. The MT is to be preferred. ִ ‫וַ יַּ ְמ‬, see v.8. * Relative to ‫רוּ־בי‬ * Relative to ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר יַ ֲﬠ ֶשׂה א ָֹתם ָה ָא ָדם וָ ַחי ָבּ ֶהם‬, see v.11. * In this verse the aspect of ‘destroying, annihilating’ of I ‫ כלה‬moves to the foreground, cf. v.8.110 Ezekiel 20:14 * For the absolute use of ‫עשׂה‬, see v.9. The not apocopated form ‫ וָ ֶא ֱﬠ ֶשׂה‬is used here, while v.9 has the apocopated form ‫ ;וָ ַא ַﬠשׂ‬cf. 18:14,19,27,28, see 18:14. – Relative to ‫ ֵה ֵחל‬, see v.9. Ezekiel 20:15 * ‫ וְ גַ ם‬has adversative force, cf. Am 4:6; Mi 6:13.111 – The addition of ‫ ָל ֶהם‬after ‫ נָ ַת ִתּי‬is proposed on the basis of four manuscripts plus the LXX, the Peshitta and the Vulgate. An absolute use of ‫ נתן‬would be exceptional, so that the proposal should be followed.112 – The LXX repeats γῆν for ῥέουσαν (‫)זָ ַבת‬, see v.6. * Relative to ‫זָ ַבת ָח ָלב ְוּד ַבשׁ‬, see v.6. ָ ‫ ְצ ִבי ִהיא ְל ָכ‬, see v.6. * Relative to ‫ ְצ ִבי‬and ‫ל־ה ֲא ָרצוֹת‬

110

See Helfmeyer, TWAT IV:170. See HAL (188), s.v. ‫ גַּ ם‬11. 112 Zimmerli 1969a (435) presupposes that ‫ ַתּ ְר ִתּי‬stood originally in the text, because repetition of formulations once used is stereotypical in Ezekiel. The use of ‫ ַתּ ְר ִתּי‬without ‫ ָל ֶהם‬would be more likely than an absolute use of ‫נָ ַת ִתּי‬. Because of the lack of ‫ ָל ֶהם‬, Zimmerli’s proposal loses much of its plausibility, because it was based on the stereotypical repetition of once used formulations (including ‫ ָל ֶהם‬as in v.6.). 111

52

chapter one Ezekiel 20:16

– Normally, the verb follows ‫יַ ַﬠן‬, but in Ezekiel the object is placed before it several times for particular emphasis, cf. v.24 and 5:11; 34:21; 36:6.113 * The preposition ‫ ְבּ‬in ‫ ְבּ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי‬with ‫ ָמ ָאסוּ‬introduces the object, which precedes for emphasis; see GKC §119k. ַ ‫ ֻח‬is preceded by ‫ וְ ֶא ת־‬for additional emphasis, see GKC * ‫קּוֹת י‬ §117m. ַ ‫ ְבּ ֻח‬. – The LXX presupposes with ἐν τοῖς προστάγμασί the reading ‫קּוֹתי‬ This also pertains to the Vulgate with in praeceptis meis. This agrees with the use in vv.13,18 and 21 in the Vulgate. The MT, as lectio difficilior, is to be followed. ַ ‫ ְבּ ֻח‬, see 18:19. – Relative to the incongruence ‫ ָ ב ֶהם‬. . . ‫קּוֹתי‬ – The addition of ‫ ְמ אֹד‬after ‫ ִח ֵלּ לוּ‬is proposed on the basis of 15 manuscripts and the Peshitta,114 to arrive at an identical construction as in v.13. V.21 on the other hand, does not know ‫ ְמאֹד‬either. The LXX render parallel to the MT: in v.13 with σφόδρα, in vv.16 and 21 without any addition. The text is to be retained without any addition. Ezekiel 20:17 * The preposition ‫ ִמן‬, before an infinitive construct, often has the force of a denial, see Schneider §49.3.1.3. * In the noun ‫ ָכּ ָלה‬the aspect of annihilation occurs in the foreground, as appears from the context of the first half of the verse, cf. vv.8 and 13.115 – The form ‫( ִא ָתּם‬the preposition with a third person masculine plural suffix), as many manuscripts have, was to be expected, whereas in this ָ (the particle of the accusative with a third person masculine case ‫אוֹתם‬ plural suffix) is read. The forms of the particle of the accusative are always used in Ezekiel instead of the preposition, see GKC §103b;

113 114 115

See Cooke 1936 (224). See ibid. (224); Elliger. See Helfmeyer, TWAT IV:171.

textual criticism, philology and grammar

53

JM §103j. A change is unnecessary, because what is intended with the emendation is implicit in the current text. Ezekiel 20:18 * The use of the jussive with ‫ ַאל־‬expresses a warning not to do something, see GKC §117n+o, 109c, 152f. * For the Hitpael of ‫טמא‬, see v.7. – In this verse ‫( חֹק‬rule) is used instead of ‫‘( ֻח ָקּה‬ordinance,’ always in the plural in Ezekiel), which occurs much more frequently in Ezekiel (twenty-two times). ‫ חֹק‬is further used in 11:12; 16:27; 20:25; 36:27; 45:14. The combination of ‫ ֻח ִקּים‬and ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּ ִטים‬is customary in Deuteronomy, while the combination of ‫ ֻחקּוֹת‬and ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּ ִטים‬is common in Ezekiel.116 The use of ‫( חֹק‬plural) in this chapter occurs in an unfavorable sense: human rules (cf. Isa 10:1) or bad (divine) rules. In 11:12; 36:27 (plural) its use is favorable: divine rules. In 16:27 ‫ חֹק‬has the meaning of ‘share, measure,’117 on which a claim may be made,118 particularly in 45:14 (singular). This is evident in the meaning of ‘a privilege.’119 – The phrase ‫ל־תּ ַטּ ָמאוּ‬ ִ ‫ ַא‬is translated doubly by the LXX: μὴ συναναμίσγεσθε καὶ μὴ μιαίνεσθε. Ezekiel 20:19 * For the joint occurrence of ‫ שׁמר‬and ‫עשׂה‬, see 18:9. The careful guarding of legal rules is expressed in doing them. Ezekiel 20:20 * This verse is a variation on v.12. It is important to note the fact that the subject of the Piel of ‫ קדשׁ‬is the people here and the Sabbaths is the object.120 116 117 118 119 120

See H. Ringgren, “‫ ָח ַקק‬,” TWAT III:152. See ibid. TWAT III:155. See HAL (332), s.v. ‫ חֹק‬5. See Victor 1965 (359). Cf. HAL (332), s.v. ‫ חֹק‬3. See BDB (873), s.v. ‫ ָק ַדשׁ‬Pi. 2.

54

chapter one

– For the end of this verse with ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ֹלה‬ ֵ ‫ ָל ַד ַﬠת ִכּי ֲאנִ י יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬, see v.12. The ֶ ‫ֹלה‬ ֵ ‫ ֱא‬makes this phrase a saying which emphasizes conclusion with ‫יכם‬ that the Lord is “God.”121 Ezekiel 20:21

ִ ‫וַ יַּ ִמ‬, see v.8. * Relative to ‫רוּ־בי‬ – The LXX reads καὶ παρεπίκρανάν με καὶ τὰ τέκνα αὐτῶν at the beginning of the sentence, which presupposes ‫גַּ ם‬. This should be seen as an interpreting translation, also in view of the rendering of ‫ ַה ָבּנִ ים‬with τὰ τέκνα αὐτῶν. The parallel opening words in vv.8 and 13 of the MT should be compared. – The parallel with v.13, the reading according to the codex Petropolitanus and the versions justify the reading ‫וְ ֶאת‬, as is also proposed by Elliger, Zimmerli and Allen.122 Ezekiel 20:22 – The opening words ‫ וַ ֲה ִשׁב ִֹתי ֶאת־יָ ִדי‬are controversial.123 In the parallel vv.9 and 14 these words are lacking. Neither do the LXX* and the Peshitta have this expression in their Vorlage. Besides this ‫ֵה ִשׁיב יָ ד‬ is used in Ezekiel only with a human subject: 18:8,17; 38:12. Furthermore, the construction pinches on account of the perfect consecutive in the narrative context. GKC §112tt sums up this form by the wrong use of the waw-consecutive. JM §172a declares this uncommon form in this place as a means to clarify the adversative charge of the waw. By maintaining the opening words, the form may be understood as an ordinary perfect with adversatively used waw-copulative, as Cooke indicates and Greenberg explains.124 In its content, the sentence is a parallel of v.17.125 – Relative to ‫ ֵה ֵחל‬, see v.9.

121 Rösel 2000 (156) typifies this as a saying, “die das Erkennen JHWHs als Gott” expresses. 122 See Zimmerli 1969a (435); Allen 1990 (4). 123 See Zimmerli 1969a (435). 124 See Cooke 1936 (224); Greenberg 1986 (368). 125 Cf. ibid. (368).

textual criticism, philology and grammar

55

Ezekiel 20:23 – This verse opens with ‫גַּ ם‬, while the parallels v.15 and v.25 open with ‫וְ גַ ם‬. The codex Petropolitanus and several manuscripts read ‫ וְ גַ ם‬also. ִ ‫ וַ ֲאנִ י נָ ָשׂ‬as the The LXX has here καὶ ἐξῆρα, which might point to ‫אתי‬ opening of the sentence,126 while vv.15 and 25 have καὶ ἐγὼ.127 ‫ גַּ ם‬and ‫ וְ גַ ם‬may be used alternatively without any difference in meaning,128 so that this may only be a variation in use; a change into ‫ וְ גַ ם‬is not needed. Ezekiel 20:24 * This verse is logically connected with v.25: ‫ וְ גַ ם‬... ‫( יַ ַﬠן‬because . . ., therefore also . . .), cf. 5:11; 16:43; 23:35.129 – Comparing with vv.13,16 and 21 shows that the verbs which are connected with ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּ ִטים‬and ‫ ֻחקּוֹת‬are varied in the summations. – The object with ‫ ָמ ַאס‬may be indicated by the preposition ‫ ְבּ‬, for example v.16; 5:6. In this case the object is without indication, while in v.13 ‫ ֶאת‬is used. Again, there is variation in word use. Ezekiel 20:25 * ‫ וְ גַ ם‬connects the sentence logically to v.24. – Relative to the use of ‫ ֻח ִקּים‬, see v.18. * The first use of ‫ לֹא‬indicates the negative tendency of a single word, ִ , while the second time ‫ לֹא‬is used see GKC §152a (n. 1), namely ‫טוֹבים‬ to give the subordinate clause a negative meaning. Ezekiel 20:26 * A difference of insight is possible concerning the connotation of ‫ ְבּ ַה ֲﬠ ִביר‬: is this construction to be conceived as temporal or causal?

126

See Cooke 1936 (224). The Vg. represents the opening of the three verses differently, here we read iterum. 128 See HAL (188), s.v. ‫ גַּ ם‬11. 129 See Cooke 1936 (224). 127

56

chapter one

GKC §114e; Schneider §49.3.1.2; HAL (101), s.v. ‫ ְבּ‬21 opt for the temporal rendering of the infinitive construct, which is preceded by ‫ ְבּ‬. BDB (91), s.v. ‫ ְבּ‬V. deems possible a temporal, causal and concessive rendering of this construction. The causal use is the nearer explanation of the reason as to why the Lord polluted his people. It is the explanation of the gifts. Both times that the preposition ‫ְבּ‬ is used, they are parallel to each other in the meaning ‘on account of, because of.’ The causal use indicates the principled manner of acting: ‘this is how they were,’ while the temporal use points to the historical background: ‘each time they did that.’ The context of the rules, which were not good, and the laws, by which they could not live, argue in favor of the causal use with the principled connotation. – ‫ ֲא ִשׁ ֵמּם‬may be, depending on the context, translated more or less forcefully. The offensive thought in this verse argues for a forceful translation.130 – The recognition formula ‫ ְל ַמ ַﬠן ֲא ֶשׁר יֵ ְדעוּ ֲא ֶשׁר ֲאנִ י יְ הוָ ה‬is in this form unique in Ezekiel. The formula is lacking in the LXXB (the recension by Origen notes it as an addition). On the basis of linguistic use (introduction with ‫ ְל ַמ ַﬠן ֲא ֶשׁר‬, the use of the imperfect in the recognition formula and the introduction of the content with ‫ֲא ֶשׁר‬ instead of ‫ ) ִכּי‬Zimmerli claims that it is an addition by a later hand.131 The introduction of a recognition formula with ‫ ְל ַמ ַﬠן ֲא ֶשׁר‬is unique, but outside the formula it is used with a following imperfect in 31:14; 36:30; 46:18. The introduction of the content with ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬instead of ‫ִכּי‬ is possible, though it remains uncommon in Ezekiel, see GKC §157c; JM §157c. Also cf. v.7b for an uncommon form of the recognition formula.132 The text is quite possible within the varying word use. Ezekiel 20:27 – In the phrase ‫עוֹד זֹאת‬, ‫ זֹאת‬is an accusative adverb, which also occurs in 36:37. It anticipates ‫ ְבּ ַמ ֲﬠ ָלם ִבּי ָמ ַﬠל‬. The LXX has understood it as

With BDB (1031), s.v. ‫ שׁמם‬Hiph. 1; Hahn and Bergsma 2004 (217); Finsterbusch 2006 (24); pace HAL (1448), s.v. ‫ שׁמם‬hif. 2 and Richter 2007. 131 See Zimmerli 1969a (436). 132 Cf. Allen 1990 (4). 130

textual criticism, philology and grammar

57

‫ ַﬠד זֹאת‬, in view of the rendering with ἕως τούτου (correct in 36:37: ἔτι τοῦτο). * ‫ עוֹד‬expresses what happens with repetition or continuation, see GKC §100c. – The verb ‫ גדף‬is rare and unique in this verse in Ezekiel (5:15 has the ָ ִ‫)גּ‬. Only in this verse and in Num 15:30 it refers to acts, noun ‫דּוּפה‬ in all other cases to words, particularly with God as object.133 * For the causal use of the preposition ‫ ְבּ‬for the infinitive construct, see v.26.

Ezekiel 20:28

ֶ ‫ ֶאת־זִ ְב ֵח‬as τοῖς θεοῖς αὐτῶν. This may be the – The LXX renders ‫יהם‬ result of a miswriting of τὰς θυσίας αὐτῶν,134 or of a theological reinterpretation towards massive idolatry.135 There are no grounds ֶ ‫אֹלה‬ ֵ ‫) ֵל‬.136 for assuming another Vorlage (‫יהם‬ – The LXX knows no equivalent for ‫נוּ־שׁם ַכּ ַﬠס ָק ְר ָבּנָ ם‬ ָ ‫ וַ יִּ ְתּ‬and it is seen as a theological judgment by a later hand, because the original text would be a practical summation of various sacrifices.137 Ezekiel does not use the noun ‫ ַכּ ַﬠס‬outside of this verse, but he does use the verb ‫כעס‬, which occurs in 8:17; 16:26,42; 32:9. The sole use of the noun is not an argument against the originality of the text.138 The use of the verb in Ezekiel rather supports the text (cf. also the remark concerning ‫ גדף‬in v.27). The negative tone of the expression,139 which is explicitly present and would qualify the expression as from a later hand,140 is implicit in the summation of the other sacrifices. There is no decisive reason to qualify the text as an addition by a later hand.

See HAL (173), s.v. ‫גדף‬. See Cooke 1936 (225). 135 See Zimmerli 1969a (436). 136 Pace Bertholet 1936 (73). 137 See Zimmerli 1969a (436); Allen 1990 (4). Cooke 1936 (225) accentuates differently from the MT. He views ‫ ַכּ ַﬠס ָק ְר ָבּנָ ם וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ ָשׁם‬as the expression lacking in the LXX. He understands καὶ ἔταξαν as equivalent of ‫( וַ יִּ ְתּנוּ‬a free rendering). His view should not be followed, because καὶ ἔταξαν corresponds to ‫וַ יָּ ִשׂימוּ‬. 138 Pace Zimmerli 1969a (436). 139 Cf. DCH IV (449), s.v. ‫ ַכּ ַﬠס‬: “anger, irritation, provocation, used of both divine and human anger (e.g. . . . Ezk 2028).” 140 Pace Allen 1990 (4). 133 134

58

chapter one

– The word sequence ‫ ַכּ ַﬠס ָק ְר ָבּנָ ם‬is remarkable. The substantive in the construct state stands in the place of an adjective to emphasize a particular feature, cf. Isa 1:16; 37:24b.141 The reversal of the word ַ ‫ ְשׁנִ י ַה‬/ ‫תוֹל ַﬠת ָשׁנִ י‬ ַ ְ‫)ו‬ order also occurs in Lev 14:6; Exod 25:4 (‫תּוֹל ַﬠת‬ and Prov 14:26; 21:22 (‫ ִמ ְב ַטח־עֹז‬/ ‫)עֹז ִמ ְב ֶט ָהה‬, whereby the word pairs have equivalent meanings.142 * Opinions on the translation of ‫יחוֹח‬ ַ ִ‫ ֵר ַיח נ‬differ. The LXX renders it ὀσμὴ εὐωδιάς. The Vulgate translates along the same line as odor ַ ‫ נִ יח‬translates the word pair as “soothsuavitatis. HAL (657), s.v. ‫ֹ)וֹ(ח‬ ing smell.” BDB (629), s.v. ‫ נִ יח ַֹח‬translates “soothing, tranquillizing ַ ִ‫ נ‬translates with “soothing, pleasodour.” DCH V (681), s.v. ‫יחוֹח‬ ing, appeasement.” Koch writes: “For P and Ez rêaḥ nîḥ ôaḥ means therefore the ‘benevolent odor,’ which arises with a festal sacrifice and creates the right climate for the blessing acting of God in the cultic assembly. Therefore Ezek 20:41 expects ‘satisfaction.’”143 Stolz writes: “From the sacrifice arises a ‘benevolent odor’ to the Godhead and thus puts the relationship between man and God in order.”144 The different explanations appear to indicate two aspects of the same matter, as appears from the citations by Koch and Stolz. This is about a sacrifice whereby the fellowship with God/the Godhead (again) becomes possible.145 Ezekiel 20:29 * The question ‫ ָמה ַה ָבּ ָמה‬insinuates reproof, disapproval or contempt, or indignation, see GKC §148a; JM §162a.146 – The use of the article with the participle is notable: ‫ ַה ָבּ ִאים‬. The participle is predicate and may as such have an article with it, see

141

See Cooke 1936 (225). See Greenberg 1986 (370). 143 K. Koch, “‫יחוֹח‬ ַ ִ‫נ‬,” TWAT V:445: “Für P und Ez bedeutet rêaḥ nîḥ ôaḥ demnach der „wohltuende Geruch“, der beim festlichen Opfer entsteht und das rechte Klima für den segnenden Umgang Gottes mit der Kultgemeinde schafft. Deshalb erwartet Ez 20,41 davon „Wohlgefallen“.” 144 F. Stolz, “ ‫נוח‬,” THAT II:46: “Vom Opfer her steigt ein »Beschwichtigungsgeruch« zur Gottheit auf und bringt so das Verhältnis zwischen Mensch und Gott in Ordnung.” 145 See also De Boer 1972 (37–47: “God’s Fragrance,” esp. 45). 146 See BDB (552), s.v. ‫ ָמה‬1.c. 142

textual criticism, philology and grammar

59

GKC §116q. The decisive reason for the use of the article in this case appears to be the assonance with the preceding ‫ ַה ָבּ ָמה‬.147 The durative aspect of the participle shows up clearly, see GKC §116a; JM §121c. The people continually go to the heights. Ezekiel 20:30

ֶ ‫בוֹת‬ ֵ ‫ ַה ְבּ ֶד ֶרְך ֲא‬as ἐν ταῖς ἀνο– The LXX interprets the expression ‫יכם‬ μίαις τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν. * The ‫–ה‬interrogative here expresses an absolute certainty, see GKC §150e; JM §161b. Ezekiel 20:31 – The LXX opens v.31 with καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἀπαρχαῖς τῶν δομάτων ὑμῶν ἐν τοῖς ἀφορισμοῖς where the MT reads ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫וּב ְשׂ ֵאת ַמ ְתּנ ֵֹת‬ ִ . The MT as a possible reading is supported by Jud 3:18; 2 Sam 8:6; Ps 96:8; 1 Chr 18:2,6. The reading of LXX appears to be a doublet, which ִ ‫וּבּ ֵר‬ ְ arose under the influence of v.40.148 The LXX presupposes ‫אשׁית‬ ‫יכם ְבּ ַמ ְשׂאוֹת‬ ֶ ‫נוֹת‬ ֵ ‫ ַמ ְתּ‬. The parallel with v.26 (‫ ְבּ ַה ֲﬠ ִביר‬following after ‫נוֹתם‬ ָ ‫ ) ְבּ ַמ ְתּ‬supports the reading of the MT. ֶ ֵ‫ְבּ ַה ֲﬠ ִביר ְבּנ‬ – The LXX does not seem to have known the formulation ‫יכם‬ ‫ ָבּ ֵאשׁ‬, as Zimmerli supposes.149 According to Cooke, who follows the reading of codex Vaticanus, ἐν τοῖς ἀφορισμοῖς οἷς (= ‫) ְבּ ַמ ְשׂאוֹת ֲא ֶשׁר‬ is the equivalent of the formulation, which is assimilated to v.40.150 With Allen, the omission in the LXX is to be conceived as a case of neglect of the formulation as a result of the textual confusion.151 The explicative variation vis-à-vis v.26 and the parallel with that verse support the MT as the correct text.152

147 See Cooke 1936 (225); Allen 1990 (4). Vaughan 1974 (1) sees a sarcastic wordplay in this combination of words. “In his prophecy against apostate Israelites, Ezekiel (xx 29) sarcastically puns on the meaning of the word bamâ.” 148 See Allen 1990 (4). 149 See Zimmerli 1969a (436). 150 See Cooke 1936 (225). 151 See Allen 1990 (4). 152 Pace Zimmerli 1969a (436); Cooke 1936 (220, 225).

60

chapter one

* The preposition ‫ ְל‬in ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫לּוּל‬ ֵ ִ‫ ְל ָכל־גּ‬is to be translated as ‘for the sake of,’ see BDB (514), s.v. ‫ ְל‬5.g; HAL (360), s.v. ‫ טמא‬nif. – After ‫ ַהיּוֹם‬, ‫ ַהזֶּ ה‬would be expected, cf. v.29 (and 2:3; 24:2; 40:1), as is also found in a number of manuscripts as well as the LXX and the Targum. * Strictly taken the addition of ‫ ַהזֶּ ה‬after ‫ ַהיּוֹם‬is not indispensable. The article may have kept its original demonstrative power in fixed expressions, see GKC §126b; JM §137f. * ‫ וַ ֲאנִ י ִא ָדּ ֵרשׁ‬is a question which is not introduced by a question particle, see GKC §150a; JM §161a. * For the use of the Nifal of ‫דרשׁ‬, see v.3. Ezekiel 20:32 – The LXX connects the opening of this verse with the preceding and lets v.32 begin with the rendering of ‫ ָהיוֹ לֹא ִת ְהיֶ ה‬, adding καὶ for ‫ ָהיוֹ‬. * ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬is used as a conjunction, which indicates the result, HAL (95), s.v. ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬II.d. The LXX has understood ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר‬as ‫ ַכּ ֲא ֶשׁר‬by rendering ὃν τρόπον. * Cf. v.23 for the contradiction between the thoughts of God and those of the people on the role of the peoples and the lands. – ‫ ֵﬠץ וָ ָא ֶבן‬is an expression of Deuteronomistic origin, e.g. Deut 4:28; 28:36,64; 29:16.153 Ezekiel 20:33 – The LXX opens this verse with διὰ τοῦτο (agrees with ‫ ) ָל ֵכן‬and understands it as a continuation of v.32. * ‫ ִאם־לֹא‬expresses a strong confirmation after an oath, see GKC §149a; JM §165e; Schneider §53.5.3.2, cf. 18:3. The LXX has no equivalent for this expression. ָ ‫וּב ֵח ָמה ְשׁ‬ ְ ‫רוֹע נְ טוּיָ ה‬ ַ ְ‫וּבז‬ ִ ‫ ְבּיָ ד ֲחזָ ָקה‬is repeated in v.34 and forms * ‫פוּכה‬ an inclusio with it, which frames the reaction by God (v.34) to the

153 According to Fohrer 1955 (113) the use of this expression is limited to the time of Ezekiel.

textual criticism, philology and grammar

61

planned assimilation of the people with the surrounding peoples, verbalized in v.32. Cf. Jer 21:5. ָ ‫ ֵח ָמה ְשׁ‬is an expression which only occurs in Ezekiel and which * ‫פוּכה‬ ֶ ‫ ִל ְשׁפְֹך ֲח ָמ ִתי ֲﬠ ֵל‬which occur in vv.8,13 is a reflection of the words ‫יהם‬ and 21 (cf. 7:8; 9:8; 14:9; 22:22). Ezekiel 20:34 * ‫ ָה ַﬠ ִמּים‬is used as a synonym for ‫ ַהגּוֹיִ ם‬, cf. vv.23,32 and 35. ָ ‫וּב ֵח ָמה ְשׁ‬ ְ ‫רוֹע נְ טוּיָ ה‬ ַ ְ‫וּבז‬ ִ ‫ ְבּיָ ד ֲחזָ ָקה‬, see v.33. * Relative to ‫פוּכה‬ Ezekiel 20:35 * The Nifal of ‫ שׁפט‬here has the meaning of ‘to enter into judgment.’154 The Nifal “gives particularly emphatic validity to placing oneself before the judicial court.”155 The Nifal is also used in 17:20; 38:22. * The Syrian-Arabic desert is meant by ‫ ִמ ְד ַבּר ָה ַﬠ ִמּים‬, which is bounded by different nations.156 A comparison with v.36 supports this view. After the exodus out of Egypt, the people entered the desert of Egypt; after the exodus out of exile, the people enter the desert of the nations (peoples). ‫ ָה ַﬠ ִמּים‬is used as a synonym for ‫ ַהגּוֹיִ ם‬, cf. vv.23,32 and 34. ָ ‫( ָפּנִ ים ֶא‬for example also in Gen 32:31; Exod 33:11; * The phrase ‫ל־פּנִ ים‬ Deut 34:10) ‘face to face,’ expresses the immediate proximity of God to a person.157 Ezekiel 20:36 * This verse has the Nifal of ‫ שׁפט‬twice with the meaning ‘to enter into judgment,’ see v.35. * ‫ ִמ ְד ַבּר ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬corresponds with ‫ ִמ ְד ַבּר ָה ַﬠ ִמּים‬in v.35, see v.35.

154 See HAL (1501), s.v. ‫ שׁפט‬nif. 2.a.β. Cf. H. Niehr, “ ‫ ָשׁ ַפט‬,” TWAT VIII:419: “(miteinander) streiten.” 155 Zimmerli 1969a (436): “bringt das Sichstellen zum Rechtsakt des Gerichtes besonders nachdrücklich zur Geltung.” 156 Pace Aalders 1955 (326–327). 157 See HAL (888), s.v. ‫ ָפּנֶ ה‬, C.3.e.

62

chapter one Ezekiel 20:37

* The expression ‫ וְ ַה ֲﬠ ַב ְר ִתּי ֶא ְת ֶכם ַתּ ַחת ַה ָשּׁ ֶבט‬also occurs in Lev 27:32 and is to be translated ‘to (Hifil: make) pass under the staff,’ HAL (1292), s.v. ‫ ֵשׁ ֶבט‬1.b.β. It is a way of counting animals as appears from the passage in Leviticus, in which occurs an aspect of setting apart or selecting.158 – The LXX and the Vulgate read respectively ῥάβδον μου and sceptro meo, which might refer to a first person singular suffix with ‫ ַה ָשּׁ ֶבט‬. ִ ‫ וְ ֵה ֵב‬causes several problems. – The phrase ‫אתי ֶא ְת ֶכם ְבּ ָמס ֶֹרת ַה ְבּ ִרית‬ The LXX reads ἐν ἀριθμῷ, which appears to point to ‫ ְבּ ִמ ְס ָפר‬in the Vorlage, with reference to 1 Chr 9:28 (where, however, the aspect of setting apart or selecting of the first half of the verse is lacking, which coheres with vv.35 and 36: ‘to enter into judgment’ and with v.38, ‫)ברר‬159 which leads to the meaning ‘bringing in, counted,’ as a parallel continuation of the first half of the verse.160 An equivalent ִ ‫וּב‬ ָ , for ‫ ַה ְבּ ִרית‬is lacking, because this would be a dittography of ‫רוֹתי‬ the opening word of v.38. The rendering of the LXX, ἐν ἀριθμῷ still appears to go back to ‫ ְבּ ָמס ֶֹרת‬, which under Aramaic influence is derived from ‫מסר‬,161 which means ‘to count.’ Cf. Num 31:5 where the LXX renders ‫ וַ יִּ ָמּ ְסרוּ‬with ἐξηρίθμησαν (from ἐξαριθμέω). The lack of ִ ‫וּב‬ ָ , the an equivalent of ‫ ַה ְבּ ִרית‬is the result of a haplography of ‫רוֹתי‬ opening word of v.38. ‫ ָמס ֶֹרת‬may be understood as an orthographic variant of ‫( ַמ ֲאס ֶֹרת‬see GKC §23f ) and may then be derived from ‫אסר‬ which means ‘to chain, to bind.’162 Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion,

158

See Greenberg 1986 (372). Cf. ibid. (373). Weisman 1981 (448) on the semantic field of ‫ברר‬: “a process of testing and selecting.” 160 See Zimmerli 1969a (437). 161 See Greenberg 1986 (373); Allen 1990 (4). 162 Ben-Ḥ ayyim 1958 (212): “The word occurs as ‫ ָמס ֶֹרת‬in Ezek. xx, 37. The pointing is unique; and there can be little doubt that it is the result of the etymology propounded by the early Jewish commentators, who derive it from ‫אסר‬, as it were ‫ ַמ ֲאס ֶֹרת‬.” Cf. HAL (575), s.v. ‫ ָמס ֶֹרת‬where, however, the emendation by Zimmerli according to the LXX is followed. DCH V:377, s.v. [‫ ] ָמס ֶֹרת‬II opts for the rendering “bring into the tradition of the covenant,” which is derived from Mishnaic Hebrew and to which Ben-Ḥ ayyim (212) has also pointed. Ben-Ḥ ayyim (212) has no opinion whether the derivation of ‫אסר‬ is correct, but prefers the one in the Hebrew of the Mishna: “This may or may not be the right explanation for the form in Ezekiel; in Mishnaic Hebrew, at any rate, ‫מסרת‬ is a Hebrew word with well-known meaning.” Ben-Ḥ ayyim (212) states “tradition” as the first meaning of the word. The Targum (cited by Sperber 1962) has ‫במסרת קימא‬, 159

textual criticism, philology and grammar

63

the Targum, the Peshitta and the Vulgate imply the MT.163 Within the context of the leading of the people to the desert, a reference to the covenant fits very well. There is no question in the MT of ditִ ‫וּב‬ ָ is a wordplay (cf. v.29 tography. The succession of ‫ ַה ְבּ ִרית‬and ‫רוֹתי‬ with ‫ ַה ָבּ ָמה‬and ‫ ; ַה ָבּ ִאים‬v.36 with ‫ ִא ָשּׁ ֵפט‬and ‫ ַה ָשּׁ ֵבט‬in this verse; v.40 with ‫ ָבּ ָא ֶרץ‬and ‫) ֶא ְר ֵצם‬, which are abundant in vv.33–40 (repetition and alliteration).164 The ‘binding of the covenant’ is an expression for the legal rules and ordinances, by which the people are to live after the exodus from exile. Ezekiel 20:38 – The LXX has misunderstood ‫ ִבּי‬as ‫ ; ִכּי‬witness the fact that it renders διότι. ִ ‫( ֶא ֶרץ ְמ‬also in Gen 17:8; 28:4; 36:7; 37:1; Exod 6:4) indicates * ‫גוּרים‬ the area where the ‫ גֵּ ר‬may remain and accordingly deserves to enjoy protection (expressed in German as ‘Schutzbürger’ and ‘Schutzִ ‫ ֶא ֶרץ ְמ‬is an area of refuge for the ‫גֵּ ר‬. bürgerschaft’). Thus, a ‫גוּרים‬ With the present exception, the expression is used to indicate the land of Canaan where the fathers lived, before the people acquired their promised land. The expression is in a sense a synonym of ‘the promised land.’ For ‘the rebels’ and ‘those who have broken with me’ Babylon became a place of refuge, a kind of promised land. “The rebels against God (cf. 2:3) will be expelled from ‘the land of their sojourn’ (what Canaan was to the patriarchs, Gen 17:8; Exod 6:4), where they preferred to remain and become like the nations.”165 – Relative to ‫ ַא ְד ַמת יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬, see 18:2. – For the singular ‫יָ בוֹא‬, the plural ‫ יָ בֹאוּ‬is to be read, GKC §145u.

which is translated as “covenantal tradition” with the notation, that the “Tg. carries over by transliteration rather than translation, but likely with the Rabbinic meaning, transmission or tradition. Rashi takes it in this sense. Kimḥi derives it from ‘asr, “to bind,” and so, too, BDB, p. 64. I have chosen to render the phrase “covenantal tradition.” In keeping with Rashi’s “into the covenant which I have transmitted to you,” Levey 1987 (64, 65). Buber 1997 (489) chooses for a derivation of ‫ אסר‬with his rendering “umschränkende Gehege.” An exclusive choice appears excluded the more when one keeps in mind that Jastrow (810), s.v. ‫ ָמ ַסר‬, indicates ‫ מסר‬as “sec. r. or ‫ ָא ַסר‬.” 163 See Cooke 1936 (225). See Zimmerli 1969a (437) for the versions. 164 See Greenberg 1986 (373). 165 Ibid. (374).

64

chapter one

– In this verse, the LXXB notably reads κύριος κύριος for ‫ ;יְ הוָ ה‬cf. the remark on 18:3. The LXXA also has a double rendering with κύριος ὁ θεός. Ezekiel 20:39 – The LXXB renders ‫ ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִֹ ה‬doubly as κύριος κύριος. With this verse begins the ‘border region’ (20:39–30:22) in the LXXB, in which the simple rendition (dominant in 1:1–20:38) of the divine name changes to the twofold (occasionally in the ‘border region’), which dominates in chapters 31–39.166 – The LXX renders ‫ ְלכוּ ֲﬠבֹדוּ‬with ἐξάρατε. This situation has led to diverse proposals of textual emendation. Hitzig proposes to read ‫( ַה ֲﬠ ִברוּ‬Zech 13:2 is comparable where ‫ ַא ֲﬠ ִביר‬is rendered by the LXX with ἐξαρῶ), or more probably still ‫ ַבּ ֵﬠרוּ‬.167 Bertholet first proposes to read ‫ ַה ֲﬠ ִבירוּ‬,168 and later to read ‫ ַבּ ֲﬠרוּ‬and he refers to 1 Kgs 14:10; 21:21 where the verb is followed by ‫ ַא ַחר‬, as is the case in this verse.169 In addition to the emendation by Hitzig/Bertholet, Fohrer deems ‫ ַא ְבּדוּ‬an option also (to which 30:13 may be compared—JM).170 Zimmerli recognizes in ‫ לכו‬the rest of ‫]השׁ[לכו‬, referring to v.7. After the ָ ִ‫ ִאישׁ גּ‬.171 What follows (‫ֲﬠבֹדוּ‬ emendation the text reads: ‫לּוּליו ַה ְשׁ ִליכוּ‬ ‫ ֵא ָלי‬. . .) is a lost textual fragment from a totally different context, or a gloss.172 The textual emendations miss the ironic point of the text, see GKC §110a and are not to be followed.173 Cf. Amos 4:4; Jer 44:25 for ironic sayings regarding sin and idolatry. The asyndetic construction of both imperatives strengthens the emphasis of the saying. Cf. GKC §120g; JM §177e for the asyndeton of the imperatives. The

166

See Cooke 1936 (33–35). See Hitzig 1847 (139). 168 See Bertholet 1897 (109). 169 See id. 1936 (73). 170 See Fohrer 1955 (115). 171 See Zimmerli 1969a (437). 172 See Fohrer 1955 (115); Zimmerli 1969a (437). 173 Allen 1990 (4) calls the emendations and the removal of a part of the text “a counsel of despair.” Mulder 1975 (235) speaks of an “ironically flavoured sentence.” Krüger 1989 (260–261) calls v.39 a “polemische Aufforderung” and retains the text of the MT. Renz 1999 (83, 174–176) also understands it as an ironic point. 167

textual criticism, philology and grammar

65

ironic wordplay between ‫ ֲﬠבֹדוּ‬and ‫ יַ ַﬠ ְב ֻדנִ י‬in v.40 may not remain unnoticed. Cf. v.37 on wordplays. The MT is to be followed.174 * ‫ וְ ַא ַחר‬is an adverb of time. The LXX renders it καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα, cf. e.g. Lev 14:8,19; 15:28; 22:7; BDB (29), s.v. ‫ ַא ַחר‬1.b. ֵ ‫ ִא‬is the protasis of a conditional sentence, of – ‫ם־אינְ ֶכם שׁ ְֹמ ִﬠים ֵא ָלי‬ which the apodosis is suppressed, see GKC §159dd; JM §167r. The alteration of ‫ ֵאינְ ֶכם‬into ‫ יִ ְשׁ ֶכם = ֶא ְשׁ ֶכם‬is not followed, because this would remove the threat which the expression implies. For the use ֵ ‫ִא‬ of the participle in the protasis, see GKC §159v; JM §167h. ‫ם־אין‬ is not to be understood as a strong confirmation, as after an oath, according to the scheme ‫( ִאם־לֹא‬see v.33), by which ‫ ֵאין‬would be used instead of ‫ לֹא‬and a participle in the place of a finite verb.175 Ezekiel 20:40 – The LXXB has the twofold rendering in this verse: κύριος κύριος for ‫ ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬, see vv.39 and 18:3. ֵ ‫( ָכּ‬also in * ‫ ֻכֹּּלה‬is added appositionally to strengthen ‫ל־בּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ 11:15; 36:10; cf. 35:15). The restoration of the people precedes the restoration of the cult.176 The result of the conduct in v.37 is that there is mention of a totality, a unity. – The LXX has no equivalent for ‫ ָבּ ָא ֶרץ‬, but it is not be labeled a gloss, as do Fohrer and Zimmerli for example.177 The redundancy of the word has probably been the occasion not to reproduce it.178 Wordplay may be recognized in it with the following ‫ ֶא ְר ֵצם‬, see v.37.179 * The difference in the rendering of ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫אשׁית ַמ ְשׂאו ֵֺת‬ ִ ‫ ֵר‬, in the LXX with τὰς ἀπαρχὰς τῶν ἀφορισμῶν, in the Vulgate with initium decimarum vestrarum, with ‘the first one/the firstling of your levy’ or ‘the best of your levy’ must not be brought to a head. No sharp

174 175 176 177 178 179

Cooke 1936 (226) calls the MT “forcible.” Pace Aalders 1955 (328–329). See Greenberg 1986 (375). See Fohrer 1955 (115); Zimmerli 1969a (437). See Allen 1990 (5). Cf. Greenberg 1986 (375).

66

chapter one distinction ought to be made between ‘the first’ and ‘the best’ in this text.180 Ezekiel 20:41

* The preposition ‫ ְבּ‬is not be understood as a ‫ ְבּ‬essentiae,181 but as a preposition which expresses the mutuality (together with, simultaneously with), agreeing with the conclusion of v.40.182 An instrumental nuance is present on account of the nexus with the mentioned sacrifice.183 The rendering of the LXX with ἐν ὀσμῇ εὐωδίας has the same meaning. * Relative to ‫ ֵר ַיח נִ יח ַֹח‬, see v.28. Ezekiel 20:42 – Relative to ‫ ַא ְד ַמת יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬, see 18:2. The difference with ‫ ֶא ֶרץ‬may be seen in this verse. It is related to the promise to the fathers. Ezekiel 20:43

ֶ ‫ילוֹת‬ ֵ ‫ ֲﬠ ִל‬. V.44 – The LXX has no equivalent for ‫ ָכּל־‬which precedes ‫יכם‬ does not use ‫( כֹּל‬cf. 36:31), but 21:29 uses it with this word. Zimmerli’s argument that the evenness of the expression is disturbed by ‫ ָכּל־‬, is not decisive.184 ‫ ָכּל־‬may just as well be understood as a rhetorical means to accomplish a climactic effect. The MT is to be maintained. ֶ ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר ֲﬠ ִשׂ‬is lacking in the LXX. The words are quite – A rendering of ‫יתם‬ fitting in the redundant style of Ezekiel. This is expressed to confirm the previous: the acts of wickedness have indeed been committed.

180 See S. Rattray and J. Milgrom, “‫אשׁית‬ ִ ‫ ֵר‬,” TWAT VII:291, 293. See also Cohen 2003 (56). 181 Pace GKC §119i. 182 Cf. Allen 1990 (5). 183 See Greenberg 1986 (375). 184 See Zimmerli 1969a (437).

textual criticism, philology and grammar

67

Ezekiel 20:44

ִ ‫ ַבּ ֲﬠ‬is provided by exegetical additions in the – ‫שׂוֹתי ִא ְתּ ֶכם ְל ַמ ַﬠן ְשׁ ִמי‬ LXX: ἐν τῷ ποιῆσαι με οὕτως ὑμῖν ὅπως τὸ ὄνομά μου μὴ βεβηλωθῇ. – The LXX does not render ‫ ֵבּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬.

CHAPTER TWO

EZEKIEL 18 AND 20 A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Since concluding that the MT of Ezekiel 18 and 20 offers a reliable basis for a vision of the relationship between individual and corporate responsibility in this biblical book, it appears sensible to clarify the composition of these chapters by means of a structural analysis. The analysis shows the literary composition and internal cohesion of both chapters as offered by the MT. The approach of the textual material in this structural analysis is synchronic. Particularly the homogeneity of the Ezekiel tradition suggests a synchronic approach. The text critical, philological and grammatical analysis of the text confirms the choice of a synchronic approach. This does not a priori exclude diachronic remarks.1 When they may throw light on the coherence and structure of the literary design, they will certainly be cited. Whenever necessary, the terminology of form criticism will be used to label the various parts of the text with an eye on clarifying the structure. The term ‘structure,’ for the description of the ordering of the text, is indicated by previously listed criteria. The weight assigned to the various criteria determines to a large extent the description of the ordering of the text. The structure as it is read in the text knows a clear subjective component. The ‘structure’ is a description of the ordering of the text, which clarifies as fruit of close reading of the text by means of the indicated criteria. This chapter describes the structure, as read in the texts on the basis of formulated and indicated criteria for particular verses.2 The description of the structure of Ezekiel 18 and 20 demonstrates the coherence of these two textual units, 1 See Joyce 1995 (125–126) on the legitimacy of both the synchronic and the diachronic approaches to Ezekiel. Utzschneider 1996 (4): “Diachronic exegesis is inconceivable without synchronic elements—that is to say, without taking account of the linguistic form of the presently existing text; and conversely, synchronic exegesis cannot deny—and generally has no wish to deny—the complex history of the text’s development. To this extent most exegetes may be said to recognize the justification of both perspectives.” 2 With Greenberg 1986 (18–27). Cf. also this aspect of the Amsterdam School, see Oost 1986.

70

chapter two

which stand centrally in the testing of Wheeler Robinson’s corporate personality hypothesis. A brief sketch of the structure of Ezekiel precedes the structural analysis of both chapters. This will provide insight into the place of Ezekiel 18 and 20 in the whole of the book of Ezekiel. The Structure of Ezekiel A threefold structure is recognizable in Ezekiel.3 Chapters 1–24 (section I) contain a message of judgment on Judah and Jerusalem. Chapters 25–32 (section II) feature the prophecies against the nations, and chapters 33–48 (section III) are characterized by a message of comfort, hope and restoration. Many subdivisions may be added to this threefold structure. Ezekiel 40–48 may serve as a clear example of this. These chapters contain the vision of the new temple and the division of the land. The prophecies against the nations fill a ‘bridge function’ between the first and third sections of the book, in which the fate of the people of Israel is central. The connecting link is the theme of the prophecies against the nations, namely their attitude opposed to Jerusalem and their behavior during the fall of Jerusalem.4 The first and third sections have strong thematic connections, for example the theme of the prophet in the midst of the people in 2:5 and 33:33, the theme of the watcher in 3:16–21 and 33:1–9,5 the muteness of the prophet in 3:25–27; 24:25–27 and 33:21–22, God’s glory in the opening vision of the book, further in 11:22–23 where the glory leaves the city and in 43:1–11 where the return is described. The threefold structure does not function as a straitjacket for the textual material. The ordering is not applied scrupulously, as appears from 11:14–21; 16:60–63; 17:22–32; 20:40–44 in the first section. Within the message of judgment they offer a perspective for the future.6 In the

3 Cf. Isa 1–39 and Jeremiah (in the LXX) as well as Zephaniah (see Neef 1999 [530–546]). Thus also Krüger 1989 (298). He qualifies this (305) as a threefold scheme imprinted in the book by the final redaction. Krüger seeks “das ältere EB” (305–394), which has a twofold eschatological scheme, following Fuhs 1986 (7). Their opinions vary on the extent and structure of the older book. 4 See Hals 1989 (3). 5 Contrary to Joyce 1989 (144): “[T]he two watchman passages now form ‘bookends’ around the pre-587 ministry of Ezekiel.” 6 Renz 1999 (162–177) understands this positive perspective in the first half of the book (Ezek 1–33) as a rhetorical technique.

a structural analysis

71

third section we may point to Ezekiel 35, which contains a prophecy against Edom, while the prophecies against the nations are collected in the second section.7 On the basis of this data, restraint needs to be exercised toward making conclusions relative to the ordering of the textual material. The recognizable and tenable threefold structure of the book is not a mathematical matrix on the basis of which we may determine what may or may not appear in relevant sections. The same is true of the reverse. A passage cannot be labeled a prophecy of judgment with mathematical certainly, because it occurs in the first section of the book. The relationship to the context and the content of the relevant passage, determines which characterization is correct for the relevant passage. In addition to the thematic tripartite division of the book, we may point to the chronological order of the book which may be found in the superscriptions of the diverse parts of Ezekiel.8 Both ordering principles appear to be mutually interwoven.9 The parts of the first section of the book with dating in the superscription are from before the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.E. The second section, of the prophecies against the nations, contains dates which are related to the fall of Jerusalem (except 29:17). The two dates in the third section show a remarkable difference of time. The first date in 33:12 relates to the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C.E. The second date, in 40:1 (more than twelve years later than the one in 33:12) introduces the rounding off vision of the third section on the new temple and the division of the land. Ordering principles may be pointed out as well for the sub-division of the textual material within the three sections. The most important ordering principles are content, genre, keyword and chronological sequence.10 Examples maybe the four divine sayings in 12:21–28; 13:1–16; 13:17–23; 14:1–11, which are collected, based on similar content,11 namely on prophets and prophecy, and Ezekiel 15–19, which share the same genre, 7

Cf. ibid. (109–110). On the data see Finegan 1950 (61–66); Freedy and Redford 1970 (462–485); Kutsch 1985; McKeating 1995 (62–72). 9 Allen 1990 (xxv–xxvi) compares these two ordering principles to the two main streams in contemporary biblical scholarship, namely the historical and the literary, or the diachronic and the synchronic approaches to the text. Ezekiel is proof for the indispensable inter-dependence of a diachronic and a synchronic approach to the text. 10 See Hals 1989 (8). 11 Allen 1990 (xxvi): “The book is a series of literary units in which characteristically clusters of oracles trail behind a basic oracle, like a flotilla of ships sailing in the wake of their flagship.” 8

72

chapter two

namely a māšāl.12 This subdivision can only serve as an example of a possible demarcation, because there is no agreement among scholars relating to the subdivision of the material between the sections. The demarcations are determined on the basis of different criteria. In a sense every demarcation has enjoyed a measure of acceptability, viewed from the criteria on the basis of which the demarcation was determined, so that modesty as to the correct demarcation is called for. Ezekiel 18 and 20 belong to the first section of the book (Ezek 1–24) which will therefore be considered next. The Structure of Ezekiel 1–24 Three steps precede the description of the structure of Ezekiel 1–24. The combination of these three steps enables us to give a summary of the structure of Ezekiel 1–24. The first step is the demarcation from the rest of the book. Ezekiel 1–24 form the first section of the threefold structure of Ezekiel. The first section may be typified as a collection of texts the content of which is predominantly oriented to judgment on Judah and Jerusalem. With this the most important criterion is indicated on the basis of which texts belong to a section, namely, agreement in content and theme between texts on the basis of which these are grouped in a section. The second step is the application of the ordering principle of the dating, which is interwoven with the above mentioned most important criterion of content. This offers the possibility of a sub-division on the basis of a chronological sequence which the book indicates. The application of the chronological criterion leads to a breakdown in three subdivisions which begin with 1:1–2;13 8:1 and 20:1.14,15 The dates in 3:16 12 Greenberg 1986 (6): “Similarly, chs. 15–19 all have in common the term, or the fact of their being a māšāl, ‘parable, proverb.’ ” See also Boadt 1986 (194–196). 13 The enigmatic “thirtieth year” in v.1 is always the introduction to discussion, because the era to which the dating relates, remains unnamed. Of the dating in v.2, the era to which this relates is clearly indicated, namely that of the exile of king Jehoiachin. The dating in v.2 is a closer explanation of the one in v.1, whereby it is indicated that the same moment of time is aimed at. Cf. for this Zimmerli 1969a (22); Wilson 1984a (120); Greenberg 1986 (9); Miller 1992 (499–503); Odell 1998 (238–241); Renz 1999 (133–134). Pace York 1977 (82–98). 14 Allen 1994 (xxvi) sees in this “a pattern of compilation . . . that runs through much of the book: a vision followed by an account of interpreted sign acts (1:1–3:15/3:22–5:17; 8:1–11:25/12:1–20; 37:1–14/15–28).” 15 Different from the subdivision offered here are the following commentators and recent studies: Dijkstra 1986, 1989 (the only recent commentator who does not agree

a structural analysis

73

and 24:1 do not introduce separate subdivisions. The dating in 3:16 deviates from the others (‘after seven days’ instead of the usual dating with the components ‘year, month, day’), goes back to the one in 1:1–2 and is connected to 3:15 to introduce the continuation of this subsection, after the call and the reception of the commission. The dating in 24:1 deviates somewhat from the other one by the explicit mention of ‫ ַבּח ֶֹדשׁ‬with the ordinal number which indicates the month in place of the ordinary connection of the ordinal number with the preposition ‫ְבּ‬ to indicate the month and the interruption of the Wortereignisformel by placing the dating before ‫ ֵלאמֹר‬.16,17 This date introduces the textual segment by rounding off the third subsection and the first section in its entirety. Because of the dating in the present form of the text, a certain measure of independence must be assigned to Ezekiel 24. In Ezekiel 24 the conclusion is made from the message of judgment on Judah and Jerusalem, which is verbalized in the first section.18 The third and final step to arrive at a description of the structure of the first section is taken by the subdivision of the subsections on the basis of the criterion of genre, content or keyword, on the basis of which texts are grouped within the subsections and partial collections. As examples of texts grouped according to these criteria, we may mention symbolic acts, which are collected in 4:1–3; 4:4–8; 4:9–17; 5:1–17 (genre); divine sayings which are collected in 12:21–28; 13:1–16; 13:17–23; 14:1–11 (content), the collection in 21:1–12; 21:13–22; 21:23–32; 21:33–37 grouped around the keyword ‘sword.’ The subsections together form a coherent whole by means of cross-connections, e.g. 3:23 with 1:4–28; 10:22 with 1:4–28; and 24:27 with 3:25–27. A

to the traditional demarcation between chs. 24 and 25); Stuart 1988; Blenkinsopp 1990; Vawter and Hoppe 1991; Block 1997, 1998; Cooper 1994; Pohlmann 1996; Renz 1999 (57–130). 16 Additionally only yet in 32:1, but there the preposition ‫ ְבּ‬is connected with the ordinal number as is usually done in the case of dating. 17 The dating is redactional or a gloss which landed in the text and therefore deviating. The dating appears quite meaningful from a diachronic perspective, above the closing part of the message of judgment on Judah and Jerusalem. The dating points to the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem by the Babylonian armies of Nebuchadnezzar. For a comparison, we refer to 2 Kgs 25:1. What is proclaimed by the prophet in the first section is treated in the subsequent events. Cf. Gosse 1996 (40–47), who points to the connection with 2 Kgs 25. According to Gosse, the dating in 24:1 does not fit in the chronological system of the book of Ezekiel. 18 Cf. also Renz 1999 (89–93, 148–160). Ch. 24 is “a climax of the book” according to Renz (89).

74

chapter two

criterion to demarcate textual units, which may not be neglected, is the use of the Wortereignisformel.19 The application of the above-mentioned criteria for the three steps indicated and the use of the Wortereignisformel on Ezekiel 1–24 leads to the following sub-division in the summary below. The limits of the subdivisions are indicated, as they have been arrived at by the application for the formulated criteria. A schematic reproduction may be found in diagram 4 (appendix II).20 Ezekiel 1–24 1–7 1–3 Call and Instruction of the Prophet 1:1–3:15, Call Vision and Commission 3:16–21, Appointment to Watchman 3:22–27, Struck with Muteness 4–5 Prophetic Street Theater21,22 4:1–3, First Act: Scale Model of the Siege 4:4–8, Second Act: The Prophet lies on Both Sides 4:9–17, Third Act: Provision of Food 5:1–17, Fourth Act: Division of the Hair of the Head 6–7 The Approach of Judgment 6:1–14, Death on the Heights 7:1–27, Announcement of the End 8–19 8–11 The Temple Vision 8:1–18, The Horrors 9:1–11, The Judgment 10:1–22, The Glory of the Lord 11:1–13, The Pot and the Flesh 11:14–21, Justification and Promise 11:22–25, Departure of the Glory and Closure23

19 Hossfeld 1977 (27): “Sonst an den übrigen 46 Stellen (zu 1,2.3a, s.o.) steht sie [die Wortereignisformel—JM] unangefochten in Frontposition und markiert mit den ihr beigeordneten Angaben und Sätzen den Anfang eines Textes.” See also Neumann 1973; Seidl 1979 (20–47). 20 Very detailed in Hals 1989 (8–177). 21 Borrowed from Lang 1986 (297–316), id. 1983 (81). 22 Hals 1989 (8) describes the content of this paragraph as a subcollection. 23 Pace ibid. (72–74).

a structural analysis

75

12–14 True and False Prophecy24 12:1–20, Prophetic Street Theater 12:1–16, Baggage of the Exile with Explanation25 12:17–20, Eating and Drinking with trembling and shudder 12:21–28, Two Expressions: Reactions to Ezekiel’s Prophecy 12:21–25, ‘Not a Single Vision is Coming True’ 12:26–28, ‘He Prophecies Concerning Distant Times’ 13:1–16, Against the False Male Prophets 13:17–23, Against the False Female Prophets 14:1–11, Consulting a Prophet 14:12–23, Three Righteous Men: Noah, Daniel and Job 15–19 Images of Israel 15–1–8, The Useless Vine 16:1–63, The Nymphomaniac Bride 17:1–24, Images of Zedekiah’s Adultery 17:1–10, Two Eagles and Small Plants 17:11–21, Explanation 17:22–24, The Beautiful Cedar26 18:1–32, Moral Responsibility 19:1–14, Dirge on the Kings 20–24 20–23 The Final Phase of History 20:1–44, The Course of History 21:1–37, The Sword27 21:1–12, Fire and Sword against Jerusalem28 21:13–22, The Song of the Sword 21:23–32, The Sword of the King of Babylon 21:33–37, Sword and Fire against Ammon29

24 Ibid. (8) interprets 12:1–20 and 12:21–28 as a subcollection, as well as 13:1–16 and 13:17–23. 25 The Wortereignisformel in v.8 is contextual. See Hossfeld 1977 (27). 26 There is no Wortereignisformel, but the subdivision demands this distinction. See Lang 1981b (50–88). 27 Hals 1989 (8) understands ch. 21 as a subcollection, which he divides into three parts: 1–12, 13–22, 23–37. 28 The Wortereignisformel in v.6 is contextual. See Hossfeld 1977 (27); Bodi 1991 (234). 29 21:33–37 does not begin with the Wortereignisformel, but the composition of this partial collection demands the distinction. See ibid. (233). Pace Hals 1989 (151–155), who understands vv.23–37 as one unit.

76

chapter two 22:1–16, The Bloody City 22:17–22, Dross 22:23–31, Corruption of the Leaders 23:1–49, The Two Lewd Sisters 24 The Siege of Jerusalem 14:1–14, The Rusty Pot 24:15–27, Conclusion30 Ezekiel 18 and 20 within Ezekiel 1–24

The rendering of the structure of Ezekiel 1–24 offers clarity on the place of Ezekiel 18 and 20 within this structure. Ezekiel 18 and 20 belong to two different subsections (for the terms see diagram 4). Ezekiel 18 belongs to the subsection which is marked by the dating in 8:1. Ezekiel 20 belongs to the subsection which is marked by the dating in 20:1. Both subsections know a comparable beginning: the prophet is consulted by elders. Still clearer is the image of the context of both chapters when we look at the paragraphs, of which the chapters consist. Ezekiel 18 is part of a paragraph with images of Israel. The images of Israel are introduced in the form of a māšāl.31 The term māšāl covers a broad spectrum of meanings, which clearly deal with a literary concept.32 On the basis of this consideration Ezekiel 15–19 may be brought under the denominator māšāl. Māšāl is, in this connection, a literary umbrella concept.33 The separate chapters in this paragraph know their own literary genre. The literary design of Ezekiel 15–19 in diverse genres forms the context of Ezekiel 18.34 Ezekiel 20 is the opening of a paragraph. The content of this paragraph relates to the last phase of the history of the kingdom of Judah seen from within the situation of exile. In various ways this final phase may be scrutinized.35 Ezekiel 20 has a thematizing function and deals in the form of a theological reflection with the history of Israel from the 30

The Wortereignisformel in v.20 is contextual. See Hossfeld 1977 (27). See Greenberg 1986 (6). 32 See K.-M. Beyse, “ ‫ ָמ ַשׁל‬,” TWAT V:71. Cf. Schöpflin 2002. 33 See Beyse, TWAT V:72. 34 Hals 1989 (98, 100, 112, 118, 127): chs. 15 and 16 “an analogy,” ch. 17 “a fable,” ch. 18 “a disputation” and ch. 19 “a dirge.” 35 Ibid. (131, 143, 155, 159, 160, 163): ch. 20 “theological reflection,” ch. 21 “a collection of sword prophecies,” ch. 22:1–16 “a prophecy,” ch. 22:17–22 “an allegory,” ch. 22: 23–31 “a prophetic explanation” and ch. 23 “an allegory.” 31

a structural analysis

77

sojourn in Egypt before the prophecies and parables in this paragraph. Ezekiel 21–23 are a development of the theological reflection, which was the topic of Ezekiel 20. The context, within which Ezekiel 20 functions, is determined in the first place by content. In reference to the positioning of Ezekiel 18 and 20 in their context, the following may be stated. It appears from the context, that the positioning of Ezekiel 18 has taken place on the basis of agreement of literary genre. Ezekiel 18 is part of a collection of mešālîm. The texts in this paragraph have been grouped on the basis of this formal quality. In addition to this formal quality, there are also grounds as to content for the positioning of Ezekiel 18 in this location. These will be discussed at a later stage. It appears from the content of Ezekiel 20, that the positioning is determined by content. Ezekiel 20 stands at the beginning of a paragraph and at the beginning of a subsection with a thematizing content. This thematizing content of Ezekiel 20 was the likely reason to place it at the beginning of the subsection. The chronological ordering principle based on the dating plays a determinative role. Comparable with Ezekiel 20, 1:1–3:15 and 8:1–18 at the beginning of a paragraph, which open a subsection, also have a thematizing content.36 These textual segments set the tone for the content of the subsection.37 The contexts of Ezekiel 18 and 20 and their respective places within it clearly differ. Ezekiel 20 has a thematizing function in the context. Ezekiel 18 does not have such a contextual function. The contextual function of Ezekiel 18 is one of the descriptions, representations of Israel (15–19, images of Israel) with a strong connection of content with Ezekiel 17 and 19. The meaning of this arrangement will be discussed at a later stage. First follows the description of the structure of both chapters separately.

36 Within the first section of Ezekiel. Ch. 24 occupies a special place with its summarizing content. This is emphasized by a dating. 37 This is also true for the dating in 33:21 and 40:1. These also stand at the beginning of a new subsection (33:1–20 should be understood as a prologue). The dated texts appear to fill the same thematizing contextual function in sections I and III (texts about Israel). In section II (texts on foreign nations) the respective datings do not fill this function.

78

chapter two The Structure of Ezekiel 18

Concerning the description of the structure of Ezekiel 18, the same restraint is to be practiced which was mentioned pertaining to the book as a whole. The description of the structure of a text differs from a mathematical matrix in this sense that in the case of a mathematical matrix only a single solution can be correct. However, the structure read from a text is influenced by criteria on the basis of which the structure is read. Formal criteria and criteria of content may support one another, but they may also conflict. In that case a decision will be made which in a sense is always arbitrary. The description of the structure of Ezekiel 18 does not exist. A perusal through different commentaries and articles confirms this.38 Nevertheless it is quite possible to offer a structural analysis of Ezekiel 18, which makes sense and demonstrates the structural coherence of the chapter in its entirety.39 The demarcation of Ezekiel 18 in reference to the context occurs by means of the Wortereignisformel and the clearly indicated conclusion in vv.30–32, with the introductory ‫ ָל ֵכן‬in v.30 and in v.32 the summarizing conclusion. Ezekiel 18 is a closed textual unit within the direct context: Ezekiel 15–19, images of Israel. The literary structure of Ezekiel 18 is complex. At the same time it is characterized by a logical structure,40 which is handled so meticulously, that the frequent repetitions become evident immediately. The argumentation progresses slowly as a result of the repetitions, through which the clarity of the argument suffers. Additionally, there is argumentation on different levels: the handling of the generations is a different line of argumentation than the possibility of turnabout of the righteous and guilty for evil or for good.41 Next, it needs to be determined that the different parts of the text are mutually interwoven, as will appear from the description of the structure.42 38 For different views, cf. the commentaries of Fohrer 1955 (97–106); Zimmerli 1969a (396–400); Greenberg 1986 (334–347); Maarsingh 1988 (47–62); Allen 1994 (267–270); the studies by Schenker 1981 (449–470); Graffy 1984 (58–59); Hals 1989 (118–122); Matties 1990 (33–46). 39 Pace Fohrer 1952 (43, 47, 82–83), id. 1955 (97–106), who sees two separated parts in ch. 18. Thus also Reventlow 1999 (157), id. 1962 (108–126). Reventlow mistakenly refers to Krüger 1989 (355) to support his vision. 40 See Hals 1989 (122). 41 Cf. Matties 1990 (34). 42 See Greenberg 1986 (335): “A feature of this oracle is the interweaving of its parts with an absence of clear formal boundaries.”

a structural analysis

79

Ezekiel 18 contains a number of formal structuralizing elements in the text: – The opening in v.1 with the Wortereignisformel. – The expression ‫ נְ ֻאם ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬which occurs five times in this chapter (vv.3,9,23,30,32). The function of the expression serves to strengthen a divine saying in four out of five cases. Only in v.9 does the expression mark a structural division in the text. – The use of ‫ ֵהן‬in v.4 to indicate a structural division. – The use of ‫ ִהנֵּ ה‬in v.14 to note a structural division, and in v.18 to introduce a conclusion. – The introduction of a conclusion by means of ‫ ָל ֵכן‬in v.30. Ezekiel 18 has countless repetitions and connections to integrate the separate textual elements and bind them together. The connections are accomplished by means of repetitions of words and phrases, via similar grammatical constructions and similar rhetoric.43 Here follow a number of examples.

ִ ‫)וְ ִא‬, v.18 (‫יו־כּי‬ ִ ‫) ָא ִב‬, and v.21 – The use of the casuistic style in v.5 (‫ישׁ־כּי‬ 44 (‫)וְ ָה ָר ָשׁע ִכּי‬. – Turning back to the māšāl of v.2 occurring in vv.19 and 25 with ‫וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶתּם‬, and in v.29, where the verb ‫ אמר‬is used again (with a move from the second to the third person, namely ‫ ֵבּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬which is prepared in v.25 where ‫ ֵבּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬is introduced as a vocative in Ezek 18). – The repeated use of ‫ ֵבּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬in vv.6,15,25,29,30,31. – The large measure of lexical agreements in the description of the three generations in vv.5–17,45 which may be seen in the synopsis below. In the synopsis the MT (with the emendations in vv.10 and 17, see the notes on these verses in chapter 1) is given integrally (see diagram 1). Repetitions of words and phrases are printed on the same line as much as possible. Chiastic reversals of words and phrases in the synopsis, which occur in a number of verses, are printed side by

43

See Matties 1990 (35). See e.g. Lev 4:2; 5:1,15,21 for the use of this style. 45 V.18 does not belong to the description of the three generations (pace Greenberg 1986 [337] and Hals 1989 [118]), because v.18 opens with the casuistic style figure ‫יו־כּי‬ ִ ‫ ָא ִב‬. 44

80

chapter two side.46 This refers to the summary in vv.7,12,16 as well as the summary in vv.8 and 17, where it may be commented that in the description of the second generation in v.13 only half of the chiastic reversals between vv.8 and 17 occur, with the summary in vv.9 and 17.

Beside the lexical agreements, the synopsis illuminates the rhetorical use of numerous repetitions. The chiastic reversals referred to above belong to these.47 The use of numerous repetitions with slight variations is both an agreement as well as a rhetorical means, so that the use of words and phrases that are not repeated also serves a rhetorical goal, namely to achieve emphasis. Chiastic reversals in v.7, v.12 and v.16 7

12

16

‫ֲחב ָֹלתוֹ חוֹב יָ ִשׁיב‬ ‫גְּ זֵ ָלה לֹא יִ גְ זֹל‬

‫גְּ זֵ לוֹת גָּ זָ ל‬ ‫ֲחבֹל לֹא יָ ִשׁיב‬

‫ֲחבֹל לֹא ָח ָבל‬ ‫וּגְ זֵ ָלה לֹא גָ זָ ל‬

The chiastic reversal occurs first in v.7 to v.12. The sequence in v.7 ‫ֲחב ָֹלתוֹ‬ ‫( חוֹב יָ ִשׁיב‬A), followed by ‫( גְּ זֵ ָלה לֹא יִ גְ זֹל‬B) is reversed in v.12. V.12 features the sequence ‫( גְּ זֵ לוֹת גָּ זָ ל‬B), followed by ‫( ֲחבֹל לֹא יָ ִשׁיב‬A). In v.16 the sequence reverses again, by which the sequence of v .7 occurs again. ‫( ֲחבֹל לֹא ָח ָבל‬A) is followed by ‫( וּגְ זֵ ָלה לֹא גָ זָ ל‬B). Chiastic reversals in v.8 and v.17 (and v.13 with half of the chiastic reversal) ‫ ַבּנֶּ ֶשְׁך לֹא־יִ ֵתּן וְ ַת ְר ִבּית לֹא יִ ָקּח‬8

‫ ֵמ ָﬠוֶ ל ֵה ִשׁיב יָ דוֹ‬17

‫ ַבּנֶּ ֶשְׁך נָ ַתן וְ ַת ְר ִבּית‬13 ‫ָל ַקח‬

‫נֶ ֶשְׁך וְ ַת ְר ִבּית לֹא ָל ָקח ֵמ ָﬠוֶ ל יָ ִשׁיב יָ דוֹ‬ The chiastic reversal between vv.8 and 17 is analogous to the one between vv.7 and 12, as described above. The sequence (A)-(B) of the phrases in v.8 is reversed in the sequence (B)-(A) in v.17. V.13 has only part (A) of the reversal as related to v.17. Between vv.8 and 13

46 Cf. Beentjes 1982 and 1996. The chiastic reversals, as noted here, may be understood as belonging to the style figure, which Beentjes labels “inverted quotation.” 47 Cf. id. 1982 (523), id. 1996 (49): “At this moment we can say that in an existing formulation (a sentence, a colon, an established expression, a rare combination of words) the author reverses the sequence. And by this deviating model he attains a moment of extra attention in the listener (or the reader), because the latter hears something else than the traditional words.”

‫‪81‬‬

‫‪a structural analysis‬‬

‫‪there is no reversal. The sequence (A)-(B) of v.8 returns only with part‬‬ ‫‪(A) in v.13.‬‬ ‫‪Chiastic reversals in v.9 and v.17‬‬ ‫‪ְ 9‬בּ ֻח ַ‬ ‫קּוֹתי יְ ַה ֵלְּך‬ ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי ָשׁ ַמר ַל ֲﬠשׂוֹת ֶא ֶמת‬ ‫ִ‬

‫‪ִ 17‬מ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי ָﬠ ָשׂה‬ ‫קּוֹתי ָה ָלְך‬ ‫ְבּ ֻח ַ‬

‫‪The chiastic reversal between vv.9 and 17 moves according to the same‬‬ ‫‪principle as between the above named verses. The sequence of the‬‬ ‫‪phrases in v.9 (A)-(B) is reversed in v.17 to read (B)-(A).‬‬ ‫‪Diagram 1: Synopsis vv.5–17‬‬ ‫‪vv.14–17‬‬

‫‪vv.10–13‬‬

‫הוֹליד ֵבּן‬ ‫‪ 14‬וְ ִהנֵּ ה ִ‬ ‫וַ יַּ ְרא‬ ‫ל־חטֹּאת ָא ִביו‬ ‫ת־כּ ַ‬ ‫ֶא ָ‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ָﬠ ָשׂה‬ ‫וַ יִּ ְר ֶאה‬ ‫וְ לֹא יַ ֲﬠ ֶשׂה ָכּ ֵהן‬ ‫ל־ה ָה ִרים ָא ַכל‬ ‫ל־ה ָה ִרים לֹא ָא ָכל ִכּי גַ ם ֶא ֶ‬ ‫‪ַ 15‬ﬠ ֶ‬ ‫וְ ֵﬠינָ יו לֹא נָ ָשׂא‬ ‫לּוּלי ֵבּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ֶאל־גִּ ֵ‬ ‫ת־א ֶשׁת ֵר ֵﬠהוּ ִט ֵמּא‬ ‫וְ ֶא ֵ‬ ‫ת־א ֶשׁת ֵר ֵﬠהוּ לֹא‬ ‫ֶא ֵ‬ ‫ִט ֵמּא‬

‫‪vv.5–9‬‬

‫ין־פּ ִריץ שׁ ֵֹפְך ָדּם ‪ 5‬וְ ִאישׁ ִכּי־יִ ְהיֶ ה ַצדּיק‬ ‫הוֹליד ֵבּ ָ‬ ‫‪ 10‬וְ ִ‬ ‫וּצ ָד ָקה‬ ‫וְ ָﬠ ָשׂה ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט ְ‬ ‫וְ ָﬠ ָשׂה ֵמ ַא ַחד ֵמ ֵא ֶלּה‬ ‫ל־א ֶלּה לֹא‬ ‫ת־כּ ֵ‬ ‫‪ 11‬וְ הוּא ֶא ָ‬ ‫ָﬠ ָשׂה‬

‫‪ 16‬וְ ִאישׁ לֹא הוֹנָ ה‬ ‫ֲחבֹל לֹא ָח ָבל‬ ‫וּגְ זֵ ָלה לֹא גָ זָ ל‬ ‫ַל ְחמוֹ ְל ָר ֵﬠב נָ ָתן‬ ‫ה־בגֶ ר‬ ‫וְ ֵﬠרוֹם ִכּ ָסּ ָ‬ ‫‪ֵ 17‬מ ָﬠוֶ ל ֵה ִשׁיב יָ דוֹ‬ ‫נֶ ֶשְׁך וְ ַת ְר ִבּית לֹא ָל ָקח‬

‫‪ָ 12‬ﬠנִ י וְ ֶא ְביוֹן הוֹנָ ה‬ ‫גְּ זֵ לוֹת גָּ זָ ל‬ ‫ֲחבֹל לֹא יָ ִשׁיב‬ ‫לּוּלים נָ ָשׂא ֵﬠינָ יו‬ ‫ל־הגִּ ִ‬ ‫וְ ֶא ַ‬ ‫תוֹﬠ ָבה ָﬠ ָשׂה‬ ‫ֵ‬ ‫‪ַ 13‬בּנֶּ ֶשְׁך נָ ַתן וְ ַת ְר ִבּית ָל ַקח‬

‫ִמ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי ָﬠ ָשׂה‬ ‫קּוֹתי ָה ָלְך‬ ‫ְבּ ֻח ַ‬ ‫וָ ָחי‬ ‫תּוֹﬠבוֹת‬ ‫ל־ה ֵ‬ ‫הוּא לֹא יָ מוּת ַבּ ֲﬠוֹן ָא ִביו לֹא יִ ְחיֶ ה ֵאת ָכּ ַ‬ ‫ָה ֵא ֶלּה ָﬠ ָשׂה‬ ‫ָחי ֹה יִ ְחיֶ ה‬ ‫יוּמת‬ ‫מוֹת ָ‬ ‫ָדּ ָמיו בּוֹ יִ ְהיֶ ה‬

‫ל־ה ָה ִרים לֹא ָא ָכל‬ ‫‪ֶ 6‬א ֶ‬ ‫וְ ֵﬠינָ יו לֹא נָ ָשׂא‬ ‫לּוּלי ֵבּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ֶאל־גִּ ֵ‬ ‫ת־א ֶשׁת ֵר ֵﬠהוּ לֹא ִט ֵמּא‬ ‫וְ ֶא ֵ‬ ‫ל־א ָשּׁה נִ ָדּה לֹא יִ ְק ָרב‬ ‫וְ ֶא ִ‬ ‫‪ 7‬וְ ִאישׁ לֹא יוֹנֶ ה‬ ‫ֲחב ָֹלתוֹ חוֹב יָ ִשׁיב‬ ‫גְּ זֵ ָלה לֹא יִ גְ זֹל‬ ‫ַל ְחמוֹ ְל ָר ֵﬠב יִ ֵתּן‬ ‫ה־בּגֶ ר‬ ‫וְ ֵﬠיר ֹם יְ ַכ ֶסּ ָ‬ ‫‪ַ 8‬בּנֶּ ֶשְׁך לֹא־יִ ֵתּן‬ ‫וְ ַת ְר ִבּית לֹא יִ ָקּח‬ ‫ֵמ ָﬠוֶ ל יָ ִשׁיב יָ דוֹ‬ ‫ִמ ְשׁ ַפּט ֱא ֶמת יַ ֲﬠ ֶשׂה‬ ‫ֵבּין ִאישׁ ְל ִאישׁ‬ ‫קּוֹתי יְ ַה ֵלְּך‬ ‫‪ְ 9‬בּ ֻח ַ‬ ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי ָשׁ ַמר ַל ֲﬠשׂוֹת‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫ֱא ֶמת‬ ‫ַצ ִדּיק הוּא ָחי ֹה יִ חיֶ ה‬

‫נְ ֻאם ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬

82

chapter two

The lexical agreements with the verses discussed in the synopsis continue in the recapitulation of the second and third generation, which are described in vv.10–17. This recapitulation includes vv.18 and 19, which begins in v.18 (‫ ) ָא ִביו ִכּי‬with the use of the casuistic style as in v.5. The lexical agreements between vv.5–17 (the synopsis in diagram 1) and the recapitulation consist of the following words: ‫ ֵבּן‬in vv.10 and 14 and v.19 (twice), ‫( ָאב‬in v.17 and vv.18 and 19), ‫( ֲﬠוֹן‬in v.17 and vv.18 and 19), ‫( מות‬in vv.13 and 17 and v.18). The corresponding phrases between vv.5–17 (diagram 1) and the recapitulation are the ְ ‫( ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬in v.5 following: ‫( גָּ זַ ל גֵּ זֶ ל‬in vv.7,12,16 and v.18) ‫וּצ ָד ָקה ָﬠ ָשׂה‬ ַ ‫ל־ח‬ ֻ ‫( ֵאת ָכּ‬in v.9 and v.19), ‫ַחי ֹה יִ ְחיֶ ה‬ and v.19), ‫קּוֹתי ָשׁ ַמר וַ יַּ ֲﬠ ֶשׂה א ָֹתם‬ (in v.9 and 17 and v.19). V.20 demonstrates both lexical and rhetorical agreements with the previous. V.20 returns to the starting point of the argument, as it is verbalized in v.4. Beside the agreement in word and phrase, a chiastic reversal may also be noted. The newly introduced words and phrases serve the rhetorical goal of a transition to a new line of argumentation in the argument. V.20 closes with a contrast between ‫ִצ ְד ַקת ַה ַצּ ִדּיק ָﬠ ָליו‬ ‫ ִתּ ְהיֶ ה‬and ‫ ִר ְשׁ ַﬠת ָה ָר ָשׁה ָﬠ ָליו ִתּ ְהיֶ ה‬. This contrast on the one hand, with ‫ ִצ ְד ַקת ַה ַצּ ִדּיק‬makes a connection with the description of the three generations by its word use, on the other hand it is a transition to the sequel with ‫ ִר ְשׁ ַﬠת ָה ָר ָשׁה‬which is taken up in v.21 and follows. The contrast picks up the starting point of the argument (v.4) with a new verbalization. Chiastic reversals in v.4 and v.20 ַ ‫ ֵהן ָכּ‬4 ‫ל־הנְּ ָפשׁוֹת ִלי ֵהנָּ ה‬ ‫י־הנָּ ה‬ ֵ ‫וּכנֶ ֶפשׁ ַה ֵבּן ִל‬ ְ ‫ְכּנֶ ֶפשׁ ָה ָאב‬ ‫ַהנֶּ ֶפשׁ ַהח ֵֹטאת ִהיא ָתמוּת‬

‫ ַהנֶּ ֶפשׁ ַהח ֵֹטאת ִהיא ָתמוּת‬20 ‫ֵבּן לֹא־יִ ָשּׂא ַבּ ֲﬠוֹן ָה ָאב‬ ‫וְ ָאב לֹא יִ ָשּׂא ַבּ ֲﬠוֹן ַה ֵבּן‬

The chiastic reversal between vv.4 and 20 is of a more complex character than the ones described above. The lexical agreement between part (A) ֵ ‫וּכנֶ ֶפשׁ ַה ֵבּן ִל‬ ְ ‫ל־הנְּ ָפשׁוֹת ִלי ֵהנָּ ה ְכּנֶ ֶפשׁ ָה ָאב‬ ַ ‫ ֵהן ָכּ‬and part (A) in v.4 ‫י־הנָּ ה‬ ָ ֹ ‫ ֵבּן ל‬is chiefly limited to in v.20 ‫א־ישּׂא ַבּ ֲﬠוֹן ָה ָאב וְ ָאב לֹא יִ ָשּׂא ַבּ ֲﬠוֹן ַה ֵבּן‬ the words ‫ ָאב‬and ‫ ֵבּן‬. The correspondence pertains specifically to the content. Part (B) of v.4 is identical to part (B) of v.20: ‫ַהנֶּ ֶפשׁ ַהח ֵֹטאת‬ ‫ ִהיא ָתמוּת‬.

a structural analysis

83

A second and new line of argumentation is begun in vv.21–29.48 In this line of argument the concepts of ‘the just’ and ‘the guilty’ are central. They fill the function, which the three generations in the first line of argumentation occupy. Subsequently, the conclusion is drawn in vv.30–32 from both lines of argumentation. The verses of the conclusion feature a large measure of similarities, both in words and phrases, with the second line of argumentation. Moreover, there is a large measure of similarity with the previous verses, which contain the first line of argumentation, namely the argument in which the three generations stand central. Key words and phrases in the second line of argumentation are borrowed from the first line of argumentation. V.21 opens with the casuistic style figure ‫ וְ ָה ָר ָשׁע ִכּי‬to introduce a new situation. V.30 knows the formally structuralizing ‫ ָל ֵכן‬to introduce the conclusion. The three-part description in vv.5–17 and the succinct repetition of the second generation in vv.18 and 19 shows a surprising similarity with the structure of the second line of argumentation. Vv.21–29 may also be represented in a three-part synopsis, to clarify the lexical agreements (see diagram 2). Moreover, the synopsis offers insight into the rhetorical stylistic means to use opposite concepts in the description both of the just and the guilty, who turns away from his way. It appears from the synopsis that v.26 assumes a similar position as do vv.18–19 in the first line of argumentation. V.26 summarizes succinctly the description of the just, who turns away from his way. By positioning this summary differently in the description of the three cases of turning away, with a rhetorical means a variation in the line of argumentation is accomplished. As the repetition of the second generation in vv.18–19 emphasizes the wrongful attitude of this generation, so the repetition of the turning away of the just stresses the wrongful choice of the just. The description of the three cases of turning away also has a pair of chiastic reversals, though they are less developed than in the description of the three generations. They may be found between vv.21–22 and v.28, and between v.25 and v.29.

48

Cf. Greenberg 1986 (338); Krüger 1989 (368).

84

chapter two

Chiastic reversals in vv.21–22 and v.28 21

28

‫ָחי ֹה יִ ְחיֶ ה לֹא יָ מוּת‬ ‫ל־פּ ָשׁ ָﬠיו ֲא ֶשׁר ָﬠ ָשׂה‬ ְ ‫ ָכּ‬22

‫ל־פּ ָשׁ ָﬠיו ֲא ֶשׁר ָﬠ ָשׂה‬ ְ ‫ִמ ָכּ‬ ‫ָהיוֹ יִ ְחיֶ ה לֹא יָ מוּת‬

In the chiastic reversal between vv.21–22 and 28, part (A) of both verses is identical, with the exception of the manner of writing of the infinite absolute ‫ ָחי ֹה‬in v.21 and ‫ ָחיוֹ‬in v.28. Part (B) has in v.28 the addition ‫ ִמן‬in order to procure the same tendency within the context, which part (B) in v.22 has. Chiastic reversals in v.25 and v.29 25

29

‫ִשׁ ְמעוּ־נָ א ֵבּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ֲה ַד ְר ִכּי לֹא יִ ָתּ ֵכן‬

‫ַה ְדּ ָר ַכי לֹא יִ ָתּ ְכנּוּ‬ ‫ֵבּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬

The chiastic reversal between vv.25 and 29 is the least developed. V.25 has worked out parts (A) and (B) in two phrases: (A) ‫ִשׁ ְמעוּ־נָ א ֵבּית‬ ‫יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬, followed by (B) ‫ ֲה ַד ְר ִכּי לֹא יִ ָתּ ֵכן‬. V.29 adds parts (B) and (A) into a single phrase: ‫ ַה ְדּ ָר ַכי לֹא יִ ָתּ ְכנּוּ ֵבּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬. Both lines of argumentation, as indicated in the synopses (see diagrams 1 and 2), show a surprising parallelism in their final word on the described generation and the described just or guilty. The description of the first generation closes with the words, that the just will surely live (v.9). This corresponds with the close of the description of the guilty, who is urged that he repent and live (v.23). The description of the second generation closes with the conclusion, that this one will surely die (v.13). This data corresponds with the just, who turns away from his righteousness and dies in his wickedness (v.26), as is described in the second case. To accomplish this parallelism, the recapitulations of the just, who turns away from his righteousness, is positioned in this place.49 The description of the third generation comes to the conclusion, that this one will surely live (v.17). This corresponds with the surely living and not dying of the guilty one, who turns away from his guilt in the third case (v.28).

49 In both lines of argumentation the second generation and the second case have a separate status, because both are recapitulated: the second generation in vv.18–19, the second case in v.26.

a structural analysis

85

Diagram 2: Synopsis vv.21–29 vv.21–23

vv.24–25,26

vv.27–29

‫ וְ ָה ָר ָשׁע ִכּי יָ שׁוּב‬21 ‫וּבשׁוּב ַצ ִדּיק ִמ ִצּ ְד ָקתוֹ‬ ְ 24 ‫וּבשׁוּב ָר ָשׁע ֵמ ִר ְשׁ ָﬠתוֹ‬ ְ 27 ‫אתו ֲא ֶשׁר ָﬠ ָשׂה‬ ָ ֹ ‫ל־חטּ‬ ַ ‫ִמ ָכּ‬ ‫וְ ָﬠ ָשׂה ָﬠוֶ ל‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ָﬠ ָשׂה‬ ‫קּוֹתי‬ ַ ‫ל־ח‬ ֻ ‫ת־כּ‬ ָ ‫ר־ﬠ ָשׂה וְ ָשׁ ַמר ֶא‬ ָ ‫תּוֹﬠבוֹת ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ֵ ‫ְכּכֹל ַה‬ ‫ָה ָר ָשׁע יַ ֲﬠ ֶשׂה‬ ‫וּצ ָד ָקה‬ ְ ‫וְ ָﬠ ָשׂה ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬ ‫וּצ ָד ָקה‬ ְ ‫וַ יַּ ַﬠשׂ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬ ‫וָ ָחי‬ ‫הוּא ֶאת־נַ ְפשׁוֹ יְ ַחיֶּ ה‬ ‫ וַ יִּ ְר ֶאה וַ יָּ ָשׁב‬28 ‫ָחי ֹה יִ ְחיֶ ה לֹא יָ מוּת‬ ‫ל־פּ ָשׁ ָﬠיו ֲא ֶשׁר ָﬠ ָשׂה‬ ְ ‫ִמ ָכּ‬ ‫ל־פּ ָשׁ ָﬠיו ֲא ֶשׁר ָﬠ ָשׂה‬ ְ ‫ ָכּ‬22 ‫ר־ﬠ ָשׂה‬ ָ ‫ל־צ ְדק ָֹתיו ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ִ ‫ָכּ‬ ‫ָחיוֹ יִ ְחיֶ ה לֹא יָ מוּת‬ ‫לֹא יִ זָּ ְכרוּ לוֹ‬ ‫לֹא ִתזָּ ַכ ְרנָ ה‬ ‫ר־ﬠ ָשׂה יִ ְחיֶ ה‬ ָ ‫ְבּ ִצ ְד ָקתוֹ ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ‫ר־מ ַﬠל‬ ָ ‫ְבּ ַמ ֲﬠלוֹ ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ‫ר־ח ָטא‬ ָ ‫וּב ַח ָטּאתוֹ ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ְ ‫ָבּם יָ מוּת‬ ‫ ֶה ָחפֹץ ֶא ְחפֹּץ מוֹת‬23 ‫ָר ָשׁע‬ ‫נְ ֻאם ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬ ‫ֲהלוֹא ְבּשׁוּבוֹ ִמ ְדּ ָר ָכיו‬ ‫וְ ָחיָ ה‬ ‫ וַ ֲא ַמ ְר ֶתּם‬25 ‫ וְ ָא ְמרוּ ֵבּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬29 ‫לֹא יִ ָתּ ֵכן ֶדּ ֶרְך ֲאד ֹנָ י‬ ‫לֹא יִ ָתּ ֵכן ֶדּ ֶרְך ֲאד ֹנָ י‬ ‫ִשׁ ְמעוּ־נָ א ֵבּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ַה ְדּ ָר ַכי לֹא יִ ָתּ ְכנּוּ ֵבּית‬ ‫יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ֲה ַד ְר ִכּי לֹא יִ ָתּ ֵכן‬ ‫יכם לֹא יִ ָתּ ֵכנוּ‬ ֶ ‫ֲהלֹא ַד ְר ֵכ‬ ‫יכם לֹא יִ ָתּ ֵכן‬ ֶ ‫ֲהלֹא ַד ְר ֵכ‬ ‫שׁוּב־צ ִדּיק ִמ ִצּ ְד ָקתוֹ‬ ַ ‫ ְב‬26 ‫וְ ָﬠ ָשׂה ָﬠוֶ ל‬ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫וּמת ֲﬠ ֵל‬ ֵ ‫ר־ﬠ ָשׂה יָ מוּת‬ ָ ‫ְבּ ַﬠוְ לוֹ ֲא ֶשׁ‬ The conclusion of the argument in vv.30–32 demonstrates lexical agreements with both lines of argumentation. The opening ‫ ִאישׁ‬of v.30 goes back to v.5. Simultaneously, the thought, which is expressed with the māšāl in v.2, is rejected as invalid in v.30. Everyone is judged according to his ways. The expression ‫ ֵבּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬also makes a connection with both lines of argumentation. The use of the root ‫ שׁוב‬corresponds with the second line of argumentation as well as the use of the root ‫פשׁע‬. By opening the conclusion with a reference to everyone’s ways, ‫ ִכּ ְד ָר ָכיו‬, it is joined to a key word from the second line of argumentation, while the verb used ‫ שׁפט‬joins both the first and the second line of argumentation (‫) ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬. The use of ‫ ָﬠוֹן‬in the conclusion harks

86

chapter two

back to the first line of argumentation. The two key words ‘live’ and ‘die’ from both lines of argument are also prominently present in the conclusion. The closing of the conclusion with the use of ‫ ֶא ְחפֹּץ‬points back to the second line of argumentation, where the same verb is used in an etymological figure in a rhetorical question in v.23. Finally, the last words of the conclusion ‫ וְ ָה ִשׁיבוּ וִ ְחיוּ‬go back to the first and third case and the first and third generation. Ezekiel 18, besides the formal structural elements and described similarities, features the use of the already mentioned key words, which indicate a motif in this chapter. Both the first line of argumentation as well as the second line, frequently uses ‘live’ and ‘die.’50 In the second line of argumentation these words are then connected with the ‘just’ and the ‘guilty’ and ‘to turn away.’ The use of ‘way’ should also be noted as a key word, which goes back to the introduction to this argument, the māšāl from v.2, since this māšāl bears the complaint in it, that the way of the Lord is not right.51 With the above observations on Ezekiel 18, it may be asserted that Ezekiel 18 demonstrates a clear coherence in structure.52 The overview below offers a schematic view of the literary structure.53 1: opening of a new literary unit with the Wortereignisformel 2–3: introduction to the provocation: a complaint in the form of a māšāl and God’s prohibition on the use of the māšāl 4: the divine principle: ‘See, all lives are mine’ and ‘The sinful life, it will die.’ 5–19: description of the three generations followed by a recapitulation, in which the complaint is illustrated and the divine principle is applied 5–9: first generation (conclusion: ‫) ָחי ֹה יִ ְחיֶ ה‬ ָ ‫)מוֹת‬ 10–13: second generation (conclusion: ‫יוּמת‬ 14–17: third generation (conclusion: ‫ ָחי ֹה יִ ְחיֶ ה‬. . . ‫)לֹא יָ מוּת‬

50 These two key words (on this see also Vogt 1981 [117–120]) are also prominently present in the corresponding conclusion relative to the three generations in vv.5–17 and the three cases in vv.21–29. 51 There is variation between the singular and the plural which may be appreciated as a rhetorical means. 52 See also Krüger 1989 (373–382). 53 For an alternative see Matties 1990 (27–60, esp. 36–43).

a structural analysis

87

18–19: recapitulation of the second (conclusion: ‫) ֵמת ַב ֲﬠוֹנוֹ‬ and third generation (conclusion: ‫) ָחי ֹה יִ ְחיֶ ה‬54 20: repetition of the divine principle: ‘The sinful life, it will die’ with application on the line of the generations: (father [second generation] and son [third generation]), which subsequently is reversed to the opposite pair of just and guilty55 21–29: description of three cases with a recapitulation second case 21–23: first case (conclusion: ‫) ָחי ֹה יִ ְחיֶ ה לֹא יָ מוּת‬ 24–25: second case (conclusion: ‫)יָ מוּת‬56 26: recapitulation second case (conclusion: ‫)יָ מוּת‬ 27–29: third case (conclusion: ‫) ָחיוֹ יִ ְחיֶ ה לֹא יָ מוּת‬57 30–32: conclusion with the rejection of the thought behind the māšāl: ‘I judge everyone according to his ways.’58 The Structure of Ezekiel 20 As to the description of the structure of Ezekiel 20, the same applies as to Ezekiel 18.59 A perusal of different commentaries and literature shows,

54

V.19 backtracks to the māšāl in v.2. The diachronic line, the line of the three successive generations, is reversed into a synchronic situation of the just and the guilty, by which in this verse the son (third generation) is coupled to the just, and the father (second generation) to the guilty. What happens successively (diachronic) can also occur alongside each other (synchronic). In a later stage this aspect is further worked out in the discussion of ‘the father’s house.’ In both cases the same divine principle applies. The development of the just and the guilty in the sequel (vv.21–29) may be labeled surprising, in view of the reversal to justification of the guilty and the turning to injustice of the righteous. The static line of the generations, where no change occurs within a generation, is relieved by the dynamic situation of turning about to justification and the turning to injustice of the three cases. V.20 is the hinge of this transition of the diachronic of the generations to the synchronic of the cases. 56 V.25 shifts back to the māšāl in v.2. Reventlow 1962 (117) suspects a second proverb here, which is current among the people. 57 V.29 shifts back to the māšāl in v.2. 58 The change from the diachronic line of the generations into the synchronic situation of the cases expresses the divine principle (‘All lives are mine’) more directly and is a clear rejection of the validity of the māšāl. 59 Eslinger 1998 (99 n.15) comments regarding his schematized description which he presents in “Figure 1. The Structure of Ezekiel 20” (121–125): “A tabular representation, such as is offered here, is good at conveying the patterns of repetition but should not be taken as proposing any kind of absolute skeletonization of the organic rhetoric.” An absolute skeletonization does not exist. 55

88

chapter two

pertaining to Ezekiel 20 as well, that there is a diversity of structural analysis.60 The analysis which follows shows which coherence may be seen in the structure of Ezekiel 20. The demarcation of Ezekiel 20 vis-à-vis the context occurs as follows. The dating in v.1 marks the beginning of new textual segment. Even in this case it is true that a new subsection begins in view of the fact that the dating in v.1 fulfills this function (see above). The demarcation to Ezekiel 19 is because of this perfectly clear. The demarcation to Ezekiel 21 is effected by means of the expression ‫ נְ ֻאם ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬in v.44, which can close both a textual unit as well as a part of such a unit,61 and the opening of Ezekiel 21 with the Wortereignisformel. Ezekiel 20 may therefore be approached as a closed textual unit within the direct context (Ezek 20–23, the final phase of the history).62 The literary structure of Ezekiel 20 belongs to the most precise of the entire book of Ezekiel, with an almost matrix-like character.63 In particular the description of the three great events in the history of Israel in vv.5–26 illustrates this with a strong stereotype pattern. The description appears to be forced intentionally in a certain pattern, in a certain matrix, as if spoken with an almost consistent monotony.64 The frequent repetitions jump to the fore, whereby the casuistic manner of description comes across sluggishly. This typifying is particularly relevant to the description of Israel’s history in vv.5–26. The sequel of the chapter features another style, namely one that draws conclusions

60

Cf. the commentaries of Fohrer 1955 (107–117); Zimmerli 1969a (437–441); Greenberg 1986 (376–388); Dijkstra 1986 (192–208); Allen 1990 (5–8); Block 1997 (611–617); and the studies by Hals 1989 (131–136); Krüger 1989 (200–281); Sedlmeier 1990 (82–395); Rom-Shiloni 2005 (198–201). 61 See Hals 1989 (361–362). 62 Contrary to those who believe that ch. 20 should be divided into two separate textual units: the commentaries by Fohrer 1955 (107–117) (id. 1952 [33–34, 83–84, 222]); Zimmerli 1969a (437–441); Dijkstra 1986 (192–208); Allen 1990 (8); also the studies by Messel 1945 (82–83); Lust 1967 (489–490, see also id. 1969 [2]); Beuken 1972 (39–64); Pareira 1975 (35–36 n.48); Liwak 1976 (146–154); Graffy 1984 (65); Ohnesorge 1991 (78–202); Bartelmus 1993 (39–47). Agreeable to the studies of Krüger 1989 (208–214); Hals 1989 (136); Sedlmeier 1990 (90–126); Pola 1995 (155); Eslinger 1998 (100–118) and the commentaries by Greenberg 1986 (380); Becker 1992 (54–56); Maier 1998 (258–275). 63 See Hals 1989 (135). 64 See ibid. (135–136).

a structural analysis

89

and presents arguments. Both parts are emphatically connected, as will appear from the description of the structure.65 Ezekiel 20 contains a number of formal elements in the text: – – – –

The opening in v.1 with the dating. The sketch of the situation in v.1 (cf. 8:1 and 14:1). The Wortereignisformel in v.2. The expression ‫ נְ ֻאם ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬which occurs six times in this chapter (vv.3,31,33,36,40,44). The function of the expression serves to emphasize a divine saying in five out of six cases. Only in v.44 the expression marks a structural separation in the text, namely the end of the entire textual segment. – The introduction of the divine direct speech with ‫כֹּה ָא ַמר ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬ which occurs five times in this chapter (vv.3,5,27,30,39). – The use of ‫ ָל ֵכן‬in vv.27 and 30. Ezekiel 20 contains several repetitions.66 These repetitions may be viewed as a stylistic means. Besides, there is mention of a large measure of congruence between expressions and thoughts. These congruences may be synonymous or antithetical in nature.67 Repetitions and congruences effect connections within Ezekiel 20, which create unity in the chapter.68 The description of the history in vv.5–26 is a clear example of repetitions and congruences. These may be seen from the synopsis of vv.5–26 (see diagram 3, appendix I to this chapter), which are integrally reflected with the emendations which are applicable to these verses (in vv.15 and 21). The repetitions and congruences are, where possible, printed on the same line, whereby the rule is observed, that repetitions weigh more heavily than the congruences in the text. The description may be read below. In vv.5–26 three periods from Israel’s history are described. The demarcation of the three periods provides the following picture together with the repetitions and congruences. 65 Beuken 1972 (56–62) is of the opinion that ch. 20 contains two separate pericopes containing disputes, which demonstrate thematic agreement. On the basis of this they form a new unit in the final redaction of Ezekiel. Cf. Pareira 1975 (35–36 n.48); Allen 1990 (8). 66 See Sedlmeier 1990 (83–88). 67 See Greenberg 1986 (380–381). 68 Block 1997 (612) speaks of “strong lexical and conceptual links.”

90

chapter two 1. Israel in Egypt (vv.5–9)

The opening of the first period (vv.5 and 6) is characterized by a positive keynote: the election of Israel, the raising of the hand in behalf of Israel, the self revelation and the intention to lead the people to the ָ ‫( ְצ ִבי ִהיא ְל ָכ‬v.6). This positive openmost beautiful country: ‫ל־ה ֲא ָרצֺֹת‬ ing has its negative counterpart in the closing of period 3 in vv.25 and 26, where the self revelation of the Lord features an angry tone (‫ְל ַמ ַﬠן‬ ‫ ) ֲא ֶשׁר יֵ ְדעוּ ֲא ֶשׁר ֲאנִ י יְ הוָ ה‬in v.26.69 The marking off of this period deviates from that of Greenberg. He takes v.10 with the description of the generation in Egypt.70 He views v.10 as a bridge to the following period. In this view v.10 opens the second period, whereby the bridge function of v.10 fully comes out well. ֵ ‫אוֹצ‬ ִ ָ‫ )ו‬sounds As the closing of the first period v.10 (‫יאם ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬ ָ ‫הוֹצ‬ ִ ‫ ) ְל‬which like a superfluous repetition after v.9 (‫יאם ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬ goes back to v.6 with the same expression. As opening of the second period, the history continues there, at the place where it had stopped in v.9, namely ‫ ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬. Thus, the history is resumed in the same place. This pattern returns in the transition from the second to the third period (see below). Besides that, v.10 appears to form an antithetical parallel as the opening of the second period to v.6. V.6 speaks of the intention to lead them out of the land of Egypt, to a land that flows with milk and honey, a jewel among all lands. The reality appears to be, that when they are led out, they land in the desert and not in the promised land. A stronger antithesis is hardly imaginable. Congruence and antithetical parallelism between v.6 and v.10 6

‫יאם ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬ ָ ‫הוֹצ‬ ִ ‫ְל‬ ‫ר־תּ ְר ִתּי ָל ֶהם זָ ַבת ָח ָלב ְוּד ַבשׁ‬ ַ ‫ל־א ֶרץ ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ֶ ‫ֶא‬ ‫ל־ה ֲא ָרצוֹת‬ ָ ‫ְצ ִבי ִהיא ְל ָכ‬

‫יאם ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬ ֵ ‫אוֹצ‬ ִ ָ‫ ו‬10 ‫ל־ה ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬ ַ ‫וָ ֲא ִב ֵאם ֶא‬

V.6 has a definite connection with v.15 (period 2).

69

Parallels and congruences between the three periods are not repeated separately with the description of each period. Only if needed, a relevant verse or a part will be repeated anew in the description of a following period. 70 See Greenberg 1986 (377); Krüger 1989 (233–237).

a structural analysis

91

Congruence and antithetical parallelism between v.6 and v.15 ִ ‫ ַבּיּוֹם ַההוּא נָ ָשׂ‬6 ‫אתי יָ ִדי ָל ֶהם ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬ ִ ‫ם־אנִ י נָ ָשׂ‬ ֲ ַ‫ וְ ג‬15 ‫אתי יָ ִדי ָל ֶהם‬ ‫יאם ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬ ָ ‫הוֹצ‬ ִ ‫ְל‬ ‫ר־תּ ְר ִתּי ָל ֶהם זָ ַבת ָח ָלב‬ ַ ‫ל־א ֶרץ ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ֶ ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ ֲא ֶשׁר־נָ ַת ִתּי ֶא‬ ָ ‫אוֹתם ֶא‬ ָ ‫ְל ִב ְל ִתּי ַה ִביא‬ ‫ְוּד ַבשׁ‬ ‫ָל ֶהם זָ ַבת ָח ָלב ְוּד ַבשׁ‬ ‫ל־ה ֲא ָרצוֹת‬ ָ ‫ְצ ִבי ִהיא ְל ָכ‬ ‫ל־ה ֲא ָרצוֹת‬ ָ ‫ְצ ִבי ִהיא ְל ָכ‬ Both verses open with a phrase in which there is mention of the raising of the hand. The direction of the raising is opposed to each other. In v.6 this occurs in favor of the people, namely to lead it out of the land of Egypt. In v.15 the raising is done to keep the people back, so that it remains in the desert. The development of the history of period 1 to period 2 is accentuated by means of a variation: ‫ ַתּ ְר ִתּי‬in v.6 is changed into ‫ נָ ַת ִתּי‬in v.15. At the time when Israel was led out of the land of Egypt, the word ‘explored’ is applicable, during the time of the sojourn in the desert there is mention of ‘given.’ V.7 is congruent and parallel with vv.18 and 19 (period 3). Congruence and parallelism between v.7 and vv.18–19 7

18

‫קּוּצי ֵﬠינָ יו ַה ְשׁ ִליכוּ‬ ֵ ‫ִאישׁ ִשׁ‬

‫ל־תּ ֵלכוּ‬ ֵ ‫יכם ַא‬ ֶ ‫בוֹת‬ ֵ ‫חוּקּי ֲא‬ ֵ ‫ְבּ‬ ‫ל־תּ ְשׁמֹרוּ‬ ִ ‫יהם ַא‬ ֶ ‫ת־מ ְשׁ ְפּ ֵט‬ ִ ‫וְ ֶא‬ ‫ל־תּ ַטּ ָמאוּ‬ ִ ‫יהם ַא‬ ֶ ‫לּוּל‬ ֵ ִ‫וּבג‬ ְ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ֹלה‬ ֵ ‫ ֲאנִ י יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬19

‫ל־תּ ַטּ ָמּאוּ‬ ִ ‫לּוּלי ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם ַא‬ ֵ ִ‫וּבג‬ ְ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ֹלה‬ ֵ ‫ֲאנִ י יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬

The first line of v.7 shows clear congruence of content with the first and second lines of v18. The urging to cast away the monstrous idols is picked up in the call not to follow the prescriptions and legal rules of the fathers. The second and third lines of v.7 are parallel with the third of v.18 and the first of v.19. Comparable with the above parallelism and congruence is the one between v.8, v.13 (period 2) and v.21 (period 3). Congruence and parallelism between v.8, v.13 and v.21 ִ ‫ וַ יַּ ְמ‬13 ‫מרוּ־בי‬ ִ ַ‫ וַ יּ‬8 ‫רוּ־בי ֵבית־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬ ‫וְ לֹא ָא ִבוּ ִלּ ְשׁמ ַֹע ֵא ַלי‬ ‫יהם לֹא‬ ֶ ֵ‫קּוּצי ֵﬠינ‬ ֵ ‫ת־שׁ‬ ִ ‫ִאישׁ ֶא‬ ‫א־ה ָלכוּ‬ ָ ֹ ‫קּוֹתי ל‬ ַ ‫ְבּ ֻח‬ ‫ִה ְשׁ ִליכוּ‬ ‫לּוּלי ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם לֹא ָﬠזָ בוּ‬ ‫ת־מ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי ָמ ָאסוּ‬ ֵ ִ‫וְ ֶאת־גּ‬ ִ ‫וְ ֶא‬

ִ ‫ וַ יַּ ְמ‬21 ‫רוּ־בי ַה ָבּנִ ים‬ ‫א־ה ָלכוּ‬ ָ ֹ ‫קּוֹתי ל‬ ַ ‫ְבּ ֻח‬ ‫א־שׁ ְמרוּ‬ ָ ֹ ‫ת־מ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי ל‬ ִ ‫וְ ֶא‬ ‫אוֹתם‬ ָ ‫ַל ֲﬠשׂוֹת‬

92

chapter two

The first lines of vv.8,13,21 are parallel. Rebellious behavior is characteristic for all three generations. In v.8 this appears from the monstrous idols and the dung gods, to which the people clung. These are congruent with the failure to go with the ordinances in the second line of vv.13 and 21 (which are parallel on this point) and the legal rules, which are rejected (v.13) or not kept (v.21). This congruence is comparable with the congruence described above between v.7 and vv.18 and 19. There the monstrous idols and dung gods are used in prescriptions and legal rules, as they are here used congruently in ordinances and legal rules.71 The close of vv.8,13,21 (see diagram 3, the synopsis) is formulated parallel, whereby v.13 is a brief variant (‫ ְל ַכלּוֹת ַא ִפּי ָבּ ֶהם‬in v.8 and in ָ ‫ ְל ַכ‬in v.13). V.13 also varies in the v.21 ‫ ְל ַכלּוֹת ַא ִפּי ָבּם‬in place of ‫לּוֹתם‬ placement in the sentence of the place of the act, whereby the move from Egypt in v.8 to the desert in vv.13 and 21 is logical. V.8 goes back to v .7 with the conclusion that the action to which they were urged in v.7, namely the casting away of the monstrous idols and not to contaminate themselves with the dung gods, has not occurred. V.9 is parallel to v.14 (period 2) and v.22 (period 3). Parallels between v.9, v.14 and v.22 ‫ וַ ֲה ִשׁב ִֹתי ֶאת־יָ ִדי‬22 ‫וָ ַא ַﬠשׂ ְל ַמ ַﬠן ְשׁ ִמי‬ ‫ וָ ַא ַﬠשׂ ְל ַמ ַﬠן ְשׁ ִמי‬9 ‫ וָ ֶא ֱﬠ ֶשׂה ְל ַמ ַﬠן ְשׁ ִמי‬14 ‫ְל ִב ְל ִתּי ֵה ֵחל ְל ֵﬠינֵ י ַהגּוֹיִ ם ְל ִב ְל ִתּי ֵה ֵחל ְל ֵﬠינֵ י ַהגּוֹיִ ם ְל ִב ְל ִתּי ֵה ֵחל ְל ֵﬠינֵ י ַהגּוֹיִ ם‬ ‫תוֹכם‬ ָ ‫ר־ה ָמּה ְב‬ ֵ ‫ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ֵ‫יהם ְל ֵﬠינ‬ ֶ ‫נוֹד ְﬠ ִתּי ֲא ֵל‬ ַ ‫יהם ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ֶ ֵ‫אתים ְל ֵﬠינ‬ ִ ‫הוֹצ‬ ֵ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ‫אוֹתם‬ ָ ‫אתי‬ ִ ‫ר־הוֹצ‬ ֵ ‫ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ‫יאם ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬ ָ ‫הוֹצ‬ ִ ‫ְל‬ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ְל ֵﬠינ‬ V.22 (period 3) has a plus in the first line vis-à-vis vv.9 (period 1) and 14 (period 2). The first line of v.22 specially emphasizes the particularity of the acts of the Lord, which is described in the sequel of the verse. The first and second line of vv.9 and 14 are parallel to the second and third line of v.22. V.9, in the second line, has the additional words ‫תוֹכם‬ ָ ‫ר־ה ָמּה ְב‬ ֵ ‫ ֲא ֶשׁ‬to express the fact that this act already took place in Egypt. The fourth and fifth lines of v.9 are formulated differently from the parallel lines in vv.14 (third line) and 22 (fourth line). V.9 returns to the motif of the self revelation from v.5 where reference is also made explicitly to ‘the land of Egypt.’ The motif of the exodus is present in

71

For the difference between ‫הקּוֹת‬/‫ים‬ ֻ ‫ ֻח ִקּ‬see on Ezek 20:18 in chapter 1.

a structural analysis

93

all three verses. In v.9 this is connected with ‘out of the land of Egypt,’72 in vv.14 and 22 with ‘before their eyes,’ namely the eyes of the nations. In v.9 ‘before their eyes’ was connected with self revelation. This is how a stylish variation is created in the parallel. 2. Israel in the Desert—the First Generation (vv.10–17) The first observation relating to period 2 is the lack of parallel or congruent expressions after v.10 with v.7 (period 1) and v.18 (period 3). The second observation is the large measure of parallelism and congruence between period 2 and period 3. These two agree more than they correspond with period 1. Vv.11–16 demonstrate a large agreement with vv.19–24 of period 3. There is, however, variation in the formulations. A clear case of variation may be observed between vv.11 and 12 and vv.19 and 20 (period 3). Parallelism with variations between vv.11–12 and vv.19–20 19

‫קּוֹתי‬ ַ ‫ת־ח‬ ֻ ‫ וָ ֶא ֵתּן ָל ֶהם ֶא‬11 ‫אוֹתם‬ ָ ‫הוֹד ְﬠ ִתּי‬ ַ ‫ת־מ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי‬ ִ ‫וְ ֶא‬ ‫אוֹתם ָה ָא ָדם וָ ַחי ָבּ ֶהם‬ ָ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר יַ ֲﬠ ֶשׂה‬ ‫תוֹתי נָ ַת ִתּי ָל ֶהם‬ ַ ‫ת־שׁ ְבּ‬ ַ ‫ וְ גַ ם ֶא‬12 ‫יהם‬ ֶ ֵ‫וּבינ‬ ֵ ‫ִל ְהיוֹת ְלאוֹת ֵבּינִ י‬ ‫ָל ַד ַﬠת‬ ‫ִכּי ֲאנִ י יְ הוָ ה ְמ ַק ְדּ ָשׁם‬

‫קּוֹתי ֵלכוּ‬ ַ ‫ְבּ ֻח‬ ‫ת־מ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי ִשׁ ְמרוּ‬ ִ ‫וְ ֶא‬ ‫אוֹתם‬ ָ ‫וַ ֲﬠשׂוּ‬ ‫תוֹתי ַק ֵדּשׁוּ‬ ַ ‫ת־שׁ ְבּ‬ ַ ‫ וְ ֶא‬20 ‫יכם‬ ֶ ֵ‫וּבינ‬ ֵ ‫וְ ָהיוּ ְלאוֹת ֵבּינִ י‬ ‫ָל ַד ַﬠת‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ֹלה‬ ֵ ‫ִכּי ֲאנִ י יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬

Beside the large measure of parallelism, the variation between the descriptive style between vv.11 and 12 (suffixes in the third person plural) vis-à-vis the direct speech of vv.19 and 20 (suffixes in the second person plural) is to be noted. There is mention of the first generation in the desert, while the second desert generation is actually spoken to. ַ ‫ ֻח‬, ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי‬and ‫תוֹתי‬ ַ ‫ ַשׁ ְבּ‬is identical in vv.11 and The sequence of ‫קּוֹתי‬ 12 to the one in vv.19 and 20. A variation in this summation is the ָ ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר יַ ֲﬠ ֶשׂה‬besides ‫אוֹתם‬ ָ ‫וַ ֲﬠשׂוּ‬. congruent use of ‫אוֹתם ָה ָא ָדם וָ ַחי ָבּ ֶהם‬ The descriptive phrase from v.11 becomes a direct exhortation in v.19. The two phrases mutually explain each other. Additionally, there is a variation with the connection of the root ‫ קדשׁ‬in these verses. In v.12

72 The fourth line of v.9 is the eye, where the first line of v.10 hooks into. See above for the demarcation between vv.9 and 10.

94

chapter two

this is connected to the sanctifying of the people by the Lord after the exposition of the sign character of the Sabbaths.73 In v.20 ‫ קדשׁ‬is connected with the Sabbaths, in an exhortation to the people to sanctify it, thus to be a sign. The object of the sanctifying moves from the people (v.12) to the Sabbaths (v.20), while the subject moves from the Lord (v.12) to the people (v.20). V.13 and v.21 (period 3) are in a large measure parallel.74 Parallelism between v.13 and v.21 ִ ‫ וַ יַּ ְמ‬13 ‫רוּ־בי ַה ָבּנִ ים‬ ִ ‫ וַ יַּ ְמ‬21 ‫רוּ־בי ֵבית־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬ ‫א־ה ָלכוּ‬ ָ ֹ ‫קּוֹתי ל‬ ַ ‫ְבּ ֻח‬ ‫א־ה ָלכוּ‬ ָ ֹ ‫קּוֹתי ל‬ ַ ‫ְבּ ֻח‬ ‫ת־מ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי ָמ ָאסוּ‬ ִ ‫אוֹתם וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫א־שׁ ְמרוּ ַל ֲﬠשׂוֹת‬ ָ ֹ ‫ת־מ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי ל‬ ִ ‫וְ ֶא‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר יַ ֲﬠ ֶשׂה א ָֹתם ָה ָא ָדם וָ ַחי ָבּ ֶהם‬ ‫אוֹתם ָה ָא ָדם וָ ַחי ָבּ ֶהם‬ ָ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר יַ ֲﬠ ֶשׂה‬ ‫ת־שׁ ְבּת ַֹתי ִח ְלּלוּ ְמאֹד‬ ַ ‫וְ ֶא‬ ‫תוֹתי ִח ֵלּלוּ‬ ַ ‫ת־שׁ ְבּ‬ ַ ‫וְ ֶא‬ ‫יהם ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬ ֶ ‫לכלּוֹת ַא ִפּי וָ א ַֹמר ִל ְשׁפְֹּך ֲח ָמ ִתי ֲﬠ ֵל‬ ַ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫וָ א ַֹמר ִל ְשׁפְֹּך ַה ָמ ִתי ֲﬠ ֵל‬ ‫לּוֹתם‬ ָ ‫ְל ַכ‬ ‫ָבּם ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬ In the first lines of vv.13 and 21, the relationship between the two generations is indicated: in v.13 there is mention of ‫ֵבית־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬ ַ ‫ ֻח‬, after which v.21 mentions ‫ ַה ָבּנִ ים‬. The sequence of the triad ‫קּוֹתי‬ ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי‬and ‫תוֹתי‬ ַ ‫ ַשׁ ְבּ‬returns in the verses corresponding to vv.11 and ָ ‫א־שׁ ְמרוּ ַל ֲﬠשׂוֹת‬ ָ ֹ ‫ ל‬vis-à-vis 12, and vv.19 and 20. V.21 varies with ‫אוֹתם‬ v.13 with ‫ ָמ ָאסוּ‬. Both phrases explain each other mutually. The phrase ‫אוֹתם ָה ָא ָדם וָ ַחי ָבּ ֶהם‬ ָ ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר יַ ֲﬠ ֶשׂה‬from v.11 we encounter as well in v.13 and in v.21. Just like v.13, v.21 is formulated in a descriptive style. After the direct speech of vv.19 and 20, beginning with v.21 period 3 moves again to descriptive formulations. V.13 has vis-à-vis v.21, by way of variation, the addition ‫ ְמאֹד‬with the desecration of the Sabbaths. Vv.15 and 16 have different connections with vv.23 and 24 (period 3). Congruence and (antithetical) parallelism between vv.15–16 and vv.23–24 ִ ‫ם־אנִ י נָ ָשׂ‬ ֲ ַ‫ וְ ג‬15 ‫אתי יָ ִדי ָל ֶהם ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬ ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ ֲא ֶשׁר־נָ ַת ִתּי‬ ָ ‫אוֹתם ֶא‬ ָ ‫ְל ִב ְל ִתּי ָה ִביא‬ ‫ָל ֶהם זָ ַבת ָח ָלב ְוּד ַבשׁ‬ ‫ל־ה ֲא ָרצוֹת‬ ָ ‫ְצ ִבי ִהיא ְל ָכ‬ 73

‫אתי ֶאת־יָ ִדי ָל ֶהם‬ ִ ‫ם־אנִ י נָ ָשׂ‬ ֲ ַ‫ גּ‬23 ‫ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬ ‫ְל ָה ִפיץ א ָֹתם ַבּגּוֹיִ ם‬ ‫אוֹתם ָבּ ֲא ָרצוֹת‬ ָ ‫וּלזָ רוֹת‬ ְ

On the Shabbat as a (covenantal) sign, see Gosse 2005 (361–363). The parallels and congruence with v.8 (period 1), as well as the variation have already been described (see above with v.8 [period 1]). The final phrase of vv.13 and 21 have also been discussed there. 74

a structural analysis ‫ יַ ַﬠן ְבּ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי ָמ ָאסוּ‬16 ‫א־ה ְלכוּ ָב ֶהם‬ ָ ֹ ‫קּוֹתי ל‬ ַ ‫ת־ח‬ ֻ ‫וְ ֶא‬ ‫תוֹתי ִח ֵלּלוּ‬ ַ ‫ת־שׁ ְבּ‬ ַ ‫וְ ֶא‬ ‫יהם ִל ָבּם ה ֵֹלְך‬ ֶ ‫לּוּל‬ ֵ ִ‫ִכּי ַא ֲח ֵרי ג‬

95

‫א־ﬠשׂוּ‬ ָ ֹ ‫ יַ ַﬠן ִמ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי ל‬24 ‫קּוֹתי ָמ ָאסוּ‬ ַ ‫וְ ֻח‬ ‫תוֹתי ִח ֵלּלוּ‬ ַ ‫ת־שׁ ְבּ‬ ַ ‫וְ ֶא‬ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ֵ‫בוֹתם ָהיוּ ֵﬠינ‬ ָ ‫לּוּלי ֲא‬ ֵ ִ‫וְ ַא ֲח ֵרי גּ‬

The first lines of v.15 and v.23 are formulated identical. From the sequel it appears that the intention behind the raising of the hand is negative. The sequel in v.23 is more forcefully stated than v.15: ‫ְל ִב ְל ִתּי‬ ‫אוֹתם‬ ָ ‫ ָה ִביא‬from v.15 which is heightened to ‫ ְל ָה ִפיץ א ָֹתם‬in v.23. Both expressions are used congruently. The continuation in both verses, after the mentioned expression, is antithetical. In v.15 the description from ָ ‫ֶא‬ v.6 returns for the promised land.75 ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ ֲא ֶשׁר־נָ ַת ִתּי ָל ֶהם זָ ַבת ָח ָלב‬ ‫ ְוּד ַבשׁ‬is antithetical to ‫ ַבּגּוֹיִ ם‬. ָ ‫ְצ ִבי ִהיא ְל ָכ‬ The following line strengthens the antithesis: ‫ל־ה ֲא ָרצוֹת‬ ָ ‫וּלזָ רוֹת‬ ְ in v.23.76 Both expresfrom v.15 is antithetical to ‫אוֹתם ָבּ ֲא ָרצוֹת‬ sions end parallel with ‫ ַא ָרצוֹת‬but with an opposing direction: instead of receiving its own place—a jewel—in the midst of all lands comes the dispersion in other lands. Vv.16 and 24 show parallelism and variation. Both verses have the ַ ‫ ֻח‬and ‫תוֹתי‬ ַ ‫ ַשׁ ְבּ‬. A variation is made in the sequence triad ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי‬, ‫קּוֹתי‬ vis-à-vis the other places where the triad occurs in period 2 (vv.11 and 12, v.13) and period 3 (vv.19 and 20, v.21). Also lacking here is the expression ‫ ֲא ֶשׁר יַ ֲﬠ ֶשׂה א ָֹתם ָה ָא ָדם וָ ַחי ָבּ ֶהם‬or a similar, congruent expression, as it occurs in vv.11,13,19,21. There is variation in the connection with the verbs.77 In v.16 ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי‬is connected with ‫ ָמ ָאסוּ‬, while this verb is connected in v.24 with ‫קּוֹתי‬ ַ ‫ ֻח‬. V.16 connects ‫קּוֹתי‬ ַ ‫ ֻח‬with ‫א־ה ְלכוּ‬ ָ ֹ ‫ ל‬which is congruent with the connection of ‫ִמ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי‬ ָ ‫ ל‬in v.24. In a sense there is a chiastic reversal present. with ‫ֹא־ﬠשׂוּ‬ In the closing of vv.16 and 24 a variation is made. V.16 opens the final phrase with ‫ ִכּי ַא ֲח ֵרי‬which refers back to the triad, while v.24 by means of ‫ וְ ַא ֲח ֵרי‬connects to the named triad, and, in fact, expands it to a quatrain. The relationship between two generations is expressed ֶ ‫לּוּל‬ ֵ ִ‫ ג‬v.16 and ‫בוֹתם‬ ָ ‫לּוּלי ֲא‬ ֵ ִ‫ גּ‬in v.24. This is comparable with the in ‫יהם‬

75

See above with v.6 (period 1) for the variation in the expression. Sedlmeier 1990 (277) comments on vv.23 and 24: “Mit der Aussage der Zerstreuung machen v. 23–24, wie bereits erwähnt, die Heilszusage von Phase 1 des Geschichtsrückblickes in v. 6a rückgängig.” 77 This is labeled by Mulder 1973 (66) as “ein stilistisches Mittel . . . in Ez. xx 16, 24 . . . durch fortwährenden Wechsel der Verben.” 76

96

chapter two

opening of vv.13 and 21. ‫ ִל ָבּם ה ֵֹלְך‬in v.16 is used congruently with ‫ָהיוּ‬ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ ֵﬠינ‬in v.24. This variation is added in consideration of v.17, which does not have ֶ ‫ ֵﬠינִ י ֲﬠ ֵל‬. The lack of the a direct parallel in period 3. V.17 speaks of ‫יהם‬ ִ ‫א־ﬠ ִשׂ‬ ָ ֹ ‫וְ ל‬.78 verb ‫ עשׂה‬in the triad is compensated in v.17 by means of ‫יתי‬ With ‫ ָכּ ָלה‬a connection is made with the close of v.13 (and parallels). 3. Israel in the desert—the second generation (vv.18–26) This demarcation follows the traditional one, which deviates from the one by Sedlmeier,79 where he argues for the demarcation of vv.17–26 as the third period. In his view, v.17 forms a new beginning, which, in view of the schematic structure of the retrospect on the history, belongs with the third period, even if the content of v.17 relates to the first generation in the desert period (period 2). The argument from content needs to weigh more heavily than it does with Sedlmeier. Moreover, the demarcation of the period between vv.17 and 18 is comparable to the one between vv.10 and 11. The description of the first generation in the desert is closed with the local reference ‫ ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬, which is resumed in the first verse of the description of the second generation in the desert. It continues ‫ ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬.80 Moreover it appears from the synopsis (diagram 3), that the use of ‫ ֵﬠינִ י‬in v.17 (God’s eye) is connected with ֶ ֵ‫ ֵﬠינ‬in v.24 (their eyes). In both cases it follows ‫לּוּלים‬ ִ ִ‫ג‬. In the use of ‫יהם‬ vv.16 and 17 the eye of God is on them, whose heart follows the dung gods. In v.14 their eyes follow the dung gods of their fathers. There is mention here of an antithetical parallel. The arguments on content 78 In all five other cases of the use of the triad in the periods 2 and 3, the verb ‫עשׂה‬ occurs: either in connection with one of the three members of the triad, or in the added expression. 79 See Sedlmeier 1990 (250–252). Sedlmeier argues on the basis of a parallel of content, which he notes between vv.10 (233) and 17 (251). In both cases, in his opinion, this deals with “ein Heilshandeln JHWHs.” This is not the case, as appears from the antithetical parallel between vv.6 and 10. 80 Allen 1990 (7): “The hinge is the double phrase ‫“ במדבר‬in the wilderness” (vv.17, 18).” Allen calls the double expression a hinge on the basis of his analysis of the part (vv.3–31) as a chiastic composition. He also opts for the demarcation between vv.17 and 18 except on the basis of his totally different structural analysis: “The two halves of the chiastic composition are vv.3–17 and 8–31.” The labeling of the double use of ‫ ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬in vv.17 and 18 agrees with the double use of ‫ ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬in vv.10 and 11, namely as an eye and a hook, whereby the connection is accomplished. For Allen this is not possible, because he can only have one hinge point in his chiastic composition, where it is possible in this analysis to value equally the agreement between vv.10 and 11 and vv.17 and 18 in this regard.

a structural analysis

97

and structure suffice to place the demarcation of the periods between vv.17 and 18.81 Besides the triad ‫קּוֹתי‬ ַ ‫ ֻח‬, ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי‬and ‫תוֹתי‬ ַ ‫ ַשׁ ְבּ‬, which occurs three times parallel to period 2, period 3 has the duality twice, ‫ ֻח ִקּים‬and ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּ ִטים‬in vv.18 and 25. In v.18 these are connected to the previous ֶ ‫בוֹת‬ ֵ ‫חוּקי ֲא‬ ֵ and ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ ) ִמ ְשׁ ְפּ ֵט‬and are complemented generation ( ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫לּוּל‬ ֵ ִ‫ גּ‬of the previous generation and thus, in fact, form a triad. with ‫יהם‬ ָ ‫לּוּלי ֲא‬ ֵ ִ‫ גּ‬is used, which is followed by the In v.24 the expression ‫בוֹתם‬ duality in v.25 which follows in the same sequence as in v.18. Though ָ ‫לּוּלי ֲא‬ ֵ ִ‫ גּ‬expands the vv.24 and 25 do not have a triad, because ‫בוֹתם‬ first named triad, which occurs three times parallel with period 2, ֲ ַ‫וְ ג‬, with a fourth member, and v.25 begins anew with ‫ם־אנִ י נָ ַת ִתּי ָל ֶהם‬ the connection is clearly made by means of the shifting of ‘the fathers’ ִ ִ‫ גּ‬in v.24. These negatively loaded terms from ‫ ֻח ִקּים‬in v.18 to ‫לּוּלים‬ frame period 3. V.26 completes the negative description of v.25.82 These verses do not have parallels in the two preceding periods and are in this respect comparable with vv.5 and 6 (period 1), which have partial parallels.83 The periodization of history continues in the rest of the chapter and determines the structure of this chapter.84 Both the past and the present are discussed in Ezekiel 20 in their mutual context. A double conclusion is drawn: in the first place how the recent past continues to the present (introduced by ‫ ָל ֵכן‬in v.27, period 4, Israel in the land), in the second place, how the presence of the exile will have its results for the future (introduced by ‫ ָל ֵכן‬in v.30, period 5, Israel in exile). 4. Israel in the Land (vv.27–29) The first conclusion opens with a number of formal structuralizing elements in v.27: ‫ ָל ֵכן‬as introduction, then the commission to the ‫ן־א ָדם‬ ָ ‫ ֶבּ‬to speak to ‫ ֵבּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬and the formula ‫כֹּה ָא ַמר ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬.

81

See also the discussion of v.17 with period 2. Sedlmeier 1990 (277) comments in reference to vv.25 and 26: “Die nun folgenden v. 25–26 greifen auf die zweite Phase, auf vv.11–12 zurück und machen die Gabe der Gebote rückgängig.” For a discussion of these verses, also see Vogt 1981 (120–126). 83 For the discussion of vv.5 and 6, see period 1. 84 Pace Allen 1990 (5): “Structurally and form-critically this chapters falls into two distinct parts, vv.1–31 and 32–44.” Id. 1992 on vv.3–31. 82

98

chapter two

The opening of v.27 is formulated parallel to the opening of v.3 and refers back to it. Parallelism between v.27 and v.3 ֵ ‫ ָל ֵכן ַדּ ֵבּר ֶא‬27 ‫ן־א ָדם‬ ָ ‫ל־בּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ֶבּ‬ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫וְ ָא ַמ ְר ָתּ ֲא ֵל‬ ‫כֹּה ָא ַמר ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬

‫ן־א ָדם ַדּ ֵבּר ֶאת־זִ ְקנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ָ ‫ ֶבּ‬3 ‫וְ ָא ַמ ְר ָתּ ֲא ֵל ֶהם‬ ‫כֹּה ָא ַמר ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬

Continuing with v.27, the bridge from the past of ‘the fathers’ in Israel ֶ ‫בוֹת‬ ֵ ‫ֲא‬ is constructed to the present in the land of Israel. By means of ‫יכם‬ in v.27, a connection is made with the previous period 3 in which ‘the fathers’ are being discussed in vv.18 and 25. In v.28 different elements from period 2 are cited. The opening is an antithetical parallel with v.10 and v.15 Antithetical parallelism between v.28, v.10 and v.15 ֵ ‫ וַ ֲא ִב‬28 ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫יאם ֶא‬ ‫אתי ֶאת־יָ ִדי‬ ִ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר נָ ָשׂ‬ ‫אוֹתהּ ָל ֶהם‬ ָ ‫ָל ֵתת‬

10

15

‫ל־ה ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬ ַ ‫וָ ֲא ִב ֵאם ֶא‬

‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫אוֹתם ֶא‬ ָ ‫ְל ִב ְל ִתּי ַה ִביא‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר־נָ ַת ִתּי ָל ֶהם‬

In v.28 the entry from out of the desert appears to have taken place: ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫יאם ֶא‬ ֵ ‫וַ ֲא ִב‬. V.10 speaks antithetically about ‫ל־ה ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬ ַ ‫וָ ֲא ִב ֵאם ֶא‬ and v.15 appears to perpetuate the sojourn in the desert. The gift of the land is discussed similarly. A variety is made with the expression ‫ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ‫אתי ֶאת־יָ ִדי‬ ִ ‫ נָ ָשׂ‬in v.28 vis-à-vis the periods 1, 2 and 3. In this verse the raising of the hand refers to the land, while in periods 1, 2 and 3 (see vv.5 (twice),6,15,23) it always refers to the people. The continuation of v.28 and v.29 describes the acts of ‘the fathers’ from the moment that they actually are in the land. This is done with expressions from the world of the cult. These acts of ‘the fathers’ have continued ‫ ַﬠד ַהיּוֹם ַהזֶּ ה‬. The present generation, represented by the ‫זִ ְקנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬,85 is no different from those of ‘the fathers.’ For this reason a second conclusion follows, which does not review a period of the past anymore, but deals with the present generation with an eye on the future.

85

See Sedlmeier 1990 (163–166).

a structural analysis

99

5. Israel in Exile (vv.30–44)86 The opening of the second conclusion shows a number of formal structuralizing elements. There is variety vis-à-vis the opening of the first conclusion in v.27. Variation in the conclusion-opening between v.30 and v.27 ֵ ‫ ָל ֵכן ֱאמֹר ֶא‬30 ‫ל־בּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ‫כֹּה ָא ַמר ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬ ‫יכם ַא ֶתּם נִ ְט ְמ ִאים‬ ֶ ‫בוֹת‬ ֵ ‫ַה ְבּ ֶד ֶרְך ֲא‬

‫ן־א ָדם‬ ָ ‫ל־בּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ֶבּ‬ ֵ ‫ ַל ֵכן ַדּ ֵבּר ֶא‬27 ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫וְ ָא ַמ ְר ָתּ ֲא ֵל‬ ‫כֹּה ָא ַמר ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫בוֹת‬ ֵ ‫אוֹתי ֲא‬ ִ ‫עוֹד זֹאת גִּ ְדּפוּ‬

The double commission to speak and to say is concentrated in the ָ ‫ ֵבּ‬is likewise not taken up. The simple order to say. The indication ‫ן־א ָדם‬ continuation with ‫ כֹּה ָא ַמר ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬is identical in both conclusions. In both conclusions the relation is made with ‘the fathers.’ Period 5 has yet a number of formal structuralizing elements. In ָ ‫ ַח‬, which is supported v.33 a new impulse is indicated by means of ‫י־אנִ י‬ ֲ ‫וִ ַיד ְﬠ ֶתּם ִכּ‬. V.39 is by ‫נְ ֻאם ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬.87 This piece is closed by ‫י־אנִ י יְ הוָ ה‬ the opening of the following piece in this period with the words ‫וְ ַא ֶתּם‬ ‫ֹה־א ַמר ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬ ָ ‫ ֵבּית־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל כּ‬. That this piece is connected with the previous and belongs to the same period appears from the fact, that the order to speak is lacking. It is part of the second conclusion. V.44 ֲ ‫ וִ ַיד ְﬠ ֶתּם ִכּ‬and ends with ‫נְ ֻאם ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬. opens with the words ‫י־אנִ י יְ הוָ ה‬ It bears the formal structuralizing marks of a closing. The overview of the formal structuralizing elements shows a three-part structure of the second conclusion: a. vv.30–32: the present of the exile; b. vv.33–38: a new exodus and a judgment in the desert;88 c. vv.39–44: contradiction 86 Deviating from the majority view of scholars. Greenberg 1986 (378) introduces the same demarcation, based on a different analysis, however. With Hals he is the one who takes seriously his own starting point of the unity of ch. 20. Hals 1989 (133) chooses for the demarcation of vv.27–44. Pola 1995 (154–155, 358) has a comparable demarcation. In his structural analysis he begins the second half of the chapter with v.30, which is characterized by its character of a diptych. 87 The term ‘impulse’ does not mean the beginning of a new textual unit, so that the argument by Zimmerli 1969a (438) in reference to ‫ חי אני‬is not applicable as a caesura. 88 The demarcation of the sections a and b between vv.32 and 33 agrees with the one by Hals 1989 (134). He does not isolate v.32 from the previous verse (which is done again by Greenberg 1986 [378]). Virtually unanimous in scholarship, since Zimmerli, in the structure of ch. 20 a caesura is seen between vv.31 and 32. Bertholet 1936 (71) and Fohrer 1955 (108) place the caesura between vv.32 and 33. Bertholet, Fohrer and Zimmerli posit a caesura to indicate that in their view, ch. 20 is not a unit, see Sedlmeier 1990 (90–126). Greenberg 1986 (377–378) places a caesura between vv.29 and 30 (not to indicate that the chapter is not a unit, however). The thoughts of

100

chapter two

between the present and the purified future (after exodus and judgment). The three sections show connections with the previous periods in different ways. 5a. The present of the exile (vv.30–32) This first section of the second conclusion has lexical agreements with the previous periods. The opening of the conclusion has already been discussed above. The use of ‫( נִ ְט ְמ ִאים‬twice: vv.30 and 31) goes back to vv.7 and 18. The ֶ ‫קּוּצ‬ ֵ ‫ ִשׁ‬makes the connection with vv.7 (with ‫ )טמא‬and expression ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫בוֹת‬ ֵ ‫( ָא‬v.30) makes a connection with v.18. ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫לּוּל‬ ֵ ִ‫ג‬/‫לּוּלי ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם‬ ֵ ִ‫ג‬ 8; ‫יכם‬ which occurs in vv.7 and 18, returns in v.31 in combination with ‫טמא‬ to which it is related, also in vv.7 and 18. The beginning of v.31 makes use of the same semantic field as vv.28 ֶ ‫( ַמ ְתּנ ֵֹת‬v.31) a connection and 29, namely that of the cult. With ‫יכם‬ ָ ‫( וַ יִּ ְתּ‬v.28) by means of the stem ‫נתן‬. is made with ‫נוּ־שׁם ַכּ ַﬠס ָק ְר ָבּנָ ם‬ The parallelism of content between the first and the second concluַ ‫ ַﬠ‬in v.31 and ‫ַﬠד ַהיּו ֺם ַהזֶּ ה‬ sion is structurally recognizable in ‫ד־היּוֹם‬ ָ ‫ ַמ ְתּ‬is used in v.29. There is also a connection with v.26 in which ‫נוֹתם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ ְבּ ַה ֲﬠ ִביר ְבּנ‬from v.31 in combination with ‫טמא‬. The phrase ‫יכם ָבּ ֵאשׁ‬ ֶ ‫ ְבּ ַה ֲﬠ ִביר ָכּ‬in v.26. The sequel is congruent with the phrase ‫ל־פּ ֶטר ָר ַחם‬ of v.31 harks back to the beginning of Ezekiel 20: the seeking of the Lord, particularly v.3.89 Congruence, parallelism and chiastic reversal in v.31 and v.3 31

3

‫וַ ֲאנִ י ִא ָדּ ֵרשׁ ָל ֶכם ֵבּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ‫י־אנִ י‬ ָ ‫ַח‬ ‫נְ ֻאם ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬ ‫ם־א ָדּ ֵרשׁ ָל ֶכם‬ ִ ‫ִא‬

‫כֹּה ָא ַמר ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬ ‫ֲה ִל ְדר ֹשׁ א ִֹתי ַא ֶתּם ָבּ ִאים‬ ‫י־אנִ י‬ ָ ‫ַח‬ ‫ם־א ָדּ ֵרשׁ ָל ֶכם‬ ִ ‫ִא‬ ‫נְ ֻאם ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬

Sedlmeier 1990 (310–311) are remarkable on this point, who on the one hand posits a clear connection of v.32 with vv.30 and 31, but on the other hand speaks of a caesura between vv.31 and 32. 89 Ibid. (168–182) speaks of “[d]ie Rahmung des Geschichtsrückblickes: v.2–4.30–31.” The term is not being applied adequately in this analysis to these verses, because Sedlmeier places a caesura between vv.31 and 32. Allen 1992 (458) speaks in this connection of “the inverted inclusio of vv.3–4, 30–31 31 (3//31, 4//30).” Lust 1967 (489) speaks of an inclusio of vv.31 and 3: “Le v. 31 reprend explicitement ce qui est énoncé dans l’introduction, notamment au v.3. De cette façon, les vv.3 et 31 constituent une inclusion.” He uses this as an argument for the division of ch. 20 into two parts.

a structural analysis

101

The first two lines of v.31 are parallel to v.3 and congruent with it. The last two lines of v.31 form a chiastic reversal vis-à-vis v.3. In v.1 stands the formulation ‫ ִל ְדר ֹשׁ ֶאת־יְ הוָ ה‬which agrees with the phrase ‫ֲה ִל ְדר ֹשׁ‬ ‫ א ִֹתי‬from v.3. V.32 continues the rejection of his being sought in the blocking of what man was planning to do, namely to be ‫ ַכגּוֹיִ ם ְכּ ִמ ְשׁ ְפּחוֹת ָה ֲא ָרצוֹת‬.90 In vv.9,14,22 (and 23) ‫ ַהגּוֹיִ ם‬occurs as a contrast in place of a model of assimilation. The same is true of ‫ ָה ֲא ָרצוֹת‬in vv.6,15,23. In v.23 the threat is pronounced as to what is sought in v.32 itself, namely dispersion among the nations and spreading across the lands. The final phrase of v.32 shows congruence with v.28. Congruence between v.32 and v.28 32

28

‫ְל ָשׁ ֵרת ֵﬠץ וָ ָא ֶבן‬

‫ל־ﬠץ ָﬠבֹת‬ ֵ ‫וַ יִּ ְראוּ ָכל־גִּ ְב ָﬠה ָר ָמה וְ ָכ‬

‘Wood and stone’ fulfill the same function in exile as every high hill (with an altar of stone to bring the sacrifices) and every richly branched tree in the land of Israel at the time of the fathers.91,92 Moreover, this ָ ‫ת־תּוֹﬠבֹת ֲא‬ ֲ ‫ ֶא‬.93 verse harks back to v.4, particularly to ‫בוֹתם‬ 5b. A new exodus and a judgment in the desert (vv.33–38) The formal start of this section has already been discussed (see above). The final phrase of v.33 resumes the formulation, with variation, from vv.8,13,21.

90 The thought in this verse may have been the content of the question, as to how the elders of Israel would seek the Lord. Therefore, the prophet receives the commission to let the searchers know the abominations of their fathers. Cf. Eslinger 1998 (111), who posits that v.32 “is focused on Yahweh’s galled refusal to answer the oracular query with which the exiled elders provoked this entire historical reverie (vv.1, 3).” That is the answer to their question, which is explicitly verbalized after the historical retrospect. Fohrer 1955 (108) thinks in the same direction. Pace Sedlmeier 1990 (90). For this verse, see also Lust 1997b (367–383) and Eslinger 1998 (111): “The key to the divine about-face, then, is the point at which Israel aims to end the covenant and thus conclude the experimental alliance between themselves and Yahweh. Here is the core that Yahweh will not suffer to be threatened or risked.” Extensively on v.32: Rom-Shiloni 2005 (194–199). 91 See Nielsen in H. Ringgren and K. Nielsen, “‫ ֵﬠץ‬,” TWAT VI:291. 92 See K.-D. Schunck, “‫ ָבּ ָמה‬,”TWAT I:662–664. 93 Sedlmeier 1990 (187): “Im Buche Ezechiel meine ‫ תועבה‬fremde gottesdienstliche Praktiken, die zur JHWH-Verehrung in Widerspruch stehen.”

102

chapter two

Variation between v.33 and vv.8,13,21 33

8,13,21

‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫פוּכה ֶא ְמלוְֹך ֲﬠ ֵל‬ ָ ‫וּב ֵח ָמה ְשׁ‬ ְ

‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ִל ְשׁפְֹּך ֲח ָמ ִתי ֲﬠ ֵל‬

The sequel of this section shows numerous lexical agreements and thematic parallels and congruences, both internally and with preceding periods, with or without variations. ָ ‫אתי ֶא ְת ֶכם ִמ‬ ִ ‫הוֹצ‬ ֵ ְ‫ ו‬which harks back to vv.6 V.34 opens with ‫ן־ה ַﬠ ִמּין‬ ָ ‫ ִמ‬takes the place of ‫ ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬in this new and 9 and v.10. ‫ן־ה ַﬠ ִמּין‬ exodus in view of the development of the history. Parallel to the openָ ‫ ִמ‬is resumed ing of v.34 there is the second phrase, in which ‫ן־ה ֲא ָרצוֹת‬ in combination with ‫ פוץ‬which is taken up from v.23 and in which ‫ ָבּ ֲא ָרצוֹת‬is also used. V.34 closes with the same triad as v.33: ‫ְבּיָ ד ֲחזָ ָקה‬ ‫פוּכה‬ ָ ‫וּב ֵח ָמה ְשׁ‬ ְ ‫רוֹע נְ טוּיָ ה‬ ַ ְ‫וּבז‬ ִ . ִ ‫אתי ֶא ְת ֶכם ֶא‬ ִ ‫ וְ ֵה ֵב‬to v.10: ‫וָ ֲא ִב ֵאם‬ V.35 harks back with ‫ל־מ ְד ָבּר ָה ַﬠ ִמּים‬ ‫ל־ה ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬. Vv.34 and 35 have the same sequence as v.10: first ‘leading out’ and then ‘bringing into.’ The destiny is formulated parallel: the desert. Vv.35b and 36 have as their central concept ‫( שׁפט‬three times) which in the first instance harks back to v.4, where ‫ שׁפט‬is used twice: the verbal use frames the nominal use. The judgment of the generation in exile is coupled to the judgment of ‘the fathers’ in the desert of the land of Egypt, which is joined to terms from periods 2 and 3. V.37 opens with ‫ וְ ַה ֲﬠ ַב ְר ִתּי‬which is related antithetically to the use of ‫ עבר‬in vv.26 and 31. Those, who act in vv.26 and 31, are dealt with presently. V.38 continues the descriptions of the judgment. The phrase ‫ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ‬ ‫אוֹתם‬ ָ ‫אוֹציא‬ ִ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫גוּר‬ ֵ ‫ ְמ‬is congruent with the formulation in vv.6,9,10 in which the first exodus is described (see above). That is varied in the ַ ‫וְ ֶא‬. This is congruent to v.10 also with the sequel: ‫ל־א ְד ַמת יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל לֹא יָ בוֹא‬ ַ ‫ וָ ֲא ִב ֵאם ֶא‬and with v.35 (with ‫)בוא‬. To be brought use of ‫בוא‬: ‫ל־ה ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬ to the desert of the nations here means: not to be brought to the land of Israel. The close of v.38 has already been discussed. 5c. Contrast between the present and the purified future (after the exodus and the judgment) (vv.39–44) In v.39 after the opening of this new start with the formal structuralizing elements which have already been discussed, follow the enigmatic ָ ִ‫ ִאישׁ גּ‬.94 Within the structure of the chapter, the words: ‫לּוּליו ְלכוּ ֲﬠבֹדוּ‬ 94

See ibid. (57–62) for different interpretations of this verse and on v.39 in chapter 1.

a structural analysis

103

words fill a similar function as v.25, where the people receive instructions which are not good and rules of law which do not enable them to live (period 3). The same is true for the worship of the dung gods. This ֶ ‫לּוּל‬ ֵ ִ‫וּבג‬ ְ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫נוֹת‬ ֵ ‫ְבּ ַמ ְתּ‬ structural function is emphasized by the use of ‫יכם‬ at the conclusion of the verse. With ‘the gifts’ there is a harking back to v.26, which stands in the same context as does v.25.95 Moreover, ‘the dung gods’ are mentioned once more. The use of ‫ קדשׁ‬demonstrates a move in this section relative to the use in vv.12 and 20. In v.12 it refers to the people. In v.20 it is related to the Sabbaths. In this section it is connected with the Lord himself: ‫ ֵשׁם ָק ְד ִשׁי‬in v.39, ‫ר־ק ְד ִשׁי‬ ָ ‫ ַה‬in v.40, ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ל־ק ְד ֵשׁ‬ ָ ‫ ָכ‬in v.40 and ‫וְ נִ ְק ַדּ ְשׁ ִתּי‬ in v.41. ֵ ‫ וְ ֶא‬from v.39 is the filling in of The phrase ‫ת־שׁם ָק ְד ִשׁי לֹא ְת ַח ְלּלוּ־עוֹד‬ ‫ וָ ַא ַﬠשׂ ְל ַמ ַﬠן ְשׁ ִמי‬in vv.9,14,22 (with the continuing sentences with ‫הלל‬, see the synopsis in diagram 3) in the context of judgment. From v.40 on there is mention of the purified future after the new exodus and the judgment. Use is made of terms from the semantic field of the cult, as that is also done in period 4 and the beginning of 5 (section 5a). V.40 with ‫ יַ ַﬠ ְב ֻדנִ י‬forms an antithetical parallel with v.39 where ‫ֲﬠבֹדוּ‬ is directed to the dung gods. The same is true of ‫ ֶא ְדרוֹשׁ‬which is antithetically parallel with ‫ דרשׁ‬in vv.1 and 3 (twice) and v.31 (twice). V.41 is composed of formulations, which have been used in previous periods. ‫ ְבּ ֵר ַיח נִ יח ַֹח ֶא ְר ֶצה ֶא ְת ֶכם‬is connected with v.28 and with the previous verse (‫)רצח‬. The sequel is parallel to v.34. Parallels between v.41 and v.34 41

‫ן־ה ַﬠ ִמּים‬ ָ ‫יאי ֶא ְת ֶכם ִמ‬ ִ ‫הוֹצ‬ ִ ‫ְבּ‬ ‫ן־ה ֲא ָרצוֹת‬ ָ ‫וְ ִק ַבּ ְצ ִתּי ֶא ְת ֶכם ִמ‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר נְ ֹפצ ֶֹתם ָבּם‬

‫ן־ה ַﬠ ִמּים‬ ָ ‫אתי ֶא ְת ֶכם ִמ‬ ִ ‫הוֹצ‬ ֵ ְ‫ ו‬34 ‫ן־ה ֲא ָרצוֹת‬ ָ ‫וְ ִק ַבּ ְצ ִתּי ֶא ְת ֶכם ִמ‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר נְ פוֹצ ֶֹתם ָבּם‬

‫ ְל ֵﬠינֵ י ַהגּוֹיִ ם‬, which closes v.41, harks back to vv.9,14,22, as also happened in v.39.96 V.42 is formulated parallel to v.28: the new exodus has the same land in view as the first exodus from Egypt, hence the connection with ‘the fathers.’97 95 96 97

Cf. also vv.28 and 31. Cf. also vv.23 and 32. Cf. v.28 for the other connections.

104

chapter two

Parallels between v.42 and v.28 42

‫ל־א ְד ַמת יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ַ ‫יאי ֶא ְת ֶכם ֶא‬ ִ ‫ַבּ ֲה ִב‬ ‫אתי ֶאת־יָ ִדי‬ ִ ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ ֲא ֶשׁר נָ ָשׂ‬ ָ ‫ֶא‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫בוֹת‬ ֵ ‫אוֹתהּ ַל ֲא‬ ָ ‫ָל ֵתת‬

‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫יאם ֶא‬ ֵ ‫ וָ ֲא ִב‬28 ‫אתי ֶאת־יָ ִדי‬ ִ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר נָ ָשׂ‬ ‫אוֹתהּ ָל ֶהם‬ ָ ‫ָל ֵתת‬

ַ ‫ ֶא‬which is also used in v.38. V.42 has the plus of ‫ל־א ְד ַמת יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ V.43 is a retrospect from the purified future in the land of Israel: the past will not be forgotten. This past is expressed, among other things, ֶ ‫ ַדּ ְר ֵכ‬which points back to v.30 with ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫בוֹת‬ ֵ ‫ ַה ְבּ ֶד ֶרְך ֲא‬. In both by ‫יכם‬ verses the thought is connected with ‫טמא‬. By means of this reference to v.30, the text points to all of the history which has preceded the purified future. All of the retrospect to the history from v.5 thus comes into view. The formal structuralizing elements of v.44 have already been dealt ִ ‫ַבּ ֲﬠ‬ with. The verse bears the marks of a closure. With ‫שׂוֹתי ִא ְתּ ֶכם ְל ַמ ַﬠן‬ ‫ ְשׁ ִמי‬vv.9,14,22 are taken up again, as also occurred in vv.39 and 41.98 This thought is a leitmotiv in the history between the people and the Lord, right into the purified history. The closure is complemented by a repetition from v.43. Repetition from v.43 and v.44 44

‫שׂוֹתי ִא ְתּ ֶכם ְל ַמ ַﬠן ְשׁ ִמי‬ ִ ‫ַבּ ֲﬠ‬ ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ילוֹת‬ ֵ ‫יכם ָה ָר ִﬠים וְ ַכ ֲﬠ ִל‬ ֶ ‫לֹא ְכ ַד ְר ֵכ‬ ‫ַהנִּ ְשׁ ָחתוֹת ֵבּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬

‫יכם וְ ֵאת‬ ֶ ‫ת־דּ ְר ֵכ‬ ַ ‫ם־שׁם ֶא‬ ָ ‫ וּזְ ַכ ְר ֶתּ‬43 ‫יכם‬ ֶ ‫ילוֹת‬ ֵ ‫ל־ﬠ ִל‬ ֲ ‫ָכּ‬ ... ‫יתם‬ ֶ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ֲﬠ ִשׂ‬

ֶ ‫ ֲﬠ ִשׂ‬in v.43) and the acts The contrast between the acts of the people (‫יתם‬ ִ ‫ ַבּ ֲﬠ‬in v.44) could hardly be indicated more clearly. of the Lord (‫שׂוֹתי‬ The parallelism indicates that it is about the same history, namely that of ‫ ֵבּית יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬. The ‘ways’ are, together with the ‘acts,’ the summary of that history. The picture of the overview of the periods in vv.5–44 of Ezekiel 20 looks as follows. The periods 1, 2 and 3 together describe the past, which provides motivation to the conclusions, which are drawn in the descriptions of

98

See the comments on the relevant verses.

a structural analysis

105

the periods 4 and 5. Therefore, there is mention of a caesura between the periods described in Ezekiel 20, namely between vv.26 and 27. The periods 4 and 5 need to be distinguished as two separate periods. Besides the formal structuralizing element of the introduction of a conclusion in vv.27 and 30 there is a difference of place and a movement in the time spectrum between the two periods. While the first conclusion referring to the situation in the land is drawn, this happens for the second conclusion referring to the situation in the exile. Period 4 describes the situation in the land, as it developed from the past after the entry. The description ends in the past. The time spectrum freezes in the present with the words ‫ ַﬠד ַהיּוֹם ַהזֶּ ה‬in v.29. The expression describes a permanent present. Period 5 describes the situation in the exile. The present (in vv.31,32,39) is described very briefly from the past (in v.30), to move the time spectrum subsequently to the future (vv.33–44).99,100 In the description of period 5, no freezing into the present takes place as appears from the references to realize in the future acts of a new exodus, a judgment in the desert of the nations (vv.33–38) and the description of a purified future (vv.39–44) which follows the exodus and the judgment. Schematically portrayed, the periods in Ezekiel 20 present the following picture: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Israel in Egypt (vv.5–9) Israel in the desert—the first generation (vv.10–17) Israel in the desert—the second generation (vv.18–26) Israel in the land (vv.27–29) Israel in exile (vv.30–44) 5a. The present of the exile (vv.30–32) 5b. A new exodus and a judgment in the desert (vv.33–38) 5c. Contrast between the present and the purified future (after exodus and judgment) (vv.39–44)

99 The periods 5b and 5c (vv.33–44) are firmly coupled together by the use of the antithetical motif of ‘desert’ in period 5b (v.35) and of ‘mountain’ in period 5c (v.40), whereby ‘desert’ “signifies the negative pole of human experience” and ‘mountain’ is “constituting the opposite, positive pole.” Talmon 1987 (135). 100 It is remarkable to determine that period 4, which relates to the situation in the land, does not have a sequel toward the future, but freezes in the present, while period 5, which relates to the exile, has an opening to the future (however that may actually be filled in), even if both conclusions are directed to the house of Israel.

106

chapter two

Vv.1–4 in Ezekiel 20 function as a preamble, which is the occasion to arrive at an expanded retrospect to history and its significance for the present and the future.101 The preamble consists of the data with a situation sketch in v.1, the Wortereignisformel in v.2 and an introduction in vv.3 and 4, which is connected in different ways with the sequel. The above description of the structure of Ezekiel 20 permits expressing that this chapter may be viewed as a unit with recognizable coherence. The overview below again reflects the literary structure of Ezekiel 20.102 1–4:

preamble 1: opening of a new literary unit: date and sketch of the situation 2: The Wortereignisformel 3–4: commission to speak to the elders: the Lord refuses to be sought and commissions his prophet to speak justice through the elders that they may know the abominations of their fathers. 5–44: Divine speech about past, present and future 5–26: retrospect on the past of the first exodus 5–9: Israel in Egypt (period 1) 10–17: Israel in the desert—first generation (period 2) 18–26: Israel in the desert—second generation (period 3) 27–44: two conclusions from the past with an eye on the present in the land and in the exile 27–29: Israel in the land (period 4) 30–44: Israel in exile (period 5) 30–32: the present of the exile (period 5a) 33–38: a new exodus and a judgment in the desert (period 5b)

101

See Block 1997 (612). The main division of ch. 20 in vv.1–4 and 5–44 takes seriously the unity of the chapter and virtually agrees with the one by Krüger 1989 (212): vv.1–3 (“Einleitung”) and vv.4–44 (“Jahwerede”), which also emphasizes the unity of the chapter. An affinity exists as well with Pola 1995 (358) and even stronger with Nay 1999 (169): “(1) 20,1–2 Exposition, (2) 20,3abc Prophetenanrede, (3) 20,3ds Ältestenanrede, (4) 20,4 Propheteninstruktion, (5) 20,5–44 Geschichtsrückblick und direkte Anrede (ab V.27).” His division (1) up to and including (4) agrees with what is labeled ‘preamble’ in this analysis. Remarkably, Pohlmann 2001 (305–311) speaks about a textual segment consisting of vv.5–44, while he subsequently differentiates between different redactions. 102

a structural analysis

107

39–44: contrast between the present and the purified future (after exodus and judgment) (period 5c). The description of the structure of Ezekiel 18 and 20 produces the image of two coherent textual units. The argued two-part division of both Ezekiel 18 and 20, based on literary critical considerations, does not have to be followed. The coherent structure of both chapters, read out of the text, is to be understood according to the vision of Clements from the book’s process of formation, as described in the Introduction. The coherence of both chapters is the product of the literary processing of the authentic prophecies of Ezekiel. This literary processing in Ezekiel 18 and 20 to a coherent whole may have been undertaken at the outset by the prophet himself. Clements’ vision does not exclude this possibility, but prefers to leave it open. This specific form of Fortschreibung in Ezekiel may have been begun by the prophet himself, but also by a wider circle. Because the work of the original prophet has been retained, no pronouncement needs to be made on this. The present form of the book in its entirety is not from the hand of the prophet. The descriptions of the literary structure of both chapters, which is offered on the basis of the text of the chapters, may be judged as examples of Clements’ vision on the point of the homogeneity of the text of the book of Ezekiel. The description of the structure of Ezekiel 18 and 20 strengthens the conclusion drawn with regard to the MT. The structure of Ezekiel 18 and 20, as deduced from the MT, in its coherence underscores the reliability of the text as fixed on the basis of text critical, philological and grammatical analysis of both chapters. The MT offers a reliable point of departure for the testing of the hypothesis of the corporate personality formulated by Wheeler Robinson.

‫‪108‬‬ ‫‪chapter two‬‬ ‫ָל ַד ַﬠת‬ ‫יכם‬ ‫ֹלה ֶ‬ ‫ִכּי ֲאנִ י יְ הוָ ה ֱא ֵ‬

‫יהם ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬ ‫ל־בּנֵ ֶ‬ ‫‪ 18‬וָ א ַֹמר ֶא ְ‬ ‫ל־תּ ֵלכוּ‬ ‫יכם ַא ֵ‬ ‫בוֹת ֶ‬ ‫חוּקי ֲא ֵ‬ ‫ְבּ ֵ‬ ‫ל־תּשׁמֹרוּ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫יהם ַא‬ ‫ת־מ ְשׁ ְפּ ֵט ֶ‬ ‫וְ ֶא ִ‬ ‫ל־תּ ַטּ ָמאוּ‬ ‫יהם ַא ִ‬ ‫לּוּל ֶ‬ ‫וּבגִ ֵ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫יכם‬ ‫ֹלה ֶ‬ ‫‪ֲ 19‬אנִ י יְ הוָ ה ֱא ֵ‬ ‫קּוֹתי ֵלכוּ‬ ‫ְבּ ֻח ַ‬ ‫ת־מ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי ִשׁ ְמרוּ‬ ‫וְ ֶא ִ‬ ‫אוֹתם‬ ‫וַ ֲﬠשׂוּ ָ‬ ‫תוֹתי ַק ֵדּשׁוּ‬ ‫ת־שׁ ְבּ ַ‬ ‫‪ 20‬וְ ֶא ַ‬ ‫יכם‬ ‫וּבינֵ ֶ‬ ‫וְ ָהיוּ ְלאוֹת ֵבּינִ י ֵ‬

‫‪verses 18–26‬‬

‫קּוֹתי‬ ‫ת־ח ַ‬ ‫‪ 11‬וָ ֶא ֵתּן ָל ֶהם ֶא ֻ‬ ‫אוֹתם‬ ‫הוֹד ְﬠ ִתּי ָ‬ ‫ת־מ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי ַ‬ ‫וְ ֶא ִ‬ ‫אוֹתם ָה ָא ָדם וָ ַחי ָבּ ֶהם‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר יַ ֲﬠ ֶשׂה ָ‬ ‫תוֹתי נָ ַת ִתּי ָל ֶהם‬ ‫ת־שׁ ְבּ ַ‬ ‫‪ 12‬וְ גַ ם ֶא ַ‬ ‫ִל ְהיוֹת ְלאוֹת‬ ‫יהם‬ ‫וּבינֵ ֶ‬ ‫ֵבּינִ י ֵ‬ ‫ָל ַד ַﬠת‬ ‫ִכּי ֲאנִ י יְ הוָ ה ְמ ַק ְדּ ָשׁם‬

‫יאם ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬ ‫אוֹצ ֵ‬ ‫‪ 10‬וָ ִ‬ ‫ל־ה ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬ ‫וָ ֲא ִב ֵאם ֶא ַ‬

‫‪verses 10–17‬‬

‫ל־תּ ַטּ ָמּאוּ‬ ‫לּוּלי ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם ַא ִ‬ ‫וּבגִ ֵ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫יכם‬ ‫ֹלה ֶ‬ ‫ֲאנִ י יְ הוָ ה ֱא ֵ‬

‫יהם‬ ‫‪ 5‬וָ ָא ַמ ְר ָתּ ֲא ֵל ֶ‬ ‫ֹה־א ַמר ֲאד ֹנָ י יְ הוִ ה‬ ‫כּ ָ‬ ‫ְבּיוֹם ָבּ ֳח ִרי ְביִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ‫וָ ֶא ָשּׂא יָ ִדי ְלזֶ ַרע ֵבּית יַ ֲﬠקֹב‬ ‫וָ ִאוָּ ַדע ָל ֶהם ְבּ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬ ‫וָ ֶא ָשּׂא יָ ִדי ָל ֶהם ֵלאמֹר‬ ‫יכם‬ ‫ֹלה ֶ‬ ‫ֲאנִ י יְ הוָ ה ֱא ֵ‬ ‫אתי יַ ִדי ָל ֶהם‬ ‫‪ַ 6‬בּיּוֹם ַההוּא נָ ָשׂ ִ‬ ‫יאם ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬ ‫הוֹצ ָ‬ ‫ְל ִ‬ ‫ל־א ֶרץ ֲא ֶשׁר ַתּ ְר ִתּי ָל ֶהם זָ ַבת ָח ָלב ְוּד ַבשׁ‬ ‫ֶא ֶ‬ ‫ל־ה ֲא ָרצוֹת‬ ‫ְצ ִבי ִהיא ְל ָכ ָ‬ ‫‪ 7‬וָ א ַֹמר ֲא ֵל ֶהם‬ ‫קּוּצי ֵﬠינָ יו ַה ְשׁ ִליכוּ‬ ‫ִאישׁ ִשׁ ֵ‬

‫‪verses 5–9‬‬

‫‪Appendix I—Diagram 3: Synopsis Ezekiel 20:5–26‬‬

‫‪a structural analysis‬‬ ‫‪109‬‬

‫ם־אנִ י נָ ַת ִתּי ָל ֶהם‬ ‫‪ 25‬וְ גַ ֲ‬ ‫טוֹבים‬ ‫ֻח ִקּים לֹא ִ‬ ‫וּמ ְשׁ ָפּ ִטים לֹא יִ ְחיוּ ָבּ ֶהם‬ ‫ִ‬ ‫נוֹתם‬ ‫אוֹתם ְבּ ַמ ְתּ ָ‬ ‫‪ 26‬וָ ֲא ַט ֵמּא ָ‬ ‫ל־פּ ֶטר ָר ַחם‬ ‫ְבּ ַה ֲﬠ ִביר ָכּ ֶ‬ ‫ְל ַמ ַﬠן ֲא ִשׁ ֵמּם‬ ‫ְל ַמ ַﬠן ֲא ֶשׁר יֵ ְדעוּ‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ֲאנִ י יְ הוָ ה‬

‫א־ﬠשׂוּ‬ ‫‪ 24‬יַ ַﬠן ִמ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי ל ֹ ָ‬ ‫קּוֹתי ָמ ָאסוּ‬ ‫וְ ֻח ַ‬ ‫תוֹתי ִח ֵלּלוּ‬ ‫ת־שׁ ְבּ ַ‬ ‫וְ ֶא ַ‬ ‫יהם‬ ‫בוֹתם ָהיוּ ֵﬠינֵ ֶ‬ ‫לּוּלי ֲא ָ‬ ‫וְ ַא ֲח ֵרי גִּ ֵ‬

‫אוֹתם ָבּ ֲא ָרצוֹת‬ ‫וּלזָ רוֹת ָ‬ ‫ְ‬

‫אתי ֶאת־יָ ִדי ָל ֶהם ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬ ‫ם־אנִ י נָ ָשׂ ִ‬ ‫‪ 23‬גַּ ֲ‬ ‫ְל ָה ִפיץ א ָֹתם ַבּגּוֹיִ ם‬

‫אתי יָ ִדי ָל ֶהם ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬ ‫ם־אנִ י נָ ָשׂ ִ‬ ‫‪ 15‬וְ גַ ֲ‬ ‫ל־ה ָא ֶרץ ֲא ֶשׁר־נָ ַת ִתּי‬ ‫אוֹתם ֶא ָ‬ ‫ְל ִב ְל ִתּי ָה ִביא ָ‬ ‫ָל ֶהם זָ ַבת ָח ָלב ְוּד ַבשׁ‬ ‫ל־ה ֲא ָרצוֹת‬ ‫ְצ ִבי ִהיא ְל ָכ ָ‬ ‫‪ 16‬יַ ַﬠן ְבּ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי ָמ ָאסוּ‬ ‫א־ה ְלכוּ ָב ֶהם‬ ‫קּוֹתי ל ֹ ָ‬ ‫ת־ח ַ‬ ‫וְ ֶא ֻ‬ ‫תוֹתי ִח ֵלּלוּ‬ ‫ת־שׁ ְבּ ַ‬ ‫וְ ֶא ַ‬ ‫יהם ִל ָבּם ה ֵֹלְך‬ ‫לּוּל ֶ‬ ‫ִכּי ַא ֲח ֵרי גִ ֵ‬ ‫יהם ִמ ַשּׁ ֲח ָתם‬ ‫‪ 17‬וַ ָתּ ָחס ֵﬠינִ י ֲﬠ ֵל ֶ‬ ‫אוֹתם ָכּ ָלה ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬ ‫יתי ָ‬ ‫א־ﬠ ִשׂ ִ‬ ‫וְ ל ֹ ָ‬

‫‪ 14‬וָ ֶא ֱﬠ ֶשׂה ְל ַמ ַﬠן ְשׁ ִמי‬ ‫ְל ִב ְל ִתּי ֵה ֵחל ְל ֵﬠינֵ י ַהגּוֹיִ ם‬ ‫יהם‬ ‫אתים ְל ֵﬠינֵ ֶ‬ ‫הוֹצ ִ‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ֵ‬

‫א־ה ָלכוּ‬ ‫קּוֹתי ל ֹ ָ‬ ‫ְבּ ֻח ַ‬ ‫וְ ֶא ִ‬ ‫ת־מ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי ָמ ָאסוּ‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר יַ ֲﬠ ֶשׂה א ָֹתם ָה ָא ָדם וָ ַחי ָבּ ֶהם‬ ‫ת־שׁ ְבּת ַֹתי ִה ְלּלוּ ְמאֹד‬ ‫וְ ֶא ַ‬ ‫יהם ְל ַכלּוֹת ַא ִפּי ָבּ ֶהם‬ ‫לּוֹתם וָ א ַֹמר ִל ְשׁפְֹּך ֲח ָמ ִתי ֲﬠ ֵל ֶ‬ ‫יהם ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר ְל ַכ ָ‬ ‫וָ א ַֹמר ִל ְשׁפְֹּך ֲח ָמ ִתי ֲﬠ ֵל ֶ‬ ‫ְבּתוְֹך ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬

‫‪ 9‬וָ ַא ַﬠשׂ ְל ַמ ַﬠן ְשׁ ִמי‬ ‫תוֹכם‬ ‫ר־ה ָמּה ְב ָ‬ ‫ְל ִב ְל ִתּי ֵה ֵחל ְל ֵﬠינֵ י ַהגּוֹיִ ם ֲא ֶשׁ ֵ‬ ‫יהם‬ ‫יהם ְל ֵﬠינֵ ֶ‬ ‫נוֹד ְﬠ ִתּי ֲא ֵל ֶ‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ַ‬ ‫יאם ֵמ ֶא ֶרץ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬ ‫הוֹצ ָ‬ ‫ְל ִ‬

‫א־ה ָלכוּ‬ ‫קּוֹתי ל ֹ ָ‬ ‫ְבּ ֻח ַ‬ ‫ת־מ ְשׁ ָפּ ַטי ל ֹ ָ‬ ‫וְ ֶא ִ‬ ‫אוֹתם‬ ‫א־שׁ ְמרוּ ַל ֲﬠשׂוֹת ָ‬ ‫אוֹתם ָה ָא ָדם וָ ַחי ָבּ ֶהם‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר יַ ֲﬠ ֶשׂה ָ‬ ‫תוֹתי ִח ֵלּלוּ‬ ‫ת־שׁ ְבּ ַ‬ ‫וְ ֶא ַ‬ ‫יהם ְל ַכלּוֹת ַא ִפּי‬ ‫וָ א ַֹמר ִל ְשׁפְֹּך ֲח ָמ ִתי ֲﬠ ֵל ֶ‬ ‫ָבּם ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬ ‫‪ 22‬וַ ֲח ִשׁב ִֹתי ֶאת־יָ ִדי‬ ‫וָ ַא ַﬠשׂ ְל ַמ ַﬠן ְשׁ ִמי‬ ‫ְל ִב ְל ִתּי ֵה ֵחל ְל ֵﬠינֵ י ַהגּוֹיִ ם‬ ‫יהם‬ ‫אוֹתם ְל ֵﬠינֵ ֶ‬ ‫אתי ָ‬ ‫ר־הוֹצ ִ‬ ‫ֵ‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁ‬

‫רוּ־בי ַה ָבּנִ ים‬ ‫‪ 21‬וַ יַּ ְמ ִ‬

‫רוּ־בי ֵבית־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ַבּ ִמּ ְד ָבּר‬ ‫‪ 13‬וַ יַּ ְמ ִ‬

‫רוּ־בי‬ ‫‪ 8‬וַ יַּ ְמ ִ‬ ‫וְ לֹא ָא ִבוּ ִלּ ְשׁמ ַֹע ֵא ַלי‬ ‫יהם לֹא ִה ְשׁ ִליכוּ‬ ‫קּוּצי ֵﬠינֵ ֶ‬ ‫ת־שׁ ֵ‬ ‫ִאישׁ ֶא ִ‬ ‫וְ ֶאת־גִּ ֵ‬ ‫לּוּלי ִמ ְצ ַריִ ם לֹא ָﬠזָ בוּ‬

‫‪verses 18–26‬‬

‫‪verses 10–17‬‬

‫‪verses 5–9‬‬

‫)‪Appendix I (cont.‬‬

110

chapter two Appendix II—Diagram 4: Ezekiel 1–24

section 1–24

subsection 1–7

paragraph 1–3 4–5

6–7 8–19

8–11

12–14

subparagraph 1:1–3:15 3:16–21 3:22–27 4:1–3 4:4–8 4:9–17 5:1–17 6:1–14 7:1–27 8:1–18 9:1–11 10:1–22 11:1–13 11:14–21 11:22–25 12:1–20 12:21–28

15–19

20–24

20–23

24

13:1–16 13:17–23 14:1–11 14:12–23 15:1–8 16:1–63 17:1–24 18:1–32 19:1–14 20:1–44 21:1–37

22:1–16 22:17–22 22:23–31 23:1–49 24:1–14 24:15–27

unit

12:1–16 12:17–20 12:21–25 12:26–28

17:1–10 17:11–21 17:22–24

21:1–12 21:13–22 21:23–32 21:33–37

CHAPTER THREE

CORPORATE PERSONALITY Thoughts on the relationship between a collective and an individual personality have assumed a prominent place in the investigation of Henry Wheeler Robinson. His studies have resulted in the hypothesis of the corporate personality. He presented the fundamental statement of the hypothesis at the Internationale Tagung Alttestamentlicher Forscher in Göttingen (September 4–10, 1935) under the title “The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality.” This was published in a Beiheft of the ZAW (Zeitschrift für die alltestamentliche Wissenschaft) dedicated to this gathering.1 In addition to this fundamental statement in “The Hebrew Conception” he has authored other publications in which this hypothesis is operative and from which appears the prominent relationship between the collective and the individual, constituting a part of his investigations.2 Henry Wheeler Robinson—Life and Work3 Henry Wheeler Robinson was born February 7, 1872 in Northampton, England. He was raised by his mother. At the age of fifteen, circumstances necessitated his leaving school to go to work in the bookkeeping department of a company in Northampton. He was baptized on March 28, 1888, after which he quickly distinguished himself as an excellent Sunday school teacher. Not much later he gave his first sermon in a church service on January 26, 1890 at Moulton. In addition to his work and the activities mentioned he kept studying at an evening school and began to write articles for a local magazine of

1

Robinson 1936. Hereafter: “The Hebrew Conception.” Particularly Robinson 1937 (hereafter: “The Group and the Individual”). This essay, as well as the one dated 1936, may be found in a reissue: Robinson 1981. The 1937 essay offers a balanced picture. Robinson 1936 (59–60 n.2) refers to The Cross of the Servant (London, 1926) as the publication in which he introduced the ‘corporate personality.’ 3 Data is borrowed from Payne 1946 (9–109) and from the preface to the first edition (1964) by Reumann in Robinson 1981 (15–24). 2

112

chapter three

a non-conformist signature.4 Encouraged by friends, Wheeler Robinson began his studies at Regent’s Park College in London in 1890, to be educated for the office of a minister in the Baptist church. Until his death, he remained related to Regent’s Park College. Ten years of study followed, at diverse universities and institutions, both in Great Britain (Regent’s Park College [1890–1891], Edinburgh University [1891–1895, where he received the M.A.], Mansfield College [1895–1898], The Congregational Theological School, Oxford) as well as on the continent, namely at Marburg and Strasbourg (1899), where he studied with Old Testament scholars Karl Budde and Theodor Nöldeke among others. At Mansfield College he studied ‘Hebrew psychology’ with George Buchanan Gray with his dissertation The Psychological Terms of the Hebrews for which he was awarded ‘the Senior Kennicot Hebrew Scholarship at Oxford’ in 1901. Since then a psychological approach characterized his works. In 1900 a call to a Baptist church in Pitlochry in Scotland meant a provisional conclusion of his academic career. Three years later he left for St. Michael’s Baptist Church at Coventry, where he served three years. In those years he spent part time on biblical studies. A series of Bible studies from this period later produced his book The Cross of Job. In 1906, his academic career continued. In 1905 he was asked to teach at Rawdon Baptist College in the vicinity of Leeds, where he began his activities in 1906. About 1914 a teaching position at the University of Leeds was added. Since 1917 he also began to care for a local congregation, because of the declining health of the minister. This was partly possible because of a lack of new students on account of the war. Nevertheless, a continuing stream of publications flowed from his pen in these years, among them The Christian Doctrine of Man (1911) and The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament (1913) which will be discussed in detail in this chapter. Wheeler Robinson exhausted his physical health during this time. Throughout many of these years he gave himself not more than three hours of sleep. This led in 1913 to an almost total collapse. Out of this ordeal grew his lasting attention to the meaning of suffering, which may be discovered in many of his books, beginning with The Cross of Job (1916). In addition, he began to concentrate increasingly on the

4

I.e., not Anglican (Church of England).

corporate personality

113

work of the Holy Spirit. This attention led to his work The Christian Experience of the Holy Spirit (1928). A new demand was made on his time when he was elected Principal of Regent’s Park College in London, where he had commenced his studies thirty years prior. This position offered him the chance to work on the fulfillment of a dream, namely, the establishing of a Baptist theological college in the vicinity of one of the great British universities. In 1926 this dream became reality when the decision was made to move Regent’s Park College to Oxford. In addition to his activities as Old Testament professor at the college, he also became administrator and fundraiser to pay for the move. All of this took place during the period of the great economic depression. In 1927 Wheeler Robinson moved with his family to Oxford. The ten years following he would commute between Oxford and London, so that he could continue to teach in London. In 1938 this terminated when the first stone was laid for the new Regent’s Park College at Oxford (Mansfield College had offered hospitality to Regent’s Park College as long as no place of their own was available). The building was completed at the moment when World War II broke out. According to Ernest Payne, the biographer of Wheeler Robinson, the college at Oxford was his “chief memorial.”5 Since his time as a student, he had maintained an ongoing relationship with German biblical scholars. Thus, after World War I he was chosen to be the representative of the British biblical scholars and to give a contribution to the ZAW to reconnect the associations which had been disrupted by the war. This led in 1923 to his article “The Psychology and Metaphysic of ‘Thus saith Yahweh’” in this journal. This was followed in 1935 by his lecture at the Internationale Tagung Alttestamentlicher Forscher in Göttingen, where he presented his thoughts on the corporate personality. His many tasks did not decrease his literary output, however. The way he began with The Cross of Job was continued in The Cross of Jeremiah (1925) and The Cross of the Servant (1926). He wrote extensively about the question of suffering in Suffering, Human and Divine (1939). In the area of the Old Testament he published The Old Testament (1937) and The History of Israel (1938), both of which were reprinted many times. He also wrote in the area of systematic theology. His last two

5

Payne 1946 (105).

114

chapter three

books witness to this: Redemption in the Actuality of History (1942) and Inspiration and Revelation in the Old Testament (published posthumously in 1946). Besides his own literary output, he devoted much time to editorial work. Between 1927 and 1942 he edited ten volumes of the ‘Library of Constructive Theology’ as co-editor of the series.6 His own work Redemption and Revelation in the Actuality of History (1942) belongs to this series. He also oversaw the volumes of two symposia in this series: Record and Revelation (1938) and The Bible in Its Ancient and English Versions (1940). Record and Revelation was sponsored by ‘The British Society for Old Testament Study’ of which he was president in 1929.7 Wheeler Robinson was remembered by his colleagues and students as a man of solid study, broad intellectual interest and profound piety. Even after his physical collapse in 1913 he remained someone of great diligence, who virtually never took a vacation. The activities within his own church circle were joined for him with participation in ecumenical relations. He made the greatest personal impression on his students by his ‘Saturday morning sermon classes’ and the ‘Friday evening communion services’ which he instituted at Regent’s Park College. In 1942 he was honored with a volume of essays by colleagues and former students on the occasion of his seventieth birthday.8 In the spring of 1942 he bade farewell from the college, though he continued to lecture at Oxford. Three years after his retirement he died, on May 12, 1945. His early death after retirement failed to fulfill one of his dreams, namely, the writing of a theology of the Old Testament.9 The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality10 “In the terminology of English law, ‘corporation’ denotes either ‘a body corporate legally authorized to act as a single individual,’ or ‘an artificial person created by royal charter, prescription, or legislative act, and having the capacity of perpetual succession. Both uses are covered 6

Ibid. 1946 (88); Reumann in Robinson 1981 (18): fifteen. See Robinson, ed. 1938 (503). 8 See Payne, ed. 1942. 9 See id. 1946 (100). 10 The main text of this paragraph is mainly a summarizing compilation of citations and contains the vision of Wheeler Robinson. Clarifying remarks are found in the footnotes. 7

corporate personality

115

by the Hebrew conception of corporate personality.”11 The point of departure is the group. Each group is of course viewed as a unit. “The whole group . . . might function as a single individual through any one of those members conceived as representative of it.”12 “Because it was not confined to the living, but included the dead and the unborn, the group could be conceived as living for ever.”13 This unity of corporate personality cannot be overlooked in its more legal aspects. The Old Testament knows sufficient examples: the results of Achan’s transgression of the ban;14 the expiation of the blood guilt to the house of Saul, because he killed the Gibeonites;15 the practice of Levirate marriage, which points to a unitary group conception;16 the responsibility of an entire city in the case of murder or heathenism;17,18 God’s visitation of the unrighteousness of the fathers to the third and the fourth generation;19 the practice of the blood feud, before it was limited by the lex talionis.20 These examples “presuppose a conception of the family or clan very different from the group ideas of today. Modern man usually starts from the rights of the individual . . . This is in direct opposition to the ancient patria potestas.”21 The Hebrew conception of corporate personality is not only operative in Hebrew justice.22 In justice it is simpler to note, because of the open expression which is given to it. The concept is characterized by four aspects or basic characteristics.23

11

Robinson 1936 (49). Ibid. (49). This is the elaboration of the first aspect of meaning of the term ‘corporation.’ 13 Ibid. (49). This is the elaboration of the second aspect of meaning of the term ‘corporation,’ particularly “the capacity of perpetual succession.” 14 Josh 7. 15 2 Sam 21:1–14. 16 Deut 25:5–10. 17 Deut 21:1–9. 18 Deut 13:12–18. 19 Exod 20:5. 20 Gen 4:15,24; Exod 21:23–25. 21 Robinson 1936 (49–50). 22 Wheeler Robinson understands by ‘Hebrew’ what is expressed today as ‘ancient Israelite.’ That the language (the Hebrew) is also the thought form, is not the leading thought at the basis of the term ‘Hebrew’ with him. In id. 1925 (380–381) he spends summary attention to the relationship between the Hebrew and the Hebrew psychology. He claims that the psychology is applied to the vocabulary and the grammar. Hebrew reflects Hebrew psychology and not the reverse (380): “The style is the man.” 23 For the four citations see id. 1936 (50). 12

116

chapter three

First: “The unity of its extension both into the past and into the future.” Second: “The characteristic ‘realism’ of the conception, which distinguishes it from ‘personification,’ and makes the group a real entity actualized in its members.” Third: “The fluidity of reference, facilitating rapid and unmarked transitions from the one to the many, and from the many to the one.” Fourth: “The maintenance of the corporate idea even after the development of a new individualistic emphasis within it.” The first basic characteristic is the extension of the living family, both into the past and into the future. This may be illustrated by means of the expressions “being gathered to one’s fathers, or going to one’s fathers, or to one’s kindred.”24 Jacob commissions his sons to bury him with his fathers when he dies (Gen 49:29). “The burial in the family sepulchre is the realistic act which unites a man with his ancestors. If he is not properly buried, this unity is not properly achieved.”25 “There is a similar extension of the living group into the future as part of its unity. This is best illustrated by the dominant aspiration of the Hebrew to have male children to perpetuate his name, the name that was so much part of himself that something of him died when his name ceased.”26 “The corporate personality of the family, the clan and the people was conceived realistically as a unity, a unity which made possible the all-important doctrine of election, and lent unity to history itself.”27 With this unity of history such concrete realism is intended, which is evidenced in the unity of the extension of a collective personality in the present, back to the past and toward the future. Realism is named the second basic characteristic. “This realism is itself a characteristic point of difference between ancient and modern ideas. The Hebrew conception is neither a literary personification nor an ideal. It is an instinctive and not a consciously made unification. . . . Pedersen brings that out forcibly when he speaks of the indiָ ) as a manifestation of the type (‫מוֹאב‬ ָ ), “which vidual Moabite (‫מוֹא ִבי‬

24 25 26 27

Gen 15:15; 25:8; 49:29. Ibid. (50). Ibid. (51). He refers to the levirate marriage, see Gen 38:8; Deut 25:5–10. Ibid. (51).

corporate personality

117

is the sum and substance of Moabite features”, acting as a unity and treated as such.”28 “In the light of such considerations, a deeper meaning is given to the detailed individualistic portraiture of such passages as describe the national history through the life-story of the unchaste woman in Ezekiel 16 & 23.”29 The passage in Daniel (7:13,23) is an impressive example. The Son of Man is emphatically identified as the people of the saints of the Most High. Their unity is so realistically conceived, that it may be concentrated in a single representative figure. The unity is based on a blood-tie, actual or fictitious. The group in its unity possesses a consciousness which is shared by its individual members and does not simply exist as a figure of speech or as an ideal.30 In this a connection exists between the concept of collective personality and that of individual personality, as becomes evident in the psychological ideas of the Hebrews. “The personality consisted of a number of bodily organs animated by a breath-soul and each possessing a diffused and distributed psychical and ethical quality.”31 This concept of the individual personality agrees exactly with the idea concerning the unity of the group. “Indeed we may generalize to the extent of saying that there is usually a close parallelism between the psychology of the individual and the concept of society which prevails in any age.”32 Fluidity is the third basic characteristic of the hypothesis. “The fluidity of transition from the individual to the society and vice versa can be most easily illustrated from levels of consciousness far below those of the Old Testament, and especially from totemistic groups.”33 For the primitive spirit it is possible to think simultaneously about the individual within the collective and on the collective within the individual. Each individual is simultaneously a living person, an ancestral

28

Ibid. (51–52). He refers to Pedersen 1926 (109). Robinson 1936 (52). An other example in which he recognizes this pattern is Isa 54. 30 But which is therefore realistic. 31 Ibid. (52). 32 See ibid. (52). For the origin of these psychological ideas of the Hebrews see id. 1944 (ix) and id. 1981 (20–21): “Hebrew Psychology in Relation to Pauline Anthropology” in Mansfield College Essays (1909) (265–286); The Christian Doctrine of Man (1911); The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament (1913); “Hebrew Psychology” (1925). The connection which he notes between the concept of collective personality and individual personality is loosely connected with his thoughts on the realism of the corporate personality, which precede. 33 Id. 1936 (53). He uses here ‘Old Testament’ for ‘ancient Israelite society.’ 29

118

chapter three

person (human or half-human) and his totem.34 “He is his totem, i.e. he participates mystically in the essence of the animal or vegetable species of which he bears the name.”35 “It is not suggested that the Hebrews passed through a totemistic stage, but simply that such absence of the sharp antitheses familiar to us is psychologically possible. But if so, then transitions from the one to the many and from the many to the one were much easier for them than for us.”36 “In all the generations there is this interplay of sociality and individuality, for they both belong essentially to our human nature. But in the ancient world they were much more closely and subtly blended than in the more self-conscious modern, and so it was possibly to combine both, or to pass easily from one to the other.”37 The final and fourth basic characteristic relates to a larger emphasis on the individual within the corporate. “[I]t is quite wrong to place the individualism of Jeremiah and Ezekiel in direct antithesis to the group conception which had hitherto prevailed. The group conception still remained dominant, notwithstanding the extreme consequences as to moral and religious responsibility which Ezekiel draws from his individualistic emphasis.”38 “We only have to think of this version of a restored and regenerated community to see this.”39 This was also the case with his forerunner, Jeremiah. “The prophecy of the New Covenant stands for the multiplication of the prophet’s own consciousness of God, when all the Lord’s people shall be prophets; yet it is a covenant with Israel as a nation.”40

34 For this he refers to L. Lévy-Bruhl. Les Fonctions mentales dans les sociétés inférieures, Paris, 1910 (English translation: L. A. Clare, How Natives Think, New York, 1926). 35 Robinson 1936 (53): translation of Lévy-Bruhl 1951 (94) on ‘la loi de participation’ (Robinson 1936 [53]: “the law of participation”) which he defines (76) as “le principe propre de la mentalité ‘primitive’ qui régit les liaisons et les préliaisons de ces représentations.” See Lévy-Bruhl 1951 (68–110) on ‘la loi de participation.’ 36 Robinson 1936 (53) does not want to suggest a ‘totemistic stage’ with the Hebrews, but the suggestion remains present, because, with the help of Lévy-Bruhl’s insights, of which the totem is a part, he wishes to support the fluidity of the corporate personality. 37 Ibid. (54). This argumentation from the generality demonstrates likeness with the one by which he closes the discussion of realism. 38 Ibid. (54). He refers to Ezek 18 (54 n.1) for the individualistic emphasis. 39 Ibid. (54). He refers to Ezek 37 and 40–48 (54 n.2). 40 Ibid. (54). For the New Covenant he refers to Jer 31:31–34 (54 n.30).

corporate personality

119

“The later development of the eschatology shows that the complete destiny of the individual can be realized only if the nation accomplishes its own.”41 This is likewise valid for Judaism. “The individualizing development takes place within the matrix of a social relation to God.”42 “On the other hand, it is equally wrong to emphasize the social relation in the earlier period to the point of neglecting the fact of individual religion and morality.”43 When a prophet addresses the people, he has every Israelite in mind. With Jeremiah it is clear that “the new individualism was a product of the individual religious experience of the prophets, which must inevitably lead them to individualize within the collective mass which they formally address.”44 The application of these four general aspects of the collective personality, which are supposed to influence the entire relationship of the Israelites to each other and to God, cannot be treated exhaustively. Three outstanding types of application must suffice, all of which are of great significance for exegesis. First: “The representation of the nation by some outstanding figure belonging to it.” Second: “The individual-collective nature of the ‘I’ of the Psalms and of the ‘Songs of the Servant of Yahweh.’ ” Third: “The character and content of Hebrew morality as the right relation of individual members of the groups to one another.”45 The first type of application is the representation of a corporation in an outstanding figure belonging to it. “The conception throws light on the peculiar prominence of individual personalities both in the making of Hebrew history and in the development of Hebrew religion. At first sight, this may seem a paradox, when we are stressing the community sense. Yet it is a paradox only in appearance. Where the corporate sense is strong, the outstanding man will gather to himself the force of

41

Ibid. (54). Ibid. (54). He refers (54 n.6) to O. Eissfeldt, Einleiting in das Alte Testament, Tübingen, 1934. “Even the late individualism of Job passes easily into the universal experience of suffering, and shows what Eissfeldt calls ‘die kollektivistische Verhaftung des jüdischen Individuums.’ ” See Eissfeldt 1976 (629). 43 Robinson 1936 (54). This is the period of the former prophets. He does not indicate which prophets he has in mind. 44 Ibid. (54–55). 45 For the three types of application see ibid. (55). 42

120

chapter three

the whole group.”46 The patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are clear examples. “Hebrew thought refers with equal facility to a representative individual or to the group he represents.”47 King, priest and prophet may be viewed in this light. “The principles of prophetic “symbolism” enabled a prophet to see the corporate significance of the individual.”48 The higher purpose of any group is always expressed by a minority within it, sometimes a minority of one.”49 “Yet the one or two remain the representatives of the group for the time being.”50 The explanation of the ‘I’ of the Psalms and of the Servant of the Lord constitutes the second type of application of the corporate personality. The “discussion of corporate personality bears on the much debated question of the ‘I’ of the Psalms and of the Servant of Yahweh.”51 In the discussion about the ‘I’ of the Psalms, “the conception of corporate personality removes the sharp antithesis between the collective and the individual views. The fluidity of the conception of corporate personality” anticipates an adequate explanation,52 among others for the changes from ‘I’ to ‘we’ and vice versa.53 “All that has been said about the ‘I’ of the Psalms of course applies to the even more keenly debated question as to the identity of ‘the Servant of Yahweh’ in Deutero-Isaiah.”54 Do not the many visions suggest “that the central issue, that between a collective and an individualistic interpretation is being argued on an antithesis true to modern, but false to ancient modes of thought?”55 “The fluidity of the conception of corporate personality” makes possible the transitions of collective to 46

Ibid. (55). Ibid. (56). This is a citation from S. A. Cook, Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. III, New York, 1925 (493). 48 Robinson 1936 (56). An example is Hosea’s marriage with Gomer (56): “Gomer in both her sin and her anticipated repentance is the nation of which it is an actual sample & an epitomizing and representative unit.” 49 Ibid. (56). Again, a generalizing conclusion. 50 Ibid. (56). The example par excellence is the contrast between Adam and Christ in 1 Cor 15:22 (57). 51 Ibid. (57). 52 Ibid. (57) turns here against H. Gunkel who claims “that it is psychologically impossible for ‘I’ of the poet to pass into the ‘I’ of the community.” Ibid. (57–58): “It is not psychologically impossible in view of the examples given, and a similar use underlies the undeniable applications of Hebrew law. Moreover, the view we have presented is neither allegory nor personification, but a primitive category of thought which is very different from our own antithesis of the collective and the individual.” 53 Ps 44:5–8 shows similar changes. 54 Ibid. (58). 55 Ibid. (58). 47

corporate personality

121

individual and vice versa, without the text explaining it or indicating it. In the light of the collective personality, the servant as well as the prophet himself may represent the entire people.56 The third type of application relates to Hebrew morality. In the area of Hebrew morality the collective personality is active within the group in the relation to the members of the group vis-à-vis each other. “Ethical thoughts are at least implicit in the group-idea, for the social group protected its poor and weak members—provided the group sentiment was strong.”57 The ethical perspective of the Hebrews derives from their nomadic period. This nomadic trait is recognizable in the classic summary of the prophetic ethics: “to do justice and to love mercy.”58 “If ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬stands for the original element of tribal custom, ‫ ֶח ֶסד‬represents that mingling of duty and love which springs directly from the conception of common ties, and expands to include and regulate the conception of Yahweh’s relation to Israel, so uniting morality and religion as the most characteristic feature of all Israel’s development. We do not exaggerate when we say that Hebrew morality, and consequently Christian morality, are what they are because they sprang up within a society dominated by the principle of corporate personality.”59 “If the argument of this paper is sound, its theme is of considerable importance for the interpretation of the Old Testament, and deserves more attention than it has received.”60 Again and again we need to remind ourselves “to get back from our own modern standpoint to that more corporate and social view of things which is so striking a feature of the Old Testament.”61 The Group and the Individual in Israel The second central essay by Wheeler Robinson, in which the hypothesis of the corporate personality dominates, is of a somewhat later date 56 For the four songs see ibid. (59–60), closing with the words (60): “The double motif, i.e., the national mission and the individual vocation, is thus carried through to the end, and it is made possible for Hebrew thought by the reconciling principle of corporate personality.” 57 Ibid. (60) here cites S. A. Cook, Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. III (439). 58 Robinson 1936 (61) refers to Mic 6:8 (61 n.4): ‫ ֲﬠשׂוֹת ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט וְ ַא ֲה ַבת ֶח ֶסד‬. 59 Ibid. (61). 60 Ibid. (61). 61 Ibid. (62).

122

chapter three

than his contribution to the Internationale Tagung Alttestamentlicher Forscher discussed above. This second essay dates from 1936 and was first published in 1937.62 Unlike the above presentation of the hypothesis in which Wheeler Robinson himself is speaking, this paragraph contains aspects of “The Group and the Individual,” which clarify the presentation of the hypothesis. After three general considerations, he continues with the treatment of the subject. The three previous considerations verbalize basic characteristics of the corporate personality. “The first is that there can never be any ultimate and exclusive antithesis” between the group and the individual.63 “The second point is that there was much more fluidity in the ancient conception of both the group and the individual.”64 “The third point is that in the interpretation of the contemporary social order, the individual tends to project his own idea of himself.”65,66 The first point of discussion is the primary place of the group, in which the first and second considerations return. Wheeler Robinson here reaches back to “The Hebrew Conception” with particular attention to the concept of ‘covenant.’ The tendency of this first point is best conceived in his own words: “Yahweh is always the covenanted God of Israel.”67 The covenant is made by God with the people and not with individual Israelites. The group occupies the primary place in thought,68 without denying the role of the individual.69 The second point of discussion is the emerging of the individual through the prophetic consciousness. Wheeler Robinson further devel-

62

See note 2. Robinson 1937 (153). This is the individualism of the corporate personality. 64 Ibid. (154). This is the fluidity of the corporate personality. 65 Ibid. (154): “Indeed, it often seems that it is the psychology of an age which shapes its sociology.” Hebrew psychology started with “an animated body, each of its members having psychical and ethical qualities.” In agreement with this psychology, Hebrew society characterizes itself as an essentially democratic society, which is very conscious of the fact that each member has his own rights. This is the realism of the corporate personality. 66 The first named aspect of the corporate personality, namely the extension toward both the past and the future, he omits here. 67 Ibid. (162). 68 Ibid. (161) illustrates this with the Song of Deborah in Judg 5 and the Servant Songs in Isaiah (Isa 42:1–4; 49:1–6; 50:4–9; 52:13–53:12). Ibid. (160): “In both there is the unitary conception of the corporate personality of Israel.” 69 Ibid. (161): “In both Songs, the individual has, of course, his place.” 63

corporate personality

123

ops ‘individualism’ in this discussion.70 Where the role of the individual is not denied in the first point of the discussion, he directs attention here to the role of the individual within the larger whole. The prophets were pioneers in the area of a richer feeling of individual personality. They could be this on the basis of their religious experience, by which they understood themselves as standing both in an individual relationship with God and in a relationship with the people. The individual calling of the prophet is the point of departure for “the process by which the prophet came to reflect the thought and feeling of God exalting him into a new consciousness of individual worth to God.”71 The personal relationship of the prophet to God becomes the model for the individual Israelite, even if the message of the prophet is directed to the people. The development of this thought of individualizing in Jeremiah leads to the ‘New Covenant,’ which is intended to be individualized and internalized in contrast to all previous covenants, which were national and were expressed in external design. The key text of this concept is Jer 31:31–34. It remains a covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. This covenant is established by means of a new and deeper relationship of God with each member of the house. In Ezekiel a comparable thought occurs in Ezek 36:26–27. The point of culmination of this development of individualization lies in Ezek 18: “This new individualization of the relation of Israel to God is confirmed by the fact that Ezekiel (xviii) proclaims individual moral responsibility in sharper terms than anyone before him. ‘The soul that sinneth, it shall die’—not others also, as the older conception of corporate personality had demanded from Achan’s family (Josh. vii.24ff.).”72 He presupposes that the prophets hoped for a democratizing of their own relationship with God. For this thought he points to Num 11:29: “Would that all the LORD’s people were prophets!” and Joel 2:28: “It shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh.” With these thoughts regarding the hope of the prophets he connected with the third consideration in which he points to the essential democratic character of Hebrew society.

70 The individualism of the corporate personality to which the first remark of this essay refers. 71 Ibid. (163). 72 Ibid. (165).

124

chapter three

In the third point of his discussion he discusses the ongoing development of this religious individualism within the group consciousness that is still present. Both Judaism and Christianity he calls a synthesis between the aspect of religious individualism and group consciousness. For the understanding of the corporate personality this third point does not provide any new viewpoints. The most important contribution to the understanding of the corporate personality is provided in this essay by the second point of the discussion, in which he examines the rise of individualism within group consciousness as a result of the role of prophets with their experiences of an individual relationship, which God has entered with them. Background and Sources of the Hypothesis of the Corporate Personality In tracing the backgrounds and sources of the hypothesis of the corporate personality two approaches may be followed. The first is one in which there are references and citations by Wheeler Robinson himself in the fundamental publications on the corporate personality. This includes both references to the work of others and of himself. The second is that of thoughts, which he verbalizes without explicit references. This relates particularly to his own insights, which refer to Hebrew psychology.73 Both methods furnish a more complete picture of the hypothesis and will be discussed further. References and Citations The hypothesis of the corporate personality is indeed the central content of “The Hebrew Conception” of 1935 (published in 1936) and the leading thought in “The Group and the Individual” of 1936 (published in 1937); however, the hypothesis is itself of an earlier date. In this he is supported by the work of others in his development of the hypothesis. In “The Hebrew Conception” he refers to the sources from which he has drawn for the formulation of his hypothesis. He also points to the writing, in which he has presented the hypothesis, namely The

73

See note 32. Specific for Wheeler Robinson’s thought, see id. 1981 (20–21).

corporate personality

125

Cross of the Servant of 1926.74 “The Group and the Individual” hardly contains any references and none of them refer to the backgrounds of the reigning hypothesis. The reason for this absence must be sought in the nature of the essay. It is the transcript of a lecture to Oxford undergraduates. For the tracing of backgrounds and sources of the hypothesis the references in “The Hebrew Conception” form a useful point of departure. The four basic characteristics of the hypothesis are in part founded by Wheeler Robinson on the work of others.75 For the foundation of the extension, he uses the work of Pedersen as explication of his own thoughts.76 With realism he refers again to the work of Pedersen and to the introduction to the Old Testament by Eissfeldt.77 For fluidity Wheeler Robinson chiefly refers to the work of Lévy-Bruhl and Durkheim, who have made a special study of the group concept in the primitive mentality, with reference to the Australian aborigines.78,79 What he calls the fluidity, Lévy-Bruhl labels “the law of participation.”80 In the elaboration of the individualism reference is made again to Eissfeldt for the support of his own view.81 In the application of the hypothesis, in the first example of the representation Wheeler Robinson reaches back to his own work,82 and that of

74 Id. 1936 (59–60 n.3): “I am in general agreement with his (O. Eissfeldt’s—JM) argument, which makes use of corporate personality similar to that outlined above, but independently of my book, ‘The Cross of the Servant’ (1926), in which it was presented.” 75 Not all cited authors are listed, only those who are of importance for the line of argumentation of the hypothesis. Bibliographical data of the references have been compiled from id. 1981. 76 Id. 1936 (50 n.4): Pedersen 1926. 77 Robinson 1936 (52 n.2): O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Tübingen, 1934. 78 Robinson 1936 (53 n.1): L. Lévy-Bruhl, Les Fonctions mentales dans les sociétés inférieures, Paris, 1910 (English translation: L. A. Clare, How Natives Think, New York, 1926). 79 Robinson 1936 (53 n.2): E. Durkheim, Les Formes Élémentaires de la Vie Religieuse, Paris, 1912 (English translation: J. W. Swain, The Elementary Form of Religious Life, London, 1915). 80 Robinson 1936 (53). See E. W. Müller, “Lévy-Bruhl, Lucien,” RGG3 4:340: “Wichtig in seiner Lehre ist die ‘participation mystique’, die totale oder partielle Identität zwischen Personen und Dingen, die bewirkt, daß ‘primitive’ Vorstellungen nicht nur den bezeichneten Gegenstand, sondern auch eine größere mystische Einheit bedeuten. Die Partizipation wird zB im ¬ Totemismus wirksam.” 81 Robinson 1936 (54 n.6): O. Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 82 Robinson 1936 (55 n.5): id. The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament, London, 1913 (20–21). Id. 1956 has the same pagination.

126

chapter three

Cook.83 In the first half of the second example on the ‘I’ of the Psalms, he refers to a selection of authors to formulate the discussion without making use of their arguments. In the second half of this example on the Servant of the Lord he returns to his own work, in which he presented the application of the corporate personality.84 He refers to Eissfeldt here, whose vision is comparable.85 In the third example he first refers to Cook,86 then to T. H. Robinson,87 whose words he illustrates with a citation by C. M. Doughty.88 Of the authors mentioned by Wheeler Robinson in his argumentation, it is true in most cases that he refers to them in order to illustrate his own viewpoint in their words. Actually, he only relies on the work of others in a single case. This refers to the work of Pedersen in reference to the extension and the realism. It pertains particularly to the work of Lévy-Bruhl and to a lesser degree to Durkheim in reference to the fluidity. For the individualism, Lévy-Bruhl and Durkheim are of indirect importance, because it relies on the fluidity.89 In the application of his hypothesis, Wheeler Robinson relies predominantly on his own work, particularly The Cross of the Servant, while utilizing the thoughts of Cook. According to Wheeler Robinson, the comparable ideas of Eissfeldt relative to the use of the idea of corporate personality are independent of his.90 When Wheeler Robinson cites the work of Pedersen, he thereby relates to a specific movement in the study of the Old Testament, the so-called ‘cult-historical school,’ with its Scandinavian branch, which

83

Id. 1936 (56 n.2): S. A. Cook, Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. III. Robinson 1936 (59–60 n.2): id. The Cross of the Servant, London, 1926. 85 Id. (59–60 n.2): Eissfeldt 1933, translated in English as “The Ebed-Jahwe in Isaiah xl.-lv. in the Light of Israelite Conceptions of the Community and the Individual, the Ideal and the Real,” The Expository Times 44 (1933), 261–268. 86 Robinson 1936 (60 n.4): S. A. Cook, Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. III. 87 Robinson 1936 (61 n.3): T. H. Robinson, Palestine in General History (Schweich Lectures for 1926), Oxford, 1929. 88 Robinson 1936 (61 n.5): C. M. Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta, I-II, Cambridge, 1888. In id. 1937 (155) he also refers to this work by Doughty, “which describes the little-changed Bedouins of the nineteenth century.” 89 Id. 1936 (54) the description of individualism commences thus: “In accordance with this general principle . . .,” namely the ‘fluidity’ described previously. 90 In Eissfeldt 1933 the influence of Wheeler Robinson is present. Eissfeldt refers to Robinson 1925 and to The Cross of the Servant of 1926. Additionally Eissfeldt (13 nn.1,2) also refers to Pedersen, Cook, Lévy-Bruhl (“Gesetz der Partizipation”) and Durkheim. Wheeler Robinson’s ideas relative to this theme are indeed independent of those of Eissfeldt. 84

corporate personality

127

is also known as the ‘Uppsala School.’91 In his investigation, Pedersen makes use of the ‘cult-historical method,’ which is characterized by an anti-individualistic sociological feature.92 This anti-individualistic tendency is present in the passages which Wheeler Robinson cites from the work of Pedersen. Pedersen’s main work, from which Wheeler Robinson quotes, is further characterized as a psychological interpretation of the Israelite traditions,93 in which the concepts ‘soul’ and ‘holiness’ are central.94 These concepts are fundamental to the thinking of primitives, the nature peoples. In Pedersen’s opinion the thought of ancient Israel finds itself still totally in this framework.95 Wheeler Robinson particularly utilizes Pedersen’s thoughts pertaining to the ‘soul.’ The psychological approach of Pedersen’s work joins Wheeler Robinson with the sociological approach, which is part of the ‘cult-historical method,’ when he says: “Indeed we may generalize to the extent of saying that there is usually a close parallelism between the psychology of the individual and the conception of society which prevails in any age.”96 The sociological aspect is carried further by Wheeler Robinson in the use of the work of Lévy-Bruhl and Durkheim, in which they studied the thought of primitive peoples.97 The main theme of the sociology of Durkheim is the sociological structuring and the relationship of the individual to it.98 Though the main theme of Durkheim’s sociology appears to connect seamlessly with Wheeler-Robinson’s questioning, he principally cites the work of Lévy-Bruhl. This is the case because Lévy-Bruhl principally investigated the primitives.99 The work of Durkheim, in which he develops the main theme of his sociology, relates

91

See C. Westermann, “Kultgeschichtliche Schule,” RGG3 4:93–94. See G. Lanczkowski, “Kultgeschichtliche Methode,” RGG3 4:90. 93 See A. S. Kapelrud, “Pedersen, 2. Johannes,” RGG3 5:204. 94 Kraus 1982 (406–407): “Es stehen also die Begriffe ‘Seele’ und ‘Heiligkeit’ im Mittelpunkt.” 95 Ibid. (407): “Für Pedersen ruht die Anschauung Altisraels . . . noch ganz und gar im Denken der Primitiven, also der Naturvölker.” 96 Robinson 1936 (52). Cf. id. 1937 (154). 97 Pedersen 1926 (514, 521) uses the same works of Lévy-Bruhl and Durkheim. 98 See N. Birnbaum, “Durkheim, Émile,” RGG3 2:293; H. Knoblauch, “Durkheim, Émile.” RGG4 2:1033. 99 Müller, RGG3 4:340: “Moralphilosophische Arbeiten brachten L.-B. zur Beschäftigung mit dem Denken der »Primitiven«.” 92

128

chapter three

to his own time and society.100 “Lévy-Bruhl tried to show that primitive people think in categories that are fundamentally different from those of modern Westerners, and insisted that one could not understand anything about primitive society without taking cognizance of this difference on the cognitive level.”101 The study of primitives, as was done particularly by Lévy-Bruhl, was extrapolated by Wheeler-Robinson to Hebrew society: “[I]t may remind us always to get back from our own modern standpoint to that more corporate and social view of things which is so striking a feature of the Old Testament.”102 The influence of Pedersen and Lévy-Bruhl (and Durkheim) for the formulation of the hypothesis of the corporate personality lies particularly in their conceptions regarding the psychology and sociology of primitives and the connection between them. In the case of Pedersen, Wheeler Robinson agrees with the extrapolation of the conceptions to Hebrew society. In the case of Lévy-Bruhl (and Durkheim), Wheeler Robinson applies an extrapolation of these conceptions to Hebrew society. The insights of Pedersen and Lévy-Bruhl (and Durkheim) are of fundamental importance for Wheeler Robinson in the foundation of the basic characteristics of the corporate personality. In the applications of the hypothesis, of which Wheeler Robinson gives three examples, he continues to build on his own work; particularly The Cross of the Servant (1926) mentioned a number of times.103 In the Preface he notes that he will use “the ancient idea of corporate personality” to clarify the topic of the lectures—the Suffering Servant Songs from Isaiah—which this book reproduces.104

100 In Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse of 1912, Durkheim conducted complete extensive research of totemism among the Australian aborigines (see Durkheim 1960 [141–237]). Wheeler Robinson refers to this work. 101 Berger and Berger 1976 (379). See Lévy-Bruhl 1951 (1) for the point of departure of his investigation. 102 Robinson 1936 (62), the last words of “The Hebrew Conception.” Eissfeldt 1933 (13–14 n.2) extrapolates in the same manner. 103 The text which is used derives from a compilation of three works, which together formed a trilogy. After The Cross of Job of 1916 and The Cross of Jeremiah of 1925, this is the third book. These three have been bundled together in The Cross in the Old Testament. The Cross of the Servant is included in this bundle as the second main part: Robinson 1965 (55–114). Though appendices and bibliographies from the original editions are not included in this volume, the references and the footnotes offer a sufficient grasp to trace the provenance of the thoughts and arguments. 104 Ibid. (57), The Cross of the Servant contains three lectures, which were given in 1926 at Regent’s Park College in London.

corporate personality

129

In the treatment of the question as to the identity of the Servant, whether he is an individual or a group (a part of the people or the entire nation), Wheeler Robinson points to the psychological distinction between “Westerners and moderns” and the fact “that we are reading a Semitic and Oriental book, written when life was much more concrete and picturesque, and by people to whom our abstract methods of thought and presentation were impossible.”105 He discusses the vision, in which the group is seen as the identity of the servant.106 The question as to the scope of the group remains open still: is this about a part of the people or the entire nation? In his opinion, a careful reading produces two distinct ideas on the servant. He says: “In view, therefore, of these considerable differences in the two ideas of the Servant, it is not unreasonable to argue that whilst Deutero-Isaiah is beyond question referring to the whole of Israel in the rest of the poems, he or some other author in the four Songs of the Servant has in view some smaller group of higher religious quality than the mass of the nation, and capable of being to some degree distinguished from it.”107 He subsequently posits that the sharp distinction between the two ideas in the thinking of Israel does not need to be felt in the same manner as in our thinking. He then questions “whether there is not some category of earlier thought which enables us to transcend it. Such a line of thought, it is here claimed, may be found in the ancient idea of corporate personality.”108 The idea of the corporate personality is a fruit of the discipline of comparative religion according to Wheeler Robinson. It is the positive formulation of what Mozley declared to be a didactic accommodation to lacking insight as to individual personality, which characterized the time of the Old Testament. Mozley described this as “the defective sense of individuality” while Wheeler Robinson deemed it more correct to formulate this positively as “the idea of corporate personality.”109 As a description of corporate personality,

105

Ibid. (71). See ibid. (70–75). 107 Ibid. (75). 108 Ibid. (76). 109 The insight of J. B. Mozley was published in 1877 in Ruling Ideas in Early Ages and their Relation to Old Testament Faith. Lectures delivered to Graduates of the University of Oxford, London, 1877, see Robinson 1965 (76). For Wheeler Robinson’s positive formulation see id. 1947a (8). His use of ‘corporate personality’ is older than he indicates himself in id. 1936 (59–60 n.2), where he refers to The Cross of the Servant of 1926. Mozley and Wheeler Robinson were influenced by Maine, who refers in Ancient 106

130

chapter three

Wheeler Robinson cites the words of MacIver: “To the primitive man the group is all. He finds himself in the group, but he never finds himself. He is not a personality, but one of the bearers of a type-personality. He is summed up in the group, the clan or the tribe.”110 This view of MacIver, particularly the thought that someone is not a personality, but one of the bearers of a ‘type-personality,’ is comparable to the vision of Pedersen relative to the individual Moabite as manifestation of the type.111 Wheeler Robinson uses the vision of Pedersen to support the extension and the realism of the corporate personality in “The Hebrew Conception” and has his forerunner in the work of MacIver. He illustrates the thought of MacIver with research that was done on the totemism among aborigines in Central Australia. In this he appeals to the work of Lévy-Bruhl: Les Fonctions mentales dans les sociétés inférieures. The citations are the same as the ones quoted later in “The Hebrew Conception.”112 The fundamental significance of this aspect of the work of Lévy-Bruhl (‘the law of participation’) for Wheeler Robinson is thus emphasized. In addition it shows that the fluidity actually assumes the most important place in the corporate personality: “there is a fluidity of conception, a possibility of swift transition from the one to the many and vice versa.”113 Wheeler Robinson applies this thought to the question of the identity of the Servant: he is both the people and the individual, namely the prophet.114 “But the sense of corporate personality takes us deeper than the Semitic love for individual detail, and brings us to a point of view from which it is conceivable that the prophet’s mind held together what we can only regard as distinct.”115 The two aspects in the identity of the Servant, who is both the people and the prophet,

Law to the relationship between an individual and a group in a primitive community; see e.g. Maine 1977 (108); derived from Rogerson 1970 (3–4). 110 Robinson 1965 (76). Cf. MacIver 1970 (332). 111 See Pedersen 1926 (109). 112 Robinson 1936 (53), among others ‘the law of participation.’ Lévy-Bruhl bases ‘the law of participation’ among others on the research of Spencer and Gillen (B. Spencer and F. J. Gillen, The Native Tribes of Central Australia, London, 1899; B. Spencer and F. J. Gillen, The Northern Tribes of Central Australia, London, 1904), which they did of the aborigines in Australia. Robinson 1965 (76) cites the work of Spencer and Gillen also, as does Durkheim 1960. 113 Robinson 1965 (77). 114 Wheeler Robinson also points to the problem of the ‘I’ of the Psalms, see ibid. (78), which he further develops in id. 1936 (57–58). 115 Id. 1965 (78).

corporate personality

131

are in the consciousness of the prophet as systole and diastole,116 as ebb and high tide, by which the thought dominates that “the Servant is Israel.”117,118 The thought of the emergence of the individual through the prophetic consciousness, which is the second point discussed in “The Group and the Individual,” is prepared in the discussion of the identity of the Servant: “The sense of endowment and equipment for the prophetic office, which is exhibited in the Songs, is essentially an individual experience, though he who has it will always be moved to cry, ‘Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets!’ (Num. xi. 29).”119 The second point of discussion in “The Group and the individual” is indeed a clarification of the hypothesis of the corporate personality at the point of individuality within the consciousness of the group, as it is present here in nuce. In his discussion of the suffering of the Servant, Wheeler Robinson applies the corporate personality. The suffering of the individual, as e.g. in the Fourth Song, or of individuals, is ascribed to the nation as a whole, in its corporate personality.120 He equates this corporate personality to “social solidarity.”121 Because a person belonged to a family, a clan or a nation, it was understood that he commiserated with his family, clan or nations. The results of this ‘social solidarity’ were discussed because of the rise of the new individualism, which is outlined by Jeremiah and Ezekiel, thus Wheeler Robinson. Here is introduced the individualism of the corporate personality in principle. The rise of the new individualism was joined by a deepening of moral consciousness, which could transform the “social solidarity or the natural order” whereby it acquired a moral significance, namely the meaning of the suffering self.122 Wheeler Robinson illustrates this with the Maccabean martyrs: “Their suffering is through, with, and for Israel.”123 The same

116

This comparison also in id. 1937 (154). Id. 1965 (79). 118 In Wheeler Robinson’s concept as to the identity of the Servant, a slight movement may be noted, which may be expressed as follows: “The Servant, that is, the nation as represented by the prophet . . .” becomes “The Servant can be both the prophet himself as representative of the nation, and the nation . . .” While in 1926 ‘the nation’ precedes in the formulation, see id. 1965 (83, 89, 98), in 1935 ‘the prophet’ stands first, see id. 1936 (59). Italics added. 119 Id. 1965 (79). He cites the same text from Numbers in id. 1937 (165). 120 See id. 1965 (83). 121 Ibid. (83). The term ‘social solidarity’ returns in id. 1936 (56). 122 Id. 1965 (84). 123 Ibid. (84). He used this example also in id. 1936 (56). 117

132

chapter three

acceptance of ‘social solidarity’ is present in the songs of the Servant, which are however not limited to Israel only, but which refer to the whole world.124 He expands the group concept of the corporate personality to include the whole world that it may provide room for the thought of the vicarious suffering of the Servant for the sins of the world.125 Here he points to Cook of whose thoughts he also makes use in “The Hebrew Conception.”126 In the sequel of The Cross of the Servant, Wheeler Robinson does not introduce any (additional) thoughts which he used later with the formulation of the hypothesis in “The Hebrew Conception” or “The Group and the Individual.” Underlying Thoughts Not all preliminary stages of the hypothesis of the corporate personality may be retrieved by way of references and citations. Frequently Wheeler Robinson refers to his own thoughts from earlier works without naming them explicitly. This is particularly the case with Hebrew psychology. Another obvious aspect, where he refers back to his own thoughts, is the third type of application of the corporate personality, namely the character and content of Hebrew morality. Both aspects, psychology and ethics, are not strictly separated in his work, so that in the discussion of psychology, ethics is also heard. A third aspect, which is further illuminated from his earlier work, is the rise of the individual within the group and individualism within group consciousness. This aspect is closely related to ethics. Hebrew Psychology Fundamental thoughts behind the hypothesis may be found in Wheeler Robinson’s investigation in the psychology of the Hebrews. The thesis “that there is usually a close parallelism between the psychology of the individual and the conception of society which prevails in any age,”127 points unmistakably to the prominent place of the psychological line

124

See id. 1965 (84). Later he develops this thought in the direction of Jesus. See ibid. (98–114). 126 Wheeler Robinson cites S. A. Cook, The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. III (491–492), see Robinson 1965 (85). In id. 1936 (56) the same reference is found. 127 Ibid. (52). 125

corporate personality

133

of approach. Investigation of the psychology of the Hebrews is clearly seen in his scholarly work,128 which relates him e.g. to Pedersen and Lévy-Bruhl (and Durkheim), as was shown above. For him, the valid point of departure is: “We interpret the Hebrew idea of ‘soul’ from parallel ideas about the breath-soul amongst primitive people.”129 This interpretation is the Hebrew psychology, whereby should be noted, that “it means . . . that branch of anthropology which interprets the ideas held about human personality.”130 This psychology is therefore of eminent importance for the understanding of the concept of corporate personality, since the “human personality” is the object of its investigation. This anthropological approach is underlined in the description of the realism of the corporate personality.131 This is one of the basic characteristics whereby Wheeler Robinson agrees with the vision of Pedersen. In his point of departure Wheeler Robinson formulates expressly, that there appears to be a large measure of agreement between the primitive peoples of the ancient and the modern world.132 He views Israel as one of the primitive peoples of the ancient world, at least as regards the “idea of man.”133 The Old Testament contains “the primitive Semitic idea of man [that] seems to have been very much like that which we find amongst other primitive peoples, of the ancient or of the modern world.”134 These presuppositions, namely that no essential difference exists in the conception about man between primitive peoples of the ancient and modern world, and that Israel may be viewed as a primitive people of the ancient world, regarding the conception of man, offer him space in the formulation of the hypothesis to make use of the work of Lévy-Bruhl and Durkheim. On these presuppositions he bases the possibility of

128

During his study he has kept busy with the psychology of the Hebrews. Based on id. 1925 a sketch follows of the fundamental significance of his concepts on Hebrew psychology for the formulation of the corporate personality. Id. 1947a and id. 1956 (both published before 1935) will be cited to show how the psychological line of approach is a constant in his work and which line runs through his work on this point. 129 Id. 1925 (353). 130 Ibid. (353). 131 See id. 1936 (51–53). 132 See id. 1956 (77–101), id. 1925 (353), and id. 1947a (6, 8–9 [with reference to Spencer and Gillen], 45). 133 Id. 1925 (353). 134 Ibid. (353).

134

chapter three

extrapolating the results of the investigation of Lévy-Bruhl particularly to Hebrew society. The characteristic of ‘the primitive Semitic idea of man’ is the absence of a separation between the psychic and ethical functions of man and the physical. The psychic and ethical functions are seen as just as much a part of the physical organs as are the physiological.135 This produced the result that the consciousness of man, with his ethical qualities, was viewed as distributed throughout the entire body, whereby each part had a quasi-consciousness of itself. “Man’s organism is in fact a ‘United States,’ rather than a monarchic or imperialistic realm.”136 This thought Wheeler Robinson applies in the third advance comment in “The Group and the Individual,” in which he states that Hebrew society is a reflection of this psychology with an essential democratic character. “Personality was a ‘United States’ rather than an empire. In correspondence with this psychology the Hebrew society (in spite of its monarchial government during part of its history) is of essentially democratic character, very conscious that each of its members has rights of his own.”137 In the second point of discussion in the essay on the rise of the individual as the result of the prophetic consciousness he makes this thought fruitful.138 The second point of discussion of the essay mentioned above is the most important clarification of the formulation of the hypothesis of the corporate personality, as it is given in “The Hebrew Conception.” In his discussion of the use of psychological terms in the Old Testament Wheeler Robinson distinguishes three main categories corresponding to where they stand as to their relation: first, “the breath-soul or blood-soul, pervading the body”; second, “obviously important central organs, such as the heart, liver, kidneys, bowels”; third, “peripheral organs, such as the tongue or ear or eye.”139 He focuses on the three terms, which are in his opinion the most important to describe the Hebrew psychology. “The three most important terms are néphesh, ruach, and leb, usually rendered ‘soul,’ ‘spirit,’ and

135

See ibid. (353). Already in id. 1947a (6). Id. 1925 (354). 137 Id. 1937 (154). 138 See above. 139 Id. 1925 (354). He has discussed the same psychological terms already in id. 1947a (14–26). 136

corporate personality

135

‘heart.’ ”140 These belong to the first and second main categories which he distinguishes. The conclusion which he draws from the discussion of néphesh and ruach,141 is this: “The Hebrew idea of personality is an animated body, and not an incarnated soul.”142 This insight he repeats in the third advance remark in “The Group and the Individual,” where he adds this with the insight that the personality is a ‘United States.’143 The significance of this insight has already been discussed. The combination of both of these insights forms a summary of his vision of Hebrew psychology. In “The Hebrew Conception” this summary may also be found in his description of the realism of the corporate personality.144 It is this summary on which Wheeler Robinson founds his statement that fundamental thoughts may be found behind the hypothesis of the corporate personality in his concepts of Hebrew psychology. After his discussion of the second and third main category of psychological terms in the Old Testament, with a prominent place for leb,145 he gives his answer as to the question of what man is. He does this “not in the old theological, but in the new psychological fashion.”146 The answer he gives, after the discussion of the second and third main categories, is not essentially different from the conclusion he drew from the discussion of the first main category. There is indeed a connection with the central and peripheral organs in the body in the answer: “For the Hebrew, man is a unity, and that . . . unity is the body as a complex of parts, drawing their life and activity from a breath-soul, which has no existence apart from the body.”147 Clearly the significance of an approach from a psychological angle for Wheeler Robinson emerges, which connects him with Pedersen in particular. Pedersen takes the same three terms, which Wheeler Robinson calls the most important, as point of departure, when he answers

140

Id. 1925 (354–355). Cf. id. 1956 (79–83): “The Psychology of the Hebrews.” See id. 1925 (355–362). 142 Ibid. (362). Quoted from id. 1947a (27) and repeated in 1928: id. 1947b (163). 143 See id. 1937 (154). 144 Id. 1936 (52): “For them [the Hebrews—JM] the personality consisted of a number of bodily organs animated by a breath-soul and each possessing a diffused and distributed psychical and ethical quality.” 145 See id. 1925 (362–366). 146 Ibid. (366). 147 Ibid. (366). 141

136

chapter three

the question as to who is man.148 The visions of Pedersen and Wheeler Robinson on man agree, even when both choose their own formulation. Pedersen says: “In the Old testament we are constantly confronted with the fact that man, as such, is a soul.”149 Wheeler Robinson’s articulation is mentioned above. Both emphasize the unity of man as characteristic of Hebrew psychology. It is remarkable that Wheeler Robinson in his “Hebrew Psychology” does not refer a single time to the work of Pedersen. The reason for this is probably that an English translation of Pedersen’s work was not yet available, as well as the fact that he was further developing his own thoughts, as they could already be found in The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament. In “The Hebrew Conception” he does point to the work of Pedersen, when the English translation is available, and their visions appear to be in line.150 One aspect of the answer to the question as to what is man, Wheeler Robinson singles out. With this he speaks about the personality of man. “The most important aspect of this personality is its constant accessibility to ‘spiritual’ influence from without; in that fact lay the germ both of the Old Testament prophetic consciousness and of its sequel in the New Testament doctrine of the Spirit of God.”151 It is this notion in reference to the prophetic consciousness, which will play an important role in the hypothesis of the corporate personality. He first develops this on the individualism of the corporate personality in “The Hebrew Conception.” He does this later in the second point of discussion of the rise of the individual as a result of the prophetic consciousness in “The Group and Individual in Israel,” to which attention will be devoted later. About the prophetic consciousness Wheeler Robinson says: “The prophetic consciousness is itself a specialized form of this direct and

148

See Pedersen 1926 (102), cf. ibid. (99–181). Ibid. (99). 150 Wheeler Robinson in the formulation of the realism of the corporate personality is not so much dependent on Pedersen as he is congenial with him. The familiarity with Pedersen’s work among the participants of the Internationale Tagung Alttestamentlicher Forscher in 1935 was probably esteemed more highly than the work of MacIver, to which he referred in The Cross of the Servant. This explains his reference to Pedersen instead of to MacIver (see above). An additional consideration for Wheeler Robinson may have been the fact that Pedersen adduced his examples from the biblical context and MacIver from a sociological context. 151 Robinson 1925 (366). Already in id. 1947a (10) this thought appears. Cf. id. 1947b (164). 149

corporate personality

137

fundamental dependence of man on God, and Hebrew psychology throws much light on its modus operandi.”152 In the direct and fundamental dependence of man on God he does not aim at the fact that man was created in God’s image and likeness. These terms do not express adequately as to for example what is the difference between man and animal. The difference is implied in Hebrew psychology, which makes no distinction between body and soul, but which understands the body psychically.153 “Man’s unique body carried with it a unique psychical quality, and it was made after the actual pattern of God’s, though of the inferior substance called ‘flesh’ (which of course includes all the physical organs, animated by the breath-soul).”154 Not only in his physical existence is man dependent on God, but also in reference to his psychical consciousness.155 In the exceptional experience in which a prophet received a call from God, this specialized dependence is expressed in a particular manner. This ‘abnormal’ experience isolated the prophet from others—he came to stand between God and humans—and opens the possibility to more individuality.156 The idea of the position of a prophet between God and humans, as discussed above, throws light on what Wheeler Robinson calls “another important branch of Hebrew psychology (in the large sense in which the term must be used), viz. corporate personality.”157 He arranges the corporate personality with the “social psychology of the Hebrews,” whereby we need to be aware of the fact, that this distinguishes itself as individual psychology.158 The manner in which man is viewed in Hebrew psychology is congruent with the conception of the Hebrews on the community in social psychology. “As in the human body, so in the community, there is mutual interdependence of each of the parts upon

152 Id. 1925 (371). In id. 1956 (82) he wrote in reference to rûaḥ : “It links man to God, as though it were a door continually open to His approach.” In ibid. (83–87) he developed this in reference to the prophets. Particular attention to the prophetic consciousness may be found in ibid. (113–123) and id. 1947b (162–165), which agrees in content with id. 1925. The paragraph on the prophetic consciousness is the matrix for the second point of discussion in id. 1937 on the rise of the individual as a result of the prophetic consciousness. 153 See id. 1925 (369). 154 Ibid. (369). Already in id. 1947a (25), cf. id. 1956 (82–83). 155 See id. 1925 (370). 156 Thus also in id. 1936 (54) and id. 1937 (163). 157 Id. 1925 (375). In id. 1947a (27–30) he already devotes a few lines to the corporate personality. 158 Id. 1925 (375–376).

138

chapter three

the rest, and yet each of the parts functions in quasi-independence of the others.”159 The binding of the individual to the community is much firmer than with us. This binding is so firm, that one may speak about the family, the clan or the nation as “the unit in place of the individual.”160 He develops this idea emphatically in the extension of the corporate personality.161 Also the aspect of extension to the past (ancestors) and future (descendants) is present in social psychology. In reference to the future he illustrates this with Levirate marriage.162 In reference to the past he does this with words from Jer 31:15.163 This example from Jer 31:15 he picks up in the description of the realism of the corporate personality.164 The description of the realism relies in large part on his own work, as was shown above. The largest unity, to which the idea of the corporate personality applies, is Israel as a nation.165 This notion returns in the first point of the discussion of “The Group and the Individual” on the primary place of the group.166 This idea is cited in passing in the description of individualism of the corporate personality. The prophet works within the unity ‘Israel.’167 Other examples of ‘Israel’ as the largest unity, which he gives in “Hebrew Psychology,”168 he develops in “The Hebrew Conception.” He does this in three examples of types of application of the corporate personality: the representation, the ‘I’ in the Psalms and the Servant in Isaiah, and Hebrew ethics.169

159

Ibid. (376). Ibid. (376). 161 See id. 1936 (50–51). 162 Id. 1925 (377): “The custom of Levirate marriage . . . ultimately rests on the sense of the unity of kinship, springing from corporate personality.” Cf. id. 1936 (51). 163 See id. 1925 (377). Cf. id. 1936 (50–51). There is congeniality between Wheeler Robinson and Pedersen rather than dependence. Jer 31:15 already in id. 1956 (91–92) where he plants the seed for the realism as well as for the extension of the corporate personality. 164 Id. 1936 (52). The ‘extension’ and the ‘realism’ of the corporate personality lie very closely together. 165 See id. 1925 (377). 166 Id. 1937 (155–162). The first point of discussion he closes (162) with “Yahweh is always the covenant God of Israel.” 167 See id. 1936 (55). 168 See id. 1925 (378). 169 See id. 1936 (55–62). Cf. id. 1925 (377–378). 160

corporate personality

139

All of this does not mean, says Wheeler Robinson, that there is no room for the individual,170 but that a number of things which we approach individualistically, such as punishment or reward, were approached collectively by the Hebrews.171 The center of gravity lies mostly with the group and not with the individual.172 This consideration is the subject of “The Group and the Individual.” In the formulation of the hypothesis Wheeler Robinson appears to have processed many of his own thoughts on Hebrew psychology. Many aspects, which were developed in both publications on the corporate personality, are present in tendency in “Hebrew Psychology” and in The Christian Doctrine of Man (1911) and The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament (1913). Remarkable is the fact that we need to speak of congeniality with Pedersen instead of dependence on him. Relative to Lévy-Bruhl (and Durkheim) it may be posited that a presupposition in Wheeler Robinson’s vision on Hebrew psychology offers space to make use of the results of their investigations in the formulation of the hypothesis. Hebrew Morality Wheeler Robinson speaks of congruence between Hebrew psychology and the social psychology of the Hebrews, which is ultimately translated into Hebrew morality.173 In his treatment of Hebrew psychology he points at the emphasis in Hebrew ethics on “social morality” as a result of the idea of the corporate personality in Hebrew society.174 This is the third type of application of the corporate personality, as it is expressed in the central publication “The Hebrew Conception.”175

170 See id. 1947a (27–28). See also id. 1956 (87–91) with particular attention to Jeremiah (89): “Jeremiah who makes the most notable contribution to the principle of individuality,” and Ezekiel (89): “A little later, the principle of individual responsibility was argued in detail by Ezekiel.” 171 See id. 1925 (376). 172 See ibid. (376). 173 In The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament of 1913 he describes the psychology of the Hebrews as naturally following from morality. See for this id. 1956 (77–78). In id. 1925 he describes morality within the psychology of the Hebrews. Morality is an aspect of psychology. Psychology influences ethics. The approach in “Hebrew Psychology” differs from that in The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament. 174 Id. 1925 (378). 175 See id. 1936 (60–62).

140

chapter three

In The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament he expressed that the dominant place of ethics in the religion of Israel is “the most far-reaching discovery ever made in the realm of religion—the discovery we owe to the prophets of Israel that the supreme worth of life is its morality.”176 This dominant place is based on the clear concepts in Israel’s religion relative to the human and divine personality in their mutual relation of a fellowship.177 By the human personality in the relationship with God he understands Israel, which is understood as a ‘corporate personality.’ The personal relationship with God is a moral relationship. Morality is for him the highest expression of personality.178 He regards this as a final stage which is reached at the time of the prophets of the eighth century B.C.E.179 He illustrates the preliminary stage of the blood feud from “the earlier part of the Old Testament,” in which the blood feud is sanctioned by religion, as an example of the general principle of the corporate personality, in which the group is “the unit for morality.”180 The blood feud is cited in both central publications on the corporate personality, in which in “The Group and the Individual” a development in ethics is clearly spoken of.181 The reference in “The Hebrew Conception” to the vision of the Greeks on ethics as distinct from Hebrew morality is also to be found in The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament.182 He traces the difference back to the nomadic roots of Hebrew morality.183 The reference to the work by Doughty is also to be found in The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament.184 The examples from the Old Testament, which he quotes in “The Hebrew Conception” to illustrate the development of Hebrew morality,185 may also be found in The Religious Ideas of the Old Testa-

176 Id. 1956 (77). In id. 1947a (51) he has made a comparable connection between ethics and religion. 177 See id. 1956 (38). This expression occurs in id. 1947a (67) as a reflection of the relationship between “God and man.” 178 See id. 1956 (38). In id. 1937 (160) the same notion is present. From the earlier published id. 1947a (67) appears that he derives the thought from A. B. Davidson, The Theology of the Old Testament, Edinburgh, 1904 (78). 179 See Robinson 1956 (77 n.1, 88). 180 Ibid. (87). Already in id. 1947a (46). 181 See id. 1937 (156). 182 See id. 1956 (41–42) and id. 1936 (60–61). 183 In id. 1937 (163) he proposes that “social ethics was the direct development of the old nomadic clan spirit.” 184 See id. 1956 (38 n.1). The same reference in id. 1936 (61 n.5). 185 See ibid. (61).

corporate personality

141

ment, particularly the example from Job (chapter 31).186 The summary of Hebrew morality as ‘justice and mercy’ occurs in The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament, where he writes that “the summum bonum of human life is justice and mercy.”187 Wheeler Robinson, in his description of the manner in which corporate personality functions in Hebrew morality, refers back to his own thoughts on Hebrew morality. The concise formulation in the third type of application of the corporate personality in “The Hebrew Conception” is to be regarded as a compilation of thoughts on Hebrew morality as described in The Christian Doctrine of Man (1911) and The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament (1913). There are fewer comments on ethics in “The Group and the Individual” and insofar as they are present, they are more widely dispersed in the essay. Of their origin the same is true: they were already described in The Christian Doctrine of Man and The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament. The Rise of the Individual A third aspect which deserves further elucidation is the vision of Wheeler Robinson on the rise of the individual within the group and the place of the individualism within the group consciousness. He refers to this in the individualism of the corporate personality. Besides, this forms the core of the second point of discussion on “The Group and the Individual.” In The Christian Doctrine of Man (1911) he treats this material broadly.188 He introduces the material again in The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament (1913).189 The relationship to Hebrew psychology and Hebrew morality has already been pointed out above. He related the rise of the individual and individualism to the prophets. In “The Hebrew Conception” he points to Jeremiah (the New Covenant, Jer 31:31–34) and Ezekiel (chapter 18). In “The Group and

186

See id. 1956 (40, 155). Job is discussed extensively in id. 1947a (37–39). Id. 1956 (155). In id. 1937 (160) he also points to the place of “mercy.” Cf. id. 1936 (61) and id. 1937 (163). In this essay he chooses the term “loving kindness,” however. 188 Id. 1947a (1–67) treats “The Old Testament Doctrine of Man.” Ibid. (27–42) is devoted to “The Religious Value of the Individual.” 189 Id. 1956 (77–101) treats “The Idea of Man.” Ibid. (87–91) treats “The Relation of the Individual to the Society,” and (91–101) “The Future Life.” Both discuss the individual and individualism. 187

142

chapter three

the Individual” he concurs with this. That does not mean that he denies individualistic tendencies to former prophets: “It must have been true that the earlier prophets, addressing Israel as a nation . . . were in some degree thinking in terms of the individual Israelite.”190 This agrees with what he wrote in 1911: “These prophets [Amos, Hosea, Isaiah and Micah—JM], it is true, address Israel as a nation; but their insistence on moral righteousness as the true bond of connection between man and God already contains the implicit individualistic principle which finds explicit statement in the prophetic law-book of the seventh century: ‘The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin’ (Deut. xxiv. 16).”191 In “The Group and the Individual” he returns to Hosea via Deuteronomy.192 The two most important prophets in this connection are Jeremiah and Ezekiel. The extensive discussion of the New Covenant (Jer 31:31–34), as it is found in “The Group and the Individual” and more concise in “The Hebrew Conception” is already present in The Christian Doctrine of Man and The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament.193 The New Covenant is an expression of the individualistic tendency with the prophet Jeremiah, which was not found earlier.194 The classic example relative to individualism in Ezekiel is chapter 18. In both publications, of 1911 and 1913, he makes use of this example to illustrate the development of individualism.195 In both central publications on the corporate personality the example returns.196 In each case, the rise of the individual and individualism must not be viewed as a direct antithesis to group consciousness: “The individualism of the Old Testament is usually, if not always, conceived as realized in and through the society which is based upon it.”197 This vision of the individual and individualism is the dominant one within the hypothesis of the corporate personality.

190

Id. 1936 (54). Id. 1947a (31). Also in id. 1956 (89) with the same citation: Deut 24:16. 192 Id. 1937 (164): “The book of Deuteronomy, largely influenced by Hosea’s teaching.” 193 See respectively ibid. (164), id. 1936 (54), id. 1947a (32–33), and id. 1956 (89). 194 See id. 1947a (33). 195 See ibid. (33–34), id. 1956 (89–90). 196 See id. 1936 (54), id. 1937 (165). Cf. id. 1947a (33) and id. 1956 (90). 197 Id. 1947a (34). 191

corporate personality

143

In the continuation of both publications from 1911 and 1913 he speaks about the problem of individual retribution and the future life.198,199 Though these aspects in both central publications on corporate personality do not (need to) be referred to explicitly, they are a direct result of the rise of the individual and individualism, as he sees them develop and come to completion at the time of Jeremiah and Ezekiel.200 This must have influenced the hypothesis of the corporate personality. The problem of individual retribution arises at the moment when theory and practice do not move together: “[T]he experience of life did not confirm Ezekiel’s declaration of an exact individual retribution and reward.”201 The rise of a more individual relationship with God as the result of prophetic consciousness led to the fact that people could no longer be satisfied with a collective retribution to the family of the people.202 If individual retribution were not present in this life, it could be moved to the future life.203 These considerations are in the background, when he claims: “ ‘The soul that sinneth, it shall die’—not others also, as the older conception of corporate personality had demanded from Achan’s family (Josh. 7:24ff.).”204 Herein lies a clear connection with ethics, as was discussed above. Résumé The description of the hypothesis of the corporate personality in “The Hebrew Conception” and “The Group and the Individual” is 198 See ibid. (34–39): “The problem of individual retribution,” and id. 1956 (87–91): “The Relation of the Individual to the Society.” 199 See id. 1947a (39–42): “The eschatology of the individual,” and id. 1956 (91–101): “The Future Life.” 200 Id. 1947a (31): “What served, however, to bring out the latent individualism of prophetic teaching, and to impress it on the common consciousness of men, was the pressure of foreign foes on Israel, threatening and at last destroying the national unity.” 201 Id. 1956 (90). Id. 1947a (35): “[W]e may see various attempts to solve the problem created by this clash of life with theory.” 202 See id. 1956 (90). 203 This produces tension in the hypothesis of the corporate personality: the extension no longer suffices as answer to the retribution for the individual. Neither can the lubricant, the ‘fluidity,’ remove the tension without doing violence to the postulated rise of the individual as the result of the prophetic consciousness. The significance of this tension will be discussed later. 204 Id. 1937 (165).

144

chapter three

based in large part on his own vision of Hebrew psychology and in the wake of it the Hebrew morality and the rise of the individual and individualism. The results of the investigation of Pedersen (1926) demonstrate a large measure of congeniality with the vision of Wheeler Robinson in reference to ‘the primitive Semitic idea of man.’ This congeniality is expressed in the extension and the realism of the corporate personality, whereby the congeniality is the greatest in reference to the realism. The extension and the realism are closely interwoven. The extension is possible on the basis of the realism and vice versa. In a certain sense we may speak of a form of fluidity between these two basic characteristics. The work of Lévy-Bruhl (and Durkheim) is inexplicitly influential on the extension. The extension to the past and the future is borrowed from Hebrew psychology, but also of the fluidity, which is supported by the investigation of Lévy-Bruhl and Durkheim of the Australian aborigines and the manner in which the totem functions in the aborigine community. ‘The law of participation’ carries the fluidity, but is present in the background in the extension. When Lévy-Bruhl claims that a person besides himself simultaneously is an ancestral individual (and his totem), that corresponds at least with the extension to the past which is part of the first basic characteristic. That is in turn tightly connected with the realism, which is also clarified by ‘the law of participation’ which presupposes a real participation. The influence of Lévy-Bruhl (and Durkheim) particularly relates to the fluidity. This third basic characteristic is the core of the hypothesis. This appears from the mutual relationship of the first three basic characteristics of the corporate personality, and the dependence of the first and second basic characteristic of the third. The individualism with Jeremiah and Ezekiel within group consciousness is worked out by Wheeler Robinson according to the pattern of the fluidity and is thereby dependent of the third basic characteristic. The presupposition, whereby Wheeler Robinson’s appeal to LévyBruhl (and Durkheim) and Pedersen stands (or falls), he has expressed in “Hebrew Psychology”: “The primitive Semitic idea of man seems to have been very much like that which we find amongst other primitive peoples, of the ancient or of the modern world.”205

205

Id. 1925 (353).

CHAPTER FOUR

APPLICATION OF THE CORPORATE PERSONALITY Since its fundamental formulation in 1935 (and 1936), the hypothesis of the corporate personality has frequently been utilized not only by Wheeler Robinson but also by other scholars. The acceptance of a number of other scholars, as is evidenced from the analysis of the hypothesis, provided a good medium for this use. For the sake of clarity, Wheeler Robinson will first be discussed and subsequently other scholars who have made use of the corporate personality. Application by Wheeler Robinson Wheeler Robinson has applied the corporate personality chiefly in two areas of scholarship: the Old Testament and systematic theology. His publications of 1935 and 1936 and later in which the hypothesis dominates, show an uncritical use of the corporate personality. Any sort of discussion of the hypothesis of the corporate personality is absent from these publications. As the most important publications from the last years of his life we may mention Redemption and Revelation in 1942 and Inspiration and Revelation in 1946.1 Both works move chiefly in the area of systematic theology. His most important publications in which the Old Testament is central are: The Old Testament in 1937; The History of Israel in 1938; “The Theology of the Old Testament” in 1938; Two Hebrew Prophets in 1948.2 The discussion of the publications follows the chronology of publication to illustrate that Wheeler Robinson does not deviate from the hypothesis of the corporate personality as he formulated it in “The Hebrew Conception” and “The Group and the Individual.” He

1

Robinson 1944, id. 1946. Id. 1946 was published posthumously and contains lectures from the period 1942–1945. 2 Id. 1949, id. 1964, id. 1938, id. 1948. Id. 1948 was published posthumously and contains lectures from 1935 on Hosea and from 1943 on Ezekiel.

146

chapter four

remains faithful to Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta, who provided an illustrated comparative method in anthropology. He also remains loyal to his endorsement of Lévy-Bruhl (and Durkheim). While he does not cite these scholars in his later works, which are discussed here, he harks back to his own work, in which the influence of Lévy-Bruhl (and Durkheim) is quite evident. The Old Testament This work was first published in 1937. The manuscript for this publication was completed in 1936.3 It is an introduction to the literature of the Old Testament. In the preface his emphatic reference to the work of Doughty is remarkable; it more or less runs through the different publications of Wheeler Robinson like a Leitmotiv.4 The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament contains the same reference.5 In both central publications, which deal with the corporate personality, the same reference occurs.6 The content of the reference agrees with the presupposition on which the hypothesis builds and which he has expressed in “Hebrew Psychology.”7 He assumes a negligible difference between the society of the Bedouins in Arabia, as Doughty describes it, and the society we confront in the Old Testament, witness the words: “. . . a book as Doughty’s Arabia Deserta, which describes the little-changed Bedouins of the nineteenth century.”8 In the publication at issue he emphasizes this presupposition of the agreement between the modern and the ancient worlds, when he cites the work of Doughty.9 In different places Wheeler Robinson utilizes the corporate personality. The connections within which he refers to the corporate personality, are as follows, first in “Prophecy and Apocalyptic” related to the nature of prophecy; second, in “The Psalms” in connection with the collective or individualistic conception of the ‘I’ in the Psalms.10

3

See id. 1949 (vi). C. M. Doughty, Travels in Arabia Deserta, I–II, Cambridge, 1888. 5 See Robinson 1956 (38 n.1). 6 See id. 1936 (61) and id. 1937 (155). 7 Id. 1925 (353): “The primitive Semitic idea of man seems to have been very much like that which we find amongst other primitive peoples, of the ancient and the modern world.” In this case the emphasis is placed on the supposed agreement between the modern and the ancient world. 8 Id. 1937 (155). 9 See id. 1949 (165–166). 10 Ibid. (76–128, 129–143). 4

application of the corporate personality

147

In his discussion of the nature of prophecy he mentions the corporate personality as one of the four conditions which prophecy must satisfy. The corporate personality offers prophets the possibility of a position between God and the nation: “the corporate personality which identified them with both God and Israel.”11 First he offers a brief profile of what corporate personality contains, namely “the primitive idea of a family, a clan, a tribe, or a nation as one . . . with fluidity of transition from the one to the many and vice versa.”12 Next, he applies these to the position of the prophet: “Thus the prophet can feel, not only that he represents, but that he actually is Israel.”13 With the brief profile of what corporate personality contains, he links up with the fluidity of the corporate personality, which forms the core of the hypothesis.14 The application is entirely in line with what he says about the fluidity and dovetails with his thoughts on the Servant of the Lord in the second type of application of the corporate personality.15 With the discussion of prophets separately, Wheeler Robinson introduces a new expression: “corporate individualism” to typify Jeremiah and Ezekiel in particular.16 “Jeremiah is preeminently the prophet of ‘corporate individualism.’ This does not mean an individualism in sharp antithesis to the previous ‘corporate personality,’ but rather an emphasis on the individual within the social group and an emphasis that springs from the personal fellowship with God which this prophet experienced in so marked a degree.”17 With this expression he summarizes, in reference to Jeremiah, his discussion of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, as the individualism of the corporate personality. The same pertains to the second point of discussion in “The Group and the Individual” on the rise of the individual as a result of prophetic consciousness. With Ezekiel he points to “his strong and characteristic emphasis on a new individualism (xiv.1 ff., xviii. 2 ff., xxxiii. 1–20).”18 He connects what

11

Ibid. (77). Ibid. (79). 13 Ibid. (79). 14 See id. 1936 (53–54) with a reference to totemistic groups, while he cites LévyBruhl with approval. 15 Applies to the Servant of the Lord from the realism of the corporate personality, ibid. (59): “He is Israel created to be Servant.” 16 Id. 1949 (84). 17 Ibid. (99–100). 18 Id. 1949 (106–107). In the discussion of the individualism of the corporate personality he brought the expression “new individualism” in relation to Jeremiah. See 12

148

chapter four

he said on that passage about the individual and individualism in the two central publications on the corporate personality. When he discusses the figure of the Servant of the Lord, he makes use of the corporate personality to bring together the different interpretations. “We can, however, best explain the variety of interpretation amongst scholars by the Hebrew conception of ‘corporate personality,’ which here, as in many Psalms, allows rapid transition from the whole group to any single or representative member of it.”19 With the second type of application of the corporate personality he has treated extensively what he states briefly here.20 The second connection of the corporate personality which he utilizes here is that of the psalms, when he refers to the general significance of the psalms. Fundamental to the understanding of the psalms in general is the idea of God, who is characterized “by the great attributes of loving-kindness, righteousness, and holiness.”21 All other religious concepts are subordinate to these three.22 The question as to “the speaker in many of the psalms” he answers with the corporate personality.23 The other religious concepts he arranges as concentric circles around the speaker, whereby he moves from the outer to the inner circle. The outer circle is that of nature, while the inner is that of “personal religion.”24 In between them lie those of human and particularly Israelite history, and that of the temple.25 The inner circle is “capable of expanding to national and sometimes even to universal consciousness.”26 This possibility of expansion is related to “the idea of corporate personality and possesses a fluidity of reference for which there is no precise modern parallel.”27 In his discussion of the ‘I’ of the Psalms in “The Hebrew Conception” he has applied the hypothesis to remove the tension between the collective and individualistic manner of seeing the speaker in many

id. 1936 (54). Both central publications point to Ezek 18: see ibid. (54 n.1) and id. 1937 (165). 19 Id. 1949 (111). 20 See id. 1936 (57–60). 21 Id. 1949 (136). 22 See ibid. (137). 23 Ibid. (138). In id. 1936 (57) he speaks about “the ‘I’ of the Psalms,” by which he means the same thing. 24 Id. 1949 (137). 25 For the circles see ibid. (137). 26 Ibid. (137). 27 Ibid. (137).

application of the corporate personality

149

psalms. He spoke about the fluid conception of corporate personality, of which he here makes use. Fluidity plays an important role here, as well as the extension, which correlates with the concentric circles with their possibilities for expansion. The characterization of the speaker in many of the psalms is formulated entirely in the line of the fluidity and extension of the corporate personality. “He may seem to us to be neither an individual nor the representative of a group nor the whole nation, but all three at once, a voice which expands or contracts the scope of its reference from verse to verse.”28 He utilizes the representation, the first type of application of the corporate personality, when he discusses Lamentations as a special collection of psalms, with the third lamentation as a personal lament.29 “This ‘individual lament’ is, however, based on the conception of corporate personality, which enables the poet to pass from his own personal sorrows to those of his particular group or of the whole nation; he feels himself as the representative and summary of all in their sorrows.”30 The History of Israel This work was first published in 1938. It was intended as complimentary to The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament which was first published in 1913.31 In view of the nature of the book, a multiple application of the corporate personality is not evident. The title and the subtitle typify the work: “The title indicates the nature of the book. I have tried to include all the chief facts which emerge from the literary and epigraphic sources, whilst showing throughout the shaping factors of the history, particularly its succession of imperial backgrounds.”32 In “Israel’s Contribution to the Philosophy of History” he discusses his philosophy of history to show which presuppositions lie behind his treatment of the facts and factors of the history of Israel.33 In this chapter he discusses the corporate personality. In the paragraph “The Interaction of Faith and Event” of the abovementioned chapter, he discusses the role of the Servant of the Lord.34

28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Ibid. (138). Ibid. (142–143). Ibid. (143). See id. 1964 (v, vi). Ibid. (v). Ibid. (169–184). Ibid. (172–175).

150

chapter four

In the person of the Servant, Deutero-Isaiah reaches a new (and higher) level in the understanding of the exile, namely a “transformation of the event by faith.”35 The different visions among exegetes on the Servant of the Lord he connects via the corporate personality, as he also did in “The Hebrew Conception” in the second type of application.36 Relative to the Servant he states: “That much-discussed figure seems best explained as that of Israel itself under the category of corporate personality, which allows a continual contraction or expansion in its application.”37 Record and Revelation For this volume, of which Wheeler Robinson was editor, he wrote the chapter “The Theology of the Old Testament.” His contribution consists of two parts. The first part is entitled “The Philosophy of Revelation” and the second “The Characteristic Doctrines.”38 In the preface he dates the volume 20 September 1938. As the introduction of the subject, which he discusses in the first part of his contribution, he characterizes the life style of the Hebrews. For this characterization he utilizes among others the corporate personality to show that history is the stage on which God reveals himself. He does this by using the extension of the corporate personality. With this he describes the unity of history in the present (the present generation), past (ancestors) and future (descendants). “The philosophy of revelation is, for the Hebrews, primarily the philosophy of history.”39 This is the only use he makes of the corporate personality in the first part of his contribution.40 In the second part, Wheeler Robinson treats the central themes of the theology of the Old Testament. In “The Hebrew Conception” he states that a fundamental understanding such as ‘covenant’ is indissolubly connected with the corporate personality. It is even possible to base a complete theology of the Old

35

See ibid. (174). See ibid. (174) and id. 1936 (58–60). 37 Id. 1964. (174). For ‘contraction’ and ‘expansion’ cf. id. 1949 in relation to the speaker (the ‘I’) of many of the psalms. ‘Contraction’ and ‘expansion’ are alternative formulations of fluidity. 38 Id. 1938 (301–320, 321–348). 39 Ibid. (304), cf. id. 1964 (196–184): “Israel’s Contribution to the Philosophy of History.” 40 He does refer in the first part repeatedly to the prophetic consciousness which is not without significance in the central publications on the corporate personality. 36

application of the corporate personality

151

Testament on it, as Eichrodt has done.41 In somewhat different words he says the same thing here, however, without pointing explicitly to the corporate personality.42 A second central theme of the theology of the Old Testament, which he discusses, is “man.”43 After a first paragraph on man’s place in nature and his constitution, in which he very briefly summarizes “Hebrew Psychology” of 1925,44 he devotes the second paragraph to the corporate personality and the individual.45 This paragraph may qualify as a summary of both central publications on the corporate personality. All four basic characteristics of the corporate personality occur here, as well as the three types of their application. Finally, the rise of the individual is discussed as a result of the prophetic consciousness. With this the summary is complete. In the third paragraph he utilizes the extension of the corporate personality, when he discusses death and the afterlife.46 With the extension he shows that a dogma of the afterlife was unnecessary because of the basis of the strong group consciousness: “He (the Israelite—JM) lived on in his children, or at any rate in the successive generations of his people, as his ancestors lived on in himself.”47 The first type of application of the corporate personality, the representation, is introduced in the discussion of the influence of the prophets on the theme “Sin and Grace.”48 He introduces this as a third central theme from the theology of the Old Testament. In the third paragraph “Prophetic Moralization” he applies this category to Genesis 3,49 in which Adam is the representative of the whole human family.50 As the fourth and final central theme of the theology of the Old Testament he discusses “The Judgement of History.”51 The righteousness of God is introduced among other things. He discusses here the 41

See id. 1936 (55). See id. 1938 (327). 43 Ibid. (331–335). 44 In a footnote (ibid. [332 n.1]) he refers to “the essay on ‘The Psychology of the Hebrews’ in The People and the Book.” The essay in The People and the Book is called “Hebrew Psychology” (see id. 1925), while the nomenclature here used is that of the first paragraph of the fourth chapter of The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament, in which he discusses the same subject. See id. 1956 (79–83). 45 See id. 1938 (331–332, 332–333). He refers to both central publications on the corporate personality. 46 See ibid. (333–335). 47 Ibid. (333). 48 Ibid. (335–341). 49 Ibid. (338–341). 50 See ibid. (338). 51 Ibid. (341–348, esp. 343–345). 42

152

chapter four

consequence of the interpretation of history, as offered by the prophets of the eighth century B.C.E., namely “the doctrine of a complete moral retribution—good for good and evil for evil—administered in the divine government of the world.”52 The rise of the individual as a result of the prophetic consciousness has not left this doctrine uncontested. He particularly ascribes a role to Ezekiel in this.53 The tension which arose was partially removed along the way by substitute suffering, as is visible in the Servant of the Lord.54 This substitute suffering benefits all via a renewed concept of the corporate personality.55 This renewed concept relates to the contribution of prophetic consciousness to the corporate personality and not to the hypothesis. Redemption and Revelation Wheeler Robinson entitles this work as the third part of his trilogy, which consists of The Christian Doctrine of Man (1911), The Christian Experience of the Holy Spirit (1928) and Redemption and Revelation (1942). Several chapters or parts of chapters of Redemption and Revelation were published earlier. In the preface he sums up which parts of this work had appeared earlier.56 The part in which he utilizes the corporate personality was not published earlier, but “The Prophetic Consciousness in Israel” was.57 The significance of this for the corporate personality was already discussed in chapter 3 in which prophetic consciousness was the subject. The use of the corporate personality in the paragraph on prophetic consciousness is entirely in accordance with the formulation of the hypothesis in both central publications.58 This conclusion justifies the republication of an article from 1923 in a work of 1942. If he had arrived at other views on prophetic consciousness in the interim years, repetition of the insights he held in 1923 would have been illegitimate.

52

Ibid. (343). Ibid. (343): “Ezekiel only sharpens the problem by asserting the individualism of moral retribution (xviii, xxxiii) as against a social solidarity in suffering; he overlooks the fact that there are more anomalies apparent in the fortunes of an individual than in those of a group.” 54 Ibid. (344) employs the term “vicarious suffering” for this. 55 See ibid. (344). 56 See id. 1944 (xi–xii). 57 Ibid. (138–157), published earlier as id. 1923. 58 See id. 1944 (149–150). 53

application of the corporate personality

153

In this paragraph an initiative toward discussion may be noted on the application of the corporate personality to prophetic consciousness. He reacts here on a remark by Porteous which he made in his article “Prophecy” for the volume Record and Revelation on the relationship between God and the prophet.59 Porteous has in fact rejected the possibility of applying the concept of corporate personality to the relationship between God and the prophet. Wheeler Robinson is scarcely right when he extends his useful category of corporate personality to define the relation between the prophet and God,1 but the fact which he is trying in this way to make more intelligible is an important one. Heschel2 has come nearer to isolating and adequately labeling it when he speaks of the prophet’s sympathy with the divine πάθος.60

Wheeler Robinson responds to this comment of Porteous. In his opinion the vision of Heschel, to which Porteous commits himself, is complementary to his own view. But the two ways of approach seems to me complementary, rather than antagonistic. I should rather say the prophet’s sympathy with God was intellectually mediated to him by the thought-form of corporate personality, here meaning (temporary) membership in Yahweh’s council. (Cf. Isaiah’s audition of “Who will go for us?”)61

In chapter thirteen Wheeler Robinson makes use of the corporate personality a number of times or he refers to it. In that chapter Wheeler Robinson treats the redemptive suffering.62 In this chapter of an explicit systematical theological nature he claims in the first paragraph, “The Redeemer’s Victory,”63 that the concept of corporate personality is indispensable for the understanding of redemptive suffering. He states this as a critique on the work of Aulén,64 who takes his departure from “the actual victory won by Christ over sin and death as the basis of Atonement,” but does not make explicit use of the concept of corporate

59

Porteous 1938. Ibid. (240): n.1 refers to Robinson 1923, n.2 refers to A. J. Heschel, Die Prohetie (Mémoires de la Commission orientaliste Kraków 22), Kraków, 1936 (in 1935 defended as dissertation under the title Das prophetische Bewußtsein). 61 Robinson 1944 (150 n.1). 62 See ibid. (245–280). 63 Ibid. (245–249). 64 Ibid. (245 n.1) refers to G. Aulén, Christus Victor: An historical study of the three main types of the idea of the atonement (trans. A. G. Hebert), London, 1931. 60

154

chapter four

personality, to show how the work of Christ becomes available to those who believe in him “except by way of moving them to win a like victory.”65 The ‘victory’ is a metaphor and in that sense inadequate to indicate how the work of Christ becomes available for those who believe in him, according to Wheeler Robinson. In the third paragraph of this chapter he will return to this to show that the corporate personality is indeed adequate in this respect.66 The third paragraph of the thirteenth chapter is entitled “The Redeemer as Representative.”67 The key concepts in this paragraph are ‘vicarious’ and ‘representative/representation.’ Both concepts apply to Christ. By making use of the corporate personality he wishes to show “what constitutes the effective representative of man or men.”68 He particularly points to the extension of the corporate personality and the first type of application, the representation. In a note with this use of the corporate personality he refers to “The Hebrew Conception” from which he quotes in a somewhat altered form.69 He illustrates the theological relevance of the corporate personality by the contrast between Adam and Christ according to Paul.70 He reverts here to the description of the first type of application of the corporate personality, where he likewise cites the contrast between Adam and Christ as an example of representation. He also shows how the corporate personality functions in the recapitulation doctrine of Irenaeus and in the Augustinian doctrine of original sin.71 In both cases it is the representation which is applied to show this. Wheeler Robinson, at the end of this third paragraph of chapter thirteen, makes use once more of the corporate personality, specifically of the representation. “Christ is my representative in ‘all I could never be,’ simply by being Himself. 65

Robinson 1944 (246). Ibid. (246): “Though he [Aulén—JM] approaches his thesis through Irenæus, whose ‘recapitulation’ doctrine does involve the ancient conception of ‘corporate personality’ (see § 3), he makes no explicit use of it. Yet it is indispensable for the interpretation of both Pauline and much Patristic thought. Nor does he offer any modern equivalent to it. We seem to need here some conception of spiritual solidarity (see § 3) and some closer correlation of the victory of believers with that of Christ, such as might be found in the actuality of vicarious suffering as part of the whole social structure.” With the closer correlation, Wheeler Robinson has the corporate personality in mind, particularly the realism. 67 Ibid. (257–262). 68 Ibid. (258). 69 See ibid. (258–259), cf. id. 1936 (49). 70 See id. 1944 (259). 71 See ibid. (259). 66

application of the corporate personality

155

Faith—my faith—is the condition of my entrance into the ‘corporate personality’ of His Body, the Church of the Spirit.”72 In the fourteenth chapter, “The Redeemed,”73 he links up with the above named use of the corporate personality. In the first paragraph of this chapter he discusses the ideal life, by which he understands the redeemed life of the Christian.74 The relationship between the individual redeemed life and the Church he describes as follows: “Further, though the redeemed life is always individual in its response to Christ, it is always life in a new ‘corporate personality’ or social solidarity.”75 This application of the corporate personality is in line with the description of the rise of the individual as a result of the prophetic consciousness, the second point of discussion in “The Group and the Individual.” The relationship of the individual vis-à-vis the group in the Church is comparable to the relationship between the individual and the group, as this is described in the second point of discussion above. Once more he returns to the manner in which the believer enters a narrow relationship with Christ, that faith in him is justified.76 The corporate personality with its aspect of representation is the key concept in this connection: “In the New Testament . . . prevalent conceptions of ‘corporate personality’ with a long Old Testament and ethnic history made perfectly natural the conception of Christ as representation or ‘recapitulating’ the community of believers.”77 As the most explicit example he mentions again the contrast between Adam and Christ according to Paul.78 He closes his thoughts on the use of the corporate personality with the comment that for someone like Paul, who stands in a tradition in which the corporate personality dominates, the representation is completely real.79 In a modern society (this book was published in 1942) this is different, in view of the strong emphasis on the individual life, even though there are traits of the corporate personality present in the state or the church. The thought which shows the greatest agreement with

72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79

Ibid. (261). Ibid. (281–312). See ibid. (281–290). Ibid. (287). See ibid. (287). Ibid. (287), in n.2 he refers to both central publications. See ibid. (288). See ibid. (288).

156

chapter four

the corporate personality is ‘social solidarity.’ This thought expresses that no one can only live for him or herself.80 The manner of application and the use of corporate personality in this book are in the spirit of the corporate personality in both central publications on this subject. In view of the explicit reference to these publications, this occasions no surprise. A first impulse to discussion on the applicability of the corporate personality is present in the discussion of the prophetic consciousness. The impulse to discussion was neutralized by Wheeler Robinson not by speaking of a contrast, but of complementary views (see above). His last remark, in which he refers to the concept of corporate personality, is not an application of the corporate personality, but his opinion about its significance for modern times. Inspiration and Revelation The content of this work may be viewed as a prolegomenon to a work on the theology of the Old Testament, which Wheeler Robinson had in mind. As a result of his illness and death he never got beyond this publication which can therefore only qualify as a prolegomenon.81 Together with Redemption and Revelation, this work should be judged as the most important from the final years of his life. The themes which he broaches in this book are in line with his previous works, such as for example “Hebrew Psychology,” The History of Israel and “the Nature of Prophetic Inspiration.”82 In different contexts, he makes use of the corporate personality. In the fifth chapter he discusses the “Human Nature and its Divine Control.”83 In the second paragraph which is about “The Constitution of Human Personality,”84 he discusses aspects of Hebrew psychology. Already in chapter three he discussed the significance for the corporate personality.85 As the second important aspect of Hebrew psychology he mentions the corporate personality. What follows is a compilation of thoughts and examples from the two central publications on the

80 81 82 83 84 85

See ibid. (288). See id. 1946, the editorial note of this posthumously published work. See ibid. “the author’s introduction” which was written by him. Ibid. (63–77). Ibid. (69–74). See ibid. (70 n.2); a reference to id. 1925.

application of the corporate personality

157

corporate personality.86 This compilation is concluded with the words: “This fluidity or elasticity of reference is a psychological fact affecting the relation of God and man, and we shall have to return to it in the discussion of morality and religion.”87 He adduces the fluidity of the corporate personality as the core characteristic of the concept. As announced, Wheeler Robinson returns to the corporate personality in the sixth chapter, which is entitled “The Relation of Morality and Religion.”88 The second paragraph, “The Social Evolution of Morality,”89 is about the meaning of the corporate personality for the interrelation of morality and religion. In this paragraph he describes how the group and not the individual should be regarded as the ‘unit’ in religion and ethics. The cited examples are known from both central publications on the corporate personality, to which he refers. It is not surprising, in view of the theme to be dealt with in this paragraph, that he devotes special attention to the third type of the corporate personality, namely, Hebrew morality. Besides, he points to the fact that the rise of the individual has not dislodged, let alone destroyed, group consciousness.90 What follows is an elaboration of what is indicated briefly in “The Hebrew Conception” as two characteristics of Hebrew morality: mišpāṭ and ḥæsæd.91 This elaboration takes place in connection with Mic 6:8.92 He elaborates the two characteristics within the group, which occupies the primary place in ethics. “The actual content of Hebrew morality clearly shows the influence of this corporate emphasis.”93 In the eleventh chapter, in which he deals with the election of Israel,94 in the second paragraph, entitled “The Double Tradition,”95 he makes use of the corporate personality. It refers to the first type of application 86

See id. 1946 (70–71). He refers (70 n.6) to “The Hebrew Conception.” Ibid. (71). 88 Ibid. (78–91). 89 Ibid. (81–85). 90 He repeats what he stated in id. 1937, particularly in the second point of discussion, on the rise of the individual as the result of prophetic consciousness. See id. 1946 (82–83), cf. 1936 (61): “We do not exaggerate when we say that Hebrew morality, and consequently Christian morality, are what they are because they sprang up within a society dominated by the principle of corporate personality.” 91 See ibid. (61). For the two characteristics see id. 1946 (83–89). 92 See ibid. (83), cf. id 1936 (61). 93 Id. 1946 (83). 94 See ibid. (148–159). 95 Ibid. (150–153). The double tradition of election he borrows from K. Galling, Die Erwählungstraditionen Israels (BZAW 48), Giessen, 1927, which he erroneously dated 87

158

chapter four

of the corporate personality, namely, the representation. He shows how the patriarchal tradition of election illustrates the corporate personality. “The nation is not only represented by, but is summed up in, its ancestors. To call Abraham is to call the race that springs from him.”96 Wheeler Robinson’s twelfth chapter is entitled “The General Function of Prophecy.”97 In the second paragraph (without title) the topic is the close and intimate association of the prophet with God.98 He develops this topic on the basis of the heavenly assembly or council, as it is referred to for example in Jer 23:18,22.99 Of this he says that it is much more than a figure of speech. The prophet is a part of this heavenly gathering or council, whereby he is able to speak in the name of the Lord as “His adopted representative.”100 The corporate personality creates space for this consciousness of the prophet. Just as in the human relationship of corporate personality,3 there is an easy transition from the speaker to the whole group which he represents, and vice versa, so it was possible, for the prophet who believed himself to be a true member of the heavenly group, to speak freely in the name of Him whose will said the last word, but whose decisions were also those of the heavenly council.4 101

In addition to the utilization of the first type of application of the corporate personality, the representation, Wheeler Robinson reverts emphatically back to the fluidity of the corporate personality. The final express use of the corporate personality he makes in chapter twenty-one, “The Response of the Psalmist.”102 In the first paragraph of this chapter, which is the introduction, he discusses the question of the ‘I’ of the Psalms.103 This question he answers by referring to the corporate personality. The ‘I’ of the Psalms bears predominantly a representative character which therefore gives to the psalms a representational character. He combines here the first two types of applica(150) 1928. It concerns (ibid. [150]) “the difference between the deliverance from Egypt as an act of election and the promises alleged to have been made to the patriarchs.” 96 Ibid. (151), cf. id. 1936 (56) with Abraham as example of the representation. 97 Id. 1946 (160–172). 98 See ibid. (166). 99 The Hebrew term is ‫סוֹד‬. 100 Ibid. (170). 101 Ibid. (170), in n.3 he refers to ibid. (70–71), see above the discussion of the fifth chapter, of which these pages are a part. 102 Ibid. (262–270). 103 Ibid. (262–266).

application of the corporate personality

159

tion of the hypothesis of the corporate personality: the ‘representation’ and the ‘I’ of the Psalms/the Servant of the Lord. Of this he says: “In this representation the operative principle is best described as that of ‘corporate personality,’ the sense of a unity which comprehends all the individuals belonging to it, so that there is a fluidity of transition from the one to the many and from the many to the one.”104 Every time that Wheeler Robinson makes use of the corporate personality, he does so in agreement with the views which he has expressed in both central publications on this subject. References returning to the essay “The Hebrew Conception” underscore this. Particularly the first type of application of the corporate personality, the representation, he frequently repeats, as well as the fluidity. Two Hebrew Prophets This work, published posthumously in 1948 by Wheeler Robinson, consists of two parts. The first is entitled “The Cross of Hosea.”105 It was intended to form a quartet with The Cross of Job (1916), The Cross of Jeremiah (1925) and The Cross of the Servant (1926). This first part stems from 1935 and contains lectures.106 “The Cross of Hosea” is therefore virtually contemporary with “The Hebrew Conception.” As a result of this it is hardly possible to state whether one work is influenced by the other, or that the reverse is the case. If the chronology could be applied with absolute certainty, then “The Cross of Hosea” belongs to the background of the formulation of the hypothesis of the corporate personality. However, it appears impossible to apply the chronology so rigidly; rather, the case appears to have been one of mutual influence. An exception must be made for the first chapter of “The Cross of Hosea,” in which Wheeler Robinson discusses the marriage of Hosea and Gomer.107 This chapter first appeared in the Baptist Quarterly 5 in 1931.108 In “The Hebrew Conception” he refers to the marriage of Hosea and Gomer as an example of the first type of application of the corporate personality: the representation.109 With

104 105 106 107 108 109

Ibid. (264), in n.1 he refers again to ibid. (70–71) and id. 1936. Ib. 1948 (9–61). See ibid. (5), the editorial note of Payne, who cared for this publication. See ibid. (11–25). See ibid. (5). See id. 1936 (56).

160

chapter four

these considerations in mind, he follows the description of the use of the corporate personality in “The Cross of Hosea.” The second part, “The Visions of Ezekiel,”110 originated in 1943 and also contains lectures.111 The Cross of Hosea In the second chapter of “The Cross of Hosea” Wheeler Robinson discusses the inwardness of sin.112 The third paragraph of this chapter is about the inner alienation.113 This is the result of “the spirit of whoredom,” which manifests itself in an external visible alienation from God.114 With this conception of sin, Hosea turns into a new road, which leads to the individualizing of Jeremiah and Ezekiel.115 Hosea himself has in mind all of Israel as a unit and still thinks entirely in terms of the corporate personality, according to Wheeler Robinson.116 At the most we might speak of an “implicit individualism” with Hosea.117 In the third chapter he discusses “The Victory of Grace.”118 In the third paragraph, “The Discipline of Grace,”119 he makes use of the corporate personality to show how the mother in Hosea 2 (Gomer) is the nation.120 The nation has to do with prophecies of judgment, in which punishment and retribution are announced for their disobedience. The intention of this is to bring about a movement, a turnabout with “the divine purpose to save.”121 The punishment (see Hos 6:1) surely bears an aspect of retribution according to Wheeler Robinson, whereby the question as to the exactitude of the retribution in individual respect must be withheld, because Hosea approaches this via the corporate personality of the people. Only at a later time when the corporate personality is modified by a new individualization, the measure of retribution leads to big questions.122

110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122

Id. 1948 (63–125). See ibid. (5). See ibid. (26–43). See ibid. (36–39). Ibid. (36), translation of Hos 4:12; 5:4: ‫רוּח זְ נוּנִ ים‬ ַ , see ibid. (36–37). See ibid. (37–39). See ibid. (38). Ibid. (38). Ibid. (44–61). Ibid. (53–56). See ibid. (54). Ibid. (54). See ibid. (54–55).

application of the corporate personality

161

In the fourth paragraph, “The Response to Grace,”123 he makes again use of the corporate personality to indicate the relationship between Gomer and the people. “We have to think here, as so often, of that category of corporate personality which is always conditioning the status of the individual in Biblical times. Gomer is more than what we mean by a symbol: she is for the time being the epitome of Israel.”124 He uses the first type of application of the corporate personality, the representation. The realism of the corporate personality is here relative to the relationship of Gomer to the people of particular significance. “The conversion of Gomer will be an actual event, part of, and instrumental to, the conversion of Israel.”125 There is no difference between the individual and the people in the call to a turnabout. “Hosea’s appeal is both individual and national, because his first objective in Gomer is both.”126 The understanding of the call in this manner is only possible via the corporate personality. The Visions of Ezekiel In the third chapter of this part of the publication the theology of Ezekiel is discussed.127 The third paragraph deals with the individual retribution,128 as he sees this manifested in Ezekiel 18. It is “one of the most characteristic of Ezekiel’s contributions to theology, his individualism, which is set out in Chapter 18.”129 In this connection, the corporate personality is discussed. In regard to retribution, the principle of the corporate personality has always been in force.130 This may be found in the māšāl in Ezek 18:2. Jeremiah cites this in 31:29 in the context of the New Covenant in Jer 31:31–34, with a clear individualizing tendency which cancels the old collective mutual dependence.131 Ezekiel disputes the legality of the māšāl straightforwardly, because the deportations to Babylonia were experienced as injustice on God’s part.132 “He does this by a flat denial 123

Ibid. (56–61). Ibid. (58). 125 Ibid. (58). 126 Ibid. (59). 127 See ibid. (95–109). 128 See ibid. (102–105). 129 Ibid. (102). 130 Ibid. (103): “Hitherto, the principle of corporate personality has ruled men’s thoughts.” E.g. Achan (Josh 7): see id. 1936 (49) and id. 1937 (165), as well as in different publications before that. 131 See id. 1948 (103). 132 See ibid. (103). 124

162

chapter four

of the ancient doctrine of corporate responsibility before God.”133 In its place enters the individual responsibility, which is developed in Ezekiel 18. Wheeler Robinson does not find Ezekiel’s solution satisfactory. “As so often, the too vigorous denial of one error leads to another.”134 “The principle of individual retribution may be true, but it is not the only truth, and men’s lives cannot be treated as isolated units, any more than they can be wholly absorbed into a corporate personality.”135 This concept may be viewed as the assimilation of the conclusion of “The Group and the Individual,” namely that there is no absolute contradiction between the individual and the group, as this was already formulated in the fourth basic characteristic of the corporate personality, namely, individualism, in “The Hebrew Conception.” Application by Other Scholars A description of the application of the corporate personality by other scholars happens with the aid of a number of publications, which may count as a cross section of two fields of investigation, in which the hypothesis is chiefly applied: the study of the Old and New Testaments. The choice of these two fields of study is made in the extension of Wheeler Robinson’s own use of the corporate personality and the supposed influence of the hypothesis on biblical studies.136 The plan of this description is thematic-chronological by nature, whereby the areas of the Old and New Testaments are separated. The discussion of the application is in some cases possibly a prelude to a discussion of the correctness and usefulness of the hypothesis. The content of this discussion will be the subject of the following chapter. The application of the hypothesis may understandably be found in the extension of Wheeler Robinson’s own types of application, which he has expressed in “The Hebrew Conception.” We may think of the understanding of the ‘I’ of the Psalms, as well as the vision of the Servant 133

Ibid. (103). Ibid. (104). He is far from positive about Ezekiel in the brief look back, id. (124– 125). Thus he opens (124): “As we review our study of the Book of Ezekiel, we must be more conscious of its shortcomings and limitations than of its achievements.” 135 Ibid. (104). 136 Rodd in Robinson 1981 (7): “Wheeler Robinson’s concept of corporate personality has had immense influence in biblical studies.” Rodd joins Reumann, ibid. (15): “Few topics have come to pervade modern biblical studies as has the Hebrew conception of ‘corporate personality.’ ” 134

application of the corporate personality

163

of the Lord. As to the New Testament we may think of the manner in which Paul refers to Adam as representative of man and Christians as the Body of Christ. Additionally, application of the hypothesis may be expected in the investigation of the Old Testament field, in which the relationship between a person and a group, an individual and a collective is discussed. We might think for example about the study of collective or juridical aspects of the Old Testament. In the framework of the relationship between an individual and a collective, attention is also focused on the application of the hypothesis in the exegesis of Ezekiel, particularly chapter 18.137 A few lines come to the fore from the description of the application of the corporate personality, which demonstrate certain tendencies in the history of scholarship. This is of course to be done with the necessary caution on account of the character of the description, namely, a cross section of two fields of study. These lines follow below point by point. First, the influence of the hypothesis appears to diminish with the passage of time. This appears to be the result among others of the discussion, which has begun on the usefulness and the presuppositions of this hypothesis, and which will be discussed in the following chapter. The massive statements by Rodd and Reumann in respectively the introduction to the second and first edition of Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel (Robinson 1981) on the influence of the hypothesis are not supported by facts in such a way, which justify such a massive production. Secondly, the influence of the hypothesis is not evenly distributed among the types of application, which Wheeler Robinson himself indicated with the presentation of his hypothesis in 1935. Particularly in reference to the ‘I’ of the Psalms, the influence of the hypothesis may be called scant,138 while in the discussion of the person of the Servant of the Lord the hypothesis is mentioned frequently, even when it is rejected. Thirdly, within the field of the study of the juridical or ethical aspects of the Old Testament, a shift may be noted from corporate personality to corporate responsibility/solidarity, partly on the basis of the discussion 137

Exclusively commentaries published since 1935 (the year of the presentation of the hypothesis of the corporate personality). 138 Van Duin 1989, one reference in a note: in a digression on Pedersen via Kraus 1982 (495). Croft 1987 does not refer to the corporate personality at all.

164

chapter four

on the hypothesis.139 This shift is also present in the exegesis of Ezekiel.140 However, there is not always sufficient explanation of the fact, that the question needs to be answered how or why collective responsibility/ solidarity is present.141 In the following chapter this aspect of the review of the discussion will be taken up again. Fourthly, it may be decided that the influence of the hypothesis on the exegesis of Ezekiel, as expressed in the commentaries, has not been particularly extensive.142 Of the large number of commentaries published since 1937,143 only a limited number has a connection with the hypothesis, while Cooke in his commentary of 1936 comments that there is tension between the visions of chapters 18 and 20 of Ezekiel, for which Wheeler Robinson appeared to have found the solution.144 Fifthly, it may be stated that the discussion on the corporate personality has found more response in Old Testament scholarship than in New Testament studies.145 This relates to the fact, that the vision, expressed in the hypothesis of the corporate personality in reference to the relationship between individual and group, was seen as the generally valid conception within Old Testament scholarship in reference

139

See e.g. Lalleman-de Winkel 1999. See e.g. Cooper 1984. 141 E.g. Lalleman-de Winkel 1999 (69–70 n.14) and Cooper 1994 (189 n.123), who both only refer to Kaiser 1983 (67–72) for the use of corporate solidarity. A discussion on Scharbert 1958, which specifically deals with solidarity, is lacking with both. This lacuna also applies to Kaiser. 142 A reference to the corporate personality not commented on in Bartelmus 1993 (43–44 n.51) is remarkable. He states that “er (der Prophet Ezechiel—JM) noch stärker kollektiv i.S. des Konzepts der ‘corporate personality’ dachte.” 143 The following commentaries and commented translations have been consulted, in addition to the commentaries discussed: Osterloh 1939, Veldkamp 1940, 1941; Bardtke 1941; Brunner 1944a, 1944b; Auvray 1947; Ziegler 1948; Fisch 1985; Van den Born 1954; Fohrer 1955; Aalders 1955, 1957; Eichrodt 1965, 1966; Brandenburger 1965; Lamparter 1968; Wevers 1982; Zimmerli 1969a, 1969b; Becker 1992; Mosis 1978; Craigie 1986; Greenberg 1986, 1997; Fuhs 1986, 1988; Brownlee 1986; Dijkstra 1986, 1989; Blenkinsopp 1990; Allen 1990, 1994; Vawter and Hoppe 1991; Pohlmann 1996, 2001; Clements 1996; Block 1997, 1998; Maier 1998; Wright 2001; Sedlmeier 2002; Joyce 2007. For the sake of completeness, it may be remarked that Fisch, Van den Born, Fohrer, Aalders and Allen refer to Two Hebrew Prophets—this to illustrate the conception that Ezekiel was active both in Judah and in Babylonia. The passages referring to individualism and collectivism were not mentioned. 144 Cooke 1936 (195) on Ezek 18: “It is not easy at once to reconcile the treatment of the individual with Ez.’s teaching elsewhere, his sweeping condemnation of the entire people in chs. 16, 20, 23, his forecast of a judgement which will fall on good and bad alike (218. 9 [3. 4]), and permit of no escape (512 710–27 95–10 117–12 1412f ).” 145 See e.g. Cooper 1994 (188 n.120). 140

application of the corporate personality

165

to this matter.146 This is only partially valid for the commentaries to be discussed.147 Old Testament Scholarship In the discussion of the application of the corporate personality in Old Testament scholarship, a distinction is made between the different contexts, in which the hypothesis is applied. This offers the possibility of expressing systematically the manner in which the corporate personality is used in the extension of its own type of application of Wheeler Robinson. Wherever needed, cross connections between the various types of applications are indicated, to avoid the thought that the diverse contexts are separate from each other. Additionally, some developments of the hypothesis follow, which cannot be joined to the types of application, such as those indicated by Wheeler Robinson, as well as occurring of the hypothesis in commentaries on Ezekiel. The Servant of the Lord C. R. North—The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah (1948) A publication on the Suffering Servant of the Lord, which became a standard work on the subject, is surely a proper label for the work of North.148 In the first main section of his publication North discusses the vision of the Servant through the ages. A constantly recurring question since the beginning of the nineteenth century is the one pertaining to the individual and the collective interpretation of the Servant, which at the time of this publication had precipitated four theories on the identity of the Servant.149 In his discussion of the theory which accepts a collective interpretation, he names Wheeler Robinson and Eissfeldt as those who have formulated an attractive variant of this theory. The

146 See e.g. Meuzelaar and Ridderbos. Striking is the comment by Shedd 1958 (41): “The evidence which can be garnered from almost every page of the Old Testament approves H. W. Robinson’s choice of the descriptive term ‘corporate personality’.” More recently Ellis 1988 (691–725) uses corporate personality without any reference to the discussion about this concept. 147 See Conzelmann and Käsemann below. 148 See Beauchamp 1989 (325). 149 North 1948 (3–5): “1. . . . the Servant was an anonymous contemporary of the Second Isaiah, a man who, the Prophet believed, was destined to be the Messiah . . . 2. . . . the Servant was the prophet himself . . . 3. The collective theory . . . 4. The Messianic theory . . .”

166

chapter four

attractive part consists in the application of the corporate personality. “In their restatement of the collective theory they lay great stress upon the ancient idea of corporate personality.”150 In the further discussion of the collective interpretation the corporate personality is introduced as the bridge which spans both sides of the collective or individual chasm.151 In this, North assumes that the bridge is built from the side of the collective interpretation. North points to the fluidity in this connection.152 In the concluding chapter of his publication, North once more mentions the collective interpretation. He calls the variant of the collective interpretation of Wheeler Robinson the “most recent, as well as most attractive, exposition of the collective interpretation,” though North raises quite a few objections against a collective interpretation, even against the most attractive variant of this interpretation.153 H. Haag—Der Gottesknecht bei Deuterojesaja (1985) In this Forschungsbericht Haag discusses a number of aspects of the study of the Servant of the Lord in Deutero-Isaiah.154 In addition to the discussion of the theology of the songs of the Servant and the treatment of literary-critical and text-critical questions, the results of scholarship since 1892 are introduced.155 In the results of scholarship since Mowinckel until 1950,156 Haag devotes a separate paragraph to the corporate personality.157 Haag discusses the use of the corporate personality as a mediating solution between the individual and collective interpretation of the songs. Eissfeldt is, according to Haag, the initiator of this solution.158 Haag describes Wheeler Robinson’s role as follows: “The theory of the community, which is enclosed and represented in the individual was to receive its classical form by H. W. Robinson (1938). Without referring to Eissfeldt, Robinson introduces the concept of corporate personality.”159 According to Haag the application of the

150

Ibid. (3–4). See ibid. (103–116). 152 See ibid. (105). 153 Ibid. (205), see ibid. (205–206). 154 Haag 1985. 155 Haag 1985 (101–105). In 1892 his commentary on Isaiah by Duhm was published. 156 Mowinckel’s explanation of the Songs as autobiographical (S. Mowinckel, Der Knecht Jahwäs, Giessen, 1921) is for Haag an anchor point in the description of the results of the investigation. 157 See Haag 1985 (134–138). 158 See ibid. (134). 159 Ibid. (136): “Ihre klassische Gestalt sollte die Theorie von der im Individuum erfaßten und dargestellten Gemeinschaft durch H. W. Robinson (1938) erhalten. Ohne 151

application of the corporate personality

167

corporate personality on the problem of the identity of the Servant of the Lord is of great significance. “Thereby the magic formula toward the solution of the EJ-riddle appeared to have been found. In succession, it should captivate numerous colleagues.”160 Haag sums up a number of these colleagues when he discusses the final developments and tendencies in scholarship under the title “flowing interpretations.”161 Haag states that “also in recent times not a few authors [have—JM] attempted to approach the secret of the ‘Ebed’ in the sense of ‘corporate personality.’ ”162 A definitive bridging of the chasm ‘individual or collective’ was not accomplished with the application of the mediating solution to the corporate personality.163 Both the individual and the collective interpretation have retained their supporters. The ‘I’ of the Psalms H. J. Franken—The Mystical Communion with JHWH in the Book of Psalms (1954) In this dissertation Franken discusses the mystical aspects which are present in the Psalms. At the same time he indicates in which way

auf Eissfeldt Bezug zu nehmen, führt Robinson den Begriff der corporate personality ein51.” 1938 is incorrect, this should be 1936. The correct year is indicated in the bibliography. See ibid. (XXXVIII). In note 51 with this quote, Haag points out that Robinson already in 1926 (The Cross of the Servant) pointed to the corporate personality as an idea, which received too little attention in the context of the questions on the Servant of the Lord. This is in tension with the comment, that Eissfeldt is the initiator of the ‘mediating solution.’ Cf. De Leeuw 1956 (103) who mentions Robinson and Eissfeldt in one breath but comments on their independence from each other. 160 Haag 1985 (137): “Damit schien die Zauberformel zur Lösung des EJ-Rätsels gefunden zu sein. Sie sollte in der Folge zahlreiche Fachgenossen in ihren Bann schlagen.” 161 See id. (153–156): “Fließende Deutungen.” 162 Ibid. (153): “auch in der jüngsten Zeit (haben—JM) nicht wenige Autoren versucht, dem Geheimnis des Ebed im Sinne der “corporate personality” . . . näherzukommen.” Haag (154–155) mentions: R. Tournay, R. Lennox, O. Cullmann, E. Dussel, C. Stuhlmueller, F. Festorazzi, W. J. Beecher, J. A. Soggin. For the different publications see ibid. (XVII– XLIII). 163 Also remarked by Hermisson 1998b (197 n.2). Id. 1996 (18) states that “die alte Alternative ,kollektiv’/,individuell’ überhaupt zu kurz greift.” The Servant bears both individual and collective traits. Id. 1998a (259): “Aber die Dinge gehen in solcher einfachen Alternative nicht auf.” Janowski 1996 (35) endorses the vision of Hermisson: “Die Rolle, die er damit gegenüber dem empirischen Israel bekommt, liegt jenseits der einfachen Alternative kollektiv/individuell.” Hengel 1996 (90) opts also for the “flowing interpretation”: “Auch hier bestätigt sich wieder eine oft gemachte Beobachtung: Die Grenze zwischen Individuum und Kollektiv scheint fließend zu zein, der vorbildliche Einzelne verkörpert die Gemeinschaft, wie umgekehrt die Gemeinschaft in einer idealen Einzelgestalt dargestellt wird.”

168

chapter four

these are distinguished from magical aspects, because both aspects are mutually related from a psychological viewpoint.164 In reference to the magical aspects Franken speaks of a restriction of the personality and in reference to the mystical aspects he speaks of an extension of the personality.165 For the latter he refers to The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God by Johnson, who makes use of Wheeler Robinson’s hypothesis of the corporate personality.166 In chapter three of his study Franken offers an elaborate study of the restriction and the extension of a personality.167 In his discussion of mystical experience Franken introduces the term “extended personality,”168 which he borrows from Johnson, who in turn is indebted to Wheeler Robinson. The unique character of the mystical experience in the Old Testament (and the Psalms) is to be understood according to Franken against the background of “the strong personality of Jahu 6).”169,170 who as a jealous God made all other gods disappear.171 F. Lindström—Suffering and Sin (1994) In this study Lindström discusses the question whether it is in any way possible to maintain the idea of individual retribution as it occurs in relation to sickness. In Lindström’s opinion the answer to this question should be negative. He calls this “the negative component of the thesis: yhwh’s role in suffering is not interpreted in the psalms in question through the idea of individual retribution.”172 The individual complaint psalms presuppose “an understanding of life that interprets the relationship with God in other categories than sin-punishment-forgiveness.”173 From this Lindström formulates “the thesis’ “positive” side: I will draw attention to the diffusion in the psalms of the understanding of life 164

See Franken 1954 (1). See ibid. (1). 166 Ibid. (1). See below for the cited work of Johnson. 167 See ibid. (51–70). 168 See ibid. (64–70). 169 Ibid. (67). In the note with this citation Franken states: “The reason of this is indicated by A.R. Johnson, o.c., pp. 26 ff. pointing to the oscillation between the one and the many in the conception of Jahu. Cf. pp. 40 f. It is, however, hazardous to postulate from this psychological phenomenon the existence of a real pantheon.” The term ‘oscillation’ is with Johnson the equivalent of the ‘fluidity’ in Wheeler Robinson’s hypothesis of the corporate personality. 170 See ibid. (70). 171 See ibid. (68). 172 Lindström 1994 (12). 173 Ibid. (12). 165

application of the corporate personality

169

in which the loss of human life is just as irrational as the individual’s reception of this life. The sudden absence of human life is caused, just as little as the (previously) given life, by an individual relationship visà-vis the Giver of this life.174 Psalm 22 is exemplary in this connection according to Lindström.175 The discussion of this psalm, in which paradigmatically occurs the motif of the absence of God,176 is Lindström’s model for the treatment of other psalms,177 which belong to the group of individual lament psalms. Lindström remarks that “there are changes between references of personal suffering and yhwh’s dealings with a larger group of individuals.”178 Verses 24–27 of Psalm 22, in which the above mentioned shift occurs, Lindström describes as a “collectivizing literary revision of the individual complaint psalm.”179 At this point Lindström makes use of the hypothesis of the corporate personality. “From the idea of ‘corporate personality’ this group of saved afflicted (‫ענוים‬, v 27a), is in v 25 called the saved afflicted one of yhwh (‫עני‬, v 25b).”180 This collectivizing of the meaning of the individual lament is characteristic of the exilic literature of the Old Testament.181 In the discussion of Psalm 40 later in his study, Lindström addresses this. He makes a list of “the remarkable oscillation between ‘I’ and ‘we’ in the majority of the collective complaint liturgies.”182 This oscillation is determined by the historical context of the exile which led to a theological reorientation—“experiences of God within the framework of personal piety were ‘nationalized.’ ”183—which has greatly influenced the literature of the Old Testament, particularly Deutero-Isaiah and Ezekiel.184 In the summary of his discussion of Psalm 40 Lindström mentions again the “oscillation of “I” units and the “we” units, which both have a collective reference. Consequently, the fact that the confession of sin in Ps 40:13 is in “I” form, does not make

174

Ibid. (13). See ibid. (20). 176 See ibid. (20). 177 See ibid. (65). 178 Ibid. (65). 179 Ibid. (68). 180 Ibid. (68). He refers (68 n.13) to Wheeler Robinson. Additionally, he calls attention to the critique by Rogerson 1970 on the hypothesis of the corporate personality. 181 See ibid. (68). 182 Ibid. (291). 183 Ibid. (292). 184 See ibid. (292). 175

170

chapter four

problematic our conclusion that this has a collective meaning.”185 The application of the basic characteristic of the ‘fluidity’—here called ‘oscillation,’ as Johnson does also—of the hypothesis of the corporate personality indeed does not make the conclusion of Lindström problematic. Ethical and/or Juridical Context Th. C. Vriezen—Hoofdlijnen der Theologie van het Oude Testament (1949) The discussion of Vriezen’s work in this paragraph is justified on the basis of the connection in which he uses the corporate personality.186 In chapter X Vriezen deals with the communication among humans under the rubric of ethics.187 He distinguishes two directional motifs of ethical action: communal consciousness and individual responsibility.188 Communal consciousness has preference before individual responsibility: “The central motif for the moral life is already in the O.T communal consciousness.”189 This does not mean that there is no room for individual responsibility beside the communal consciousness: “It also tolerates beside itself a totally different motif, which comes greatly to the fore in Israel; this is the consciousness of individual responsibility.”190 Vriezen further rejects the thought that communal consciousness and the consciousness of the individual responsibility are two successive phases in Israel’s spiritual life. “It is rather the case, that both moments: the social and individual, penetrate and drive one another.”191 This interaction may be derived from the fact that the people are a corporate personality according to Vriezen.192

185

Ibid. (297–298). Vriezen 1949. Later and extensive reprints (1954, 1966, 1974, 1977) make use of the corporate personality in the same manner as does the first printing. 187 See ibid. (258–282). 188 This is also the title of chapter X, part I.B. See ibid. (263–268). 189 Ibid. (263). 190 Ibid. (267). 191 Ibid. (267). 192 Ibid. (268): “The people are a corporate personality (H. Wheeler Robinson) and as such can be seen both as a unity and as a multiplicity.” Cf. Van Zyl 1961 (45 n.44): “Individualism was not in opposition to the community.” Van Zyl makes frequent use of the corporate personality with reference to Wheeler Robinson, whereby Van Zyl opts for the term solidarity to express the collective aspects. For a reference to Scharbert see ibid. (43 n.34a), see also below with Scharbert. 186

application of the corporate personality

171

In two additional contexts he mentions the corporate personality. In chapter VII, entitled “God,”193 Vriezen discusses that God is one single God. In this connection he points out “that God in addition to saying ‘I’ can also say ‘We,’ because he is surrounded by angels, which he includes in his speaking.”194 In chapter IX, entitled “The Communication between God and Man,”195 Vriezen discusses the “Messenger of Yahweh (Angel of the Lord)” as one of the outward means of God to make known himself or his will.196 He compares the clear distinction between the Messenger and God in the one case and the alternation of God and the Messenger in the other case, with the change of God’s speaking about himself in the singular or the plural: “. . . as Yahweh can speak of himself in the singular and in the plural (Isa 6:8; Gen 1:26; 3:22, cf. that the people also do this, Num 21:22). Wheeler Robinson has introduced the word corporate personality for this phenomenon.”197 J. Scharbert—Solidarität in Segen und Fluch im Alten Testament und in seiner Umwelt (1958) In this study Scharbert aims to furnish a contribution to the discussion concerning the question as to whether the Old Testament is dominated by individualism or collectivism. Accordingly, the topics of the ‘I’ of the Psalms and the Servant of the Lord come into play.198 “In this work the so-called Old Testament collectivism will be described as solidarity in blessing and curse.”199 The corporate personality is introduced by Scharbert in this connection: “A further fruitful thought for our theme is that of the ‘corporate personality.’ ”200 He closes his brief summary of the hypothesis of the corporate personality thus: “A series of exegetes has embraced the concept of ‘corporate personality’ and one needs to

193

Vriezen 1949 (99–145). Ibid. (129). The note with this citation reads: “1) A ‘corporate personality’ (Wheeler Robinson) can always speak in the sing. or plural of itself, even in one sentence, cf. the Hebrew text of 2 Sam 21:4.” 195 See ibid. (175–257). 196 Ibid. (189). 197 Ibid. (189). 198 See Scharbert 1958 (1–23). 199 Ibid. (7): In der vorliegende Arbeit soll das durch den angeblichen atl. Kollektivismus gegebene Problem umschrieben werden als Solidarität in Segen und Fluch.” 200 Ibid. (11): “Ein weiterer für unser Thema fruchtbarer Gedanke ist der von der „corporate personality“45).” He refers to Wheeler Robinson, The Cross in the Old Testament, “Hebrew Psychology” and “The Hebrew Conception.” 194

172

chapter four

accord it right of domicile.”201 Scharbert lets this conclusion permeate the understanding of the “Israelite ancestral ideology”: “Particularly in antiquity, Israelite historical consciousness has also been shaped by unitary thinking and by the ‘corporate personality.’ ”202 Scharbert finally concludes that terms such as ‘individualistic’ and ‘collectivistic’ do not justice to the culture and religion of Israel in the Old Testament era. The relationship of the generations to each other he typifies with the term “solidarity,”203 for “fathers and sons always form a unity in the OT.”204 This unity, which is characteristic for solidarity, particularly bears the aspect of the extension of the hypothesis of the corporate personality in it.205 This proves that for Scharbert the corporate personality is a fruitful thought. N. A. Schuman—Gelijk om gelijk (1993) In this sizable study Schuman offers an account of a discussion on divine retribution in the Old Testament. Besides he produces a balance sheet of this discussion. The corporate personality is brought up as a correction of the traditional vision vis-à-vis divine retribution.206 A problematic aspect of the traditional concept relates to the often for certain accepted view of a development from a collective to an individual faith in retribution, while both aspects are present simultaneously, where they alternate with each other in different periods.207 The one time, the emphasis is 201 Ibid. (12): “Den Begriff ‘corporate personality’ haben eine Reihe von Exegeten übernommen48) und man wird ihm in der atl. Exegese Heimatrecht zugestehen müssen49).” Scharbert (12 n.49) addresses the critique which was expressed concerning the use of the corporate personality. 202 Ibid. (13): “israelitische Stammvaterideologie”: “Vom Ganzheitsdenken und von der „corporate personality“ ist auch das israelitische Geschichtsbewußtsein, zumal in der alten Zeit, geprägt.” See also ibid. (178). 203 Ibid. (276): “Solidarismus.” Lattey 1951 (269) already wrote about corporate personality: “which comes to much the same thing as ‘solidarity.’ ” 204 Scharbert 1958 (276): “Väter und Söhne bilden im AT immer eine Einheit.” 205 Ibid. (276): “Das Volk in vergangenen, gegenwärtigen und zukünftigen Geslechtern ist ein organisches Ganzes. Zwar hat jede Generation und jedes einzelne Glied seine eigene Beziehung zu Gott, aber das Volksganze ist mehr als nur eine Summe von Individuen.” 206 Schuman 1993 (53) defines the traditional vision as follows: “It was customary, it may be said, to assume more or less obvious that the Old Testament teaches the divine retribution.” Koch 1955 (included in Koch 1972, and partly translated in Koch 1983) rejecting of the traditional vision is the terminus ad quem for the label ‘traditional,’ according to Schuman (53). This does not mean of course that the vision called ‘traditional’ no longer occurs after 1955. 207 See ibid. (58). Adamiak 1982 argues along this line. However, the traditional vision also occurs after 1955.

application of the corporate personality

173

on the collective aspect, and other time on the individual. “This is how one may summarize the outlook, which is presently brought to the fore in the literature.”208 Schuman’s work names Wheeler Robinson with his hypothesis of the corporate personality one of the corrections of the former view. The present view of the relationship is an extension of the correction of Wheeler Robinson, according to Schuman. The present view on ‘collective or individual’ has developed to a speaking of ‘solidarity.’209 Schuman further claims that Koch’s vision follows naturally from Wheeler Robinson’s. The way proposed by Scharbert is indeed the most practicable: proceeding from the principles of solidarity between individuals, while distinguishing between personalistic and impersonalistic aspects. Pedersen and his followers, who view the individual as a part of a ‘psychic unity’ with a dynamic character, offer a special variant of this. Koch has followed the line of these views with his accenting of the objective (dingliche) character of all human acts. As ‘material’ entity every act has, after all, of each individual, an almost infectious effect on the community of which the individual is a part.210

Among the followers of Pedersen which Schuman mentioned, Wheeler Robinson is also included, though he was not a follower of Pedersen, but congenial with him. The manner, in which Schuman typifies Koch’s vision in this citation, is to be related to the corporate personality, particularly the extension.211 H. Lalleman-de Winkel—Van levensbelang (1999) In this publication the author searches for the value of ethics of the Old Testament particularly for evangelical circles in The Netherlands, among whom the Old Testament is often neglected and underestimated. In her discussion of the characteristics of ethics in the Old Testament, Lalleman-de Winkel proceeds from the vision of Wright, whose three publications she indicates as constitutive for Wright’s vision.212 In a paragraph, in which she makes supplemental comments on Wright’s

208 Schuman 1993 (59). Ibid. (59 n.18) refers to a group of authors to whom this is applicable. 209 See ibid. (59), borrowed from Scharbert 1958 (see above). 210 Ibid. (60). 211 Cf. Kaminsky 1995 (27), who connects the corporate personality via Johnson (see below) with Koch, even if Koch is not an advocate of the corporate personality according to Kaminsky. Koch 1972 does not refer to the corporate personality. 212 See Lalleman-de Winkel 1999 (59–73, 143–144).

174

chapter four

vision, Lalleman-de Winkel pays attention to the individual and the community.213 The point of departure of the discussion of the relationship between individual and community is formulated as follows: The ethics of the Old Testament deals not only with life and the individual. The individual is indissolubly connected with the other members of the people of God. . . . Modern Western people need some empathy to imagine how the community and the individual were mutually related. Yet, this mental effort is needed to understand the main lines of Old Testament ethics.214

In the framework of the relationship between individual and community Lalleman-de Winkel speaks of the corporate personality, or, as she prefers to call it: the corporate solidarity.215 Here she refers to Wheeler Robinson.216 With an appeal to Vriezen and Zimmerli Lalleman-de Winkel concludes: “In the ethics of the Old Testament relationships play a big role; individual and community are narrowly related. They are not to be played off against each other. Old Testament ethics is ‘communal ethics.’ ” 217,218 Ezekiel 18 is cited as an illustration of the significance of the personal responsibility within this communal ethics.219 It is indeed of great importance that we do not play out the individual in the Old Testament against the community, as if there would be for example a development from communal thinking to individual thinking, as was formerly claimed.220 The individual is not completely absorbed into the community, but does know him- or herself to be solidary in Israel, so that though ‘I’ is said while ‘we’ is meant.221

213

See ibid. (68–72). Ibid. (68). 215 See ibid. (69). 216 See ibid. (69–70 n.14). 217 References to Vriezen 1977 and Zimmerli, Grundriß der alttestamentlichen Theologie, 5th ed., Stuttgart, 1985. 218 Ibid. (73). 219 See ibid. (72). 220 This comment by Lalleman-de Winkel is false in its generality. Not all scholars underwrite this claim: cf. Halpern 1991 (11–107); Perdue 1997 (239) with reference to Ezek 18 as an expression of that development. See also Schuman (see above). Lindström (see above) notes a development in a reverse direction: a collectivizing tendency: individual lament psalms are interpreted collectively. 221 Lalleman-de Winkel 1999 (69–70). 214

application of the corporate personality

175

Other Old Testament Scholarship A. R. Johnson—The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God (1942) In a discussion of the application of the corporate personality—however exemplary in its intention it may be—this publication of Johnson needs to play a part.222 The argumentation by Johnson is permeated by the corporate personality. This publication, based on his lectures, is sub-divided in three parts. In the first part Johnson treats the Israelite conception of man; in the second and third parts he pays attention to the Israelite conception of God.223 The whole is for Johnson an illustration of “the general truth that psychology and theology move pari passu.”224 In the first part Johnson makes use (by name) of the basic characteristics ‘extension’ and ‘fluidity’ of the corporate personality.225 Johnson describes the ‘fluidity’ a number of times as ‘oscillation.’ In the Israelite conception of man the emphasis falls on ‘the extensions’ of the personality for Johnson.”226 In the second part he describes, with the basic characteristics ‘extension’ and ‘fluidity,’ what in his view is the Israelite conception of God.227 In reference to God, Johnson also emphasizes the ‘extensions.’228 In the third part Johnson utilizes the ‘extensions’ in order to clarify traces of polytheism in the text of the Old Testament.229 Johnson states, that “at one time in Israel . . . Yahweh was worshipped as a member, albeit the chief member, of a Pantheon.”230 Johnson approaches the pantheon as a corporate personality starting from the basic characteristic of the extension. The title of the lecture/publication is derived from this application of the corporate personality: “All in all, therefore, it would seem that, when we find an oscillation as between the One and Many in the Israelite conception of Yahweh, we should be prepared to interpret it

222 Johnson 1942. Houtman 2001 (11) refers with approval to this “beautiful little book of A. R. Johnson.” 223 See Johnson 1942 (5), cf. id. 1961, id. 1942 (5). 224 Ibid. (5). 225 Ibid. (5–17). 226 See ibid. (17); the references to Wheeler Robinson are too numerous to indicate. 227 See ibid. (17–26). 228 See ibid. (25–26). 229 Ibid. (26–41). 230 Ibid. (26).

176

chapter four

in this light.”231 Johnson continues with the application of the extension to the messenger of the Lord, whereby he names the prophet as messenger par excellence.232 Of a true prophet Johnson says, that “for the time being he was an active ‘Extension’ of Yahweh’s Personality and, as such, was Yahweh—‘in Person’.2 . . . the prophet has become temporarily at least, an important ‘Extension’ of Yahweh’s Personality.”233 A. R. Johnson—The Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel (1949) In this publication Johnson often calls again on Wheeler Robinson, particularly on Robinson’s research on the Hebrew psychology, among others via references to The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God.234 Wheeler Robinson’s considerations relative to the Hebrew psychology are of eminent importance for his hypothesis of the corporate personality, as described in chapter 3 of this work on the “Hebrew Psychology.” Besides the use which Johnson makes of Wheeler Robinson’s thoughts, he expresses critique on certain aspects. This is particularly true of the manner in which Wheeler Robinson deals with the terminology of the different parts of the body as expressions of the division of the consciousness of these parts (each part with quasi-consciousness).235 B. W. Anderson—The Living World of the Old Testament (1958) In this description of the history of Israel the author refers to the corporate personality in his discussion of the Servant of the Lord. “Again

231

Ibid. (31). See ibid. (32–37). 233 Ibid. (37). 234 Johnson 1949, cf. id. 1964. In id. 1955 (2) he confirms, that he owes to Wheeler Robinson: “. . . it is necessary to bear in mind that in Israelite thought, as in that of the so-called ‘primitive’ peoples of our own day, there is a vivid sense of what has been called ‘corporate personality’.3” The references to Wheeler Robinson are too numerous to indicate. 235 Johnson 1949 (4) remarks in this connection on Prov 11:17: “The Hebrew terms involved are here practically synonymous; the variation is merely due to the antithetic parallelism. . . . Accordingly we must beware of the suggestion that such language reveals a belief in what has been described as ‘the diffusion of consciousness’.2” Ibid. (83 n.2) contains Johnson’s critique summarized. Wolff 1973 often uses this publication of Johnson, so that we may speak of the influence of Wheeler Robinson via Johnson. Cf. Gundry 1976 (118–119) on the ‘Hebrew psychology’ (with reference to Wheeler Robinson, Pedersen, Johnson and others) as “a current understanding of OT anthropology now so common that its maxims need no quotation marks.” 232

application of the corporate personality

177

and again we have seen that an individual may incarnate the whole community of Israel or, vice versa, the community may be addressed as an individual who stands in direct relation to God.”236 He does this by referring to one of the patriarchs, namely Abraham.237 Approaching the Servant in the spirit of the corporate personality, with a reference to Wheeler Robinson, makes a choice between an individual or collective approach superfluous. “So it is unnecessary to choose between an individual and a corporate interpretation of the Servant of Yahweh, for both are true to the Israelite sense of community.”238 J. de Fraine—Adam et son Lignage (1959) This publication is totally devoted to the occurrence of corporate personality in the Bible.239 Even more than is the case with Johnson, The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God, it should be said that no study of the application of the corporate personality can ignore this publication by De Fraine. In a sense this study is an ode to the hypothesis of the corporate personality.240 Both the Old and the New Testaments come up for discussion with De Fraine. The corporate personality and the examples indicated by Wheeler Robinson of corporate personality are expanded and discussed by De Fraine. In the first chapter he discusses the hypothesis of the corporate personality.241 In the second chapter he discusses how the corporate personality occurs in the Old Testament.242 The third chapter is devoted to the practical application of the corporate personality, in which the types of application by Wheeler Robinson are treated extensively.243 The fourth and final chapter is about corporate personality in the New Testament.244 In the conclusion De Fraine endorses once more the thoughts of Wheeler

236

Anderson 1958 (420). Published in the U.S. as Understanding the Old Testament. See ibid. (420) with a reference to Pedersen 1926 (476). 238 Anderson 1958 (421), cf. id. 1979 (461–462). 239 De Fraine 1959; German (often cited in the literature): De Fraine 1962; English: J. de Fraine, Adam and the Family of Man, Staten Island, 1965. 240 This is not true for De Fraine 1952 (esp. 460–463) where he added a few marginal comments with the use of the corporate personality. De Fraine (475) concludes that the often supposed evolution of collective to individual is not correct. In this context he places his marginal notes with the hypothesis of the corporate personality. 241 De Fraine 1959 (11–14). 242 Ibid. (43–112). 243 Ibid. (113–192). 244 Ibid. (193–217). 237

178

chapter four

Robinson, whereby he first points to the basic characteristics ‘extension’ and ‘realism.’ The two schemes, the one of the pater familias (horizontal scheme) and the other of the ancestor (vertical scheme) are frequently attested in the four grand sub-divisions of the Old Testament and in the New. . . . Moreover, it is a fact that the two points of view are by turns dominant: sometimes it is the group which condenses itself into a single individual; sometimes it is exactly the same group which constitutes ‘the extension’ of a unique individual member.245

Subsequently he connects these with the ‘fluidity:’ “the biblical notion of the ‘corporate personality’ is characterized by great fluidity.”246 G. W. Anderson—The History and Religion of Israel (1969) In this work, in which Anderson describes the history and the religion of Israel in different eras, he uses the corporate personality as if it were a generally accepted position in Old Testament scholarship. In the chapter on the patriarchs he writes: There is much more to be said for the view that at least sometimes individual personages in the stories represent tribes or other communities. This is in accord with the concept of the ‘corporate personality,’ which plays an important role in the Old Testament. The life of a community is conceived of and described in vividly individual terms, and, on the other hand, a representative individual can embody the life of the community in what he is, does, and experiences.247

245 Ibid. (219): “Les deux schèmes, celui du pater familias (schème horizontal) et celui de l’ancêtre (schème vertical) sont fréquemment attestés dans les quatres grandes subdivisions de l’Ancien Testament et dans le Nouveau. . . . C’est plutôt le fait que les deux points de vue sont tour à tour dominants: tantôt c’est le groupe qui se condense en un seul individu, tantôt c’est le même groupe exactement qui constitue «l’extension» d’un membre individuel unique.” 246 Ibid. (219): “la notion biblique de «personnalité corporative» se caractérise par la grande fluidité.” 247 Anderson 1969 (15). Anderson (16) associates the patriarchal stories with the genre saga: “They include both collective and individual elements. The most appropriate comprehensive term to apply to them is saga, since in them we find neither pure fiction nor scientific history, but folk traditions which deal, or purport to deal, with actual events.” See also ibid. (19). Koch 1973 (188) also connects the genre Sage with the corporate personality: “Nirgends tritt im Alten Testament die Auffassung von der Corporate Personality so klar zutage wie in den Sagen, die von dieser Überzeugung her so ‘personal’ vom Schiksal ganzer Verbände berichten.” He does so with a reference to Wheeler Robinson and De Fraine (German translation). See ibid. (191). Cf. Koch 1972 above, ad Schuman.

application of the corporate personality

179

In the chapter on the time of the exile and thereafter Anderson discusses the Servant of the Lord. He briefly indicates three lines of interpretation: a collective, an individual and a combination of both, which he connects with the corporate personality. Anderson’s choice moves in the direction of the combination: “Accordingly the choice seems to lie between some form of corporate interpretation, a future individual interpretation, and a blend of the two.”248 In the same chapter Anderson puts forward the pseudepigraphical character of for example the book of Daniel. He deems it possible, that the pseudepigraphical character of Daniel for example is linked with the corporate personality, namely “in accordance with the notion of corporate personality (see above, pp. 15, 151), the apocalyptic thought of the teaching of the ancient seer as continued in himself.”249 L. G. Perdue—The Household, Old Testament Theology, and Contemporary Hermeneutics (1997) In his contribution to the volume Families in Ancient Israel Perdue discusses the household from the vantage point of theology and contemporary hermeneutics.250 Among the topics which Perdue discusses, are, among others: “The Family in Old Testament Theology: Solidarity and Community.”251 Perdue opens his discussion as follows: The modern concept of individualism was not known in ancient Israel and early Judaism, though a basic understanding of individual responsibility within the larger corporate whole began to develop during the exilic period (see Ezekiel 18). On the whole, however, the strong sense of corporate solidarity and community dominates Israel’s and early Judaism’s social and religious world.14 252

This opening is entirely in line with the use of the corporate personality with Wheeler Robinson, to which note 14 also points.253

248

Anderson 1969 (151). Ibid. (175). He makes a connection with the basic characteristic extension. 250 Perdue 1997. 251 Ibid. (237–239). 252 Ibid. (237). 253 Ibid. (255–256); Perdue (253) draws the following conclusion from this for the present time: “The most significant feature of the Israelite and early Jewish family that may serve as a social basis for contemporary ethical action is the corporate identity and solidarity of the ancestral household.” 249

180

chapter four

Commentaries on Ezekiel An illustration in extenso of the application in the area of exegesis of Ezekiel is not possible. For this reason a choice was made for commentaries on Ezekiel in which results of exegetical investigation in Ezekiel have been included. J. B. Taylor—Ezekiel (TOTC) (1969) In the introduction to his commentary Taylor brings up the corporate personality in a distracted manner. He speaks about “corporate responsibility and corporate guilt.”254 He places this vis-à-vis individual responsibility in a scheme of ‘earlier and later,’ to which already attention has been paid. Ezekiel represents the later stage, while the corporate responsibility is a popular train of thought from pre-exilic times, which represents an earlier stage. These two stages relieve each other.255 That the ‘corporate responsibility’ and ‘the corporate guilt’ are connected with the corporate personality appears from the discussion of Ezekiel 18.256 Taylor does not bring up the corporate personality, as Wheeler Robinson expressed it in reference to this aspect in Ezekiel (and Jeremiah). Wheeler Robinson speaks about individualism within the corporate personality in reference to Ezekiel (and Jeremiah). D. Stuart—Ezekiel (MOT) (1988) In this commentary use is made of the corporate personality in the exegesis of Ezekiel 18. Stuart divides the collective and individual aspects in the bearing of responsibility during two periods. The collective aspect applies to the time during which people live together with others in this history. The individual aspect relates to eternity.257 In the exegesis of Ezek 33:1–20 reference is made back to what was said in Ezekiel 18 pertaining to the bearing of responsibility.258

254

Taylor 1969 (45). See ibid. (45). 256 Taken by themselves, ‘responsibility’ and ‘guilt’ are different from ‘personality.’ Taylor (148) connects these so narrowly, that it is justified to speak of influence of the hypothesis of the corporate personality, particularly the ‘extension’ without naming it, however. 257 See Stuart 1988 (156). That Wheeler Robinson’s hypothesis forms the basis for this interpretation may be deduced from the reference to “The Hebrew Conception,” see ibid. (425). 258 See ibid. (311). 255

application of the corporate personality

181

B. Maarsingh—Ezechiël (POT) (1988) In the second part of this three-part commentary on Ezekiel, Maarsingh discusses Ezekiel 18.259 In this discussion Maarsingh makes space for a digression on collectivism and individualism.260 Here he claims that the opinion that Ezekiel is the first prophet, who places strong emphasis on personal responsibility, cannot be maintained.261 He closes his discussion with a quote from Vriezen: “Th. C. Vriezen says in connection with Ezekiel 18: ‘The people are a corporate personality and as such can be seen both as unity as well as a multiplicity.”262 Maarsingh states: “With the judgment of the question as to whether this is about collectivism or individualism, one needs to pay attention as to who is speaking, to whom, and in what circumstances.”263 He offers three examples: Exod 20:5–6 / Deut 5:9–10; Lam 5:7 and Jer 31:29 / Ezek 18:2. From this he draws the following conclusion: “And all of these individuals are summoned as members of the one people of YHWH to confess guilt and to return to the Living God. This is individualism and collectivism rolled in one.”264 L. E. Cooper, Sr.—Ezekiel (NAC) (1994) In his discussion of Ezekiel 18 in this commentary Cooper declares that the corporate personality is inadequate for the explanation of the relationship between a group and an individual in the bearing of guilt, because the presupposition of this hypothesis is false.265 Cooper opts for the term “corporate solidarity,” which is “an essential part of Hebrew thought” and which is not contradicted by Ezekiel.266 However, Ezekiel does not introduce a new doctrine.267 A bit later Cooper speaks again

259

Maarsingh 1985, 1988, 1991. See id. 1988 (48–49). 261 See ibid. (48). 262 Ibid. (49). For Vriezen, who refers to Wheeler Robinson, see above. 263 Ibid. (49). 264 Ibid. (49). 265 See Cooper 1994 (188 n.120) with reference to Rogerson 1970. The discussion on the (usefulness of the) hypothesis occurs in the following chapter. 266 Ibid. (189). 267 See ibid. (189 n.123): “Taylor, Ezekiel, 148. The term ‘corporate solidarity’ is used by W. C. Kaiser, Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 67–72. He argues that sometimes a group was treated as a unit, sometimes an individual represented a group, and sometimes there was ‘oscillation’ between a representative and the group represented. An individual can ‘implicate’ a group.” For Taylor see above. ‘Oscillation’ is used e.g. by Johnson as equivalent of ‘fluidity.’ ‘Oscillation’ is used differently by various authors, however, which does not produce clarity: Johnson 260

182

chapter four

about ‘personality:’ “Ezek 18 combines corporate and individual dimensions of personality in a way that is not contradictory.”268 New Testament Scholarship The discussion of the application of the corporate personality in New Testament scholarship is directed to both aspects, which are indicated in the introduction to the use of the corporate personality by other scholars than Wheeler Robinson: Adam as representative of the human generation and Christians as the Body of Christ, the congregation. Adam and Christ, the Body of Christ J. J. Meuzelaar—Der Leib des Messias (1961) In his study, Meuzelaar takes seriously the insight, growing in his time, that no study of ancient Christianity is possible without the knowledge of later Judaism, its language, its history and its mode of thought. Besides, Meuzelaar points out that during the time of Paul, the division between synagogue and church had not yet been completed. His letters are permeated by the contrast between Jews and Greeks and not between synagogue and church. With an eye on the enmity and the reconciliation between Jews and Greeks, he uses the image of the Body of the Messiah.269 In the first chapter of his study Meuzelaar discusses as his fourth point of interest “Der Leib Christi als ‘Gesamtpersönlichkeit’.”270 Under this point of interest Meuzelaar introduces the corporate personality, referring to Wheeler Robinson as the view of the Old Testament and ‘late Judaism’ regarding the relationship between a group and an individual.271 Further, Meuzelaar sketches as to how the line is extended to the New Testament and particularly to the Pauline concept of the Body of Christ.272 For the concept of the Body of Christ as ‘corporate personality,’ by which is meant the Church, Meuzelaar refers to the

connects the term to corporate personality and Kaiser 1983 (69), who emphatically rejects the thought of the corporate personality, with corporate solidarity. 268 Cooper 1994 (189, 189 n.125). Cooper borrows this thought from Matties 1990 (118–124, 157–158). 269 See Meuzelaar 1979 (V), a photographic reprint of 1961. 270 Ibid. (1–19, esp. 11–14): “Probleme der Forschung.” 271 See ibid. (11 n.1) as well as Johnson 1942. 272 See ibid. (11–13) with Adam likewise as representative of all of humanity.

application of the corporate personality

183

works of Best and Thornton.273 From the manner in which Meuzelaar brings up the corporate personality, it appears that he accepts the vision of Wheeler Robinson as a generally valid concept within Old Testament scholarship in reference to the relationship between an individual and a group.274 The aspect of the ‘fluidity’ is particularly illuminated by Meuzelaar: “With this manner of thought crossings are continually possible from the one to the many and from the many to the one, which includes the fate of the many, representing its unity in itself and its destination.”275 H. Ridderbos—Paulus (1978) In his study on the theology of Paul, Ridderbos, in his review of the main points in the history of the investigation, points in a comparable manner as Meuzelaar does, to the use of the corporate personality with reference to Wheeler Robinson.276 Ridderbos concentrates his discussion of the use particularly on the term ‘in Christ:’ “. . . since the Jewish and Semitic background of Paul came to be better known, in this respect (there is—JM) a totally different view [that] has become dominant, namely that of the Old Testament idea of the ‘all-in-one.’ This idea is often indicated by the term corporate personality.”277 Ridderbos says that the term corporate personality “was coined particularly by Wheeler Robinson for certain connections observed in the Old Testament.”278 Ridderbos accepts the vision of Wheeler Robinson as generally valid within Old Testament scholarship in reference to the “connections observed,” namely the relationship between an individual and a group. In this he agrees with Meuzelaar. Ridderbos does question whether the term applies in every respect to Paul’s letters, but endorses the importance of the term “for the insight

273

See ibid. (12 n.1). ‘Corporate personality’ is the translation of ‘Gesamtpersönlichkeit.’ He refers to E. Best, One Body in Christ, London, 1955 and L. S. Thornton, The Common Life in the Body of Christ, 2d ed., Westminster, 1944. See also Gundry 1976 (223–244): “Soma and the Church as the Body of Christ.” 274 See Meuzelaar 1979 (11). So also Manson 1948 (19), with reference to Johnson 1942, and (22). 275 Meuzelaar 1979 (11): “Bei dieser Denkweise sind fortwährend Übergänge möglich von dem Einen zu den Vielen und von den Vielen zu den Einem, der das Schicksal der Vielen in das seinige einschliesst, ihre Einheit in sich darstellt und ihre Bestimmung represäntiert.” 276 See Ridderbos 1978 (33–34). 277 Ibid. (33). 278 Ibid. (33).

184

chapter four

into the basic structures of Paul’s preaching.”279 This observation Ridderbos applies in reference to “the parallel Adam-Christ” and “the whole of the specific Pauline concept of the congregation as ‘Body’ of Christ.”280 In the second chapter of his study Ridderbos proceeds to discuss the themes, which in his view form the basic structures of the theology of Paul. He entitles one of the themes which he discusses “In Christ, with Christ. The old and the new man.”281 In this connection he brings up the corporate personality and uses specifically the first type of application, namely, representation. He also brings up the terms ‘in Christ’ and ‘with Christ’ as expressions of a “corporate solidarity of the all-in-One, which Paul also applies to Christ and his people.”282 The parallel between Adam and Christ comes up in this connection, which he further develops toward the old and new man, as well as being one Body of the many in Christ (Rom 12:5).283 In the continuation of his study Ridderbos, in reference to diverse aspects of Paul’s theology, makes use of ‘corporate solidarity,’ whereby the terms ‘in Christ,’ ‘with Christ,’ ‘the parallel Adam and Christ’ and ‘the Body of Christ’ constantly play a role.284 Commentaries In the exegesis of different texts from the New Testament, which refer to the parallel between Adam and Christ, or the Body of Christ, the corporate personality is referred to. We indicate a number of references to illustrate the application of the corporate personality in New Testament exegesis. H. Conzelmann—Der erste Brief an die Korinther (KEK) (1969) In his exegesis of 1 Cor 15:22 on the parallel between Adam and Christ, Conzelmann brings up the corporate personality.285 Conzelmann writes on the origin of the manner in which Adam functions in this text: “Indeed, Adam has become the primeval man in Jewish speculation, in whom virtually all of humanity is contained.”286 In the note with this

279

Ibid. (33). Ibid. (33, 34). 281 See ibid. (56–63). 282 Ibid. (60). 283 See ibid. (61–62). 284 See ibid. (632) in the index under “corporative solidarity.” 285 Conzelmann 1969 (318). 286 Ibid. (318): “In der Tat ist Adam in der jüdischen Spekulation zum Urmenschen geworden53, in dem die ganze Menschheit virtuell enthalten ist54.” 280

application of the corporate personality

185

sentence Conzelmann writes: “One usually speaks of the idea of the ‘corporate personality.’ ”287 According to Conzelmann, the expression of the ‘corporative personality’ does not suffice. There are also influences present from Gnosticism in the idea of Adam as “primeval man.”288 E. Käsemann—An die Römer (HNT) (1974) In this commentary on the letter to the Romans reference is made to the corporate personality in the list of literature concerning the pericope Rom 5:12–21. In this the work of Wheeler Robinson, as well as that of Johnson, is mentioned as being of significance for the understanding of this pericope. Käsemann is of the opinion that the idea of the corporate personality is only partly applicable, namely in this respect: “undoubtedly it is an important factor in the text, that the fate of the descendants is established in the ancestors insofar as the memory points to the view of the corporate personality as useful, which is in effect transferred to the patriarchs, though it remained related to Israel.”289 In regard to the religio-historical background of the Adam-Christ typology “the recently uncommon heavily burdened Semitic picture of the corporate personality, although viewed extensively as an outstanding solution triggered by the essay by Robinson,” is only capable of indicating its milieu of provenance.290 J. Gnilka—Der Philipperbrief (HThKNT) (1980) In the second digression of this commentary, entitled “Σὺν Χριστῷ εἶναι,” Gnilka brings up the corporate personality, to clarify the manner in which Paul uses this expression.291 The expansion of Christ’s fate to humanity has its roots in the biblical representation of the corporate personality32. After that everything that Christ did and suffered, had meaning not only for himself, but also for all of his people whom he represents. The imagination makes it possible

287 Ibid. (318): “Man pflegt von der Idee der ‘korporativen Persönlichkeit’ zu reden.” Conzelmann does not refer to Wheeler Robinson. The German expression for “corporate personality” is “korporative Persönlichkeit.” 288 Ibid. (318): “Urmensch.” 289 Käsemann 1974 (133): “Zweifellos ist es ein gewichtiges Moment des Textes, daß das Geschick der Nachkommen im Ahnherren festgelegt worden ist. Insofern erweist sich die Erinnerung an die Anschauung von der corporate personality als nützlich, welche tatsächlich auf die Patriarchen übertragen wurde, jedoch auf Israel bezogen blieb.” 290 Ibid. (132): “neuerdings ungewöhnlich strapazierte semitische Vorstellung der corporate personality, obgleich sie weitgehend als Patentlösung betrachtet wird (ausgelöst durch den Aufsatz von Robinson)”. He refers to De Fraine 1962 whom he calls exemplary. 291 Gnilka 1980 (76–93).

186

chapter four to transfer the sayings of one to the many, but always in such a way, that the real historical priority remains in place.292

In the exegesis of Phil 2:5 the corporate personality comes up with the expression ἐν Χριστῷ Ιησοῦ, which in content is identical to being incorporated into the Body of Christ by baptism.293 Gnilka comments on this: “Without deciding the question here, whether for the main Pauline letters the Gnostic imagination of σῶμα, is to be taken into account, one will have to say that for Paul the Semitic idea of the corporate personality is constitutive22.”294 F. Mussner—Der Galaterbrief (HThKNT) (1981) In the exegesis of Gal 3:8 on becoming blessed in Abraham, Mussner speaks about a particular idea, which hides behind these words. “Abraham is here in a universal sense seen as ‘progenitor’ of the coming salvation, to whom his descendants are related in solidarity by a promise of blessing. Behind that stands probably also the Semitic idea of the ‘corporate personality:’48 Abraham is as bearer of the promise of blessing more than only an ‘individual:’ ‘in’ him his descendants are as it were already present and are blessed with him.”295

292 Ibid. (81): “Die Ausweitung des Christusschicksals auf die Menschen hat ihre Wurzel in der biblischen Vorstellung von der korporativen Persönlichkeit32. Danach hat alles, was Christus tut und leidet, Bedeutung nicht nur für ihn, sondern auch für alle zu ihm gehörigen Menschen, die er darstellt und vertritt. Die Vorstellung ermöglicht es, die Aussagen von dem Einen auf die Vielen zu übertragen, doch immer so, daß die echte historische Vorrangigkeit gewahrt bleibt.” Gnilka uses the ‘representation’ and then the ‘fluidity,’ whereby he, however, notes the “priority” as curtailment of the vice versa character of the fluidity. In his note Gnilka refers to Wheeler Robinson, De Fraine and others. 293 See ibid. (110). 294 Ibid. (110): “Ohne hier die Frage zu entscheiden, ob für die paulinischen Hauptbriefe das gnostische Vorstellungsmodell von σῶμα in Anschlag zu bringen ist, wird man sagen müssen, daß für Paulus wiederum die semitische Vorstellung von der corporate personality konstitutiv ist22.” In the note with this quote Gnilka refers to the above mentioned digression. Cf. Bruce 1983 (222) on ‘in Christ’ in reference to Gal 3:26: “It is difficult to find an adequate precedent for this idea of an ‘inclusive’ Christ: it is different, for example, from the alleged Hebrew concept of ‘corporate personality’.” 295 Mussner 1981 (222): “Abraham wird hier in einem universalen Sinn als ‘Stammvater’ des kommenden Heils gesehen, mit dem seine Nachkommenschaft solidarisch durch die Segenverheißung verbunden ist. Dahinter steht vermutlich auch die semitische Idee der ‘korporativen Persönlichkeit’48: Abraham ist als Träger der Segenverheißung mehr als nur ‘Individuum’: ‘in’ ihm ist gewissermaßen seine Nachkommenschaft schon anwesend und wird mitgesegnet.” Mussner particularly uses the ‘extension,’ the diachronic aspects of the extension which is present in the corporate personality. In his note Mussner refers to Wheeler Robinson and De Fraine.

CHAPTER FIVE

CRITIQUE OF THE CORPORATE PERSONALITY The corporate personality has been applied broadly in different fields of investigation of biblical studies. The application has, however, steadily diminished since the presentation of the hypothesis as a coherent whole in 1935. This is chiefly the case in Old Testament studies. The discussion on the usefulness and the presuppositions of the corporate personality which has gotten into its stride is responsible for this. In the discussion about the corporate personality, an article by Rogerson occupies a crucial role.1 This article is regularly cited in the literature to point out the deficiencies and inaccuracies in the hypothesis of the corporate personality. For a number of scholars the article by Rogerson counts as a definite farewell to the use of the corporate personality.2 Rogerson’s article is not the first sign of criticism of the hypothesis and its usefulness. As the articulation of the hypothesis itself in “The Hebrew Conception” is the rounding off of a process with a past history, this is also valid in reference to the article by Rogerson. He is not the first one to question the hypothesis. His article, indeed, is fundamental, in view of his conclusion to drop in its entirety the term ‘corporate personality’ in Old Testament scholarship. An earlier impulse toward discussion on the hypothesis is, for example an article by Porter about the application of the hypothesis in juridical contexts.3 Previous to these two articles doubts had been expression of the hypothesis and its usefulness. Mendenhall, for example, already rejects the corporate personality.4 He distinguishes different ‘social units’ in the political society which is built up by a collection of concentric circles, each with its own function. “It is necessary to keep this structure in mind

1 Rogerson 1970. Summarized in J. W. Rogerson, “Corporate Personality.” ABD 1:1156–1157. The critique is made thematically by content. 2 E.g. Lang 1986 (304), cf. the reprint of Rogerson 1970 in Lang ed. 1985, and Di Vito 1999 (225 n.31) who speaks of “decisive critiques” referring to Porter (see below) and Rogerson. 3 Porter 1965. 4 Mendenhall 1960 (91).

188

chapter five

in order to understand the place of the individual in ancient society: as to which circle of political society are we discussing?”5 Mendenhall emphasizes the solidarity in the group to which an individual belongs (his ‘small inner circle’) to protect the individual in case of conflict with another group outside his inner circle. That is the function of the group in political society. It is namely virtually impossible to act as an individual (unless one or another office is held) vis-à-vis ‘larger units.’ Individuality is not excluded thereby, but precisely possible: “it is specifically this solidarity which makes it possible for the individual to be an individual.”6 In the explanation of the rejection of the corporate personality Mendenhall underscores the protective function (‘corporate solidarity’) of the inner circle, to which an individual belongs.7 Mendenhall emphatically points to changes in a society which influence the manner in which social units function in their mutual relations and which influence the individuals in the social units.8 He emphasizes the individual: “There can certainly be no doubt that biblical faith placed a responsibility, as well as a value upon the individual for which we have no ancient oriental parallel.”9 According to Mendenhall, there is no question of corporate personality.10 The article by Rogerson is to be viewed as the crystallization point of the critique. In his article he aims “to establish the meaning of corporate personality.”11 The named articles by Porter and Rogerson are exemplary for two different levels, on which critique is expressed on the hypothesis. On the one hand this concerns the level of usefulness and on the other hand, the fundamental level of the foundations of the hypothesis.

5

Ibid. (90). Ibid. (91). 7 See ibid. (91 n.6). 8 With Wheeler Robinson, only the changed circumstances come to the fore with the rise of individualism within the corporate personality. 9 Ibid. (108). Kaminsky 1997 (332) is of the opinion that Mendenhall “disproportionately highlights the role of the individual in the covenantal community.” 10 Wheeler Robinson characterizes the function of the group within ethics (the third type of application of the corporate personality) with a citation from S. A. Cook, see Robinson 1936 (60): “Ethical ideas are at least implicit in the group-idea, for the social group protected its poor and weak members—provided the group-sentiment was strong.” The protection of the members of the group is likewise a related point in Mendenhall’s considerations. 11 Rogerson 1970 (2). 6

critique of the corporate personality

189

Kaminsky, who has extensively concerned himself with this material, distinguishes four basic rubrics of critique.12 In the first rubric he claims that the hypothesis creates a false dichotomy between ideas of the individual and the collective, as if the Israelites were only aware of the individual in later biblical times. The second rubric discusses various cases which may better be explained on the basis of ideas other than the corporate personality, for example: bloodguilt, property rights, and violation of holiness taboos. The third rubric examines the fallacy of the underlying anthropological insights of the hypothesis. Finally, in the fourth rubric the careless and ambiguous application of the hypothesis comes under discussion. Rubrics one, three and four are variations on rubric three. The lack of realization of individualism in the society of ancient Israel is founded on the anthropological theories which dominate with Wheeler Robinson. The ambiguous use of corporate personality also has to do with the underlying anthropological theories, as will become clear from the critique by Rogerson (see below). The choice for two basic rubrics of critique promotes clarity: Kaminky’s rubrics two and three. In his article Porter tests the usefulness and the applicability of the hypothesis in juridical contexts to explain exegetical problems which have arisen. His conclusion is that the use of corporate personality may be omitted in juridical contexts to provide the indicated problems with an adequate explanation. Porter thereby does not comment on the usefulness or applicability of the hypothesis in other contexts than the juridical. By way of summary, it may be claimed that this concept is prominent in hardly any of the examples as far as legal penalties are concerned, while other important aspects are present in all. This is not to deny that the concept may well be found in the Old Testament outside the legal sphere and may play a vital part there5).13

Relative to the juridical practice, claims Porter, it needs to be firmly held “that the law operated on the basis of the individual rather than the group, and was concerned to fix individual guilt and inflict individual punishment.”14 About ‘the Hebrew’ Porter says that

12 13 14

See Kaminsky 1995 (18–19). Porter 1965 (379). Ibid. (379).

190

chapter five his basic recognition was qualified, as far as the operation of the law was concerned, not so much by ideas of ‘corporate personality,’ as by the notion that a man can possess persons in much the same way that he possesses property and by early religious beliefs about the contagious nature of blood, holiness, sin and uncleanness.15

Rogerson’s Discussion of the Corporate Personality Rogerson opens his article with a summary of Porter’s findings.16 He continues with the thought that it would be logical to investigate the use of the hypothesis in non-juridical contexts of the Old Testament, and thereby to follow the road of Porter to the end. This is not what Rogerson does, however. His critique of the hypothesis is of a different kind than Porter’s. Rogerson is not in the first place interested in testing the usefulness and applicability of the hypothesis, but in the foundations of the hypothesis. When a conclusion once has been drawn, it may be considered as to whether it would be fruitful to follow the road which Porter entered to the end. Rogerson’s conclusion is that the term ‘corporate personality’ is best avoided, because it has been used ambiguously from the outset and rests on superseded foundations. In the interest of clarity it would therefore be best to drop the term corporate personality completely, and at the same time to abandon any attempt to explain Old Testament phenomena in terms of primitive mentality.17

With this conclusion the relevance of Porter’s type of investigation shifts, in which the usefulness and applicability of the hypothesis is tested by

15 Ibid. (379–380). The intended concept of property is derived from Daube 1947 (154–189). Daube (154) uses the term ‘ruler punishment’ in this context: “in the case of ruler punishment, the community suffers, not as answerable for the crime of a member, but as the property of a guilty ruler (for example, a sinful king may be punished by the plague decimating his people.)” Daube (154) distinguishes this from ‘communal responsibility:’ “in the case of communal responsibility proper, the community as a whole is deemed to be tainted by and answerable for the crime of any member (for example, a city may be answerable for a murder committed in its midst.)” Porter emphasizes the line of the ruler punishment. Daube (173) formulates more carefully: “Having, as I hope, established the distinction between communal responsibility and ruler punishment, I hasten to add that, in many cases, it is difficult to decide which of the two ideas has produced the result recorded, more than that, in many cases it is undeniably both ideas that have been at work at the same time.” 16 See Rogerson 1970 (1). 17 Ibid. (14).

critique of the corporate personality

191

the texts of the Old Testament.18 If Rogerson’s conclusion should be correct, all exegetical problems show a new face, for which an appeal is made to the corporate personality to explain them, also those which are outside juridical contexts, which Porter has discussed. The new formulation of the problem is the content of the shift of the relevance of the type of research which Porter has done of the corporate personality. If Rogerson is right, a testing of the usefulness and applicability of the hypothesis is no longer relevant. In that case, the question should be asked for alternate explanations of the exegetical problems. Rogerson’s critique has a stepped structure. His point of departure is the discovery of the ambiguous use of the hypothesis with Wheeler Robinson. The ambiguous use created the space to apply the hypothesis to periods of Israel’s history of which one might expect that the remnants of the primitive past would have disappeared.19 Moreover, it opened the way for other scholars to apply the hypothesis to areas of study for which the hypothesis was not intended. After a brief reference to the authors from whom Wheeler Robinson has borrowed his thoughts for the first use,20 Rogerson states that Wheeler Robinson uses the corporate personality in reference to “primitive legislation” as equivalent of “corporate responsibility.”21 This is the first use. The expression ‘corporate responsibility’ is adequate for example for the explanation of the passage about Achan (Josh 7).22 There is no reason to appeal for this to another expression, such as corporate personality. If Wheeler Robinson limited the use of corporate personality to the context of the primitive legislation, which does not proceed from

18 Porter’s investigation remains forschungsgeschichtlich of value, because his article has been the step for the testing of the foundations of the hypothesis and the analysis of the manner, in which the hypothesis has been used. 19 See Rogerson 1970 (2). Cf. Mendenhall 1960 (91): “[I]t is impossible to take one particular pattern of relationships as a norm which held true all the long and complex history of ancient Israel.” This is precisely what Wheeler Robinson has done, according to Rogerson. 20 Rogerson 1970 (3–5) refers to H. Maine, Ancient Law; C. M. Doughty, Arabia Deserta; J. B. Mozley, Ruling Ideas in Early Times, Lectures delivered in the University of Oxford 1874–5 (intended is: J. B. Mozley, Ruling Ideas in Early Ages and their Relation to Old Testament Faith. Lectures delivered to Graduates of the University of Oxford). 21 Rogerson 1970 (4, 5). 22 Ibid. (5): “The phrase ‘corporate responsibility,’ used to explain the Achan incident in the commentary on Joshua,1 would have explained this perfectly.” Note 1 refers to H. Wheeler Robinson, Deuteronomy and Joshua (W. F. Adeney, ed., The Century Bible, Volume IV), Edinburgh, 1907.

192

chapter five

the individual, but in which people are seen as members of a group, it would have been clear what Wheeler Robinson meant by corporate personality.23 The ambiguous meaning arises at the moment when H. Wheeler Robinson begins to use corporate personality differently than as an equivalent to corporate responsibility. With this, the following aspect of Rogerson’s critique must be discussed. What Wheeler Robinson does then is give an explanation of corporate responsibility. Wheeler Robinson owes this interpretation, which is psychological by nature, to the anthropology of his time. A leading thought in the interpretation is the presupposition that “Hebrew psychology was essentially that of primitive societies.”24 From this flows the ambiguity, which Rogerson finds in the use of the corporate personality. The psychological explanation of the corporate personality is not only an explanation, but also a part of the meaning of the corporate personality. Corporate personality, as a consequence, relates to two matters: first to corporate responsibility, second, to a psychic unity between members of the same social group, within which the limits of the personality of an individual are not sharply defined. Rogerson combines the ambiguity as a combination of ideas of Maine and theories from anthropology.25 The tension, which arises from the ambiguity, Wheeler Robinson has wanted to remove by means of the presupposition of the rise of individualism with the prophets after the eighth century B.C.E.26 “Thus Robinson argued that the theory of individual responsibility came to be combined with that of corporate personality, so that ‘the individualism of the Old Testament is usually, if not always, conceived as realised in and through society which is based upon it’.4”27 With the attempt to remove the abovementioned tension, Wheeler Robinson introduced a third use of the

23 See Rogerson 1970 (4). The term ‘corporate personality’ would then be superfluous because ‘corporate responsibility’ explains this adequately (see above). An appeal to Maine for this use agrees with the scope of Maine’s publication Ancient Law according to Rogerson (4): “Maine was not concerned with how a man regarded himself, but with how he was regarded by society. His concern was law, not psychology.” 24 Ibid. (5). 25 See ibid. (6). 26 Rogerson illustrates the tension with examples from The Christian Doctrine of Man, in which both the first meaning (corporate responsibility) and the second meaning (psychic unity) of the corporate personality are used. See ibid. (6). 27 Ibid. (6).

critique of the corporate personality

193

corporate personality, namely, “a man cannot be treated as an isolated individual, but must be viewed as a member of society.”28 The situation, sketched by Rogerson, of the threefold use of corporate personality, relates to the publication The Christian Doctrine of Man, of 1911. In the later publications corporate personality, in the sense of the psychic unity, becomes dominant, under the influence of Lévy-Bruhl.29 Wheeler Robinson gives an account of the influence of anthropological theories and findings of his vision by repeatedly pointing to Lévy-Bruhl. After determining the ambiguity in the use of corporate personality, Rogerson turns to the foundations of the corporate personality, namely the theories of Lévy-Bruhl in reference to the primitive mentality.30,31 Rogerson designates his critique of Lévy-Bruhl in five points.32 First, he was no field-archaeologist and therefore had no direct experience with the peoples which he described.33 Second, he used a “scissors-and-paste method” by joining material from different times and places.34 Third, he let negative proof pass, namely, that with many other primitive 28

Ibid. (7). He continues (7): “This sense depends neither on Maine nor anthropology, but on a modern understanding of man and his community. Indeed, the plausibility of this part of the argument depends on its being self-evident to modern readers.” 29 In Robinson 1936 the ‘corporate responsibility’ is not explicitly mentioned any more. Achan (Josh 7) is treated under the rubric of ‘social solidarity,’ see ibid. (49 n.2). 30 On the primitive mentality, see Rogerson 1991 (17–19). 31 Id. 1970 (9) refers once more to Porter 1965, because he, in Rogerson’s opinion, has adequately discussed the use of corporate personality in the sense of corporate responsibility. Rogerson adopts Porter’s conclusions, while a negative conclusion on the hypothesis of the corporate personality according to its anthropological foundations causes to shift the relevance of the type of investigation by Porter. This difference of insight with Rogerson follows from the structure of Rogerson’s critique of an earlier period of Wheeler Robinson’s work. In the threefold use of corporate personality, determined by Rogerson, the first use, the corporate responsibility, was loosened too much from the other two, which Rogerson’s critique of the theories of Lévy-Bruhl oppose. In “The Hebrew Conception” Wheeler Robinson shows an integrated design, out of which no aspect can be removed without affecting the remainder of the hypothesis, because the core of the hypothesis is formed by the fluidity, which is present as a pivot in the hypothesis. The fluidity is grafted on the theories of Lévy-Bruhl. The psychic unity, to which the fluidity belongs, is influenced by Lévy-Bruhl and assumes the most prominent place. After all, the corporate personality wishes to explain the corporate responsibility, as Rogerson has also determined. See Rogerson 1970 (7). Porter’s type of investigation remains relevant to Rogerson because of the great distance between the corporate responsibility and the remaining use of corporate personality. 32 See ibid. (9). In this, Rogerson is largely dependent on Evans-Pritchard 1975 (78–99), in his discussion of Lévy-Bruhl. 33 See Rogerson 1970 (9). 34 See ibid. (10).

194

chapter five

peoples, the phenomena described by Lévy-Bruhl do not occur, or do not play a role.35 Fourth, he generalized in reference to primitive peoples, so that Lévy-Bruhl was unaware of variations in social structures and thought patterns with primitive peoples.36 Fifth, phenomena which he attempted to explain, may be explained more satisfactorily in other ways by field anthropologists.37 Of these five points of critique in reference to the work of Lévy-Bruhl, Rogerson selects two. In the first place he points to the doubt with anthropologists in reference to the accuracy of Lévy-Bruhl’s explanations of phenomena, on which he based his theory of the primitive mentality. In the second place, Lévy-Bruhl’s uncritical use of data from totally different cultures is no longer judged acceptable. Those who place these two critical notations with the theories of Lévy-Bruhl, place them also with the hypothesis of the corporate personality. Rogerson targets with this the psychic unity within a collective, which he has described as the second manner of use of the corporate personality.38 In the wake of this, the critique also pertains to the use of corporate personality in this manner by a third party.39 Quite remarkably, Rogerson subsumes the third manner of use which he indicated, with the foundation of the second. This is evident when he concludes: “Thus it will be seen that corporate personality in its second sense has not only depended on the theories of Lévy-Bruhl, but also on unexamined generalizations about Hebrew thought and Western thought.”40 This conclusion of Rogerson pleads for approaching the hypothesis of the corporate personality as an integrated design. Though Rogerson deems it possible to redefine corporate personality from the notion ‘corporate,’ as it is known among anthropologists, and is used for a lineage of descent group, he does not judge this com-

35

See ibid. (88). Rogerson refers to Douglas, who depends on Evans-Pritchard 1934, see Douglas 1976 (75–76). 37 Points two, three and four are closely related. By applying a ‘scissors-and-paste’ method, it is simple to ignore negative proof and arrive at generalizations. 38 The scope of the critique is larger. Not only is the second manner of use up for discussion, but also the entire hypothesis, in view of the central function of the psychic unity which is foundational to the corporate personality. 39 Rogerson 1970 (11–13) refers to Russell 1964; Johnson 1961, id. 1964, id. 1967 (the second edition differs from the first in the footnotes. Johnson did not only expand them, but has also used them to react on “misrepresentations” of his vision. He refers (2 n.3) to De Fraine 1959 and incorporates (3 n.1) Porter 1965; Rowley 1967 and Shedd 1958). 40 Rogerson 1970 (13). 36

critique of the corporate personality

195

mendable.41 He offers three reasons for this. First, anthropologists use the term ‘corporate’ in a confusing and ambiguous manner. Second, there are notable differences in lineage and groups of descent. Third, the knowledge of the lineage- and descent system of ancient Israel is too scant to arrive at valid conclusions on the basis of data from other societies. Partly on the basis of these considerations, Rogerson arrives at a complete rejection of the use of corporate personality and proposes to withhold any attempt to explain Old Testament phenomena in terms of primitive mentality.42 This step leaves fundamental theories in doubt, in which the corporate personality is used to remove tension between an individual and a collective. This refers to theories relating to pseudonymity in apocalyptic literature, prophetic experience, messengers and Hebrew psychology, as verbalized by Wheeler Robinson.43 In conclusion, Rogerson indicates what is the remaining value of the work of Wheeler Robinson: “His application of anthropology to Old Testament studies marked out a path which some scholars must today follow anew.”44 Theories of Lévy-Bruhl Critique of the corporate personality is concentrated on the theories of Lévy-Bruhl because of the strong dependence of the corporate personality on that scholar’s theories.45 The elaborate critique of Lévy-

41 See ibid. (14). Lineage: “A unilineal descent group based on patrilineal descent (patrilineage) or matrilineal descent (matrilineage) whose members trace descent from an epical ancestor/ancestress by known genealogical links.” Descent group: “A kin group whose membership is based on a rule of descent. Appropriate descent status (patrilineal, matrilineal, or cognate, depending on the society) entitles a person to be a member of the group.” The definitions are borrowed from Keesing and Strathern 1998 (507, 505). 42 See Rogerson 1970 (14). Cf. id. 1978 (56–57): “It seems to me that the onus is upon scholars, who continue to talk of corporate personality to define what they mean, and to say upon what it is based if it implies a Hebrew mentality different from our own.” 43 See id. 1970 (14). The influence on theories referring to the ‘I’ of the Psalms and the king is less fundamental, because in these cases the corporate personality is not used to remove a tension between individual and collective. See ibid. (14–15). 44 Ibid. (16). Cf. id. 1978 (65): “Old Testament scholars may have to content themselves with being cautious when they make pronouncements about Hebrew mentality.” Id. ABD 1:1157: “Robinson must be credited, nevertheless, with focusing attention upon an important question: did the Israelites regard a group as a collection of individuals or as a body with various members?” 45 See Podach 1951.

196

chapter five

Bruhl demands further clarification, because the supporting part of the hypothesis is derived from his theories. In the critique an important distinction may be established, namely between the theoretical points of departure of Lévy-Bruhl’s investigation, and his application of it in his own work. The road which Wheeler Robinson has outlined with his investigation, by using anthropological studies with the study of the Old Testament, may be negotiated along the general theoretical position of Lévy-Bruhl, which remains tenable and which can provide direction to future Old Testament studies in this area.46 Rogerson again underscores in this manner, that he advocates the use of results from the social sciences within Old Testament studies. The general theoretical position of Lévy-Bruhl, Rogerson verbalized as follows: When a person is born, he is born into a particular society, and that society has a distinctive language, organization, institutions, and beliefs. From the first, the individual is moulded by these things, and he takes over from the society into which he is born a distinctive way of understanding and experiencing the world.47

Lévy-Bruhl was interested in the analysis of ‘collective representations’ as an expression of various ways of thinking from which one can arrive at the understanding of a society. 48,49 Douglas praises Lévy-Bruhl for this general theoretical point of departure, because he has expressed “all the important questions about primitive cultures and their distinctiveness as a class” in it.50 Rogerson and Douglas have determined that Lévy-Bruhl has not succeeded in applying his point of departure, which according to Douglas is undoubtedly right, in the practice of his investigation.51 This led Lévy-Bruhl to make too sharp a distinction between the primitive

46

See Rogerson 1978 (59). Already defended by Eysink 1946 (100). Rogerson 1978 (53). Agreement with the general theoretical position amounts to accepting the third manner of use of the corporate personality, see for this id. 1970 (7). This third manner of use may therefore be reduced to Lévy-Bruhl. 48 Id. 1978 (54), to the ‘collective representations’ belong “the language, institutions and beliefs of . . . society.” Cf. Douglas 1976 (75) and Mayes 1989 (78–79, 128). Radin 1960 (306) and Gölz 1963 (126) point to the influence of Lévy-Bruhl’s vision of collective representations of Jung’s ‘archetypes,’ cf. Morris 1987 (169). Jung gives a depth-psychological explanation of the primitive mentality as was affirmed by Eysink 1946 (109): “The specific domain of the collective depictions is the unconscious.” See further ibid. (109–116); Radin 1960 (305–306); Gölz 1963 (114–134). 49 Here lies the center of gravity for Lévy-Bruhl: the comparison of ways of thinking. See Douglas 1976 (75) and Morris 1987 (183). 50 Douglas 1976 (74–75). 51 See ibid. (75); Rogerson 1978 (54). Thus also Eysink 1946 (103). 47

critique of the corporate personality

197

and the civilized with all the consequences for those who made use of the theories of Lévy-Bruhl, such as Wheeler Robinson.52 The fact, that Lévy-Bruhl has later retracted or reviewed some of his former viewpoints, could not be of any influence anymore on the work of Wheeler-Robinson. The retracted or reviewed viewpoints, which Lévy-Bruhl formulated in the period 1938–1939, were only published posthumously in 1949 under the title Les Carnets.53 Smith treats the problems which adhere to the theories of Lévy-Bruhl and points to Lévy-Bruhl’s review of his viewpoints in Les Carnets: “[H]e later altered his position on the absolute dichotomy of primitive and civilized.”54 Lévy-Bruhl rescinds the “ ‘pre-logical’ character of the primitive mentality” and the “law of participation.” 55,56 What he does not rescind is the thought of the participation as characteristic of the primitive mentality, nor the existence of the primitive mentality itself.57 The consideration of Evans-Pritchard is then also formulated too strongly: “At the end of his life he may have reversed his position, or at any rate considered doing so, if one may judge from his posthumous Carnets.”58 The changed insights of Levy-Bruhl in reference to these aspects which are important for the hypothesis should not have passed unnoticed to those who make use of the hypothesis. One can only agree with Rogerson: It is difficult to escape the conclusion that scholars who have applied to the Old Testament the theories of Lévy-Bruhl, whether at first or

52

See Rogerson 1978 (55). Cf. Eysink 1946 (104). Smith 1978 (276) speaks of an “absolute wedge.” Evans-Pritchard 1975 (87): “Lévy-Bruhl was making too strong a contrast between the primitive and the civilized.” Gölz 1963 (167) is more positive: “Natürlich möchte Lévy-Bruhl zunächst vor allem die »Ferne« und Fremdheit jener Formen herausstellen und vor aller voreiligen Gleichmacherei warnen41. Aber er übersieht die »Nähe« durchaus nicht.” Cf. Smith 1978 (273 n.33): “Fr. Gölz, Der primitive Mensch und seine Religion (Gütersloh, 1963) provides a shrewd review of the major theories, far superior to E. E. Evans-Pritchard, Theories of Primitive Religion (Oxford, 1965).” 53 Lévy-Bruhl 1975. 54 Smith 1978 (277). Smith is cited by Kaminsky 1995 (18) as one of the critics of the anthropological points of departure of Lévy-Bruhl. 55 Lévy-Bruhl 1975 (47). See also ibid. (99–101) and Cazeneuve 1972 (21–22, 85–87). 56 Lévy-Bruhl 1975 (61): “[I]t is legitimate to speak of participation . . . it is not so legitimate to speak of a law of participation. What exists is the fact (not the law) that ‘primitive man’ very often has the feeling of participation.” See also ibid. (99–101). 57 Ibid. passim (cf. the use of fluidity in this work) and id. 1938 passim. Cf. Horton 1973 (275): “In fact, however, what he retains is more significant than what he withdraws.” For a good summary see Needham 1972 (164–166). 58 Evans-Pritchard 1975 (79). Cf. Morris 1987 (186) on the too strong formulation of the changes in the thought of Lévy-Bruhl.

198

chapter five second hand, have little awareness of the theoretical presuppositions of his position.59

This conclusion is valid in reference to those who made use of the hypothesis without taking into account the backgrounds of the hypothesis and the critique on it. This conclusion is partly valid in reference to Wheeler Robinson. He has justified his use of the theories of Lévy-Bruhl. What escaped Wheeler Robinson is the development in the thought of Lévy-Bruhl in reference to the primitive mentality and which ultimately led to the conclusions described above.60 Weighing the Critique After the description of Porter’s critique of the use of the hypothesis and by Rogerson of its foundations and an indication of the development and change in the thought of Lévy-Bruhl, the strength of the argument may be investigated as to whether such a far-reaching conclusion as Rogerson’s is justified. Should the use of the term corporate personality be totally avoided, or is there room for its use, whether or not in a redefined form? The acceptance of the recommendation by Rogerson not to use the corporate personality at all anymore makes the relevance of the investigation in the line of Porter shift. The attention moves first to Rogerson’s critique. When the foundations of the hypothesis have been demonstrated to be wrong or superseded, it makes no sense anymore to investigate whether the hypothesis may still be used or applied. In that case, neither is a testing of texts from the Old Testament relevant anymore. The hypothesis has then virtually no right to exist anymore. This conclusion has validity at the moment, that one agrees to treat the hypothesis as an integrated whole. A segmentation of the hypothesis which is not absent in Rogerson’s critique, necessitates him to underwrite Porter’s conclusion, but does not do justice to the hypothesis. At the same time it should be noted that the segmentation of the hypothesis, as performed by Rogerson, does not influence his conclusion if his critique of the foundations of the hypothesis appears to be valid. To state it differently: with an approach to the hypothesis as an integrated 59 60

Rogerson 1978 (59). See Cazeneuve 1972 (1–23).

critique of the corporate personality

199

whole, Rogerson would not have needed Porter’s critique to arrive at his conclusion.61 For the moment, Rogerson is correct. The testing of the critique of the hypothesis can, with a view on the hypothesis as an integrated whole, be directed in the first instance on the anthropological foundations. In practice this means: are the objections raised by Rogerson from an anthropological perspective on the theories of Lévy-Bruhl convincing? He named five of them. Summarized briefly the objections are: First, Lévy-Bruhl was no field anthropologist; Second, Lévy-Bruhl used a scissors and paste method; Third, Lévy-Bruhl ignored negative proof; Fourth, Lévy-Bruhl made illicit generalizations; Fifth, Lévy-Bruhl explained phenomena, which were explained more satisfactorily by field-anthropologists. The first objection, launched against Lévy-Bruhl, cannot be denied. He indeed belonged to the group of ‘arm chair anthropologists’ (as they were called after they had disappeared), who framed their theories on the basis of factual material which was furnished by others and from whom they should be distinguished.62 The latter group existed until circa 1920, apart from a few exceptions,63 chiefly missionaries, colonial officials and other interested parties (e.g. explorers) which were not educated anthropologically, however.64 Under the influence of Malinowski anthropology became a science based on fieldwork, which

61 Cf. Kaminsky 1995 (19) for Rogerson’s use of Porter. Kaminsky affirms that Porter deems the corporate personality usable in some cases, cf. Porter 1965 (364). See also Kaminsky 1995 (19 n.11). The claim by Rogerson goes beyond Kaminsky’s statement. Rogerson 1970 (9) does not only relate it to “every case he (= Porter—JM) discussed” as Kaminsky (19) says, but furthermore he states: “Porter has already examined the cases in the Old Testament claimed by Robinson to support corporate personality.” This is an incorrect generalization of Rogerson in reference to Porter’s investigation. Wheeler Robinson ‘claims’ far more cases to support the hypothesis than those which are treated by Porter. Kaminsky 1995 (19–21) also states the necessary critique of Porter’s analysis. Summarized: Porter does not offer a non-collective alternative for the cases discussed. He rather underscores the collective character. Also in id. 1997 (319–320). 62 See Kloos 1995 (167); Keesing and Strathern 1998 (7–10). 63 E.g. Radcliffe-Brown, fieldwork on the Andaman Islands (1906–1907) and Malinowski, fieldwork on the Trobriand Islands (1915–1918). See Kloos 1995 (168–169); Barnard 2000 (66–67, 70). 64 See Gölz 1963 (101); Kloos 1995 (167).

200

chapter five

was done by educated investigators.65 Doing fieldwork is, however, no guarantee, that the investigator is protected from any form of bias, which may color his observation. Results that are free of value judgments do not exist in anthropology.66 The performance of fieldwork makes an anthropologist more alert as to the coherence of observations and the conclusions possibly drawn from them. It will rather protect him from being trapped in the pitfall of the scissors-and-paste method, into which Lévy-Bruhl has fallen. The second objection appears to be connected with the first one. Lévy-Bruhl has, for the foundation of his theories, indeed made use of a scissors-and-paste method. He has brought data from different cultures into contact. The use of this method may be determined from Les fonctions mentales dans les sociétés inférieures of 1910 and also in L’Expérience mystique et les symboles chez les primitifs of 1938. The conclusion of Eysink can only be confirmed: One point in that critique has repeatedly met with our concurrence, namely the objection that the critics meant they needed to suggest against a) the comparative material, and b) the manner of comparison. Lévy-Bruhl has, as many writers commented, accused Tylor and others of a wrong use of the comparative method, but this reproach pertains to him just as much; his manipulations with the comparative method are not completely correct.67

Those who wish to make use of the comparative method will have to be aware of the rules which pertain to intercultural comparison.68 What appears the same in different cultures, does not necessarily have the same meaning.69 The results of intercultural comparison, by which is

65 See ibid. (169) and Gölz 1963 (101). Malinowski may be counted among the (structural-) functionalists, see Barnard 2000 (61). Recent comments on the value and necessity of fieldwork: Bradburd 1998; Watson 1999; Devita 2000. 66 For different visions of anthropological fieldwork and pitfalls (e.g. a tendency toward fiction) see Kloos 1995 (176–181). Leach 1989 (140–141) is extremely critical: “An ethnographic monograph has much more in common with an historical novel than with any kind of scientific treatise.” Moran 1995 (18 n.9) also observes a tendency toward fiction in what he calls “post modern anthropology.” 67 Eysink 1946 (103). For the critique of various investigators see ibid. (34–92). 68 See Kloos 1995 (182–191). 69 Cf. on this Eilberg-Schwartz 1990 (93–95) by the title “Context and Comparability. When Is a Parallel a Parallel?” Eilberg-Schwartz (95) defends the use of a comparative method regardless of whether this is a metonymic or a metaphoric method. Ibid. (6–7): metonymic: “comparisons . . . between cultures and religions that are in a single geographical area and hence “in contact,” metaphoric: “comparisons that are drawn between religions and culture that are similar in some respect but are separated in place

critique of the corporate personality

201

striven to generate generally valid judgments, are judged by Kloos as often disappointing.70 Such investigation struggles with a multiplicity of methodological snags.71 Evans-Pritchard remarks on one of the methodological snags of the comparative method: Social facts are described adequately only in terms of their interrelation with other facts and in compilations like the works of Frazer and LévyBruhl they are torn from their network of inter-connections and presented in isolation and therefore shorn of much of their meaning.72

Though this comment by Evans-Pritchard agrees with the ‘general theoretical position’ of Lévy-Bruhl as Rogerson has described it, LévyBruhl himself has not acted in accordance with it. He has emphasized one-sidedly the exceptional, which he met with in the descriptions of the collectors of facts. This resulted in a distorted image of the societies from which he derived his data.73 The defensive claim of Gölz, that Lévy-Bruhl chose consciously for the exceptional in order to warn thereby against rash leveling between ‘us’ and ‘them,’74 is a valuable remark, but changes nothing to the conclusion that a distorted image is found with Lévy-Bruhl.75 LévyBruhl’s investigation is a striking example of investigation, in which was striven for generally valid statements. The most general statement which Lévy-Bruhl made is the statement that there exists a primitive general statement and that this is typified by pre-logical and mystical and perhaps also in time.” Cf. Hunt 1995 (180) on ‘conceptual equivalence’ which must be satisfied by the use of a comparative method. 70 See Kloos 1995 (191). Eilberg-Schwartz 1990 (101) is more positive: “Although comparative studies have not produced laws, they have produced some valid generalizations . . . humans in different times and places struggle with similar sorts of issues.” Cf. Moran 1995 (5) who underscores the necessity of conceptual equivalence. 71 See Kloos 1995 (191). 72 Evans-Pritchard 1934 (9). Cf. Eilberg-Schwartz 1990 (93, 95). Evans-Pritchard belongs to the users of a contextualist model of cultural interpretation and is therefore critical toward a comparative method. 73 See Evans-Pritchard 1934 (9). 74 See Gölz 1963 (167). Cf. Lévy-Bruhl 1952 (119)—a letter dated November 14, 1934—reacting to “Lévy-Bruhl’s Theory of Primitive Mentality” by Evans-Pritchard: “But I have done this ‘on purpose’: I intended to bring fully to light the mystical aspect of primitive mentality in contrast with the rational aspect of the mentality of our societies.” 75 Evans-Pritchard 1934 (35) expresses appreciation for Lévy-Bruhl’s work, unimpeded by the critique of his conclusions. Lévy-Bruhl asked the right questions, or his ‘general theoretical position’ is still tenable, but he did not practice it himself, what fieldworkers must do according to Evans-Pritchard. Cf. Eysink 1946 (18) and Geertz 1968 (36).

202

chapter five

thinking which is expressed in (the law of ) participation. This statement by Lévy-Bruhl belongs to the fourth objection, namely that of illicit generalizations. This fourth objection is an extension of the second and may be brought back to it. By using the comparative method as Lévy-Bruhl has done, he arrived at his generalizations. “Lévy-Bruhl treats all peoples whom we regard as savages or barbarians as though they were culturally uniform.”76 This is not the case and that is evident when societies are approached with an eye for the internal cohesion and only thereafter are to be compared.77 The third objection, which was put aside for the moment because of the cohesion between the second and the fourth, links up with both of these two. The neglect of so-called negative proof is in line with the emphasis of the particular by Lévy-Bruhl and the generalizations founded on it. An example of this is that many primitive peoples are not very much concerned about their shadow or their name,78 as Lévy-Bruhl stages them to do.79 Reports on ethnographies, in which it is noted that mystic thoughts are bound up with some primitive peoples with the shadow or the name, are generalized. Subsequently the generalization is indicated as a characteristic aspect of the primitive mentality. The fifth and final objection formulated by Rogerson is not so much an objection as an alternative. Phenomena which Lévy-Bruhl has explained according to the model of the primitive mentality could be explained more satisfactorily in another manner by field anthropologists.80 These alternatives were established by the performance of the necessary fieldwork and the application of the rules for intercultural comparison, which were pointed out above. Therefore, the objection pertains to the explanations which Lévy-Bruhl has given, not the fact that he had wanted to give explanations. Fields anthropologists do this as well.81

76

Evans-Pritchard 1934 (11). See id. 1937 and id. 1956. Morris 1987 (297) labels Evans-Pritchard’s approach contextual. 78 See Evans-Pritchard 1975 (88). 79 See Lévy-Bruhl 1951 (45–52) on name and shadow. 80 E.g. Evans-Pritchard 1967 (127–148), as well as in id. 1956 (123–143). Agreeing with Evans-Pritchard are: Smith 1978 (265–288); Hallpike 1979 (488). 81 Eilberg-Schwartz 1990 (95): “In fact, determining just what is ‘the context’ is itself always an interpretive act.” 77

critique of the corporate personality

203

The weight of the adduced objections is too great for Lévy-Bruhl’s theory of the primitive mentality to bear. The questions which this ‘arm chair anthropologist’ has brought up for discussion are still valid. But for the results of his own investigation this is no longer the case. This is the result of the manner in which he has applied the comparative method. The core of the objection returns repeatedly: Lévy-Bruhl “did not practice what he preached.”82 Eysink, Evans-Pritchard,83 Douglas and Rogerson are to be followed in this. When this conclusion is translated according to the hypothesis of the corporate personality it must be asserted, that the hypothesis is founded on anthropological theories which are to be regarded as superseded.84 This type of translation leads to the conclusion that the hypothesis of the corporate personality, as Wheeler Robinson has expressed it in his publications “The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality” and “The Group and the Individual in Israel” is no longer tenable. His dependence on Lévy-Bruhl’s theories is too great for that. Subsequently it is valid for all the use of the corporate personality, whereby the hypothesis of Wheeler Robinson is to be conceived as an integrated whole. Farewell to or Redefining of the Corporate Personality? Following the conclusion described above, it is necessary to return to the type of investigation of Porter, taking into account the noted shift in relevance of this type of investigation. The testing of the usefulness and applicability of the hypothesis of the corporate personality to Old Testament texts may be omitted, since the hypothesis is no longer tenable. Because of this a number of exegetical problems, in which the relationship of the group and the individual vis-à-vis one another is again placed on the agenda. This is likewise valid to the question: how

82

Rogerson 1978 (54). Cf. Finnegan and Horton 1973 (36–37, 42) on Evans-Pritchard’s use of Lévy-Bruhl’s theories. See also Morris 1987 (296). Evans-Pritchard has been charged that he did not preach what he practiced, see Fiensy 1997 (52) on the basis of Kuper 1982 (81–82) who speaks of a “lack of fit between the model and the empirical reports.” 84 N.B. Fiensy 1997 (44, 52): “If an anthropologist’s work is under increasing criticism it must be used with great caution.” “The Old Testament specialist must follow the current debate in anthropology to ensure that biblical research is not based on discredited ethnological theories.” Lévy-Bruhl is not mentioned in Erickson 1999. Barnard 2000 (105–112) does refer to Lévy-Bruhl on ‘primitive thought.’ 83

204

chapter five

must the relationship between collective and individual responsibility in the book of Ezekiel be described without making use of the hypothesis of the corporate personality in Wheeler Robinson’s definition? Wheeler Robinson’s explanation of the rise of individualism in Ezekiel among others within the concept of corporate personality is no longer an option at the moment that we cannot speak anymore of ‘his’ corporate personality. This does not exclude, however, that Wheeler Robinson’s insight “that corporate ways of thinking constitute part of the Israelite Weltanschauung is still fruitful.”85 Thus Kaminsky states: [I]t is overstated to argue that all of Robinson’s insights were fundamentally incorrect. . . . Furthermore, his attempt, flawed though it may be, to understand the internal logic of these ideas on their own terms should again be tried, but within a more critical and nuanced reading.86

On the one hand, Rogerson should be followed in this, that this cannot happen while pointing to primitive mentality in the manner of Lévy-Bruhl in Les fonctions mentales dans les sociétés inférieures of 1910.87 On the other hand, this does not exclude a redefinition of the term ‘corporate personality’ beforehand.88 It is not categorically to be rejected that with a redefinition one might also make use of results of anthropological investigation with other contemporary non-Western societies.89 In agreement with Eilberg-Schwartz it may be stated that the comparative method is not inferior to other anthropological methods.90 85 Kaminsky 1995 (22). Thus also Powers 2001 (7) who calls the critique “often overstated and unduly biased.” 86 Kaminsky 1995 (22). 87 See Evans-Pritchard 1975 (88): “There is no reputable anthropologist who today accepts this theory of two distinct types of mentality.” With insights from depth psychology, Gölz 1963 (114–134) affirms this vision. Hallpike 1976 (268) confirms this thought from developmental psychology in the line of Piaget (cf. Lévy-Bruhl 1931 [25] in reference to primitive mentality and Piaget). A terminological difference exists in the use of ‘primitive mentality:’ Hallpike speaks of a level of development and Evans-Pritchard about the potential of development and both label this ‘mentality.’ See further Hallpike 1979. 88 Cf. Kaminsky 1995 (28). For a positive approach see Drewermann 1985 (271–298). Redefinition takes place from a depth psychological vision of the collective unconscious, corporate personality is “eine psychologische Gegebenheit” (274). The redefinition by Drewermann (282) is not without problems, since he appeals chiefly to the law of participation by Lévy-Bruhl. 89 See Evans-Pritchard 1956 (vii) on the Nuer. Lang 1985 (1): “Among the Nuer, asserted Evans-Pritchard, both the missionary and anthropologist felt as if they were living in Old Testament times.” 90 Wilson 1984b (6–8) pleads for a comparative approach to the Old Testament from a sociological angle. Overholt 1996 (10–17) pleads for the same from an anthro-

critique of the corporate personality

205

This also applies also in reference to depth psychology and developmental psychology. A psychological component may also obtain a place in a redefinition. Rogerson has remarked correctly, that Wheeler Robinson gives a psychological explanation of the corporate personality (and responsibility) and Drewermann has urged that attention be paid to this component of the corporate personality: corporate personality is “a psychological fact.”91 A combination of methods (multi-disciplinary) is to be preferred,92 by which the investigation of “the internal logic of these ideas on their own terms” is put first.93 This consideration by Kaminsky, in reference to Old Testament texts, goes methodologically with the formulation by Evans-Pritchard on anthropological investigation: “Social facts are described adequately only in terms of their interrelation with other social facts.”94 The formulation by Evans-Pritchard follows naturally Lévy-Bruhl’s general theoretical position, which is judged tenable by Rogerson and others. The one-sidedness of Lévy-Bruhl’s general theoretical position needs correction. Instead of a one-sided approach of the individual under the influence of the society in which he lives, a two-sided approach needs to be chosen in this sense, that there is awareness of the influence of the society on the individual and for the influence, which an individual exercises on society.95 Malina introduces a multi-disciplinary connection to the explanation of biblical texts. [T]o interpret texts (units of meaning) from the past, the interpreter has to imagine how meanings functioned, how they operated, how they related to each other in terms of the persons, things, and events of the past that embodied meanings. Models of such operations and relations are, at bottom, models of society, social science models. The point to be underscored pological angle. Cf. Köbben 1973 (593): “[B]oth approaches, the comparative and the structuralist, are legitimate, provided they do not neglect each other.” Talmon 1978 (356), following Köbben, is careful: “[C]omparisons can be applied to societies which lie in the same ‘historical stream’ as biblical Israel. Comparisons on the ‘grand scale’ are better avoided.” 91 Drewermann 1985 (274): “eine psychologische Gegebenheit.” 92 See Malina 1982 (240): “In sum, social science methods (N.B. plural—JM) can offer interpretation adequate sophistication in determining and articulating the social systems behind the texts under investigation.” Comparable Rogerson 1985 (250). 93 Talmon 1978 (356) points out in this connection that “inner-biblical parallels should always precede the comparison with extra-biblical materials.” 94 Evans-Pritchard 1934 (9). 95 Mayes 1989 (135): “[S]ociety may be seen both as that which determines and that which is determined by the individual.”

206

chapter five is that if interpretation of written language of any sort takes place some domain of reference will be used by the reader. This domain of reference will be rooted in some model of society and of social interaction.96

In this connection a position must be chosen in the discussion on what was labeled ‘Hebrew thought’ or ‘Israelite thought:’ Is the world of the ancient Israelites really foreign and other, or is it fundamentally the same as the world that we currently inhabit, but its descriptive language differs from our descriptive language?97

Results of anthropological investigation, as for example formulated by Evans-Pritchard, lead to a preference of the second option. This choice represents unimpaired the validity of Rogerson’s warning to observe caution with the making of pronouncements concerning the Hebrew mentality.98 On the one hand the choice of the second option does not mean that it is just like that possible to understand what is going on in the world of the ancient Israelites or which significance may be assigned to the Scriptural representation of a part of this world in the Scriptures of the Old Testament.99 The consideration by Malina cited above is to be kept in mind, together with the consideration of Gölz, that Lévy-Bruhl has warned against a too easy equalizing of ‘us’ and ‘them.’ Lévy-Bruhl’s warning relates to comparisons with contemporary primitive societies. Yet this is just as valid in reference to the Israelites from whom we are removed in time and place. The methodological tendency of the warning is of importance.100 The warning by Lévy-Bruhl merits backing with every tour de force which is undertaken when we attempt to recover the meaning of Old Testament texts and which visions are expressed in them. The ‘domain of reference’ from which Old Testament texts are written, differs from the ‘domain of reference’ of the contemporary reader. On the other hand it is not impossible to understand what takes place in

96 Malina 1982 (233). Agreeing with Malina are: Mayes 1989 (3); Kaminsky 1985 (28–29); Eilberg-Schwartz 1990 (95). 97 Kaminsky 1995 (27). Lang 1985 (16) uses ‘Hebrew thought.’ 98 Rogerson 1978 (65). 99 Carefulness must not lead to lack of clarity and confusion as with Lang 1985 (16): “On the other hand, there is no doubt that the Hebrew mind can be different from ours. But when precisely are the ancient Israelites like ourselves, and when aren’t they?” 100 Cf. Needham 1972 (165) on the meaning of “different cultural premises” which he owes to Lévy-Bruhl 1931 (12–13) and Hallpike 1976, id. 1979. Needham and Hallpike have lasting appreciation for Lévy-Bruhl’s work.

critique of the corporate personality

207

the world of the ancient Israelites.101 The fact is, there are no different ‘mentalities’ which make that impossible to us.102 The discussion of the question as to whether ancient Israel may be viewed as one with the primitive peoples comparable entity in the significance of the former dichotomy is no longer relevant with the acceptance of the conclusion of Evans-Pritchard, that two distinct types of mentality do not exist. The contributions of depth psychology and developmental psychology to the understanding of primitive thought can be made methodologically fruitful for the understanding of Old Testament texts. A ‘domain of reference’ does not only have a side determined by the society and the social interactions, which is collectively oriented, but does have a psychological side also, which is individually oriented. In this connection depth psychology clearly points to the connection between the individual and collective side, namely the collective unconscious. The above mentioned aspects need to be discounted in a description of the relationship between the collective and the individual in texts from Ezekiel, in which responsibility for actions is mentioned. In this attention is paid to the fact that the description of the relationship occurs from the internal logic of these ideas on their own terms with the space for making use of results of anthropological, sociological and psychological investigation, because the concepts ‘collective’ and ‘individual’ play a pregnant role on these three sciences. In this, silent crossings need to be avoided, from the one to the other area of science, as has happened in the foundation of the hypothesis of the corporate personality by Wheeler Robinson. The psychological entity ‘corporate personality’ is anthropologically supported by Wheeler Robinson. He did this, because the anthropology of his days occupied itself with primitive societies whose psychology, according to Wheeler Robinson, was the same as that of the Hebrews. However, the anthropological theories of Lévy-Bruhl, to whom Wheeler Robinson appealed, were directed to the ‘collective representations,’ which were derived from Durkheim and represent a sociological category. Precisely Durkheim had strongly emphasized a clear separation of the study of collective data in sociology from individual data in psychology.103

101

See Di Vito 1999 (238). Evans-Pritchard 1975 (88): “If it were true, we would scarcely be able to communicate with primitives, even to learn their languages.” 103 See Horton 1973 (271). 102

CHAPTER SIX

EZEKIEL 18 AND 20 COLLECTIVE AND INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY The description of the relationship between collective and individual responsibility in Ezekiel 18 and 20 takes place within the framework which was indicated in the previous chapter: the internal logic of these ideas on their own terms. In the description there is space for results of anthropological, sociological and psychological investigation, because the concepts ‘collective’ and ‘individual’ play a pregnant role in the three named areas of science.1 The focus rests on the question as to whether the texts are directed toward the collective and/or the individual and in what way they do this. For a detailed exegesis of both chapters, the reader is referred to the various commentaries. Preliminary Matters There are a number of preliminary matters which present themselves, before the relationship between collective and individual responsibility in Ezekiel 18 and 20 can be described. This refers to some points of discussion in Old Testament investigation, which are significant for the intended description. The Developmental or Evolutionary Model A number of investigators presuppose a development of the collective toward individual responsibility in the Old Testament era according to a so-called developmental or evolutionary model. In this connection, Ezekiel 18 may be counted as a classic example of the final

1 With the indications ‘collective’ and ‘the collective’ a group of persons is intended. ‘Individual’ and ‘the individual’ indicate the persons from which a group is built up. ‘Individual’ and ‘person’ as well as ‘individual’ and ‘personal’ are used as interchangeable concepts with the same meaning. ‘Individual’ does not have the connotation of completely isolated and standing alone in this investigation, like the monad of Leibniz, which does not have any relationship with anyone else and is ‘free of windows.’

210

chapter six

point or turning point of the supposed development from collective toward individual. Several investigators have provided overviews of the Forschungsgeschichte of this aspect with a distinctive range. E.g. Matties targets his survey on Ezekiel.2 Joyce chooses a wider range by placing Ezekiel within a broader hypothesis, in which it is stated that in the course of ancient Israel’s history a gradual and steady shift took place from collective to individual responsibility.3 Joyce traces the development of the model in to the nineteenth century and states that this has received its classic expression during the first half of the twentieth century.4 The hypothesis of the corporate personality of Wheeler Robinson may be granted a place within this model as a differentiated form of it.5 Indeed, Wheeler Robinson with his hypothesis of the corporate personality does not part with collectivism, but points to the development of an individualist accent with the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel.6 The differentiation with Wheeler Robinson consists in this that he confirms that concerning the relation between collectivism and individualism there exists no ultimate and exclusive antithesis between the two.7 Roughly simultaneously with the taking shape of the classic expression of the developmental model, contrary voices announce themselves who claim that the developmental model is not doing justice to the Old Testament texts, but in fact are simplifications.8 In this connection Joyce sums up five methodological questions which are introduced with the acceptance of the developmental model: First, is ‘responsibility’ the correct characterization of what is introduced in the text?

2

See Matties 1990 (113–125). See Joyce 1989 (78–87). See also id. 1983 (79–83). For older literature see Scharbert 1958 (1–23). 4 See Joyce 1989 (78). Lapsley 2000a (19) follows Joyce. Joyce does not name any examples from the nineteenth century, but from the twentieth century: Baumgärtel 1932; Eichrodt 1968, 1964. Scharbert 1958 (4) differs from Joyce in reference to Eichrodt of whom he says that he stands more positive toward collectivism. From the nineteenth century J. H. Gunning JHz. 1881 may be mentioned. For the second half of the twentieth century: Harvey 1958 (173) who develops the thoughts of Calès 1921; Fohrer 1955 (98); Von Rad 1984 (241, 271–274). Von Rad 1964 (109) abandons this model with Deut 24:14–18. 5 Cf. Matties 1990 (116). 6 See Robinson 1936 (54–55) and id. 1937 (165). 7 See ibid. (153). 8 See Joyce 1989 (80–83). 3

collective and individual responsibility

211

Second, what ‘kind’ of text is investigated? Third, the Old Testament does not know a systematically constructed theory regarding responsibility. Fourth, many Old Testament texts know a combination of collective and individual elements, which create a complex image. Fifth, how are the relevant texts to be dated? Further, Joyce claims that developments in two directions may be observed: in a number of texts from collective to individual, in others a development in the opposite direction. Neither of the two developments may be generalized, however. Collectivism and individualism are entities in the Old Testament era which neither succeed or relieve one another, nor are they mutually connected in an evolutionary manner. The words of Hempel are characteristic in this connection: “Collectivism and individualism in the Old Testament are not worlds which at a certain point relieve one another!”9 Rowley expresses it still stronger: “An arid individualism can no more satisfy the wholeness of the teaching of the Old Testament than an arid collectivism. Any emphasis on the one to the exclusion of the other in any period is a misrepresentation of the faith of Israel.”10 With Matties and Lapsley it may be concluded that the voices against the evolutionist conception have won the day.11 The investigation has parted company from the developmental or the evolutionary model of collective in favor of individual responsibility, whereby particularly Ezekiel 18 would show that Ezekiel is an innovator of individualism.12,13 Caution needs to be exercised here so as not to fall into the other extreme, namely that development in reference to the relationship between collective and individual responsibility is out of the question, which subsequently is reflected in texts. Development in this area is observed and carefully expressed by e.g. Lindars and Joyce.14

9

Hempel 1964 (41), first printing 1938: “Kollektivismus und Individualismus sind im AT keine sich zu einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt ablösende Welten!” This is already outlined by Löhr 1906 (1); Eberharter 1924 (20–21); Hehn 1925 (223); Bückers 1933 (273–287). 10 Rowley 1956 (106). 11 See Matties 1990 (115); Lapsley 2000a (35). 12 Pace Maag 1982 (131): “Ezechiel hat . . . als erster die persönliche und adäquate Vergeltung alles guten und bösen Wandels durch Jahwäh gelehrt.” 13 See May 1961 (107); Kaiser 1983 (69); Levin 1985 (46); Schmid 1999 (197); Braulik 2000 (208); Wright 2001 (188 n.40). 14 Lindars 1965 (456, 466) and Joyce 1989 (86) see an individualizing trend in the post-exilic period.

212

chapter six

It should be kept in mind that there is no general agreement on the direction of the development.15 In spite of the fact that company has been parted from the developmental or evolutionary model, there are still aftereffects and remnants of the model present in the investigation. It is Kaminsky who furnishes a remarkable contribution to the debate on the aftereffects and remnants of the developmental or evolutionary model in an article in 1997.16 He does not agree with the vision as it is expressed in the words of Hempel and Rowley.17 Nevertheless he observes that the developmental or evolutionary model, in spite of a larger measure of reticence, is still operative with a number of investigators.18 He typifies the presence of the developmental or evolutionary model as an “individualist bias.”19 Kaminsky also notes the methodological consideration of Joyce in reference to the dating of texts, which he sees applied in a totally unique manner.20 This individualist bias contains the conviction “that a more individualized theology of retribution is morally and theologically superior to a more corporate view of retribution.”21 The reason for this is to be sought in the fact that “it is closer to our own modern notions of justice.”22 As a result of this the developmental or evolutionary model plays a lasting role in the background. Therefore Kaminsky emphasizes: “It is my contention that both the corporate and the individualized passages in the Hebrew Bible are important and essential to a proper understanding of the relationship between the individual and the community.”23 Kaminsky’s warning not to lapse into

15 Levin 1985 (46) sees in the post-exilic period a trend in supra-individual and metaphysical direction. Krašovec 1995 (36–38) agrees with Lindars and Joyce. 16 Kaminsky 1997 (319–332). 17 Ibid. (323) shows based on a reference to recent texts “that there was no simple linear progression from earlier corporate to later more individualized forms of retribution.” Kaminsky refers, among others, to Daniel and Esther, to the New Testament and the Talmud. 18 Ibid. (330 n.18) mentions Joyce and Matties as investigators who think in a nuanced fashion. 19 Ibid. (322). This individualist bias Kaminsky discovered with Halpern 1991 and with Krašovec 1995. Also Drewermann 2001 (126) endorses the critique of Kaminsky. 20 Kaminsky 1997 (319): “In its most benign form this bias leads scholars to date materials that have no clear historical markers simply on the basis of their use of individual language.” 21 Ibid. (323). 22 Ibid. (325). 23 Ibid. (328).

collective and individual responsibility

213

an individualist bias is particularly of importance for the approach of Ezekiel relating to the individual orientation (which is supposed to be superior) and for Ezekiel 20 relating to the collective orientation (which is supposed to be inferior). A New Approach: Ezekiel’s Anthropology Discontent with the results of the development and shift of the discussion on the relationship between collectivism and individualism, which is dominated too much by theodicy according to Lapsley, she pleads for a reversal of the question about the approach from Ezekiel’s anthropology. Lapsley has discussed the development and shift in the questioning, which is the foundation of the developmental or evolutionary model, namely, the tension between collectivism and individualism.24 Lapsley observes that the sharp dichotomy between collectivism and individualism is a passed station (the classic developmental model). It has been replaced by attention to the relationship between collectivism and individualism and the connected human responsibility on both levels as a complex and interwoven entity in its place.25 This complex and interwoven entity Lapsley calls “the tension.”26 This tension is also applicable to the investigation in Ezekiel. The tension is not removed by the new approach, where there is attention to the relationship between both levels of human responsibility, but only concealed.27 This is a result of the fact, that the question as to the relationship between both levels of human responsibility is accompanied by underlying attention to theodicy.28 The investigation of the tension, in spite of the valuable insights it has furnished, is crippled by this one-sided attention for Ezekiel’s attention for the theodicy.29 The result

24 Lapsley 2000a. Her reworked dissertation, The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel (1999). 25 See ibid. (24). 26 Ibid. (25). 27 See ibid. (25): “. . . not clarified, only downplayed.” This accounts for the trouble Lapsley has with the qualification of Pareira 1975 (40) of this tension as a paradox, to which she refers. 28 See Lapsley 2000a (25). Ibid. (25): “Thus with respect to the character of God, the question revolves around the nature of divine retribution, a concern which in turn shapes the human question in terms of the relationship between guilt and punishment, action and consequences.” 29 See ibid. (25–26).

214

chapter six

of this one-sidedness is expressed by Lapsley as follows: “Focusing on divine retribution and the unit of human responsibility (individual vs. corporate) obscures the fact that in Ezekiel it is not the unit of responsibility but the possibility of human responsibility at all that is brought into question.”30 Subsequent to the development in the discussion, Lapsley sketches a shift in the investigation. The attention shifts from the question of the one who is responsible, to the question of the capacity of humans to be morally responsible at all. She illustrates this shift with the work of Fishbane, Joyce, and Matties.31 She concludes that with none of the three the shift leads to a mature accent on the anthropological questions.32 As a result of the incomplete shift to the anthropological questions the tension continues to exist, but something has been gained. A different way of thinking on the tension began to gain territory. No longer was the tension formulated in terms of individual vis-à-vis collective, but in terms of the capacity of humans to be morally responsible at all. The movement toward anthropological questions changed the content of the tension. The emergence of the ‘new’ tension by the movement lies between the determinism of e.g. Ezekiel 16, 20 and 23 and the freedom to react toward calling for sorrow and repentance, of which Ezekiel 18 is an example.33 This new tension is explained by investigators chiefly in two ways, according to Lapsley: first, the cause may be a development in the thinking of the prophet;34 secondly, the cause may be unsystematic or inconsistent thinking by Ezekiel.35 These explanations do not satisfy Lapsley, because they do not indicate the reason for the appearance of

30 Ibid. (26). The about-face from theological to anthropological questions is according to Lapsley the key for the understanding of the tension. 31 See ibid. (26–35). 32 On Fishbane see ibid. (27–28), on Joyce ibid. (31), and on Matties ibid. (35). 33 See ibid. (35). 34 See ibid. (36). For this Lapsley points to Lemke 1984 (177) and Kaminsky 1995 (160). Kaminsky himself does not speak so much of a development as of “ad hoc speech” which makes it possible to emphasize different aspects at different moments. Ibid. (177) grants Ezekiel the space not to be “a systematic theologian.” In that case Kaminsky may (also) be listed in the second group of investigators (as subsequently indicated by Lapsley), who offer an explanation for the newly formulated tension. 35 See Lapsley 2000a (37). Lapsley mentions Fishbane 1984 (145), Klein 1988 (108), and Hals 1989 (143) as investigators who have no problem with an inconsistent manner of thinking of the prophet, because both the themes and the auditors of the prophet may differ.

collective and individual responsibility

215

the tension in this manner, and because they do not do justice to the coherence, which Lapsley observes in the book.36 Quite remarkably, Lapsley moves on without further explanation from the prophet Ezekiel, to which the different explanations are related, to the book of Ezekiel, where her interest lies. She is not interested at all in the prophet Ezekiel but only in the book as a whole which she therefore approaches holistically.37 Lapsley rounds off the description of the shift with a discussion of the work of Uffenheimer and Schwartz,38 who have occupied themselves with the tension between “the language of determinism and that of repentance in Ezekiel.”39 Though their questioning is correct, their solutions do not satisfy Lapsley either: “Again, the need on the part of scholars to find a consistent and coherent portrait of God (while assigning that need to Ezekiel) results in a fragmented and confused portrait of human beings, which is apparently not so troubling.”40 Lapsley proposes to turn the problem around and to investigate what is happening in Ezekiel’s anthropology. In her description proceeding from the anthropology of Ezekiel, on the level of the book, Lapsley arrives at her conclusions.41 Central is the question: can people be morally responsible? Seen from this line of approach, she sees in the book of Ezekiel a shift both in the origin as well as the form of the “moral selfhood.”42 The shift from the origin takes place from anthropology to theology.43 The shift in the form is that of acting (by man): “moral action,” to knowing (of God).44 A secondary place is assigned to human action as a derivate of the divine gift of the new moral selfhood.45

36

See Lapsley 2000a (37). See ibid. (13). 38 Uffenheimer 1992; Schwartz 1994. 39 Lapsley 2000a (37). On this, briefly Berquist 1993 (55–56) who sees in Ezekiel 18 the bridging of the tension in the “ultimate individual responsibility.” 40 Lapsley 2000a (41). Crenshaw 1983 (1–16) observes a similar tendency in reference to theodicy in the Hebrew Bible. 41 See Mol 2001. 42 See Lapsley 2000a (6). 43 See ibid. (6). 44 See ibid. (6–7). The significance of the “moral action” is strongly marginalized by Lapsley (7), when she states about humans, that their “primary function is to watch and witness, not to do and to act.” See also ibid. (159–183). 45 In spite of the secondary place, Lapsley cannot very well imagine humans, who do not act. See ibid. (186, 188). Mein 2001 (216) shows a remarkable agreement with 37

216

chapter six

The book of Ezekiel knows three types (paradigms) of moral selfhood, which bear all possibilities for acting in them: first, the “‘virtual’ moral selfhood, which assumes that humans are capable of obedience, that is, that they are able to know, intend and act for the good.”46 This is to be connected to the language of repentance and conversion. Second, there is the “ ‘neutral’ moral selfhood, which involves the capacity to make morally neutral decisions (from the agent’s perspective) and act on them. Neutral moral selfhood is necessary to take any action at all, but it does not presuppose any ability to know, intend and act for the good.”47 This is to be connected with the language of determinism. Third, the new moral selfhood, which is developed from these two with a determination to good action.48 The movement to the new paradigm develops from the polarity between “the language of repentance and the language of determinism in the book.”49 The first two types of moral selfhood (both with an anthropological origin) are chiefly to be found in Ezekiel 1–35 and are constantly in conflict, to gain priority according to Lapsley.50 The third type (with a theological origin) is to be found in Ezekiel 36–48.51 As seen by Lapsley, the book of Ezekiel is a literary deposit of the struggle with inherited traditions—paradigms—of moral selfhood, out of which proceeds the image of a new moral selfhood. Lapsley observes the polarity between the inherited traditions and sees it conquered in the new moral selfhood. The approach by Lapsley is not satisfactory for a number of reasons. First, Lapsley in fact applies a developmental model on a logical level within the limits of the book of Ezekiel. There is no question of a linear-chronological succession of the paradigms, but of a logical. The linear-chronological developmental model proceeds from a development of collectivism to individualism. The logical developmental model of

Lapsley on the point of the divine initiative and the role of human action. See further Mein (233–255). 46 Lapsley 2000a (4). 47 Ibid. (4). 48 Cf. id. 2000b (273). Lapsley agrees with Gross 1998 (151) who speaks about the new covenant in Jer 31, without her appearing to be conscious of it. 49 Lapsley 2000a (6). 50 See ibid. (8). 51 See ibid. (8).

collective and individual responsibility

217

Lapsley proceeds from a development from repentance and determinism to the new moral selfhood. The development occurs from the question as to whether humans generally can be morally responsible. By this she has relieved herself of the task of indicating how individual and collective are mutually related as to their responsibility, since this question is suggested by the theodicy which is present in the background.52 Second, she does not discuss the tense relationship between texts with the language of repentance and conversion and texts with the language of determinism. She leaves both of them side by side and facing each other, and sees the new moral selfhood develop from the polarity between the two, so that the tension is overcome. By this she does not escape the marginalizing of the texts with the old paradigms, in their significance for the book of Ezekiel.53 Third, Lapsley in her visions of the new moral self does not manage without theology (i.e., introducing ‘God’ in the line of argumentation), of which she criticizes other scholars that too much weight has been assigned to theology, with their attention for the theodicy. Fourth, it appears that the question as to responsibility for acting cannot entirely be ignored by Lapsley.54 As soon as people act, the question as to responsibility may be asked. Lapsley cannot imagine humans who do not act. The old paradigms with their language of repentance and conversion or determinism portray a collective or an individual in his actions and (his capacity for) responsibility. If one does not wish to marginalize the texts with these old paradigms in their significance for the book of Ezekiel, he is therefore entitled to ask the question as to the responsibility of an individual and a collective and the relationship between the two, with the annotation by Kaminsky (concerning the ‘individual bias’) in mind.

52 For the theodicy question, see Raitt 1977 (83–105). Ibid. (249 n.16): “Ezekiel, chapter 18, is rich enough in implications for theodicy that it deserves a chapter-length analysis by itself.” 53 Lapsley calls the importance, assigned to Ezekiel 18 in the investigation, an overstatement; her thesis appears too much of an unjust understatement. Cf. Lapsley 2000a (35). 54 For Lapsley (ibid. [190]) the question as to responsibility remains outside of the discussion, because the portrait of the new moral selfhood shows this “as one who almost inevitably does the right thing.”

218

chapter six Ezekiel 18

Ezekiel 18 knows, as a continuing theme, the question as to retribution, as the situation is experienced in exile. This question is asked in the divine oracle on the occasion of the proverb in v.2. The divine oracle unfolds around the question: how does retribution take place? which changes into the question: is retribution taking place justly? The pressing nature of this question is expressed in the conclusions which are drawn from the different cases: living or dying. As a red thread this motif runs through the chapter. Ultimately the question is stated as to the justice of the Lord, whereby the theme of theodicy is broached in this chapter (You are saying: The way of the Lord is not right.). Beside the theme of the question as to the justice of the Lord and the objection of his supposed injustice (My way is not right? Are they not your ways which are not right?), the continuing readiness of the Lord to accept and save those who turn about and turn away from their sins, becomes the point of this chapter. The fatalistic undertone which is expressed in the proverb in v.2 is, in the discussion of the cases, bent correctively toward a positive tendency by the discussion in v.32. Central in Ezekiel 18 stands the discussion which recalls the proverb in v.2: Fathers eat unripe fruit, and the teeth of the children become dull.55 This proverb is focused on the collective: fathers, children, with attention to trans-generational effects. The divine claim on each life in v.4, after a prohibition on the use of the proverb in v.3, has an individual focus: father, son. The elaboration of this individual focus occurs in vv.5–19 with an eye on the trans-generational aspect (a line of three generations). Particularly in vv.18 and 19 the trans-generational aspect comes to the fore around the question ‘Why does the son not load himself with the guilt of the father?’ The articulation remains individual: son, father. This is also true of v.20 where the individual focus is maintained and where it is repeated that the sinful life will die, as indicated in v.4. The trans-generational aspect is replaced in this verse

55 Schenker 1981 (456) speaks of “eine Schlüsselrolle für das Verständnis.” Extensively on the proverb: Darr 2004.

collective and individual responsibility

219

by an intra-generational aspect: the tandem father-son is replaced by the tandem righteous-guilty. The intra-generational aspect is worked out in vv.21–29. Within this elaboration in individual language stands the discussion with the ‘house of Israel’ on the questions as to whose way(s) is (are) not right: the way of the Lord or the ways of the house of Israel? This discussion is collectively oriented. The conclusion in vv.30–32 is focused collectively, with an individual accent in v.30 (I judge each one of you according to your ways.) and v.32 (I have no pleasure in the death of anyone.). The way of everyone, according to which he is judged, shows that all lives are God’s. The validity of the trans-generational bearing of the proverb is thus rejected in favor of an intra-generational approach, which is individually articulated. The description of Ezekiel 18 offered above on the point of individual and collective focus of the text summons the question: is it correct to approach Ezekiel 18 as a text which is oriented on the individual? The answer to this question is of obvious importance, when the relationship between collective and individual responsibility based on Ezekiel 18 is discussed. This question bears a preliminary character. In the history of scholarship on Ezekiel 18 the question has been answered differently. Some scholars give a positive answer to the question and approach Ezekiel 18 as text which is directed to the individual. The frequent use of individualistic legal texts in Ezekiel 18 justifies such an approach in their view.56 An appeal to the use of individualistic legal texts in support of an individualistic reading of Ezekiel 18 is more complicated than it seems. In this connection reference should be made to a distinction made by Lindars in the framework of the discussion of the concept of individual responsibility. There is an important distinction between criminal responsibility, which is a matter of social legislation, and the responsibility of the individual before God, which carries with it ideas of the divine retribution of rewards and punishments. . . . The value of making this distinction will be seen when we

56 E.g. Sweeney 2000 (740) on Ezekiel 18: “a Levitical discourse on individual moral responsibility.”

220

chapter six go on to examine Ezekiel’s method of teaching. For he uses the language of criminal responsibility when he is speaking of divine retribution.57

The significance of Lindars’ comment lies in the distinction of ‘criminal responsibility’ and ‘responsibility before God’ and the language which both use.58,59 Further, Lindars makes a distinction between the individual and the nation as a whole in reference to divine retribution.60 In both cases it is a matter of trans-generational retribution, though in reference to the individual divine retribution the rule applies that the duration of divine punishment is limited to the generations which are born during the lifetime of the offender. For the retribution in reference to the sins of the ‘nation as a whole,’ this limitation does not apply. Lindars mentions Exod 34:7 and Num 14:18 as examples. The distinction may cause confusion since retribution to the third and fourth generation bears collective traits. Gruenthaner mentions precisely these texts as examples of social retribution, whereby he describes solidarity in punishment relative to the family or the nation.61 Lindars makes the distinction to arrive at the conclusion “that, when Ezekiel uttered his prophecy, the responsibility of the individual was generally recognised in ideas of divine retribution just as much as it was in the field of criminal justice.”62 For Lindars, two forms of individual responsibility exist: one in criminal justice, which is not trans-generational, and one in relation to divine retribution which is trans-generational. The latter definition does not merit endorsement in view of the fact that the collective aspect is dominant. The collective is formed namely by the individual transgressor and his offspring into the third and fourth generation.

57 Lindars 1965 (452–453), similarly Joyce 1989 (41). Cf. Kaminsky 1997 (320) on the inclination “to draw a sharp distinction between secular and religious law,” directed against Porter 1965 (362–367). The warning applies here as well. 58 Joyce 1989 (38) has expressed this difference from the standpoint that the expression reflects the train of thought. The language of the divine retribution is retrospective, of criminal justice prospective. 59 On (the language of ) collective/divine and individual/criminal retribution and the (sometimes partial) mixing of both: Daube 1947 (166); Verdam 1949 (412); Greenberg 1960 (25); Levin 1985 (46) who opts for a strict distinction between collective and individual retribution; Schmid 1999 (220). 60 See Lindars 1965 (456–458). 61 Cf. Gruenthaner 1942 (101, 106). 62 Lindars 1965 (458).

collective and individual responsibility

221

The Old Testament criminal justice (criminal responsibility) is individualistic. As a pronounced example of this Deut 24:16 may apply with its individualistically formulated conclusion. In Old Testament criminal justice not a single legal rule may be found proceeding from collective responsibility. The individual responsibility is the standard of Old Testament criminal justice.63 Outside of Old Testament criminal justice, where divine retribution (responsibility [of the individual] before God) has its place, collective responsibility may be found. Examples of this are the stories in Joshua 7 and 2 Sam 21:1–14. The examples make clear that this is a case of transgression of divine justice, namely, violating what was banned (what was dedicated to God) and the breaking of an oath sworn to God.64 Lindars himself arrives at the conclusion that Ezekiel does not occupy himself in chapter 18 with the question as to individual responsibility (as it operates in divine retribution in Lindars’ view),65 but that he uses the concept of the individual responsibility (as it operates in criminal justice) in a new context, namely, that of the “retribution for the nation’s sin.”66,67 On this Lindars’ opinion is that the use of the concept of individual responsibility with its appropriate language in the new context is also of significance for the individual (in relation to God).68 The closing remark by Lindars barely mentions what is the meaning for the individual.69 The distinction made by Lindars is meaningful and clarifying, but his conclusion must not be followed on account of his definition of the individual divine retribution, which should not be labeled individual. The scholars who answer negatively to the question as to whether Ezekiel 18 targets the individual, as e.g. Joyce, draw the line consistently on the basis of the work of Lindars (and Zimmerli)70 and opt for a

63

See Greenberg 1960 (23); Schmid 1999 (197). See Verdam 1949 (408); Greenberg 1960 (23–25); Schmid 1999 (212). 65 See Lindars 1965 (466). The “individual before God” relates to divine retribution. 66 Ibid. (453). 67 See ibid. (464). 68 See ibid. (461). 69 Ibid. (467): “Yahweh’s desire that his people should ‘live,’ and the corresponding demand for repentance and faith on their part, are not only an essential message for the situation of the exiles, but remain permanently true of God’s relationship with men, and apply both individually and corporately.” 70 See Zimmerli 1954. 64

222

chapter six

collective center of gravity in Ezekiel 18.71 With this the language of the concept of individual responsibility is applied.72 Ezekiel 18 is directed to the community of the exiles, as appears from the use of the second person plural and ‘house of Israel.’73 This reading of Ezekiel 18 is not without problems either. Wong shows what the problem is with a chiefly or exclusively collectivist reading. Wong observes that in Ezekiel 18 the principle of retribution ‘like for like’ (‘tit for tat’) functions (I judge you everyone according to his ways),74 and comments: “The principle of “like for like” enjoins, by its nature, individual retribution.”75 An exclusive choice for one of the two options cannot do justice to the presence of both individualistic traits in the text as well as collective. The meaning of the individualistic as well as the collective traits in the text needs to be marginalized to justify a one-sided choice. E.g. Fishbane marginalizes the collective traits to support his choice, while Joyce does the reverse.76 To do justice to the text of Ezekiel 18 the presence of both individualistic as well as collective traits must be recognized, and a balance needs to be sought between them in the exegesis as Matties does.77 Renz also recognizes the presence of collective and individualistic traits, whereby he puts a greater emphasis on the collective aspect, however. Renz uses the expression ‘individual (generation).’78 Mein also keeps both aspects together with a choice for a collective reading (following Joyce). Mein keeps both aspects together by speaking of “scaling down . . . to the more domestic or individual level appropriate to exile.”79 The collective functions on the level of neighbors and family. The scaling down by Mein does no justice to the use of the family metaphor in the book of Ezekiel for the whole people though Mein does note its use and uses it

71

Joyce 1989 (47), see ibid. (41, 45–47), id. 1987, id. 2007 (137). Cf. Lust 1987 (136), id. (2008). 72 Individual responsibility in the sense of criminal justice is meant. 73 E.g. Patton 2000 (711). 74 See Wong 2001 (239–242). Cf. Becker 2002. 75 Wong 2001 (253). 76 See Fishbane 1984 (140–142), id. 1986 (337–339); Joyce 1989 (46–47, 54–55). 77 See Matties 1990 (149). Cf. Kaminsky 1995 (168–173) and Lapsley 2000a (26–35). 78 See Renz 1999 (143, 193). 79 Mein 2001 (202), see ibid. (187–202).

collective and individual responsibility

223

to argue to support his collective vision of Ezekiel.80 Mein distinguishes between the level of everyday life in the home situation of the exiles and a national political level, while these two are bound together in the book of Ezekiel by the term ‘house of Israel.’81 The use of the family metaphor will be discussed extensively later on. This means that the presence of individualistic traits in the text of Ezekiel 18 justifies an approach of this chapter of Ezekiel as a text which is (also) orientated on the individual from the (vantage point of the) presentation of the question. The presence of the concept of individualistic responsibility may be accepted in Ezekiel 18, without it having to deteriorate into an individualist bias. The recognition of the use of individualistic texts from the legal corpus of the Old Testament and its use of it in a different context, does not justify the rejection of an appeal to individual responsibility in Ezekiel 18. Ezekiel 18 occupies itself with the question as to the manner on which and on whom divine retribution takes place.82 That the situation of the exile was experienced as punishment for sin is not to be disputed. The point of contention lies in the answer to the question as to whose sins are punished and how divine retribution is applied.83 With this the question as to the collective (trans- and intra-generational) and the individual comes to the fore. By using the language of criminal justice in the new context,84 namely, one which speaks of divine retribution, the envisaged goal is achieved.85 The individualistic language of criminal justice prevents the possibility for every individual in the house of Israel to hide behind a former generation (trans-generational collectivity)86 or in their own generation (intra-generational collectivity). Use of traditional language of retribution would have opened the way to a similar escape route, so that no responsibility would have to be accepted for their own sins.

80

Ibid. (205). See ibid. (213). 82 On divine retribution see Schuman 1993 and Wong 2001. 83 Related to the theodicy question, see ibid. (251). Lapsley unjustly disavows the attention for the theodicy question. The theodicy question is not detached from the vision of the coherence of the book of Ezekiel, which Lapsley also presupposes. 84 Greenberg 1986 (94) speaks of an “invention of Ezekiel.” 85 See Mein 2001 (186). Partly pace Mein (188), who assigns too little weight to the aspect of individual responsibility in the use of the language of criminal justice in this new context. 86 According to Patton 1996 (83) the focus of Ezek 18. 81

224

chapter six

Related to the trans- and intra-generational collectivity, the position of Ezekiel 18 between Ezekiel 17 and 19 is of importance. Both framing chapters (17 and 19) deal with the royal house. Ezekiel 18 might be seen as a later addition to the context, which functions as a disturbing interruption of the course of the argument.87 This is not the case, however. Ezekiel 18 fulfills a corrective and critical function in the present context in order to avoid that the exiles should hide behind the kings and their sins. There is no possibility of hiding behind the king(s), as if the exile would be exclusively the result of his (their) sin.88 This approach of the trans- and intra-generational collectivity via the responsibility of the king(s) does not offer an escape route either, to be able to bypass the bearing of responsibility for their own sins. The sociological structure of Ezekiel’s audience may have strengthened the need to emphasize the responsibility of each individual. Ezekiel and his fellow exiles belonged to the upper class of the population. The Babylonians showed themselves in their deportation politics to be eager students of the Assyrians. The Babylonians in any case adopted the Assyrian strategy to deport the upper class of the population.89 Those who belonged to the first group of exiles from 597 B.C.E. on, from the upper class of the population, were more familiar with a collective manner of thinking from the family relationship, in which the head of the family (the extended family—bet ’āb) was central. Faust states that the familial form of community of the extended family remained chiefly in tact in the countryside, in villages and in the royal family, and the upper class of the population in the cities.90 The contacts between Ezekiel and the elders (Ezek 8:1; 14:1 and 20:1) point in that direction. Sneed is critical in reference to the use of archaeological data to illuminate the social structures of ancient Israel, while Dever and Herzog are positive on this method of research.91 Dever, Herzog, and Faust make use of insights and approaches of the ‘new archaeology’ which is oriented to “the complex interrelationships that are reflected

87

See Andrew 1985 (87). Pace Drewermann 2001 (122). Remarkable is the vision of Halpern 1991 (14) who interprets the bearing of responsibility for their own sins too one-sidedly as a political ideological means. See Mein 2001 (90–91) on the impossibility to hide behind the king. 89 See Thompson 1992 (342, 346); Smith 1989 (29–31); Berquist 1995 (15); Mein 2001 (58 et passim). 90 See Faust 1999 (245), id. 2000 (17–39). 91 See Sneed 1999 (63–64); Herzog 1997 (13); Dever 1998 (429). 88

collective and individual responsibility

225

in the archaeological record and seeks to place the various artifacts of human culture within their wider social context.”92 In the light of the remarks made above, the significance of the proverb in v.2,93 which plays a crucial role relative to the question of this investigation, may be illuminated. The point of this proverb is not the logical impossibility of what is expressed. Obviously, children do not get dull teeth when their fathers eat unripe fruit. The absurd part of this proverb expresses how the responsibility of the exile is experienced by Ezekiel’s discussion partners. When the fathers do something that is not good (eating unripe fruit) the children suffer the results (teeth become dull). The proverb is not about the responsibility for the act, but its results. Taken in itself no pronouncement is yet to be made on the point as to whether Ezekiel’s discussion partners appreciate and accept this course of events as normal, or that they accept it critically.94 The context will have to furnish the solution. The direct context in vv.2–4 brings to the fore the prohibition of the proverb and supports the prohibition. There is no difference in the valuation of lives: ‘See, all lives are mine, the life of the father as well as the life of the son is mine.’ Thus, fathers cannot permit themselves to commit unlawful acts, with which children will be saddled.95 The sinful life will die. The act and the responsibility for the act are coupled to one and the same person to the legal principle of individual responsibility. V.19 picks up the proverb in the language of argumentation in vv.5–18. The use of this language sharpens the matter and brings to light an underlying thought with the discussion partners, which did not become visible in the language of the proverb. Where the subject is the results of acts, this does not necessarily pertain to the responsibility for the acts in question. That this connection was made by the discussion partners of Ezekiel below the surface of the proverb, appears from the ‘translation’ of the proverb relative to the question of v.19: ‘Why does the son not burden himself with the guilt of the father?’96 When the son burdens himself with the guilt of his father, he is held jointly

92

Carter 1996 (8); cf. Dever 1988; Becking 2002 (149). Cf. Jer 31:29. For the relationship see Leene 1996. 94 See ibid. (90). Crenshaw 1971 (28) is of the opinion that the proverb reflects the common view. The question in v.19 (see below) is to be understood as a realistic objection. 95 See Greenberg 1986 (328). 96 Though the conclusion is reached just in vv.14–17 that the (grand) son will not die in the guilt of his father it is presently asked, why not. 93

226

chapter six

responsible for his father’s act and does he not exclusively suffer the consequences of the act of his father. Not only are the consequences of acts represented as trans-generational, but also the responsibility for acts is represented as trans-generational so it appears: why is this not so?97 The question is thus to be understood: just explain it, for we are experiencing the opposite, as it is expressed in the proverb. The question is to be conceived as a rhetorical device,98 by which it is expressed that those who identify themselves with the son, wish to rid themselves of their own responsibility by presenting themselves as victims. Only by emphasizing the proverb in question, they can hold out, that they are innocent and suffer unjustly for the acts of the father.99 With ‘the children’ in the proverb, the exiles in Babylon have themselves in mind.100 The act and the responsibility for the act are coupled to one and the same person in v.20 with the resumption of the rule: the sinful life, it will die. In this verse the legal principle of individual responsibility is confirmed. This is elaborated in vv.21–29. The twice quoted reproach by the house of Israel that the way of the Lord is not right harks back to the thought behind the proverb. God acts wrongly in reference to the house of Israel by making them co-responsible for the acts of their fathers and for letting them suffer the consequences of those acts. That shows that his way is not right. But this is precisely what Ezekiel opposes.101 God does not hold the house of Israel, as the exiles are addressed, responsible for the acts of the previous generation. God does not hold anyone responsible for the acts of another: ‘I judge you,

97 Rost 1974 (71) sees in the question an affirmation of Exod 20:5, which is canceled because of the exceptional situation of the exile, however. The goal of this is that the exiles themselves may confess guilt according to Lev 26:40. 98 Pace Schenker 1981 (456–457), who understands v.19 as a real question in which he sees the reflection of the ordinary way of things. He points to Ezek 33:10 for this. What escapes Schenker is the fact that v.19 is stated trans-generationally and Ezek 33:10 intra-generationally. In Ezek 33:10 the situation is sketched of a generation, which is aware of its own guilt, while 18:19 suggests the opposite. Schenker is followed e.g. by Levin 1985 (46); Fuhs 1986 (94–95); Reindl 1987 (81); Schmid 1999 (214–215). 99 See Joyce 1989 (47–48); Krašovec 1999 (476); Mein 2001 (69). 100 See Fohrer 1955 (98–99); Junker 1963 (179); Reindl 1987 (81); Joyce 1989 (43); Krüger 1989 (373). Pace Kilpp 1985 (212–216); Kessler 1996 (33). Kilpp misses the rhetorical intention of the question and wrongly appeals to Joyce. Kilpp does not succeed in providing insight that the proverb could not have been in circulation among the Babylonian exiles before the fall of Jerusalem. 101 See Junker 1963 (184).

collective and individual responsibility

227

everyone according to his ways.’102 If the house of Israel experiences that it has dull teeth, the reason is that they have eaten unripe fruit.103 They bear the results of their own acts and are themselves responsible for them. This responsibility is born by each separate human life: ‘For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone.’ The express connection of the individualistic expression in vv.30–32 with the ‘house of Israel’ keeps the matter in balance: individual responsibility within the collective. The proverb in v.2 disguised the underlying thought relative to the trans-generational responsibility for these acts.104 Instead of expressing the experience of trans-generational results of acts, which, seen logically, are expressed in the proverb, the proverb is used with another explicit charge. The underlying thought came to the surface in the question of v.19.105 Besides, the question in v.19 masked the unwillingness to accept intra-generational and personal responsibility.106 The context shows that the proverb was used critically by the exiles.107,108 This from the underlying thought that the exiles were innocent and were wrongly made responsible for the acts of a previous generation and had to bear the results of them. According to their conception they bore the punishment for someone else’s transgression.109 After an argued refutation of the critique of the way of the Lord, this critical point remains: Are they not your ways which are not right? In Ezekiel 18 it is ultimately not a question of theodicy, though this is expressly mentioned in the reproach of the exiles, but of anthropodicy. Within this collective framework, everyone is pointed to his individual responsibility.110

102 For the meaning of this expression, which only occurs in Ezekiel, see Wong 2001 (239–242). This is an example of ‘poetic justice,’ see Barton 1979. Cf. Van Zyl 1961 (43) who sees in this a summary of what the prophet said relative to the proverb in v.2. 103 Cf. Ezek 33:17 and Jer 31:30. The ways of the house of Israel are illogical, not right because they refuse to see that those, who have dull teeth, have eaten unripe fruit. See Darr 2004 (209 n.63). Cf. Schenker 1981 (458). 104 Pohlmann 1992 (238, on the proverb 231–239), is of the opinion that the proverb does not disguise anything: “Fazit: Ez 18,2 äußert sich zum Problem des Generationen übergreifenden Tun-Ergehenzusammenhangs.” 105 See Berquist 1993 (57); Krašovec 1999 (476). 106 See Lattey 1951 (270); Sakenfeld 1978 (297). 107 See Gruenthaner 1942 (108); Krašovec 1999 (476). 108 Pace Leene 1996 (92). Who the sons/children are, must be clear so that vv.30–32 is not left un-addressed. 109 See Perlitt 1972 (301); Renz 1999 (79). Neither can the king be indicated as a transgressor (see above). 110 See Sakenfeld 1978 (296); Geyer 1979 (43); Lemke 1984 (171); Krašovec 1999 (483); Reventlow 1999 (162); Pleins 2001 (331).

228

chapter six Ezekiel 20

In Ezekiel the prophet offers an extensive retrospect of the history with the intention that a lesson should be learned from it. This history lesson is given in reaction to the longing of men among the elders of Israel to seek the Lord. Seeking the Lord implies a relationship between the Lord and his people. This presupposition is correct, as appears from the beginning of the retrospect of the history in v.5: ‘On the day that I chose Israel, . . . and I raised my hand, . . . and I revealed myself.’ It is this relationship which is described according to its nature in Ezekiel 20. It appears from the description that this relationship did not continue to exist into the exile on the basis of the obedience of the people. V.32 describes the nadir of this relationship: the recurring sin of idolatry in history. The continuation of the relationship is owed to the will of the Lord, who has chosen to continue the relationship ‘for the sake of his name.’ The acting of the Lord for the sake of his name also determines the filling-in of the future and guarantees the continuation of the relationship in the future. This future will look differently from what the elders of Israel envision, they namely begin a (religious) assimilation to the nations, to which v.32 witnesses. The direction is and remains in the hands of the Lord. The prophet portrays an exodus and a judgment which is followed by a purified future in the promised land. This future scenario keeps the present (and after realization, the present which has become the past) of exile in living memory: you will remember your evil ways and corrupt acts (vv.43 and 44). Only for those who are ready to let themselves be led through the exodus and the judgment, is this future scenario granted. The intention of the Lord involving return goes hand in hand with the threat which proceeds from an exodus and judgment since the elders envision a different course. Those, who let themselves be led through the exodus and the judgment to the purified future, will know that they are part of a nation with evil ways and corrupt acts, which had not merited any future anymore. The Lord thus acts for the sake of his name. Ezekiel 20 is to be qualified as a collectively oriented text: the text is overwhelmingly set in the plural. The only exception to the plural form relative to those addressed is the three times repeated phrase in vv.11,13,21 relative to the knowing of the ordinances and laws: ‘by which the man who does them, lives.’

collective and individual responsibility

229

This phrase is written in the singular amidst preceding and following plural forms. The use of the article in the just mentioned phrase may be conceived as the indication of individuals or things which belong to a kind, class or category.111 If this use is applicable to the expression ‘the man’ in the above mentioned phrase from Ezekiel 20, there is no individuality connected with the expression ‘the man.’ In that case the phrase joins itself in the collective orientation of the text. The use of the article in Ezek 38:20 might plead for this conception. The use of ‫ ָה ָא ָדם‬in Ezek 4:12,15 (beside the four named places the article is added to ‫ ָא ָדם‬only in these verses) cannot be determined unequivocally. On the one hand, the indication of a kind, class or category appears to have preference (with the aid of the article): this is about human excrements on which Ezekiel must prepare his food. On the other hand it is not impossible to interpret the use of the article as an expression of a single man with his individuality. The commission to Ezekiel would then signify to prepare his food on his own excrements. The reprehensible nature of the thought is maximally heightened for the priest-prophet Ezekiel. The use of the article may also be understood to indicate a single person in his individuality,112 whereby the identity of the person is (as yet) unknown.113 This use may be accepted for vv. 11,13,21 to determine each member of the people individually with the laws and ordinances, which give life. The identity of the appropriate member of the people is unimportant, but the individuality is, which is expressed. The expression occurs in Lev 18:5 in a comparable connection with ordinances and laws. The continuation in Leviticus 18 features the frequent use of singular forms, so that the aspect of individuality is fortified by this expression. This is not about ‘which man’ lives, but that ‘every man’ may live. In the midst of the collective transgression of the ordinances and laws by Israel, an individually oriented accent is placed to bring the intention of the ordinances and laws to mind.114 Another individual accent is placed in the text by the use of ‫ ִאישׁ‬, in vv.7 and 8 in which each individual Israelite is appealed to cast away

111

See GKC §126l. See GKC §126q. 113 The use of ‫ ָה ָא ָדם‬in this manner lies, relative to its meaning, close to the use ָ ‫ ֶבּ‬in Ezekiel as an indication of a single person. HAL (14), s.v. I ‫ ָא ָדם‬l.c. of ‫ן־א ָדם‬ “einzelner Mensch.” 114 For this thought cf. Ezek 18:9,17,19,21; 33:15. 112

230

chapter six

the monstrous idols and dung gods, so as not to draw any uncleanness to oneself.115 The expression ‫ל־פּנִ ים‬ ָ ‫ ָפּנִ ים ֶא‬in v.35 also indicates an individual accent. The expression occurs another four times in the MT: Gen 32:31 (God and Jacob); Exod 33:11 (God and Moses); Deut 34:10 (God and Moses); Judg 6:22 (Gideon and an angel of God). In each of these cases the expression describes an individual contact.116 For the rest, Ezekiel 20 does not know an internal question concerning the relationship between the collective and the individual. It is the collective Israel (v.5), the house of Jacob (v.5), the house Israel (vv.27,30,39,44) which is addressed via the elders of Israel (vv.1 and 3) as representatives of the collective, namely, the exiles.117 It appeared from the structural analysis that vv.5–26 point to the collective past of fathers and sons. The sons appeared not to be one whit better than the fathers. From v.27 the present comes into view, because Ezekiel envisages the house of Israel to the fathers as ‘your fathers’ in v.27. The sons have become fathers again and in the line of the generations they are ‘your fathers.’ In v.30 Ezekiel continues with this, so that nothing else may be concluded than that the present sons (the house of Israel, represented by the elders) are just like the fathers: ‘With the way of your fathers you have polluted yourselves.’ Vv.30–32 describe the present of the exile. Israel in exile appears to be back to square one: ‘We want to be like the nations, like the generations of the lands, by serving wood and stone.’ Greenberg recognizes a subversive popular saying in this, which made the rounds among the exiles. In his view, this saying is the occasion for the divine oracle in Ezekiel 20 and in this it looks like Ezekiel 18.118 At the time of their dwelling in Egypt previous to the exodus, Israel had the monstrous idols and the dung gods of Egypt. In the exile, Israel wants to be assimilated to the nations and generations of the lands, but that will surely not happen (v.32).119 115 See Zimmerli 1969a (445); Liwak 1976 (172); Krüger 1989 (231); Sedlmeier 1990 (221–224, 388); Pola 1994 (181); Premstaller 2004 (57, 58). 116 See Ohnesorge 1991 (197). Wong 2001 (252): “the more individualistic tone in Ez 20:32–38.” 117 See Pola 1994 (156–157); Berquist 1995 (15); Renz 1999 (83); Mein 2001 (67). Pace Nay 1999 (172). 118 See Greenberg 1986 (383), corresponding: Joyce 1989 (42); Sedlmeier 1990 (317). 119 Lust 1997b (371): “the arrogant wish of the people.” Cf. id. 1997a. Corresponding: Greenberg 1986 (371); Pons 1986 (226–228); Sedlmeier 1990 (317–319); Ohnesorge 1991 (154); Uffenheimer 1992 (218); Block 1997 (648–649); Maier 1998 (270); Eslinger

collective and individual responsibility

231

The use of ‫ שׁרת‬emphasizes the perversity of the thought in v.32 since this proverb is further reserved for the pure worship of the Lord in the book of Ezekiel (in Ezekiel 40–48 except Ezek 44:12). The verb is used sixteen times in Ezekiel 40–48, of which once (Ezek 44:12) relating to the old worship of the dung gods.120 During a new exodus (vv.33–38) this tendency will be purified. In this also these sons in exile will not differ from their fathers. Adamiak sees here an individualistic aspect on the basis of Ezek 18:20 as well, as “one of the clearest and most unconditional statements of individual retribution.”121 On the other hand, the text keeps using plural forms. Krüger reasons along the line of Adamiak, but supports it differently. He states that in addressing Israel (in the plural), every Israelite is also individually addressed. He refers to ‫ ִאישׁ‬in vv.7,8 and to vv.11,13,21 with ‫ ָה ָא ָדם‬. The individualistic aspect is further strengthened by ‘going under the rod’ in v.37.122 On the basis of the text, the concept of Krüger carries more force or power of persuasion than that of Adamiak. Sedlmeier broadens the view of individualizing as key to interpretation from vv.37–38, in reference to v.7, to all of Ezekiel 20.123 Wong sees in v.37 an individualistic aspect on the basis of the use of the shepherd’s metaphor in connection with Krüger, namely that the ‘passing under the rod’ offers the possibility to count one by one.124 Ezekiel 20 points to the collective responsibility for the situation in which one finds oneself in Babylonia.125 The question which must be asked here is the following: Which form of collective responsibility does Ezekiel 20 plead for: trans-generational or intra-generational responsibility? 1998 (111). V.32 may be compared with 1 Sam 8:5,20. Pace Zimmerli 1969a (453) who reads an “Ausdruck der tiefen Niedergeschlagenheit” in v.32 based on Ezek 33:10 and 37:11. With Zimmerli: Beuken 1972 (49–52); Baltzer 1971 (3–5); Graffy 1984 (66); Andrew 1985 (102); Dijkstra 1986 (205); Klein 1988 (79); Clements 1996 (91); Wong 2001 (67–69). Krüger 1989 (226) judges both aspects of meaning possible, thus also Allen 1990 (13–14). Nay 1999 (175) explains v.32 in the line of his conception, that the elders in v.1 are representatives of the population that remained behind in Judah and that v.32 is their wish. 120 See Sedlmeier 1990 (310–340). 121 Adamiak 1982 (81–82). 122 See Krüger 1989 (231, 269). 123 See Sedlmeier 1990 (371 n.103). 124 See Wong 2001 (71); cf. Krüger 1989 (269). 125 See ibid. (231).

232

chapter six

V.4 calls attention to the trans-generational aspect. Reacting to the wish of the elders to seek the Lord, the Lord God reacts with the commission to Ezekiel to inform them of the abominations of their fathers. Further, in the text (vv.5–26) the line is sketched of two successive generations, whereby a trans-generational road is entered. The trans-generational line is continued until the generation of the exiles in v.27: your fathers. In v.30 the trans-generational line is completed by portraying the present generation as identical with the generation of their fathers. This portrait appears to decide the plea in favor of trans-generational responsibility. This is however not the case. Despite the trans-generational formulation of the text, there is no mention of trans-generational bearing of responsibility. V.18 is of utmost importance. That verse describes the loosening of the sons from their fathers. The sons are summoned not to act according to the ways of their fathers. They do not bear the responsibility for the acts of their fathers. The sons are free to obey the ordinances and laws of the Lord (v.19) without a burden from the past. The trans-generational portrait of the first two generations in the desert of the land of Egypt (v.36) illustrates the history of Israel. Both generations illustrate the rebellious behavior of each generation separately (vv.8 and 13—the fathers, v.21—the sons), without making the second generation dependent on the first. This moral independence also pertains to the generation in the exile, which is addressed in this divine oracle. V.30 shows that the generation in the exile is of the same kind as the generations from the beginning, but nothing is said about a moral dependence or the bearing of responsibility for acts done by former generations.126 The question pertaining to the form of collective responsibility, which is pleaded in Ezekiel 20, is to be answered on the basis of the above considerations. The collective responsibility which Ezekiel 20 has in view is intra-generational, as is expressed by v.18. Intra-generational responsibility does not exclude later generations from experiencing the results of acts done by former generations.127 This appears to be expressed in v.23, in which may be recognized a reference to the situation of those who were addressed by Ezekiel, namely, the exile as dispersion among the nations and dissemination across the

126 127

See Joyce 1989 (141 n.50). Cf. Kaminsky 1995 (185).

collective and individual responsibility

233

lands.128 It is incorrect to entitle this trans-generational retribution as Kaminsky does.129 The vision of Kaminsky is clearly expressed in the following citation: “It should be noted that Ez. 20.23 affirms the concept of trans-generational retribution regardless of the innocence or guilt of the later generation.”130 The citation does not do justice to the argument of Ezekiel 20 with the indicated individualistic accents in the chapter. Particularly the last phrase of the citation (“regardless . . . generation”) illustrates the shortcoming of Kaminsky’s conclusion. Kaminsky has loosened v.23 too much from the context, by which he loses sight of the fact that it is indeed important in Ezekiel 20 that the generation with which Ezekiel deals, is guilty. There is no question that in Ezekiel 20 “the recipient may also be somewhat (italics added—JM) deserving of punishment.”131 The argument intends to clarify that the punishment completely accrues to the recipient on the basis of his own guilt.132 Beuken had already affirmed the same: “The sons appear to be no different from their fathers: they were not convicted for sins which are foreign to them (cf. Ezek 18), the ancient idolatry of the fathers continues to live on in them.”133 The connection which Fishbane places between v.23 and vv.25–26 needs to be mentioned also. He claims on the basis of this that sons

128 Pace Lust 1999 (102) who states that the notion of exile in Ezekiel has no connection with the thought of dispersion among the nations and dissemination across the lands. Here the omission of v.23 vindicates itself as the result of the dichotomy of Ezekiel 20 (116–117) and a too heavy accent on the rendering of the LXX. In v.23 ‫ פוץ‬is rendered in the LXX as διασκορπίζω and MT ‫ זרה‬with LXX διασπείρω. On the basis of this data the vision of Lust is tenable with the understanding, that v.23 must belong to a “diaspora redaction” of the book of Ezekiel. Lust here follows the main line by Pohlmann 1992 passim and id. 1996 (27–33). However, when the rendering of the Targum is also taken into consideration, a connection between the idea of the exile and the dispersion among the nations and dissemination across the lands is not to be denied as categorically as does Lust. The Targum of v.23 reads: Also, in the wilderness I swore to them by My Memra, to exile them among the nations and to scatter them among the countries.” Levey 1987 (62). The Aramaic text uses ‫ לאגלאה‬for ‘to exile,’ see Sperber 1962 (307). Cf. Eslinger 1998 (107) who sees in v.23 an outspoken reference to the exile: “‫פוץ‬, ‫( זרח‬sic) v.23; a favorite Ezekielian collocation for exile: 12.15; 20.23; 22.15; 29.12; 30.23, 26; 36.19.” 129 See Kaminsky 1995 (44). Kaminsky refers to Ezek 20:23. See also ibid. (150 n.33, 162, 173 n.99, 185). Kaminsky agrees with Fishbane 1984 (142–143) and his vision of v.23. 130 Kaminsky 1995 (173 n.99). 131 Ibid. (44). 132 The notion of ‘a guilty generation’ is determinative in Ezek 20 which is too much ignored by Kaminsky, cf. ibid. (45 n.35). 133 Beuken 1972 (47). Beuken refers to v.30, thus also Hattori 1977 (421 n.28) and Joyce 1989 (45) to indicate that the present generation is punished for its own sin. Comparable Krüger 1989 (244); Darr 1992 (101); Mein 2001 (238).

234

chapter six

suffer vicariously for their fathers since they (the sons) have inherited ordinances and laws, which are inherent punishment.134 Remarkably enough it makes no difference of which kind are the ordinances and laws of God. If God gives laws which lead to life (vv.11,13,21) the people do not obey them. If God gives laws which lead to death (vv.25,26) the people do obey them (justly entitled irony by Lapsley).135 In both cases the people turn away from God and are polluted. God then gives the laws (vv.25,26) which the people themselves had already made their own in the previous generation (v.18). The similarity of the laws in vv.18 and 25 may be deduced from the use of ‫ ֻח ִקּים‬instead of ‫ ֻחקּוֹת‬.136 The laws of God which give life (v.19) and the laws which bring death (v.18), stand beside each other. This is also the case relative to vv.21–26. This is not about replacement, as Darr wrongly claims.137 The generation of the sons can make the choice themselves (the direct speech in vv.18–20). There is no mention of a trans-generational culde-sac where the sons land.138 The end result is the same with both laws: ‘that you/they might know that I am the Lord.’139 Heider connects vv.25–26 with v.8, in which the chosen unwillingness to listen to God is mentioned.140 The enigmatic character of these verses has kept exegetes busy from of old.141 Both the collective orientation of Ezekiel 20 in the speaking about responsibility is clear, as well as the intra-generational limitation of the responsibility. Within the collective orientation, Ezekiel 20 knows a number of clearly individually directed accents, which must not escape our attention. The collective is not thus massively present in Ezekiel 20, that there is no room anymore for the individual and his responsibility: the individual does not dissolve in the collective. Within this collective framework, everyone is pointed to his individual responsibility,

134 Fishbane 1984 (143). Hahn and Bergsma 2004 see the Deuteronomic code in this. Finsterbusch 2006 descries rules in this relative to the offering of child sacrifices, thus also Sprinkle 2007 (287). 135 See Lapsley 2000a (94). Noort 2002 (8) misses this point of irony. 136 Noort 2002 (7) overlooks the significance of the alternating use by Ezekiel of ‫ ֻח ִקּם‬and ‫ ֻחקּוֹת‬. 137 See Darr 1992 (99). 138 See Krüger 1989 (248). 139 See Block 1997 (636–641). Cf. Hahn and Bergsma 2004 (218). 140 See Heider 1988 (724). 141 See Van der Horst 1992. Richter 2007 explains this as not being recognized of vv.25–26 as a question by which the verses are reversed in the opposite meaning. See H.-F. Richter 2007.

collective and individual responsibility

235

partly relative to the new exodus and the judgment taking place within it. Remarkably enough, the individualistic aspects of Ezekiel 20 have received but marginal attention in the literature, as indicated above. A certain bias related to the collective character of Ezekiel is guilty of that, so that the attention for the individualistic aspects is pushed to the margin. An exclusive choice for a collective approach of Ezekiel 20 is not justified. The position of Ezekiel 20 with its thematizing function (see chapter 2 and Appendix II—diagram 4 with chapter 2) visualizes a main accent on the collective in the chapter: the theological reflection of history is directed to Israel as a whole. Ezekiel 18 and Ezekiel 20 A number of scholars share the vision that a contradiction exists between Ezekiel 18 and Ezekiel 20. As explicit examples of scholars from two different periods who see a contradiction between the two chapters, Cooke and Fishbane are cited. Cooke writes that the content of both chapters is difficult to reconcile.142 Fishbane mentions an explicit contradiction between the two chapters: “the theological core of Ezekiel 20 is diametrically opposed to the teaching of chapter 18.”143 The supposed contradiction by Fishbane is on the one hand the result of his too exclusively individualistic understanding of Ezekiel 18.144 On the other hand it is the result of his conception that in Ezekiel 20 individual responsibility is radically rejected, so that only the collective remains.145 Cooke’s vision falls short in a comparable manner as does Fishbane’s on both sides. The concepts of neither one do justice to the separate chapters and are therefore not acceptable, without trivializing the differences. Among scholars who do not speak of a contradiction between Ezekiel 18 and Ezekiel 20 there appears to be a preference for a collective or collectively emphasized explanation of Ezekiel 18. Examples are Joyce and Kaminsky, whereby the approach of the latter shows traits of a

142 143 144 145

See Cooke 1936 (195). Fishbane 1984 (143). Quoted with agreement by Wong 2001 (26). See Fishbane 1984 (144): the result of marginalizing the collective traits in Ezek 18. See ibid. (144): the result of marginalizing the individualistic traits in Ezek 20.

236

chapter six

‘corporate bias.’146 Lapsley also supports a collective explanation of Ezekiel 18.147 But she does observe implicit and explicit inconsistencies in the portraits of people and in the nature of human-divine relationships between Ezekiel 3,14,18 and 33 on the one hand, and Ezekiel 16, 20 and 23 on the other hand. The conclusion of Lapsley is remarkable when she claims that there is no contradiction in logic between the different texts and parts of texts with their inconsistencies, but that these inconsistencies are only symptomatic of the tension between inherited cultural concepts of human nature.148 Investigation of both chapters has shown that both Ezekiel 18 and Ezekiel 20 have individual and collective aspects. The difference in main accent is chiefly to be understood from the place of both chapters in their respective contexts. The expression of the bearing of responsibility within the context of Ezekiel 17 and 19 demands a heavier accent on the individual in Ezekiel 18 to prevent the shunning of responsibility. In Ezekiel 20 the collective receives particular attention on account of the reflection on the history of Israel as a whole and as an opening text of a new part in the structure of the book. The collective and individual aspects do not appear to exclude one another, neither are they mutually incompatible in both chapters. An exclusive choice for one of the two aspects as the single focus of the respective chapter is therefore not justified. With this it must be affirmed that Ezekiel 18 has a more proportional division between collective and individual aspects than does Ezekiel 20. Ezekiel 20 is overwhelmingly collectively oriented. The description of Ezekiel 18 and 20 shows that no contradiction exists between the trains of thought which the bases of both chapters are. There is a difference in accenting, whereby the context exercises an important influence on the placed accent. Attention to the difference overcomes the reproach to be occupied with a “harmonizing exegesis.”149 The affinity between both chapters is present in several points.150 146 See Joyce 1989 (141), id. 2007 (139). Kaminsky 1995 (175) shunts the individualistic traits of Ezek 18, and drops the thought of consistence in the theology of Ezekiel. Ezek 18 is an “ad hoc creation” without systematic significance for Ezekiel’s theology (supposing this is or might be possible with the lack of consistency). Wevers 1982 (108) also speaks of inconsistency but abides by an individualistic conception of Ezek 18. 147 See Lapsley 2000a (74–77). 148 See ibid. (15, 68–77, 78–103, 106). 149 See Uffenheimer 1992 (221). Uffenheimer (224) speaks of a “flagrant contradiction” between Ezek 18 and 20. 150 See Sedlmeier 1990 (388 n.156). Not all points of affinity which Sedlmeier describes can be followed. The difference relates particularly to the description of the structure. Cf. Sprinkle 2007 (284).

collective and individual responsibility

237

This affinity is present in the areas of use of words: e.g. the concentration of the words fathers/sons in Ezekiel 18 and 20: 18:2,4,14,17,18,19,20; 20:4,18,24,27,30,36,42;151 style: e.g. the use of the fathers/sons metaphor, which is borrowed from the family, and the use of language from the sphere of law and jurisprudence, we might think of legal rules and ordinances;152 themes: e.g. the attention in Ezekiel 18 and 20 to the connection between generations and the related problems and the life-giving result of going into the laws and ordinances of God;153 and objective.154 As to the latter, both chapters agree in defining of the exiles with their intra-generational responsibility (collective and individual) for the situation in which they find themselves. This provides a coherent image of Ezekiel 18 and 20. It is therefore not confirmed to see a contradiction between Ezekiel 18 (and its alleged individualism) and Ezekiel 20 (and its alleged collective view) . . . . Like Ezekiel 18, Ezekiel 20 also knows an orientation to the individual, who is called to make the decision.155

The coherence may be understood as flowing from the consistency which is present in the book. The sacrifice of a consistent train of thought, as may be found with Kaminsky among others, is not an option, because the total image of Ezekiel as a literary work with a specific objective and the large measure of homogeneity of tradition would thereby be denied.156 The Relationship between Collective and Individual Responsibility There is no contradiction between the train of thought in Ezekiel 18 and 20 (individualism versus collectivism). The question may be broached as to the relationship between collective and individual responsibility. When formulated differently, the question amounts to

151

See Sedlmeier 1990 (192, esp. n.103). See ibid. (192 esp. n.103, 259, 393); Block 1997 (23–41). 153 See Sedlmeier 1990 (193, 251–252 n.97, 263–264); Renz 1999 (93). Cf. ibid. (148) on the coherence of themes of Ezek 14, 18 and 20. 154 See Sedlmeier 1990 (389 esp. n.160 and 238 n.75). 155 Ibid. (400): “Es ist folglich nicht angebracht, zwischen Ez 18 (und seinem angeblichen Individualismus) und Ez 20 (und seiner angeblich kollektiven Sicht) einen Widerspruch zu sehen . . . . Wie Ez 18 kennt auch Kapitel 20 eine Ausrichtung auf den einzelnen hin, der in die Entscheidung gerufen wird.” 156 Positive on this e.g. Boadt 1986 (186–187), id. 1996 (213–216); Hals 1989 (143); Matties 1990 (222). Lapsley 2000a (37) is more reticent: “a certain coherence . . . in the book.” 152

238

chapter six

one about the relationship of the collective to the individual in reference to responsibility. The corporate personality is, for the reasons mentioned, not an option (anymore). However, it is wrong to reject all of Wheeler Robinson’s concepts as erroneous, on which he has invested attention with the formulation of the corporate personality.157 The fact that he has pointed at constituent collective aspects in the Israelite community is of permanent value in the investigation.158 The agreement with the interest of constituent collective aspects in Israelite society demands an approach with attention to sociological aspects. Collective aspects on the level of the community represent a sociological category. The question as to the relationship between collective and individual responsibility, between the collective and the individual therefore demands an answer which has its point of departure in the constituent collective in the Israelite society. To express it generalizing, das Anliegen of the Old Testament is collective, namely, it is directed to the people of Israel.159 This also pertains to the prophetic literature of which Ezekiel is a part. The collective is overwhelmingly indicated in Ezekiel by the term ‘house of Israel.’160 Thus, the commission of the prophet is to go to the Israelites and address the house of Israel with the words of the Lord God (see Ezek 2:1–3:15). Ezekiel’s appointment as watchman over the house of Israel (Ezek 3:16; 33:7) underscores the collective orientation of the prophecies. There is room for the individual within this collective, as might also be concluded from the continuation of the appointment as watchman (both in Ezekiel 3 and in Ezekiel 33). Both passages on the appointment as watchman show agreement with Ezekiel 18 in reference to the relationship of the collective to the individual. This collective of the house of Israel is typified by Zimmerli as follows: “In this is the family-like solidarity, the inclusive totality of this Israel expressed.”161

157 See Kaminsky 1995 (22). Kaminsky’s interest in the corporate ways of thinking is well known and justified, even if it leads sometimes to a ‘corporate bias’ with him. 158 E.g. the position of the group, see Robinson 1937 (155–162). 159 See Rogerson 1991 (25). Pace Koole 1970 (83). 160 Cf. for this Zimmerli 1958, id. 1969b (1258–1261). 161 Zimmerli 1969b (1260): “Darin ist die familienartige Zusammengehörigkeit, die umgreifende Gesamtgröße dieses Israel zum Ausdruck gebracht.”

collective and individual responsibility

239

The House of the Father The family-like solidarity in the expression ‘house of Israel’ is borrowed from the social structure which was dominant in Judah at the close of the royal period and which was the constituent collective in the society of that time, namely, ‘the house of the Father.’162 This social structure is used as a metaphor in Ezekiel, by which the relationship between God and Israel is described. In Ezekiel the family metaphor relates to the construction and composition of the family in pre-exilic times.163 The ‘house of Israel’ is the house of which God is the father: Israel is his ‫ ; ֵבּית ָאב‬Israel is the family of God.164 In the expression ‘house of Israel’ can also be recognized what is meant by ‘ethnicity’ in anthropology by which is intended the conserving of individuality within a larger whole.165 This appears from the attention in Ezekiel for its own laws and ordinances and God’s relations with Israel and e.g. the rejection of the wish for assimilation, which was expressed in Ezek 20:32.166 Particularly Ezekiel 16–23 is permeated by words which indicate a familial relationship.167 Ezekiel 18 and 20 are characterized in this connection by making use explicitly of the line of the generations. Both chapters sketch a line of three generations. Three generations are necessary for the formation of a ‘house of the father,’ a ‘family.’ Two generation form a house: father and mother(s) with their children; three (or four) generations form a family: father and mother(s) with their married sons and daughters in law, their unmarried daughters and their grandchildren (descendants

162 For the ‫ ֵבּית ָאב‬as constituent collective see Bendor 1996 passim. Also Albertz 1978 (11), id. 1992 (422); Scharbert 1982 (235); Martin 1991 (105); Perdue 1997 (231, 237–239); Faust 1999 (243–244); Deist 2000 (244); Berquist 2002 (71). See also Mein 2001 (194). Pace Otto 1994 (182), who speaks about “den Zerfall von Sippenstrukturen und Großfamilien in Juda im 8. und 7. Jh.” See Gottwald 1999 (285–292) for the period 1250–1050 B.C.E. Westbrook 1991 (11–23) emphasizes the fundamental economic interest of the family, cf. Gottwald 1999 (292). 163 For the development of the ‫ ֵבּית ָאב‬in exilic times toward an equivalent of the pre exilic ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּ ָחה‬see Smith 1989 (93–126). See also Scharbert 1982 (233) relative to the loss of function of the ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּ ָחה‬. 164 See Matties 1990 (155, 156); Scharbert 1982 (235). Cf. Block 1985 (257–275, esp. 261–262, 264–266). 165 See Kottak 2002 (502); Kloos 1995 (217). 166 See Smith 1989 (56–63). 167 See Matties 1990 (154): ‫( ָאב‬twenty seven times in Ezek 18,20 and 22), ‫ָאחוֹת‬ (twenty four times in Ezek 16 and 23) and ‫( ֵאם‬ten times in Ezek 16,19,21–23).

240

chapter six

of the married sons).168 Scharbert also judges it possible that a family includes four generations, whereby he notes the limitation of the numerical size of a family.169 Bendor arrives at a comparable conclusion based on his consideration of the maintaining of the inheritance (‫ )נַ ֲח ָלה‬for the family. The circumstances of the naẖ ala (if not enlarged in one way or another) determined the maximum number of persons that the specific naẖ ala could support and the minimum number required for its maintenance and preservation.170

Van der Toorn also proceeds from the possibility of the living together of four generations in a family (based on prohibitions of incest in Lev 18:6–16).171 He sees the inheritance as property of the clan (‫) ִמ ְשׁ ָפּ ָחה‬, while the families have the usufruct. Van der Toorn also connects the numerical considerations with the clan: “Since the common ties to the land were so important a factor . . . the clan was necessarily limited in size and mobility.”172 A clan could not grow indefinitely. In Ezekiel 18 this line of three generations is uninterruptedly drawn (Ezek 18:5–18); in Ezekiel 20, on the other hand, there is a large hiatus between the second and third generation.173 All generations between the generation of the sons which remained in the desert (Ezek 20:18–26) and the generation which remained in exile (Ezek 20:27ff.) are lacking. The reason for this hiatus is theological: Israel never lived in the land of the promise according to the laws and ordinances of God (Ezek 20:27–29), the actual entry (Ezek 20:42) still needs to take place after the judgment in the desert (Ezek 20:35). The hiatus was deliberately chosen and creates space for the use of the metaphor of the family with three generations. The entire history, to which Ezekiel 20 looks back, is ‘family history.’

168 See Bendor 1996 (48, 51). The terms ‘family’ and ‘house’ will be used according to this stipulation. 169 See Scharbert 1982 (215, 236), thus also Otto 1994 (40). 170 Bendor 1996 (281). 171 Van der Toorn 1996 (195); cf. De Geus 1976 (135). 172 Van der Toorn 1996 (202); cf. Andersen 1969 (36): the inheritance is indissolubly connected to the family, the possession of the land to the clan. Cf. De Geus 1976 (133– 137) on the relationship of an extended family to a clan. Archaeological investigation of the numerical size of a family may be found in Stager 1985 (17–23). 173 Cf. 1 Sam 2:27–31 for a hiatus of many generations: from Aaron to Eli.

collective and individual responsibility

241

The use of the family metaphor was noted especially by Matties.174 Matties conceives the use of the family metaphor as a rhetorical device.175 The goal of the rhetorical use of this metaphor is “to exploit their affective capacity for reshaping a community of character.”176 Matties rightly recognizes the importance of the family, but wrongly views this as just a metaphor, which stems from the “early Israelite tradition.”177 The family structure was present till the end of the era of kingship and was therefore known to Ezekiel and the exiles as the characteristic social structure. This familiarity is reflected in the texts where the family metaphor is used and appears also from the occurrence of the elders in Ezekiel.178 The use of the family metaphor is more than a rhetorical device.179 Matties fails to make a connection between his vision of the relationship of the moral self to the moral community and the use of the family metaphor.180 The family functions in Ezekiel as an “interpretive community” and as a result of this the family metaphor is more than a rhetorical device.181 In this connection, Matties rightly warns against the drawback of interdisciplinary borrowing of a metaphor, by which the chance exists that the success of the borrowed term threatens the terms from its own area of investigation.182 The literary use of the family metaphor and the social

174

See Matties 1990 (153–157). See ibid. (155). 176 Ibid. (155). 177 Cf. Albertz 1992 (422–427) on the religio-historical significance of the family during the time of the exile. 178 See Bendor 1996 (106–107). 179 Remarkable are the following words of Patrick 1979 (147) in this connection: “Family Images are persistent and pervasive in biblical literature, ranging from genealogies to corporate personality. Being an Israelite meant belonging to a community, forged together by family links.” What Patrick understands by ‘corporate personality’ he does not explain. It does not appear to be excluded that Patrick has the family in mind. 180 See Matties 1990 (147–150). Matties (148) defines this relationship in the words of Gill (who borrows the term ‘interpretive communities’ from Fish [see below]): “interpretive communities . . . mediate between individuals and a meaningless world by giving them the patterned and purposive categories and slots into which they can place their experience.” R. B. Gill, The Moral Implications of Interpretive Communities, Christianity & Literature 33/1, 1983 (57), see Matties 1990 (148 n.134). 181 Fish 1980 (171): “Interpretive communities are made up of those who share interpretive strategies not for reading (in the conventional sense) but for writing texts, for constituting their properties and assigning their intentions.” 182 Matties 1990 (149 n.135) refers to Lindsay 1977 (151). Cf. Deist 2000 (112): “Metaphors are, in a sense, betrayers of, among other things, human conceptions, orientations and values. Although not much has been done along these lines in 175

242

chapter six

structure are so closely related in Ezekiel, that the use of ‘interpretive community’ remains inside the boundaries of the warning. The family structure determines the interpretation of the moral responsibility. In Ezekiel 18 the family is described from the inside in its mutual relationship in the diachronic line of three generations and in the synchronic line of the righteous and the guilty. In this case, a differentiation takes place up to father, son and grandson, the righteous and the guilty one. The occurrence of differences and tensions is characteristic of the family structure because of the difference in position and status of the various houses,183 which form the family (e.g. the position of the eldest son and his house).184 The corporate personality does not apply to the family in its unity and with its conflicts, e.g. because of the interests of the various members which form the family, since this only explains the aspect of the unity, but not the conflicts and tensions, which are inherent to the family structure. Bendor sees this as a shortcoming of the corporate personality which sketches a much too harmonious image of the kinship group as a perfect unity.185 A family is often not a unity.186 Managing diachronic and synchronic tensions determines the vitality and the maintenance of the family in a dynamic balance. A family does not form a static social structure, but a living entity in which differences and contradictions occur after and beside each other. This description of a family from within corresponds with the description in Ezekiel 18. In Ezekiel 20 the family is described from the outside. The result of this choice is a description with a greater emphasis on the diachronic line of the generations with a collective orientation: the movement of the family of the Lord through time. The synchronic line comes to the fore in vv.30–44, in which Israel in exile is mentioned. In these verses the situation and development along the synchronic line is discussed. Vv.30–32 call attention to the situation of exile. Vv.33–38 continue

analyzing Israelite culture . . . it is clear that metaphors can assist in analyzing Israelite cultural values.” 183 A house forms a “nuclear cell,” see Bendor 1996 (121–128). The house is also indicated as ‘nuclear family’ in distinction from the family, which is labeled ‘extended family.’ 184 See ibid. (175–187). 185 See ibid. (198, 200). 186 Berquist 2002 (99–106) points to conflicts in a family from the vantage point of role and place of sexuality within the family and its control of it. Cf. De Geus 1976 (135).

collective and individual responsibility

243

with the synchronic development within this generation of the family, namely a new exodus and judgment. The final verses (vv.39–44) bring the diachronic aspect in the description once again, by joining together the second and third generation in v.42. The description of a family from the outside corresponds with the description in Ezekiel 20. Distribution of Responsibility Ezekiel 18 and 20 do not handle two different systems of accounting responsibility. The difference in formulation and accenting follows from the manner in which the family structure is used in the metaphor. In Ezekiel 18 this occurs from the inside and in Ezekiel 20 from the outside.187 The distribution of responsibility is indicated by Ezekiel from the family structure. Proceeding from the thought that the family structure is determinative, the comment by Joyce is acceptable, when he says that for the author of Ezekiel the “unit of responsibility” is not the matter of concern. The “unit of responsibility” is namely, quite clearly: the family. Within the family structure, distribution of responsibility is mentioned.188 Within the structure of the family, the individual has his place, as Bendor states. The structure of ancient Israelite society was gentilic, that, the Israelites lived in kinship groups, . . . hardly the structure of an individualistic civil society. The individual in the society was not without his own personality, was not negligible or unimportant, but his position in society was determined by his situation in the kinship group.189

In line with this lies Matties’ thought, namely that for Ezekiel the self and the community exist on the basis of an interactive process in which none of the two is the determinative factor.190 The community in this

187

Cf. Moore 1972 (99, 100) on collective responsibility and liability of a corporate group on the basis of ethnographic material of non-industrial African nations: “liability may be collective from the point of view of persons outside a collectivity, there is nevertheless individual legal responsibility for the same act from the perspective of the person inside the group.” Further, Moore comments that “responsibility and individuality in legal matters are aspects of all systems, not alternative systems.” 188 See Joyce 1979 (187); cf. Houtman 2006 (465). Lapsley 2000a (26) is not to be followed when she says, referring to Joyce, that “it is not the unit of responsibility but the possibility of human responsibility at all that is brought into question.” There is definitely mention of a ‘unit of responsibility.’ 189 Bendor 1996 (200). 190 See Matties 1990 (148).

244

chapter six

context is to be conceived as a family. Di Vito strongly emphasizes the place of the individual within the family structure. He points to the personal, social, economic and legal aspects by which the individual Israelite is imbedded in the family.191 Within the structure of the family the individual has his (own) responsibility. On the one hand, the individual is not a completely free agent, on the other hand, neither is he totally bound to social conventions; individual and community are mutually dependent on each other.192 The family is a moral community and functions as “a unit of internal judgment.”193 This internal judgment is described individually in Ezekiel 18 in both the diachronic (vv.9,13,17,19) and the synchronic line (vv.21,24,26,28). In Ezekiel 20 the internal judgment is described collectively in the diachronic line (vv.15 and 23) and in the synchronic line (v.35, with the individualizing aspect: from face to face). As head of his family the Lord pronounces judgment on his family and the members of his family.194 The family and the members of the family do not exist apart from one another, the collective and the individual are inseparably connected together and influence one another.195 The individual derives his identity from the collective. This is inherent in the ‘Hebrew psychology,’ in which the psychic unity does not have a center which is comparable with the modern vision of it.196 The concept of personal identity which is reflected in these texts differs radically from ours in the (post-)modern Western society.197 Our modern concepts relating to the individual and his individuality concerning responsibility are not applicable to the indi191 See Di Vito 1999 (224, see also 221–225). Di Vito (221) claims wrongly that “the smallest unit in Israel’s social structure is the ‫בית אב‬.” Within the family there are houses with a certain measure of independence which may be an occasion for tensions (see above). 192 See Matties 1990 (148, 149); Di Vito 1999 (225, 225 n.33). In n.33 Di Vito discusses Ezek 18. Pace Herzog 1923 (62); Rankin 1969 (85); Otto 1994 (267) on the uncoupling of the collective and individual in Ezekiel. Otto speaks specifically about Ezek 18. 193 Bendor 1996 (202). 194 See Di Vito 1999 (224). 195 See Matties 1990 (149); Mayes 1989 (135). Cf. Samuel 1990 (12), who describes the nature of social life with the image of a rapidly moving river with diverse currents: “We need to remember, however, that the currents cannot ultimately be separated from the individuals who both constitute them and are constituted by them.” Samuel presents a new framework, in which he rejects the idea of a dichotomy between individual and society. This new framework is elaborately discussed with the redefining of the term ‘corporate personality.’ 196 See Di Vito 1999 (229, 225–234). 197 See ibid. (225, 237).

collective and individual responsibility

245

vidual within the family structure, as it is found in Ezekiel 18 and 20. Individual responsibility is constituted within the community, namely in the family.198 This affirmation answers the question, which is asked as to collective responsibility and solidarity. The constituting family structure is the ground of existence of collective responsibility and solidarity. Bendor observes about the collective responsibility and solidarity in a family, that these “revolve around the axis of mišpat and ṣedaqa.”199 These two concepts frequently occur together in Ezekiel 18: ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬in vv.5,8,9,17,19,21,27; ‫ ְצ ָד ָקה‬in vv.5,19,20,22,24(twice),26,27; in Ezekiel 20 the first term occurs frequently: ‫ ִמ ְשׁ ָפּט‬in vv.11,13,16,18,19,21,24,25. The use of these terms fits with the family metaphor. In Ezekiel it receives the breadth of the entire people because of the application of the family structure via the family metaphor on the relationship between the Lord God and his people, the house of Israel. Résumé The structure of the family, which may be called constitutive for the society from which the exiles were deported to Babylonia (among them Ezekiel himself ), is reflected in Ezekiel 18 and 20 and may be discovered in the entire book in the approach of the people as ‘house of Israel.’ The use of this structure is more than metaphorical. The relationship of the individual to the collective, as described in Ezekiel 18 and 20, adjusts itself according to the structure of the family. The distribution of responsibility is also described according to this structure: individual responsibility is constituted within the community of the family. Ezekiel describes this from within and Ezekiel 20 from the outside. How the responsibility is distributed within this structure, follows from the relationship of the individual to the collective: what is its position within the family and from which perspective is the question asked as to the responsibility: from the inside of the family, or from the outside to the family? In Ezekiel 18, the individual expression of the responsibility is to be understood according to this model, particularly for the synchronic

198

See ibid. (236), esp. in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Cf. Moore 1972 (100): “In fact, individual responsibility always exists inside corporate groups.” 199 Bendor 1996 (281).

246

chapter six

line. In Ezekiel 20 the collective expression is to be understood according to this model, particularly the diachronic line. Corporate Personality The rejection of the hypothesis of the corporate personality as represented by Wheeler Robinson, asked the question concerning the possibility of a re-definition of the term corporate personality. When this question is connected with the observations made in reference to the family structure, its unity and the applicable relationships of the individuals to the collective, the question may be reformulated as follows: can the term ‘corporate personality’ be used concerning the family? Such a connection leads to a redefinition of the term. With this the demand by Rogerson must be satisfied that whoever uses the term ‘corporate personality’ needs to define what he means by it.200 On the one hand this redefinition of the corporate personality in terms of the family is undesirable on the basis of confusion to be anticipated, to which Rogerson has pointed extensively in his critique on the use of the hypothesis of the corporate personality: who uses what definition? Besides that, a redefinition needs to contain more than only the removal of those aspects of the hypothesis which are no longer tenable. This is particularly true of the anthropological theories, on which the hypothesis is funded. If only the untenable aspects are removed, there remains an unfounded hypothesis which no longer merits the label of hypothesis. In that case a rejection is to be preferred to a redefinition. On the other hand a redefinition is desirable, because the term ‘corporate personality’ is still used and applied, the more because one might inquire of all users of the term that they be conscious of the objections which cling to the use of this term. In particular this question applies relative to the use outside of Old Testament investigation. The desire of Rogerson to refrain from using the term ‘corporate personality’ to explain Old Testament phenomena has not been fulfilled. On the basis of this there is a good reason for redefining the term and using it according to the redefinition. It is better to indicate what may be understood by corporate personality and thereby to respond to Rogerson’s challenge to indicate this than to persist in a categorical 200

See Rogerson 1978 (56).

collective and individual responsibility

247

rejection of the use, which is not followed.201 With this one needs to be conscious of the fact that a redefinition runs into the same danger as a categorical rejection, namely that it is not generally followed and the hypothesis of the corporate personality continues to be used with reference to Wheeler Robinson. There are aspects in the hypothesis of Wheeler Robinson which may help with the understanding of the relationship between the individual and the collective. The objections leveled against Wheeler Robinson’s hypothesis are removed in the redefinition described below. This is particularly true with the theories by Lévy-Bruhl which are considered superseded, relative to the primitive mentality. In its place the hypothesis will be provided with a new theoretical basis. The following aspects of Wheeler Robinson’s hypothesis have permanent value for Old Testament scholarship and are included in the redefinition of the term corporate personality. First, the attention which Wheeler Robinson asks for the unity of a group is to be maintained. This pertains particularly to a structural and organizational unity. Unity of thinking and feeling (a psychical unity, which formed the basis for Wheeler Robinson) has a place within the structural and organizational unity.202 This unity is to be limited to the family and cannot be explained as applicable to all (kinds of ) group relations (family, clan and nation) as Wheeler Robinson has done. The unity of groups and group relations greater than the family is therefore not so strong that the term ‘corporate personality’ might be applied to it. Second, the observation of the individual and his individuality within the unity of the group is a valuable aspect of Wheeler Robinson’s hypothesis, which needs to be maintained. The explanation of the provenance from the religious consciousness of prophets, e.g. Jeremiah and Ezekiel, is, on the other hand, incorrect. It is about individuality within the group in a sociological sense and not about individualism in a psychological sense, with which we are familiar in our (post-) modern society. Third, the hypothesis of the corporate personality knows two important aspects which are also present in the structure of the family, namely

201 Albertz 1978 (13) points to “die notwendige Klärung und Präzisierung des Begriffs der ‘corporate personality’.” 202 N.B. the critique by Bendor 1996 (198–200), see above.

248

chapter six

diachrony and synchrony. In the hypothesis of Wheeler Robinson the ‘extension’ is the diachronic component of the group and the ‘realism’ and the ‘fluidity’ together are the synchronic component. In the structure of the family the line of the generations is the diachronic component. This shows agreement with the ‘extension’ of the hypothesis of the corporate personality, which connects presence, past and future. The diachronic component in the structure of the family is related to the authority within the family. The positions in the structure of the family relative to authority are determined by the connection of the past, present and future. From the past, the position in the present is determined in the family, e.g. in the case of the eldest son, who has taken over the position as the head of the family from his father after his death. The position in the present determines the position in the future, e.g. in the case of a person, who is the eldest son of an eldest son. The synchronic component is present in the family in the living together of the members of the family from different generations as a single family. In this some similarity may be observed with the ‘realism’ of the hypothesis of the corporate personality, namely the formation of a real entity by the group. The psychological support by Wheeler Robinson of the realism clearly does not form any similarity. The fluidity knows no similarities with the structure of the family, unless these are formulated so generally and broadly, that it becomes meaningless, namely that individuals occur in the group, or that the group consists of individuals. The absence of a similarity with the fluidity means a radical redefinition, since the fluidity forms the core of Wheeler Robinson’s hypothesis.203 The individual derives his identity from the family and exists within the family. In this manner the family is actualized in its members. The redefined corporate personality possesses two basic characteristics: the diachrony of the line of the generations and the synchrony of the generations in the forming of a true entity. This second basic characteristic contains on the one hand the unity of the group and on the other side the distinction of the individuals which form the group and the group in itself. Thus described, the family may be called a corporate personality. The conception of the corporate personality as described above is not

203 Cf. Koole 1970 (85) who removes the ‘vice versa’ character and thereby the core of the hypothesis.

collective and individual responsibility

249

a model for removing tension between individual and collective, or for bridging it, as was the case with Wheeler Robinson’s hypothesis. Each model which attempts to remove or to bridge tension and/or difference between the individual and the collective, in fact denies the existence of both the individual and the collective. In this connection it might have meaning to point at the occurrence of individuals in the collective, and the existence of the collective from individuals (a kind of redefined fluidity), to obviate the justified objection by Bendor against Wheeler Robinson’s hypothesis of the corporate personality, namely that this offers a too harmonious image of a kinship group as a perfect unity. The redefined model indicates how the individual relates to and stands within the collective of the family. This definition comprises more than what Rogerson judged acceptable and clear in Wheeler Robinson’s hypothesis, namely the corporate personality as equivalent of corporate solidarity and what he sees as a possible direction for a redefinition, which he categorically rejects, however. It is indicated on which the corporate personality is based, namely on the family with its constituent significant meaning for society. The offered description of the family as corporate personality fits within the theoretical manner of approach of the nature of social life, as Samuel proposed in his book Mind, body and culture and which he indicates as “multimodal framework.”204 Samuel’s theory may therefore be used as the needed new basis for the redefined corporate personality.205 The Multimodal Framework With the MMF Samuel searches for a theoretical description of the relationship in societies of individuals and groups.206 “I think just about all societies we know of have various conceptions of individuals and

204

To be abbreviated as: MMF (multimodal framework). Overholt 1996 (ix, 6–8, 52–56) uses the MMF, cf. Samuel 1990 (106–120). 206 The theory of Samuel shows interfaces with the social constructionism/construct– ivism, which has acquired a new paradigm for itself in the social sciences and of which the significance for theological disciples has been affirmed by Roukema-Koning 2002. The discussion of Gergen’s central insights by Roukema-Koning (50–51) shows interfaces, particularly the significance of relatedness. Gergen 1994 is a leading theo– retician in this field, who has given a summary of social constructionism. Gergen places his work (on the front flap) under the adage “All that is meaningful, grows from relationships.” Samuel often speaks of the ‘flow of relatedness.’ There appears to be no mention of (mutual) influence between Samuel and Gergen. 205

250

chapter six

of groups (with varying emphases on each).”207 This general point of departure offers space to apply the theoretical description for society, which is reflected in the book of Ezekiel. There is beforehand no restriction present as to time or place in the MMF.208 Characteristic of the approach in this anthropological theory is the rejection of a dichotomy between the individual and the group. Samuel also rejects the dichotomies ‘mind-body,’ ‘self-other’ and ‘subjectiveobjective’ as irrelevant within the MMF. The rejections take place “at the level of theoretical description.”209 Samuel is conscious of the fact that his approach might be explained as a revitalizing of the theories of Lévy-Bruhl relative to the primitive mentality. However, it seems to me more or less incontrovertible that such modes of thinking exist and that they are of importance in many human societies. In considering them, we should always bear in mind that in the very nature of the MMF we are never talking about ‘what natives think’ but about one of a number of possible modes of thinking within a society.210

This idea of Samuel is compatible with the visions of Gölz and Hallpike, when the latter speaks about ‘modes of thought.’ “I think it is probably true to say that while nobody would accept Lévy-Bruhl’s formulations literally today, many anthropologists would feel that there was something valuable in what he said (or in similar formulations—Lévy-Bruhl himself is hardly read these days).”211 Compare with this the idea of Rogerson that the general theoretical position of Lévy-Bruhl is still tenable. “The MMF rejects the present dichotomy between two kinds of explanatory language in the social sciences, one dealing in individual variables and one dealing in social (group) variables such as society or culture.”212 Instead of viewing the two as opposing and competing, as is frequently done in anthropology, Samuel pleads to approach them as derivates of one and the same entity which he calls the ‘social manifold.’

207

Samuel in an e-mail letter of January 18, 2002. For a discussion of Samuel 1990 and the MMF: Lyon 1991; Brody 1992; Mehta 1992; Rubinstein 1992; Wilson 1992; Jurgens 1996. 209 Samuel, in the e-mail letter of January 18, 2002. Here is a limitation to the rejection of the dichotomy between individual and society/group (Samuel uses both terms). 210 Samuel 1990 (97). 211 Samuel in the e-mail correspondence of January 18, 2002. 212 Id. 1990 (8). 208

collective and individual responsibility

251

Samuel derives this term from an introduction to the general theory of relativity by E. Schrödinger who completely removes the conventional notions of time and space and thus retains a general and unstructured collection of points in space and time, which he calls ‘manifold.’ Subsequently he attempts to describe as simply as possible and with as few structuring elements as possible (in Schrödinger’s case: mathematical relationships [constraints]) to describe the conventional notions of space and time, in which Newton’s laws are applicable. Samuel approaches the social manifold in a similar manner.213 The reality which we interpret is seen as a sort of “general unstructured field or ‘social manifold’, within which neither ‘human individuals’ or ‘societies’ are identified.”214 In this social manifold structural variables are introduced which are to be viewed as descriptions of the structure of the social manifold. These variables are not individual or social entities. They form an independent unit of activity from which our concepts of ‘individuals’ and ‘societies’ are derived.215 For clarification Samuel uses the image of a rapidly flowing river with different ‘currents’ for the social manifold to describe the nature of social life.216 The variables may be compared to the currents in the river of the social manifold. The currents are indicated as “modal currents” to indicate the directional and dynamic aspect of the “modal states of the social manifold” through time.217 The social manifold may be described as a combination of these modal states. Diverted from the MSm are the “modal states of the individual (MSi)” and the “cultural modal states (MSc).”218 The MMF is essentially relational. The central concepts of the MMF, the modal state and the modal current, describe relational patterns between the individual and his social milieu.219 Modal state and modal current define a level of analysis that is neither that of the purely social nor that of the exclusively individual, and that can be read in synchronic or diachronic form. The modal currents that

213

See ibid. (9). Ibid. (10). 215 See ibid. (10). 216 See ibid. (12). 217 See ibid. (13). The abbreviation for ‘modal states of the social manifold’ is MSm. 218 Ibid. (13). 219 Ibid. (67). Samuel often speaks of the ‘flow of relatedness.’ Cf. Roukema-Koning 2002 (51) who, relative to social constructionism points to the “dynamic of the social processes of the construction of meaning.” 214

252

chapter six flow through space and time correspond to modal states at the synchronic (cultural and individual) levels.220

Within each society there are at every moment and in every place in the social system various modal currents in operation.221 This may also be expressed as the flowing of several modal currents, through that place at that moment. Culture may be viewed as the increase and decrease of the currents. In each individual these currents manifest themselves in the form of individual modal states (MSi).222 The citation below describes the different aspects of the MMF which are of importance for this study to one another. What is most centrally at issue here are patterns of relationships between the individual and his or her natural and social environment. The MMF does not make any assumptions about the process by which these states are internalized by the individual. It merely assumes that some mechanism generates a series of analytically discrete modal states within any particular population such that the different states (MSis) of any individual are, in most cases, systematically related to those of other individuals. This can be rephrased as the assumption that there are analytically discrete modal states pertaining to the group (the MScs) that are ‘realized’ through the individuals belonging to that group. These are two equivalent statements. Neither individual or group descriptions are primary; both are derivative, as far as the MMF is concerned, from the modal states within the social manifold. The states (MSm) pertain both to group and individual, and their real domain is the relationship between individuals (the ‘flow of relatedness’).223

A closer view of the concept of the modal current can best take place via attention for the modal states of the individual (MSis).224 Each individual has a repertoire of individual modal states (MSis) at his disposal, by which he stands in a relationship to his environment and which he has made his own in the course of his life. Though the MMF does not contain presuppositions on the manner in which individuals

220 Samuel 1990 (68). The MMF offers a theoretical support of the model of the study of biblical literature, which Deist 2000 (94) is searching: “One will have to look for a model that can accommodate and explain cultural change without losing sight of the interrelatedness of all cultural spheres.” The cultural change is justified in the modal currents, while the interrelatedness of all cultural spheres is justified in the modal states of the social manifold. 221 Comparable on social constructionism: see Roukema-Koning 2002 (51). 222 See Samuel 1990 (68–69). 223 Ibid. (70). 224 See ibid. (71).

collective and individual responsibility

253

come to a ‘repertoire of states,’ Samuel does discuss this aspect.225 In this connection Samuel refers to the investigation by Geertz on ‘cultural symbols,’ which together form a body of cultural material, out of which an individual constructs his repertoire.226 The actual acquisition occurs chiefly during the younger years of a human life (the early socialization period) in a relational system of existing individual modal states forming towards itself individual modal states, e.g. in the relationship mother-child (cf. the saying of Gergen: “All that is meaningful, grows from relationships.” Roukema-Koning claims that “the psychological experience that something has meaning [that is meaningful] emerges in relationships.”).227 “The process of acquiring a state is never a passive one. It demands the participation of the individual. Even if the social milieu provides basic scenarios, we have to learn how to act our part in them.”228 Samuel calls an important motive behind the acquisition “the kind of ‘bait’ or ‘pay-off ’ involved in states.”229 To put it differently: does it pay to make a certain ‘state’ one’s own? “In addition, most— perhaps all—societies do have a body of practices whose main purpose appears to be the maintenance of modal states.”230 Samuel views religion as belonging to such a body of practices. Samuel names seven chief characteristics of the modal states of the individual (MSis).231 Two of these main characteristics may be explicitly named, namely those which are indicated by Samuel as main characteristics (2) and (3) (+ [4] and [5]).232 The main characteristic (2) is: “Each MSi is associated with a set of images or symbols, in part shared by individuals with a given cultural context, by which that MSi may be referenced or evoked.”233 The main characteristic (3) is: “Each MSi corresponds to specific moods, motivations, feelings and emotions.”234

225

See ibid. (74–77). See Geertz 1968. 227 Roukema-Koning 2002 (51). 228 Samuel 1990 (76). 229 Ibid. (77). 230 Ibid. (75). 231 In fact, it amounts to five main characteristics since three of them refer to different formulations of the same main characteristic, as is indicated in ibid. (72–73). 232 This amounts to four descriptions since three of the different formulations (mentioned above) are part of this. 233 Ibid. (72). 234 Ibid. (72). 226

254

chapter six

The first reformulation of main characteristic (3) in main characteristic (4) is: “Each MSi corresponds to a particular decision structure. Within it the individual will respond in certain ways to certain events, will subjectively find certain goals attractive and others unattractive.”235 The second reformulation of main characteristic (3) in main characteristic (5) is: “Each MSi corresponds to a particular subjective sense of self and a particular way in which the individual perceives of his or her relationship to other individuals and other aspects of the environment.”236 After expounding his theory, Samuel offers a series of examples from anthropological field studies, which were done by colleagues and him and by which he substantiates the MMF.237 In the first example Samuel makes use of ethnographic material from Turner on the Ndembu in Zambia in Central Africa.238 The Ndembu form a farmer’s community in small villages, which are created according to matrilineal descent with a virilocal marriage practice.239 In the description of some rituals of the Ndembu Samuel shows how the MMF offers a fitting framework for maintaining the collective and individual aspects of a described ritual (e.g. the transition from girl to woman,240 and from boy to man).241 Both for the individual (MSi) and for the collective (MSc), a change occurs by the ritual, but the two of them do not stand separated from one another as the result of the flow of relatedness, let alone that both are opposed to each other or exclude each other.242 Both are derivatives of the “local social manifold,”243 the MSm. “Ndembu ritual operates at both levels, and we need categories (such as the model state) that do the same if

235

Ibid. (72). Ibid. (73). 237 Ibid. (79–151). 238 Esp. Turner 1968. On the Ndembu see Samuel 1990 (79–97). 239 Keesing and Strathern 1998 (508): “matrilineal descent: A principle of descent from an ancestress through her daughter, her daughter’s daughter, etc. (in the female line).” Ibid. (512): “virilocal: Residence of a married couple with the husband’s kin (formerly called “patrilocal).” See Turner 1964 (82–130, 234–257), id. 1968 (10–13). See also Samuel 1990 (80). 240 See ibid. (81–83). See Turner 1968 (198–268), id. 1975 (139–142). 241 See Samuel 1990 (83–85). See Turner 1974 (151–279), id. 1975 (140), id. 1985 (53–69). 242 Samuel 1990 (82): “The model state helps us to conceptualize as a single whole these two aspects, the ‘sociological’ and ‘psychological’ as it were, of what is happening.” 243 Ibid. (85). 236

collective and individual responsibility

255

we are to study what is going on effectively.”244 Samuel does not claim at all that the Ndembu are incapable of making distinction between individuals. What matters in this case is the kind of significance which is related to the dichotomy between individual and society.245 A comparable manner of approach is also fitting for the distribution of responsibility relative to the family. Responsibility is also operative on both levels of a family. The family as corporate personality fits in this theoretical approach in the manner described below, whereby the central citation of Samuel assumes a primary location. Each individual within the family has its own repertoire of individual modal states (MSis). The choice of an individual for a particular modal state in a determined situation is limited. Of all possible modal states which are possible in the social manifold, an individual has made only a limited part his own. The part that an individual has made his own is related to the modal currents in which the individual finds himself.246 The family belongs to the cultural context, as the community which constitutes the society. The family is to be understood as a cultural model state (MSc). The family structure refers to or calls forth a certain individual modal state. An individual modal state corresponds to a structure for forming decisions, which is called forth and then applied, because from the acquisition of the modal state it has been learned, that the application of the corresponding structure for the forming of decisions is attractive. In the case of the family the attractiveness consists in that the individual knows himself to be part of the family, which provides life support and the protection of life by means of a corporate responsibility. The distribution of responsibility on both levels, namely of a family as a whole and of individual members, which form the family, has its place here. From this attractiveness an individual interprets his relationship to the other individuals, with whom he forms a family. Though not all individuals within a population know an identical repertoire of individual modal states, the distinct individual modal states are systematically related to those of the other individuals of the population. Thus a communal subset consists of individual

244

Ibid. (95). See ibid. (95–96). 246 Ibid. (75): “In addition, most—perhaps all—societies do have a body of practices whose main purpose appears to be the maintenance of modal states.” Samuel clarifies the rituals of the Ndembu as such a body of practices. See ibid. (89–91). 245

256

chapter six

modal states (MSis).247 When formulated differently: the systematically related individual modal states (the subset) are identical to cultural modal states (MScs), which are realized by individuals which belong to a group. The modal currents steer this process of systematic relating toward a specific cultural context. The subset of systematically related individual modal states forms the ‘corporate personality’ of the group—the group, which in the framework of this investigation is the family.

247 Ibid. (62) refers to the collective unconscious in the Freudian sense: “The MMF is not a straightforward translation of Freudian theory, but it provides an anthropological framework within which certain aspects of Freudian theory can be easily presented or mapped.” Cf. Drewermann 1985 (274) on the corporate personality as “eine psychologische Gegebenheit.”

CONCLUSION The corporate personality aims to offer a framework, within which individual and collective aspects of texts from the Old Testament may be placed beside each other without producing tension or being understood as inconsistent. The book of Ezekiel plays a role in the hypothesis of the corporate personality. The presence of apparently individually oriented and collectively oriented texts in Ezekiel offers a good point of departure for the testing of the hypothesis. Thus, the testing of the hypothesis as to its tenability and applicability belongs to texts from Ezekiel as to its possibilities. Ezekiel 18 qualifies as a classic example of an individually oriented text. Ezekiel 20 qualifies as a striking example of a collectively oriented text. The difference between both chapters relative to their orientation whether on the individual or on the collective has regularly been in discussion in the history of the investigation. These two chapters of Ezekiel offer the possibility of appreciating the hypothesis on its merits. The large measure of homogeneity in text and tradition is characteristic for the book of Ezekiel. This points to the work of a group of custodians of this tradition who has kept and edited the Ezekiel tradition and of whose work the book is the final literary product. The book derives its authority from the authentic prophecies of Ezekiel, the priest/ prophet, who has been exclusively active in Babylonia. The study of the MT of Ezekiel 18 and 20 shows that these chapters, with few marginal emendations, can form the basis for further investigation. The structural analyses of Ezekiel 18 and 20 confirm the outcome of the text critical views. The two chapters in the MT text show a strong internal cohesion and structured shape. The coherence of both chapters may be explained on the basis of the literary editing of the authentic prophecies. The frequently proposed dichotomy both of Ezekiel 18 and Ezekiel 20 is not followed. The indication which contextual position these two chapters occupy in the whole of the book of Ezekiel shows the cohesion with the immediate context of both chapters. This is true particularly of the first main part of the book, which consists of Ezekiel 1–24. After considering the text material described above follows a description of the hypothesis of the corporate personality, since this is tested in

258

conclusion

the text material. The description of the hypothesis and the investigation of the backgrounds and its sources point to a strong influence of the anthropological theories of Lévy-Bruhl relative to the primitive mentality and a large measure of congeniality with Pedersen’s view of the primitive Semitic idea of man. Above all, Wheeler Robinson builds the hypothesis from his own vision of Hebrew psychology. A psychological line of approach is prominently present in his work. Of the four basic characteristics which Wheeler Robinson distinguishes in the hypothesis, the basic characteristic, which he indicates as the third, is the core of his hypothesis. This concerns fluidity, which facilitates rapid and unnoticed transitions from ‘the one’ to ‘the many’ and vice versa. This basic characteristic is influenced to a large degree by the work of Lévy-Bruhl and his thoughts on the existence of a ‘law of participation,’ which is supposed to be typical of the primitive mentality. After the presentation of his vision as it had taken shape in 1935, Wheeler Robinson has made ample use of the hypothesis in his later work. In the posthumously published 1948 work Two Hebrew Prophets he applies the corporate personality to Ezekiel 18. Wheeler Robinson at no point offers a discussion of his hypothesis. His death in 1945 and the situation of World War II may have influenced this development. Discussion of the hypothesis of the corporate personality did not fail to occur. The same is true of imitation and application of the hypothesis on numerous fields of investigation. Imitation and application of the hypothesis is shown on the basis of publications, which are in line with the types of application, as these were indicated by Wheeler Robinson himself. Additionally, the application is shown in publications, in which the presence of the hypothesis might have been expected as a derivative of the types of applications, which Wheeler Robinson has indicated. Imitation and application of the hypothesis appeared to become fewer with the passing of time since the presentation of the hypothesis in 1935. This was the result of the growing discussion on the usefulness and the presupposition of the hypothesis. In the study of the Old Testament a critical attitude was notable rather and stronger than for example in New Testament studies. The vision, which the hypothesis verbalizes in view of the relationship between an individual and a group, has been conceived for a longer period in the study of the New Testament as the generally held vision within Old Testament studies in this field. The contributions of Porter (1965) and Rogerson (1970) are central in the discussion surrounding the hypothesis of the corporate personality.

conclusion

259

Porter has applied himself to the testing of the usefulness and applicability of the hypothesis in juridical contexts to explain exegetical problems which had arisen. Porter denies that the hypothesis furnishes a needful contribution for the solution of exegetical problems which he investigated. He ignores the use of the hypothesis, because the indicated problems might be provided with answers in a different manner, which is adequate for an explanation. Porter does not exclude that the use and the application of the hypothesis may be meaningful in other texts/contexts. Rogerson opts for another approach in his discussion. He directs his attention to the use of the hypothesis by Wheeler Robinson, which he qualifies as ambiguous, and to the foundations of the hypothesis. Dependent on a judgment on the foundations it may be investigated as to whether it is sensible to pursue the study in the line of Porter, relative to other texts/contexts than the juridical. Rogerson concludes that the foundations of the hypothesis may be judged as out of date and cannot claim any validity any longer. For Rogerson, the value of Wheeler-Robinson’s work lies in his application of anthropology to the study of the Old Testament. One has to agree with this conclusion of Rogerson, whereby the usefulness and applicability of the hypothesis in the expression and foundation by Wheeler Robinson also needs to be abandoned. Divergent from Rogerson, it is to be maintained, however, that a reformulation of the corporate personality does not need to be rejected beforehand and categorically. The categorical rejection by Rogerson cannot be placed well in the light of his own appreciation of Wheeler Robinson’s work, namely his use of anthropology in the study of the Old Testament, and Rogerson’s own application of new(er) anthropological insights in other publications. A certain bias against a hypothesis, to which the term ‘corporate personality’ is related in a redefined meaning, does not appear to be absent with Rogerson. A new anthropological theory relative to the relationship between individual and collective appears to offer perspective in this respect: the multimodal framework of Samuel. This theory offers perspective on a reformulation of the corporate personality, while keeping the valuable aspects of Wheeler Robinson’s hypothesis and with obviating of the observed shortcomings. A proof is offered, based on Ezekiel 18 and 20. The description of the relationship between individual and collective in Ezekiel 18 and 20 occurs from the internal coherence of these ideas in the texts. Besides, there is space to make use of results from other

260

conclusion

scientific disciplines such as anthropology, sociology and psychology to obtain more insight into the relationship between individual and collective, as this is reflected in the texts. A pitfall, which must be avoided, is the thought that Ezekiel 18 illustrates the final point or turning point in a development from collective toward individual responsibility. Collectivism and individualism are not entities in the Old Testament era, which succeed or relieve one another, neither are they connected in an evolutionary manner. The concept of ‘after each other’ is out of the question; rather, it is ‘beside each other.’ This insight appears to furnish an extra field of tension for the book of Ezekiel. Ezekiel 18 and 20 cannot be divided across different chronological stages on the basis of this argument. Collective and individual ranges of thought occur beside each other. Though this has become a rather common insight in Old Testament investigation, not all scholars are free from the influence of the evolutionary model (e.g. Halpern, Krašovec, and Drewermann). With those who are conscious of the occurrence of collective and individual thought beside each other, and who have kept busy with the theme of responsibility, a shift in the question has outlined itself. This shift is also of importance for the exegesis of Ezekiel. The shift has crystallized differently. With a number of scholars (among them, Joyce and Matties) in Ezekiel the central question is no longer about the unity which is responsible (individual against collective), but the possibility of being responsible at all. With other scholars (among them Uffenheimer and Schwartz) the shift has crystallized relative to Ezekiel in the question as to the relationship between texts with a deterministic vision and texts which express freedom for repentance and conversion. Discontent with the shift in the presentation of the question relative to the tension in Ezekiel which remains too much directed on theodicy, Lapsley opts for the approach from the other side, namely from the anthropology of Ezekiel. From this point, Lapsley observes a shifting vision within Ezekiel both relative to the origin and to the form of moral selfhood. The acting by man (chiefly to be found in Ezekiel 1–35) is replaced by the knowledge of God, given by God himself (to be found in Ezekiel 36–38). Lapsley thinks she can overcome the tension this way, which remained present in both other approaches by the overemphasis on the theodicy question. Lapsley’s approach does not satisfy, because it marginalizes the texts in Ezekiel 1–35 in their significance relative to Ezekiel 36–48. Moreover, Lapsley replaces the chronological

conclusion

261

developmental model by a logical developmental model, which does not do justice to the coherence of the book of Ezekiel, which is expressed in the homogeneity of text and tradition. The description of the relationship between individual and collective in Ezekiel 18 from the internal coherence shows how the language of criminal law is used in a new context of divine retribution. The result of this blending is that within the collective framework, everyone may be pointed to his personal responsibility. There is no possibility for shirking of guilt, or hiding from the guilt in or behind a generation. The description of Ezekiel 20 shows a collective orientation in speaking about responsibility, as well as the intra-generational limiting of responsibility. Within the collective orientation there is space for individualistic accents: the individual does not dissolve in the collective. The main accent in both chapters is different and to be understood from the context of both chapters. There is no question of contradiction in the thought process, but of kinship which fits within the homogeneity of tradition of Ezekiel. The presence of both collective and individual aspects, whereby the collective has the priority, is characteristic for Ezekiel 18 and 20. Within the framework of the collective, the individual has his place. This conclusion in reference to both chapters confirms the thoughts of Wheeler Robinson on constituent collective aspects in Israelite society, which have a place in the hypothesis of the corporate personality. This appreciation for Wheeler Robinson does not aim for rehabilitation of his hypothesis but indicates that not all aspects of the hypothesis are to be rejected as erroneous. The constituent collective in the social constellation, in which Ezekiel may be placed, is the ‘house of the father.’ This social structure is determinative for the description of the relationship between God and his people in Ezekiel. The social structure of the house of the father is used as a metaphor, particularly in Ezekiel 16–23. Especially Matties has observed and developed the use of the family metaphor. He views the use of the family metaphor as a rhetorical device. This vision is correct but it does not go far enough. The dominant social structure of the family and the literary use of the family metaphor are so closely interwoven in Ezekiel that the family functions as an interpretive community. The family metaphor is more than a rhetorical device: it describes the structure, within which responsibility is interpreted. While Ezekiel 18 describes the family on this point from the inside, Ezekiel 20 does it

262

conclusion

from the outside. The distribution of responsibility is indicated from the family structure. The family is the unity of responsibility. Individual responsibility is constituted within the family. The individual derives his identity from the collective of the family and these two are indissolubly connected. There are no two different systems of attribution of responsibility, of which Ezekiel 18 would reflect the one and Ezekiel 20 the other. The formulated observations above on family structure, their unity and the relevant relationships of individuals to the collective, plead for a redefining of the term of corporate personality along this line. Some aspects of Wheeler Robinson’s hypothesis remain in force to the extent that they pass within the new theoretical support of the family as a corporate personality. This pertains to his thoughts on the unity of a group with the correction that this in the first instance is to be understood as a structural and organizational unity, within which unity of thought and feeling receives a place (a psychic unity), and the observation of the individual and his individuality within the unity of the group. Additionally, this particularly pertains to the aspects of synchrony and diachrony which Wheeler Robinson has pointed out in his hypothesis, which are also present in the structure of the family. The basic characteristics of extension (the diachronic component) and realism (the synchronic component) merit, with some accommodation, maintenance and form the two basic characteristics of the redefined corporate personality. The fluidity, which forms the core of Wheeler Robinson’s hypothesis, cannot be maintained, so that there may be mention of a new hypothesis, to which the term of corporate personality may be connected. This does merit the preference, considering the tribute to Wheeler Robinson and the intended overcoming of the objections which cleave to his hypothesis. The family as corporate personality may be supported theoretically with the multimodal framework of Samuel. Characteristic for this anthropological theory is the rejection of a dichotomy between individual and group. Samuel describes both as derivatives of one and the same entity which he labels the social manifold. The MMF is in essence relational. The central concepts of the MMF, the modal state and the modal current, describe relational patterns between the individual and his social environment (e.g. group or community): neither individual

conclusion

263

descriptions (the individual modal states), nor group descriptions (the cultural modal states) are primary. ‘Individuals give shape to a group’ and ‘a group gives shape to individuals’ are two equivalent sayings in the light of the MMF since both are derivatives of the same manifold. This is ultimately about the relations between individuals and the relational patterns between individual and group. Connected to the family as constituent community in the cultural context of Ezekiel, the MMF offers the basis to speak of the corporate personality of the group, namely the systematically related individual model states of the members of the family, which make the family into a corporate personality. The challenge by Rogerson to indicate what is meant when one speaks about corporate personality is hereby accepted. The deficiency is also overcome, which is present with those who do speak about corporate solidarity but do not indicate on what this collective responsibility and solidarity are based. These are based on the corporate personality of the family.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Aalders, G. C. 1955. Ezechiël I: Hfdst. 1–24 (COut). Kampen. —— 1957. Ezechiël II: Hfdst. 25–48 (COut). Kampen. Adamiak, R. 1982. Justice and History in the Old Testament: The Evolution of Divine Retribution in the Historiographies of the Wilderness Generation. Cleveland. Alaribe, G. N. 2006. Ezekiel 18 and the Ethics of Responsibility: A Study in Biblical Interpretations and Christian Ethics (ATSAT 77). St. Ottilien. Albertz, R. 1978. Persönliche Frömmigkeit und offizielle Religion: Religionsinterner Pluralismus in Israel und Babylon (CTM, A 9). Stuttgart. —— 1992. Religionsgeschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit: Teil 2: Vom Exil bis zu den Makkabäern (GAT 8/2, ATD Ergänzungsreihe). Göttingen. Allen, L. C. 1990. Ezekiel 20–48 (WBC 29), Dallas. —— 1992. “The Structuring of Ezekiel’s Revisionist History Lesson (Ezekiel 20:3–31).” CBQ 54:448–462. —— 1994. Ezekiel 1–19 (WBC 28). Dallas. —— 1995. “Some Types of Textual Adaptation in Ezekiel.” ETL 71:5–29. Andersen, F. I. 1969. “Israelite Kinship Terminology and Social Structure.” BT 20:29–39. Anderson, B. W. 1958. The Living World of the Old Testament. London. —— 1979. The Living World of the Old Testament. 3d ed. London. Anderson, G. W. 1969. The History and Religion of Israel (The New Clarendon Bible, Old Testament Vol. 1). 3d ed. Oxford. Andrew, M. E. 1985. Responsibility and Restoration: The Course of the Book of Ezekiel. Dunedin. Auvray, P. 1947. Ézéchiel (Témoins de Dieu 10). Paris. Baltzer, D. 1971. Ezechiel und Deuterojesaja: Berührungen in der Heilserwartung der beiden großen Exilspropheten (BZAW 121). Berlin. Bardtke, H. 1941. Hesekiel: In Auswahl übersetzt und ausgelegt (Bibelhilfe für die Gemeinde). Leipzig. Barnard, A. 2000. History and Theory in Anthropology, Cambridge. Bartelmus, R. 1993. “Menschlicher Mißerfolg und Jahwes Initiative: Beobachtungen zum Geschichtsbild des deuteronomistischen Rahmens im Richterbuch und zum geschichtstheologischen Entwurf in Ez 20.” BN 70:28–47. Barthélemy, D. 1992. Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament: Tome 3: Ézéchiel, Daniel et les 12 Prophètes (OBO 50/3). Fribourg. Barton, J. 1979. “Natural Law and Poetic Justice in the Old Testament.” JTS (N.S.) 30:1–14. Baumgärtel, F. 1932. Die Eigenart der alttestamentlichen Frömmigkeit. Schwerin. Beauchamp, P. 1989. “Lectures et relectures du quatrième chant du Serviteur: D’Isaïe à Jean.” Pages 325–355 in The Book of Isaiah—Le Livre d’Isaïe: Les oracles et leurs relectures unité et complexité de l’ouvrage (BETL 81). Edited by J. Vermeylen. Leuven. Becker, J. 1982. “Erwägungen zur ezechielischen Frage.” Pages 137–149 in Künder des Wortes: Beiträge zur Theologie der Propheten: Josef Schreiner zum 60. Geburtstag gewidmet. Edited by L. Ruppert, P. Weimar, and E. Zenger. Würzburg. —— 1986. “Ez 8–11 als einheitliche Komposition in einem pseudepigrafischen Ezechielbuch.” Pages 136–150 in Ezekiel and his Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation (BETL 74). Edited by J. Lust. Leuven. —— 1992. Der priesterliche Prophet: Das Buch Ezechiel (SKKAT 12). 2d ed. Stuttgart. —— 2002. Review of K. L. Wong, The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel (VTSup 87). Leiden, 2001. Biblica 83:277–280.

266

bibliography

Becking, B. 2002. Review of D. Kinet, Geschichte Israels (NEchtB Ergänzungsband, 2). Würzburg, 2001. NedTT 56:149. Beentjes, P. C. 1982. “Inverted Quotations in the Bible: A Neglected Stylistic Pattern.” Biblica 63:506–523. —— 1996. “Discovering a New Path of Intertextuality: Inverted quotations and their dynamics.” Pages 31–50 in Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by L. J. de Regt, J. de Waard, and J. P. Fokkelman. Assen. Bendor, S. 1996. The Social Structure of Ancient Israel: The Institution of the Family (Beit ’Ab) from the Settlement to the End of the Monarchy (JBS 7), Jerusalem. Ben-Ḥ ayyim, Z. 1958. “Traditions in the Hebrew Language, with special reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 200–214 in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ScrHier 4). Edited by C. Rabin and Y. Yadin. Jerusalem. Berger, B. See Berger, P. L., and B. Berger. Berger, P. L., and B. Berger, 1976. Sociology: A Biographical Approach. Revised Edition. New York. Berquist, J. L. 1993. Surprises by the River: The Prophecy of Ezekiel. St. Louis. —— 1995. Judaism in Persia’s Shadow: A Social and Historical Approach. Minneapolis. —— 2002. Controlling Corporeality: The Body and the Household in Ancient Israel. New Brunswick. Bertholet, A. 1897. Das Buch Hesekiel (KHC 12). Freiburg i.B. —— with a contribution by K. Galling. 1936. Hesekiel (HAT 13). Tübingen. Beuken, W. A. M. 1972. “Ez. 20: Thematiek en literaire vormgeving in onderling verband.” Bijdragen 33:39–64. Billerbeck, P. See Strack, H. L., and P. Billerbeck. Blenkinsopp, J. 1990. Ezekiel (Interpretation). Louisville. Block, D. I. 1985. “Israel’s House: Reflections on the Use of byt ysr’l in the Old Testament in the Light of its Ancient Near Eastern Environment.” JETS 28:257–275. —— 1997. The Book of Ezekiel 1–24 (NICOT). Grand Rapids. —— 1998. The Book of Ezekiel 25–48 (NICOT). Grand Rapids. Boadt, L. 1978. “Textual Problems in Ezekiel and Poetic Analysis of Paired Words.” JBL 97:489–499. —— 1986. “Rhetorical Strategies in Ezekiel’s Oracles of Judgment.” Pages 182–200 in Ezekiel and his Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation (BETL 74). Edited by J. Lust. Leuven. —— 1996. “Mythological Themes and the Unity of Ezekiel.” Pages 211–231 in Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by L. J. de Regt, J. de Waard, and J. P. Fokkelman. Assen. Bodi, D., 1991. The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra (OBO 104). Freiburg. —— 1993. “Les gillûlîm chez Ézéchiel et dans l’Ancien Testament, et les différentes pratiques cultuelles associées à ce terme.” RB 100:481–510. Boer, P. A. H. de. 1972. “An Aspect of Sacrifice.” Pages 25–47 in Studies in the Religion of Ancient Israel (VTSup 23). Edited by G. W. Anderson et al. Leiden. Born, A. van den. 1954. Ezechiël: Uit de grondtekst vertaald en uitgelegd (BOT). Roermond. Bradburd, D. 1998. Being There. The Necessity of Fieldwork (Smithsonian Series in Ethnographic Inquiry). Washington. Brandenburger, H. 1965. Hesekiel: Priester, Seher, Prophet (Das lebendige Wort 7). Giessen. Braulik, G. 2000. “Ezechiel und Deuteronomium: Die „Sippenhaftung“ in Ezechiel 18,20 und Deuteronomium 24,16, unter Berücksichtigung von Jeremia 31,29–30 und 2 Könige 14,6.” BZ (N.F.) 44:206–232. Brody, E. B. 1991. Review of G. Samuel, Mind, body and culture: Anthropology and the biological interface. Cambridge, 1990. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 179:53.

bibliography

267

Brownlee, W. H. 1986. Ezekiel 1–19 (WBC 28). Waco. Bruce, F. F. 1983. The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC). 2d ed. Grand Rapids. Brunner, R. 1944a. Ezechiel: I. Teil: Kapitel 1–24 (Prophezei, Schweizerisches Bibelwerk für die Gemeinde). Zurich. —— 1944b. Ezechiel: II. Teil: Kapitel 25–48 (Prophezei, Schweizerisches Bibelwerk für die Gemeinde). Zurich. Buber, M., in cooperation with F. Rosenzweig. 1997. Die Schrift: Die hebräische Bibel: Das Alte Testament: Verdeutscht von Martin Buber gemeinsam mit Franz Rosenzweig: 3. Bücher der Kündung. 10th ed. Gerlingen. Bückers, H. 1933. “Kollektiv- und Individualvergeltung im Alten Testament.” TGl 25:273–287. Calès, J. 1921. “Rétribution individuelle, vie des justes et mort des pécheurs d’après le livre d’Ézéchiel (Chap. iii, 16–21; xviii; xxxiii, 1–20).” RecSR 11:363–371. Carter, C. E. 1996. “A Discipline in Transition: The Contributions of the Social Sciences to the Study of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 3–36 in Community, Identity, and Ideology: Social Science Approaches to the Hebrew Bible (SBTS 6). Edited by C. E. Carter and C. L. Meyers. Winona Lake. Cazeneuve, J. 1972. Lucien Lévy-Bruhl (Explorations in Interpretative Sociology). Translated by Peter Revière. New York. Childs, B. S. 1983. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. 2d ed. London. —— 1996. “Retrospective Reading of the Old Testament.” ZAW 108:362–377. Clements, R. E. 1982. “The Ezekiel tradition: prophecy in a time of crisis.” Pages 119–136 in Israel’s Prophetic Tradition: Essays in Honour of Peter R. Ackroyd. Edited by R. J. Coggins, A. C. Phillips, and M. A. Knibb. Cambridge. —— 1986. “The Chronology of Redaction in Ez 1–24.” Pages 283–294 in Ezekiel and his Book: Textual and Literary Criticism an their Interrelation (BETL 74). Edited by J. Lust. Leuven. —— 1996. Ezekiel (Westminster Bible Companion). Louisville. Cohen, M. 2003. “Etude sémantique des locutions nś’ ro’š-nś’ ’æt-ro’š et nś’ ‘awôn—nś’ ’æt-‘awôn en hébreu biblique.” ZAW 115:54–72. Conzelmann, H. 1969. Der erste Brief an die Korinther (KEK). Göttingen. Cooke, G. A. 1936. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel (ICC). Edinburgh. Cooper, Sr., L. E. 1994. Ezekiel (NAC 17). Nashville. Craigie, P. C. 1986. Ezekiel (The Daily Study Bible). 2d ed. Edinburgh. Crenshaw, J. L. 1971. Prophetic Conflict: Its Effect Upon Israelite Religion (BZAW 124). Berlin. —— 1983. “Introduction: The Shift from Theodicy to Anthropodicy.” Pages 1–16 in Theodicy in the Old Testament (IRT 4). Edited by J. L. Crenshaw. Philadelphia. Croft, S. J. L. 1987. The Identity of the Individual in the Psalms (JSOTSup 44). Sheffield. Darr, K. P. 1992. “Ezekiel’s Justification of God: Teaching Troubling Texts.” JSOT 55:97–117. —— 1994. “Ezekiel among the Critics.” Pages 9–14 in Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 2. Sheffield. —— 2004. “Proverb Performance and Transgenerational Retribution in Ezekiel 18.” Pages 199–223 in Ezekiel’s Hierarchical World: Wrestling with a Tiered Reality (SBL Symposium Series 31). Edited by S. L. Cook and C. L. Patton. Atlanta. Daube, D. 1947. Studies in Biblical Law. Cambridge. Deist, F. E. 2000. The Material Culture of the Bible: An Introduction: Edited with a Preface by Robert P. Carroll (The Biblical Seminar 70). Sheffield. Dever, W. G. 1988. “Impact of the “New Archaeology”.” Pages 337–352 in Benchmarks in Time and Culture: An Introduction to Palestinian Archaeology: Dedicated to

268

bibliography

Joseph A. Callaway (ABS 1). Edited by J. F. Drinkard, Jr., G. L. Mattingly, and J. M. Miller. Atlanta. —— 1998. “Social Structure in Palestine in Iron II Period on the Eve of Destruction.” Pages 416–431 in The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land (New Approaches in Anthropological Archaeology). Edited by T. E. Levy. London. Devita, P. R., ed. 2000. Stumbling Toward Truth: Anthropologists at Work. Prospect Heights. De Vries, S. J. 1962. “Remembrance in Ezekiel: A Study of an Old Testament Theme.” Int 16:58–64. Di Vito, R.A. 1999. “Old Testament Anthropology and the Construction of Personal Identity.” CBQ 61:217–238. Dijkstra, M. 1986. Ezechiël I: Een praktische bijbelverklaring (TeT). Kampen. —— 1989. Ezechiël II: Een praktische bijbelverklaring (TeT). Kampen. —— 1999. “The Valley of Dry Bones: Coping with the Reality of the Exile in the Book of Ezekiel.” Pages 114–133 in The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Tranformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (OtSt 42). Edited by B. Becking and M. C. A. Korpel. Leiden. Douglas, M. 1976. Purity and Danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. 4th ed. London. Drewermann, E. 1985. Tiefenpsychologie und Exegese: Band I: Die Warheit der Formen: Traum, Mythos, Märchen, Sage und Legende. 2d ed. Olten. —— 2001. » . . . auf daß ihr wieder leben sollt«: Die Botschaft des Propheten Ezechiel. Zurich. Duin, C. van. 1989. “Zal het stof u loven?”: Weerlegging van de individualistische uitleg van woorden voor dood en onderwereld in de psalmen. Privately published. Durkheim, E. 1960. Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse (Bibliothèque de Philosophie Contemporaine). 4th ed. Paris. Eberharter, A. 1924. Sünde und Buße im Alten Testament (Biblische Zeitfragen; Folge 11, Heft 10–12). Münster. Eichrodt, W. 1964. Die Theologie des Alten Testaments: Teil II Gott und Welt und Teil III Gott und Mensch. 5th ed. Stuttgart. —— 1965. Der Prophet Hesekiel: Kapitel 1–18 (ATD 22/1). 2d ed. Göttingen. —— 1966. Der Prophet Hesekiel: Kapitel 19–48 (ATD 22/2). Göttingen. —— 1968. Die Theologie des Alten Testaments: Teil I Gott und Volk. 8th ed. Stuttgart. Eilberg-Schwartz, H. 1990. The Savage in Judaism: An Anthropology of Israelite Religion and Ancient Judaism. Bloomington. Eissfeldt, O. 1933. Der Gottesknecht bei Deuterojesaja (Jes. 40–55) im Lichte der israelitischen Anschauung von Gemeinschaft und Individuum (Beiträge zur Religionsgeschichte des Altertums, Heft 2). Halle. —— 1976. Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Unter Einschluß der Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen sowie der apokryphen- und pseudepigraphenartigen Qumran-Schriften. 4th ed. Tübingen. Ellis, E. E. 1988. “Biblical Interpretation in the New Testament Church.” Pages 691–725 in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (CRINT, Section 2, Volume 1). Edited by M. J. Mulder. Assen. Erickson, P. A., with L. D. Murphy. 1999. A History of Anthropological Theory. Peterborough. Eslinger, L. 1998. “Ezekiel 20 and the Metaphor of Historical Teleology: Concepts of Biblical History.” JSOT 81:93–125. Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1934. “Lévy-Bruhl’s Theory of Primitive Mentality.” Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts, Cairo University 2:1–36. —— 1937. Witchcraft, Oracles, and Magic among the Azande. Oxford. —— 1956. Nuer Religion. New York. —— 1967. “A Problem of Nuer Religious Thought.” Pages 127–148 in Myth and Cosmos: Readings in Mythology and Symbolism (American Museum Sourcebooks in Anthropology). Edited by J. Middleton. Garden City.

bibliography

269

—— 1975. Theories of Primitive Religion. 7th ed. Oxford. Eysink, R. 1946. Collectieve voorstellingen in het denken der Natuurvolken. Utrecht. Faust, A. 1999. “Differences in Family Structure between Cities and Villages in Iron Age II.” Tel Aviv 26:233–252. —— 2000. “The Rural Community in Ancient Israel during Iron Age II.” BASOR 317:17–39. Feist, U. 1995. Ezechiel: Das literarische Problem des Buches forschungsgeschichtlich betrachtet (BWANT 138). Stuttgart. Fiensy, D. 1997. “Using the Nuer Culture of Africa in Understanding the Old Testament: An Evaluation.” Pages 43–52 in Social-Scientific Old Testament Criticism (The Biblical Seminar 47). Edited by D. J. Chalcraft. Sheffield. Repr. from JSOT 38 (1987): 73–83. Finegan, J. 1950. “The Chronology of Ezekiel.” JBL 69:61–66. Finnegan, R., and R. Horton. 1973. “Introduction.” Pages 13–62 in Modes of Thought: Essays on Thinking in Western and Non-Western Societies. Edited by R. Horton and R. Finnegan. London. Finsterbusch, K. 2006. “Vom Opfer zur Auslösung: Analyse ausgewählter Texte zum Thema Erstgeburt im Alten Testament.” VT 56:21–45. Fisch, S. 1985. Ezekiel: Hebrew Text & English Translation with an Introduction and Commentary (The Soncino Books of the Bible). 10th ed. London. Fish, S. E. 1980. Is There a Text in This Class?: The Authority of Interpretive Communities. Cambridge, Mass. Fishbane, M. 1984. “Sin and Judgment in the Prophecies of Ezekiel.” Int 38:131–150. —— 1986. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. 3d ed. Oxford. Fohrer, G. 1952. Die Hauptprobleme des Buches Ezechiel (BZAW 72). Berlin. —— with a contribution by K. Galling, 1955. Ezechiel (HAT 13). Tübingen. Fraine, J. de. 1952. “Individu et société dans la religion de l’Ancien Testament.”, Biblica 33:324–355, 445–475. —— 1959. Adam et son Lignage: Études sur la notion de «personnalité corporative» dans la Bible (Museum Lessianum, section Biblique 2). Bruges. —— 1962. Adam und seine Nachkommen: Der Begriff der ›Korporativen Persönlichkeit‹ in der Heilige Schrift. Cologne. Franken, H. J. 1954. The Mystical Communion with JHWH in the Book of Psalms. Leiden. Freedy, K. S., and D. B. Redford. 1970. “The Dates in Ezekiel in Relation to Biblical, Babylonian and Egyptian Sources.” JAOS 90:462–485. Fuhs, H. F. 1986. Ezechiel 1–24 (NEchtB 7). 2d ed. Würzburg. —— 1988. Ezechiel 25–48 (NEchtB 22). Würzburg. Garscha, J. 1975. Studien zum Ezechielbuch: Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung von Ez 1–39 (Europäische Hochschulschriften 23). Bern. Geertz, C. 1968. “Religion as a Cultural System.” Pages 1–46 in Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion (ASA Monographs 3). Edited by M. Banton. 2d ed. London. Gergen, K. J. 1994. Realities and Relationships: Soundings in Social Construction. Cambridge, Mass. Geus, C. H. J. de. 1976. The Tribes of Israel: An Investigation into some of the Presuppositions of Martin Noth’s Amphictyony Hypothesis (SSN 18). Assen. Geyer, J. B. 1979. “Ezekiel 18 and a Hittite Treaty of Muršiliš II.” JSOT 12:31–46. Gnilka, J. 1980. Der Philipperbrief (HThKNT 10,3). 3d ed. Freiburg. Gölz, F. 1963. Der primitive Mensch und seine Religion (Missionswissenschaftliche Forschungen 3). Gütersloh. Goshen-Gottstein, M. H., and S. Talmon, eds. 2004. The Book of Ezekiel (The Hebrew University Bible), Jerusalem. Gosse, B. 1996. “Le temple dans le livre d’Ézéchiel en rapport à la rédaction des livres des Rois.” RB 103:40–47.

270

bibliography

—— 2005. “Sabbath, Identity and Universalism Go Together after the Return from Exile.” JSOT 29:359–370. Gottwald, N. K. 1999. The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250–1050 BCE (The Biblical Seminar 66), Sheffield. Graffy, A. 1984. A Prophet Confronts His People: The Disputation Speech in the Prophets (AnBib 104). Rome. Greenberg, M. 1960. “Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law.” Pages 5–28 in Yehezkel Kaufmann Jubilee Volume: Studies in Bible and Jewish Religion dedicated to Yehezkel Kaufmann on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Edited by M. Haran. Jerusalem. —— 1986. Ezekiel 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 22). 2d ed. Garden City. —— 1997. Ezekiel 21–37: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 22A). New York. Gross, W. 1998. Zukunft für Israel: Alttestamentliche Bundeskonzepte und die aktuelle Debatte um den Neuen Bund (SBS 176). Stuttgart. Gruenthaner, M. J. 1942. “The Old Testament and Retribution in This Life.” CBQ 4:101–110. Gundry, R. H. 1976. SOMA in Biblical Theology: With an Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology (SNTSMS 29). Cambridge. Gunning JHz., J. H. 1881. De Goddelijke Vergelding: Hoofdzakelijk volgens Exodus XX:5, 6 en Ezechiël XVIII:20. Utrecht. Haag, H. 1985. Der Gottesknecht bei Deuterojesaja (EdF 233). Darmstadt. Hahn, S. W., and J. S. Bergsma. 2004. “What Laws Were “Not Good”?: A Canonical Approach To The Theological Problem Of Ezekiel 20:25–26.” JBL 123:201–218. Hallpike, C. R. 1976. “Is There a Primitive Mentality?” Man (N.S.) 11:253–270. —— 1979. The Foundations of Primitive Thought. Oxford. Halperin, D. J. 1993. Seeking Ezekiel: Text and Psychology. University Park. Halpern, B. 1991. “Jerusalem and the Lineages in the seventh Century BCE: Kinship and the Rise of Individual Moral Liability.” Pages 11–107 in Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel (JSOTSup 124). Edited by B. Halpern and D. W. Hobson. Sheffield. Hals, R. M. 1989. Ezekiel (FOTL 19). Grand Rapids. Harland, P. J. 1996. “Robber or Violent Man?” A Note on the Word “PARÎṢ” VT 46:530–534. Harvey, J. 1958. “Collectivisme et individualisme, Éz. 18, 1–32 et Jér. 31, 29.” ScEccl 10:167–202. Hattori, Y. 1977. “Divine Dilemma in Ezekiel’s View of the Exodus: An Exegetical Study of Ezekiel 20:5–29.” Pages 412–424 in The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis. Edited by J. H. Skilton. 3d ed. Nutley. Hehn, J. 1925. “Nationalismus und Universalismus, Kollektivismus und Individualismus in der israelitischen Religion.” BZTS 2:213–232. Heider, G. C. 1988. “A Further Turn on Ezekiel’s Baroque Twist in Ezek 20:25–26.” JBL 107:721–724. Hempel, J. 1964. Das Ethos des Alten Testaments (BZAW 67). 2d ed. Berlin. Hengel, M. 1996. “Zur Wirkungsgeschichte von Jes 53 in vorchristlicher Zeit.” Pages 49–91 in Der leidende Gottesknecht: Jesaja 53 und seine Wirkungsgeschichte, mit einer Bibliographie zu Jes 53 (FAT 14). Edited by B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher. Tübingen. Hermisson, H.-J. 1996. “Das vierte Gottesknechtlied.” Pages 1–25 in Der leidende Gottesknecht: Jesaja 53 und seine Wirkungsgeschichte, mit einer Bibliographie zu Jes 53 (FAT 14). Edited by B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher. Tübingen. —— 1998a. “Gottesknecht und Gottesknechte: Zur ältesten Deutung eines deuterojesajanischen Themas.” Pages 241–266 in H.-J. Hermisson. Studien zu Prophetie

bibliography

271

und Weisheit: Gesammelte Aufsätze (FAT 23). Edited by J. Barthel, H. Jauss, and K. Koenen. Tübingen. Repr. from pages 43–68 in Geschichte—Tradition— Reflexion: FS M. Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag (Judentum 1). Edited by H. Cancik et al. Tübingen, 1996. —— 1998b. “Israel und der Gottesknecht bei Deuterojesaja.” Pages 197–219 in H.-J. Hermisson. Studien zu Prophetie und Weisheit: Gesammelte Aufsätze (FAT 23). Edited by J. Barthel, H. Jauss, and K. Koenen. Tübingen. Repr. from ZTK 79 (1982): 1–24. Herrmann, J. 1924. Ezechiel (KAT 11). Leipzig. Herzog, P. 1923. Die ethischen Anschauungen des Propheten Ezechiel (ATA 9, 2/3). Münster. Herzog, Z. 1997. Archaeology of the City: Urban Planning in Ancient Israel and its Social Implications (Tel Aviv University, Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology, Monograph Series 13). Tel Aviv. Hitzig, F. 1847. Der Prophet Ezechiel (KeH 8). Leipzig. Hölscher, G. 1924. Hesekiel: Der Dichter und das Buch (BZAW 39). Giessen. Hoppe, L. J. See Vawter, B., and L. J. Hoppe. Horst, P. W. van der. 1992. “I gave them laws that were not good: Ezekiel 20:25 in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity.” Pages 94–118 in Sacred History and Sacred Texts in Early Judaism: A Symposium in Honour of A. S. van der Woude (CBET 5). Edited by J. N. Bremmer and F. García Martínez. Kampen. Horton, R. 1973. “Lévy-Bruhl, Durkheim and the Scientific Revolution.” Pages 249–305 in Modes of Thought: Essays on Thinking in Western and Non-Western Societies. Edited by R. Horton and R. Finnegan. London. —— See Finnegan, R., and R. Horton. Hossfeld, F. 1977. Untersuchungen zu Komposition und Theologie des Ezechielbuches (FB 20). Würzburg. —— 1986. “Die Tempelvision Ez 8–11 im Licht unterschiedlicher methodischer Zugänge.” Pages 151–165 in Ezekiel and his Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation (BETL 74). Edited by J. Lust. Leuven. —— 1995. “Ezechiel und die deuteronomisch-deuteronomistische Bewegung.” Pages 271–295 in Jeremia und die »deuteronomitische Bewegung« (BBB 98). Edited by W. Gross. Weinheim. Houtman, C. 2001. “God in een nieuwe gestalte: Exegetische kanttekeningen bij het Ad dexteram Dei.” NedTT 55:1–12. —— 2006. De Schrift wordt geschreven: Op zoek naar een christelijke hermeneutiek van het Oude Testament. Zoetermeer Hunt, R. C. 1995. “Agrarian Data Sets: The Comparativist’s View.” Pages 173–189 in The Comparative Analysis of Human Societies: Toward Common Standards for Data Collection and Reporting. Edited by E. F. Moran. Boulder. Hurvitz, A. 1982. A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem (CahRB 20). Paris. —— 1988. “Dating the Priestly Source in Light of the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew: A Century after Wellhausen.” ZAW 100 Supplement:88–100. Janowski, B. 1996. “Er trug unsere Sünden.” Pages 27–48 in Der leidende Gottesknecht: Jesaja 53 und seine Wirkungsgeschichte, mit einer Bibliographie zu Jes 53 (FAT 14). Edited by B. Janowski and P. Stuhlmacher. Tübingen. Jastrow, M. S.a. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. Israel. Johnson, A. R. 1942. The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God. Cardiff. —— 1949. The Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel. Cardiff. —— 1955. Sacral Kingship in Israel. Cardiff. —— 1961. The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God. 2d ed. Cardiff. —— 1964. The Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel. 2d ed. Cardiff.

272

bibliography

—— 1967. Sacral Kingship in Israel. 2d ed. Cardiff. Jong, M. J. de. 2007. “Ezekiel as a Literary Figure and the Quest for the Historical Prophet.” Pages 1–16 in The Book of Ezekiel and its Influence. Edited by H. J. de Jonge and J. Tromp. Hampshire. Joyce, P. M. 1979. “Individual Responsibility in Ezekiel 18?” Pages 185–196 in Studia Biblica 1978: I: Papers on Old Testament and Related Themes: Sixth International Congress on Biblical Studies, Oxford 3–7 April 1978 (JSOTSup 11). Edited by E. A. Livingstone. Sheffield. —— 1983. “The Individual and the Community.” Pages 74–89 in Beginning Old Testament Study. Edited by J. Rogerson. London. —— 1986. “Ezekiel and Individual Responsibility.” Pages 317–321 in Ezekiel and his Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation (BETL 74). Edited by J. Lust. Leuven. —— 1989. Divine Initiative and Human Response in Ezekiel (JSOTSup 51). Sheffield. —— 1995. “Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives on Ezekiel.” Pages 115–128 in Synchronic or Diachronic?: A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis: Papers Read at the Ninth Joint Meeting of Het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en België and The Society for Old Testament Study: Held at Kampen, 1994 (OtSt 34). Edited by J. C. de Moor. Leiden. —— 1998. “King and Messiah in Ezekiel.” Pages 323–337 in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar (JSOTSup 270). Edited by J. Day. Sheffield. —— 2007. Ezekiel: A Commentary (LHBOTS 482). New York. Junker, H. 1963. “Ein Kernstück der Predigt Ezechiels. Studie über Ez 18.” BZ 7:173–185. Jurgens, H. W. 1996. Review of G. Samuel, Mind, body and culture: Anthropology and the biological interface. Cambridge, 1990. Homo: Internationale Zeitschrift für die vergleichende Forschung am Menschen 46:209. Kaiser, Jr., W. C. 1983. Toward Old Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids. Kaminsky, J. S. 1995. Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible (JSOTSup 196). Sheffield. —— 1997. “The Sins of the Fathers: A Theological Investigation of the Biblical Tension Between Corporate and Individualized Retribution.” Judaism 46:319–332. Käsemann, E. 1974. An die Römer (HNT 8a). 2d ed. Tübingen. Keesing, R. M., and A. J. Strathern. 1998. Cultural Anthropology: A Contemporary Perspective. Third Edition. Fort Worth. Kessler, R. 1996. “Das kollektive Schuldbekenntnis im Alten Testament.” EvT 56:29–43. Kilpp, N. 1985. “Eine frühe Interpretation der Katastrophe von 587.” ZAW 97:210–220. Klein, R. W. 1988. Ezekiel: The Prophet and his Message (Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament). Columbia. Kloos, P. 1995. Culturele antropologie: Een inleiding. 6th ed. Assen. Knohl, I. 1995. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Minneapolis. Köbben, A. J. F. 1973. “Comparativists and Non-Comparativists in Anthropology.” Pages 581–596 in A Handbook of Method in Cultural Anthropology. 2d ed. Edited by R. Naroll and R. Cohen. New York. Koch, K. 1972. “Gibt es ein Vergeltungsdogma im Alten Testament?” Pages 130–180 in Um das Prinzip der Vergeltung in Religion und Recht des Alten Testaments (WdF 125). Edited by K. Koch. Darmstadt. Repr. from ZTK 52 (1955):1–42. —— 1973. Was ist Formgeschichte?: Methoden der Bibelexegese. 3d ed. NeukirchenVluyn. —— 1983. “Is There a Doctrine of Retribution in the Old Testament?” Pages 57–87 in Theodicy in the Old Testament (IRT 4). Edited by J. L. Crenshaw. Philadelphia.

bibliography

273

Koole, J. L. 1970. “De stamvader.” Pages 79–94 in W. H. Gispen. Schrift en Uitleg: Studies van oud-leerlingen, collega’s en vrienden aangeboden aan PROF. DR. W. H. GISPEN ter gelegenheid van zijn vijfentwintigjarig ambtsjubileum als hoogleraar aan de Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam en ter gelegenheid van het bereiken van de zeventigjarige leeftijd. Kampen. Kottak, C. P. 2002. Cultural Anthropology. 9th ed. Boston. Krašovec, J. 1995. “Is There A Doctrine of “Collective Retribution” in The Hebrew Bible?” HUCA 65:35–89. Repr. pages 110–159 in Reward, Punishment, and Forgiveness: The Thinking and Beliefs of Ancient Israel in the Light of Greek and Modern Views (VTSup 78). Leiden, 1999. —— 1999. “Punishment and Mercy in the Book of Ezekiel.” Pages 463–483 in Reward, Punishment, and Forgiveness: The Thinking and Beliefs of Ancient Israel in the Light of Greek and Modern Views (VTSup 78). Leiden. Kraus, H.-J. 1982. Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments. 3d ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn. Krüger, T. 1989. Geschichtskonzepte im Ezechielbuch (BZAW 180). Berlin. Kuper, A. 1982. “Lineage Theory: A Critical Retrospect.” Annual Review of Anthropology 11:71–95. Kutsch, E. 1985. Die chronologischen Daten des Ezechielbuches (OBO 62). Freiburg. Kutsko, J. F. 2000. Between Heaven and Earth: Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel (Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of Carolina, San Diego, Volume 7). Winona Lake. Labuschange, C. J. 1973. “The Particles ‫ ֵהן‬and ‫ ִהנֵּ ה‬.” Pages 1–14 in Syntax and Meaning: Studies in Hebrew Syntax and Biblical Exegesis (OtSt 18). Edited by C. J. Labuschagne et al. Leiden. Lalleman-de Winkel, H. 1999. Van levensbelang: De relevantie van de oudtestamentische ethiek (Evangelicale theologie). Zoetermeer. Lamparter, H. 1968. Zum Wächter bestellt: Der Prophet Hesekiel (BAT 21). Stuttgart. Lang, B. 1981a. Ezechiel. Der Prophet und das Buch (EdF 153). Darmstadt. —— 1981b. Kein Aufstand in Jerusalem: Der Politik des Propheten Ezechiel (SBB). 2d ed. Stuttgart. —— 1983. Monotheism and the Prophetic Minority: An Essay in Biblical History and Sociology (SWBAS 1). Bradford-on-Avon. —— 1985. “Introduction: Anthropology as a New Model for Biblical Studies.” Pages 1–20 in Anthropological Approaches to the Old Testament (IRT 8). Edited by B. Lang. Philadelphia. —— 1986. “Street Theater, Raising the Dead, and the Zoroastrian Connection in Ezekiel’s Prophecy.” Pages 297–316 in Ezekiel and his Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation (BETL 74). Edited by J. Lust. Leuven. —— ed. 1985. Anthropological Approaches to the Old Testament (IRT 8). Philadelphia. Lapsley, J. E. 2000a. Can These Bones Live?: The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel (BZAW 301). Berlin. —— 2000b. “Shame and Self-Knowledge: The Positive Role of Shame in Ezekiel’s View of the Moral Self.” Pages 143–173 in The Book of Ezekiel: Theological and Anthropological Perspectives (SBL Symposium Series 9). Edited by M. S. Odell and J. T. Strong. Atlanta. Lattey, C. 1951. “Vicarious Solidarity in the Old Testament.” VT 1:267–274. Leach, E. 1989. “Writing Anthropology” (review of C. Geertz. Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as Author. Stanford, 1988). American Ethnologist 16:137–141. Leene, H. 1996. “Unripe fruit and dull teeth (Jer 31,29; Ez 18,2).” Pages 82–98 in Narrative and Comment: Contributions to Discourse Grammar and Biblical Hebrew, presented to Wolfgang Schneider on the occasion of his retirement as lecturer of Biblical Hebrew at the Theologische Hochschule in Wuppertal. Edited by E. Talstra. Amsterdam.

274

bibliography

Leeuw, V. de. 1956. De Ebed Jahweh-Profetieën: Historisch-kritisch onderzoek naar hun ontstaan en hun betekenis. Assen. Leeuwen, C. van. 1973. “Die Partikel ‫ ִאם‬.” Pages 15–48 in Syntax and Meaning: Studies in Hebrew Syntax and Biblical Exegesis (OtSt 18). Edited by C. J. Labuschagne et al. Leiden. Lemke, W. E. 1984. “Life in the Present and Hope for the Future.” Int 38:165–180. Levey, S. H. 1987. The Targum of Ezekiel: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes (The Aramaic Bible, Volume 13). Edinburgh. Levin, C. 1985. Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt (FRLANT 137). Göttingen. Levitt Kohn, R. 1999. “Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah.” Pages 501–526 in SBL Seminar Papers, 1999 (SBLSP 38). Atlanta. —— 2002a. “A Prophet Like Moses?: Rethinking Ezekiel’s Relationship to the Torah.” ZAW 114:238–254. —— 2002b. A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah (JSOTSup 358). Sheffield. Lévy-Bruhl, L. 1931. La mentalité primitive: The Herbert Spencer Lecture, delivered at Oxford 29 May 1931. Oxford. —— 1938. L’Expérience mystique et les symboles chez les primitifs (Bibliothèque de Philosophie Contemporaine). Paris. —— 1951. Les fonctions mentales dans les sociétés inférieures (Bibliothèque de Philosophie Contemporaine). 9th ed. Paris. —— 1952. “A Letter to E. E. Evans-Pritchard.” British Journal of Sociology 3:117–123. —— 1975. The Notebooks on Primitive Mentality: With a Preface by Maurice Leenhardt (Explorations in Interpretative Sociology). Translated by Peter Rivière. Oxford. Lindars, B. 1965. “Ezekiel and Individual Responsibility.” VT 15:452–467. Lindsay, R. 1977. “Rules as a Bridge between Speech and Action.” Pages 150–173 in Social Rules and Social Behaviour. Edited by P. Collett. Oxford. Lindström, F. 1994. Suffering and Sin: Interpretations of Illness in the Individual Complaint Psalms (ConBOT 37). Stockholm. Liwak, R. 1976. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Probleme des Ezechielbuches: Eine Studie zu postezechielischen Interpretationen und Kompositionen. Bamberg. Löhr, M. 1906. Sozialismus und Individualismus im Alten Testament (BZAW 10). Giessen. Lust, J. 1967. “Ez., XX, 4–26 une parodie de l’histoire religieuse d’Israël.” ETL 43:488–527. —— 1969. Traditie, Redactie en Kerygma bij Ezechiël: Een Analyse van Ez., XX, 1–26 (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Letteren, jaargang 31, nr. 65). Brussels. —— 1986. “The Use of Textual Witnesses for the Establishment of the Text: The Shorter and Longer Texts of Ezekiel: An Example: Ez 7.” Pages 7–20 in Ezekiel and his Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation (BETL 74). Edited by J. Lust. Leuven. —— 1987. “Ezechiël en de zure druiven.” Collationes 17:131–138. —— 1996. “‫ אדני יהוה‬in Ezekiel and its Counterpart in the Old Greek.” ETL 72:138–145. —— 1997a. “«Gathering and Return» in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.” Pages 119–142, 428–430 in Le livre de Jérémie: Le prophète et son milieu: Les oracles et leur transmission (BETL 54). Edited by P.-M. Bogaert. 2d ed. Leuven. —— 1997b. “Ezekiel salutes Isaiah: Ezekiel 20,32–44.” Pages 367–382 in Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken (BETL 132). Edited by J. van Ruiten and M. Vervenne. Leuven. —— 1999. “Exile and Diaspora: Gathering from Dispersion in Ezekiel.” Pages 99–122 in Lectures et relectures de la Bible: Festschrift P.-M. Bogaert (BETL 144). Edited by J.-M. Auwers and A. Wénin. Leuven.

bibliography

275

—— 2008. “The Sour Grapes: Ezek 18.” Pages 223–237 in Scripture in Transition: Essays on Septuagint, Hebrew Bible, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Raija Sollamo (SJSJ 126). Edited by A. Voitila and J. Jokiranta. Leiden. —— ed. 1986. Ezekiel and his Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation (BETL 74). Leuven. Lyon, M. L. 1991. Review of G. Samuel, Mind, body and culture: Anthropology and the biological interface. Cambridge, 1990. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 27:408–410. Maag, V. 1982. Hiob: Wandlungen und Verarbeitung des Problems in Novelle, Dialogdichtung und Spätfassungen (FRLANT 128). Göttingen. Maarsingh, B. 1985. Ezechiël: Deel I (POut). Nijkerk. —— 1988. Ezechiël: Deel II (POut). Nijkerk. —— 1991. Ezechiël: Deel III (POut). Nijkerk. MacIver, R. M. 1970. Community: A Sociological Study: Being an Attempt to Set out the Nature and Fundamental Laws of Social Life: With an new preface by the author. 4th ed. London. Maier, G. 1998. Der Prophet Hesekiel: Kapitel 1–24 (Wuppertaler Studienbibel AT). Wuppertal. Maine, H. 1977. Ancient Law: Introduction by J. H. Morgan (Everyman’s Library). London. Repr. of first edition in Everyman’s Library. London, 1917. Malina, B. J. 1982. “The Social Sciences and Biblical Interpretation.” Int 37:229–242. Manson, T. W. 1948. The Church’s Ministry. London. Martin, J. D. 1991. “Israel as a tribal society.” Pages 95–117 in The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives (Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study). 2d ed. Edited by R. E. Clements. Cambridge. Matties, G. H. 1990. Ezekiel 18 and the Rhetoric of Moral Discourse (SBLDS 126), Atlanta. May, H. G. 1961. “Individual Responsibility and Retribution.” HUCA 32:107–120. Mayes, A. D. H. 1989. The Old Testament in Sociological Perspective. London. McKeating, H. 1995. Ezekiel (OTG). 2d ed. Sheffield. Mehta, D. 1992. Review of G. Samuel, Mind, body and culture: Anthropology and the biological interface. Cambridge, 1990. Contributions to Indian sociology (n.s.) 26:305–306. Mein, A. 2001. Ezekiel and the Ethics of Exile (Oxford Theological Monographs). Oxford. Mendenhall, G. E. 1960. “The Relation of the Individual to Political Society in Ancient Israel.” Pages 89–108 in Biblical Studies in Memory of H. C. Alleman (Gettysburg Theological Studies). Edited by J. M. Myers, O. Reimherr, and H. N. Bream. Locust Valley. Messel, N. 1945. Ezechielfragen (Skrifter utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo. II. Hist.-Filos. Klasse. 1945. No. 1). Oslo. Meuzelaar, J. J. 1961. Der Leib des Messias: Eine exegetische Studie über den Gedanken vom Leib Christi in den Paulusbriefen. Kampen. Repr. Kampen, 1979. Milgrom, J. See Rattray, S., and J. Milgrom. Miller, J. E. 1992. “The Thirtieth Year of Ezekiel 1:1.” RB 99:499–503. Mol, J. F. 2001. Review of J. E. Lapsley, Can These Bones Live?: The Problem of the Moral Self in the Book of Ezekiel (BZAW 301). Berlin, 2000. NedTT 55:156–157. —— 2002. Collectieve en Individuele Verantwoordelijkheid: Een beschrijving van corporate personality naar Ezechiël 18 en 20. Nijega. Privately published. Moore, S. F. 1972. “Legal liability and evolutionary interpretation: some aspects of strict liability, self-help and collective responsibility.” Pages 51–107 in The Allocation of Responsibility. Edited by M. Gluckman. Manchester. Moran, E. F. 1995. “Introduction: Norms for Ethnographic Reporting.” Pages 1–20 in The Comparative Analysis of Human Societies: Toward Common Standards for Data Collection and Reporting. Edited by E. F. Moran. Boulder.

276

bibliography

Morris, B. 1987. Anthropological Studies of Religion: An Introductory Text. Cambridge. Mosis, R. 1978. Das Buch Ezechiel: Teil I Kap. 1,1–20,44 (Geistliche Schriftauslegung 8/1). Düsseldorf. Mulder, M. J. 1973. “Die Partikel ‫יַ ַﬠן‬.” Pages 49–83 in Syntax and Meaning: Studies in Hebrew Syntax and Biblical Exegesis (OtSt 18). Edited by C. J. Labuschagne et al. Leiden. —— 1975. “Ezekiel XX 39 and the Pešit ̣ta Version.” VT 25:233–237. Murphy, L. D. See Erickson, P. A., with L. D. Murphy. Mussner, F. 1981. Der Galaterbrief (HTKNT 9). 4th ed. Freiburg. Nay, R. 1999. Jahwe im Dialog: Kommunikationsanalytische Untersuchung von Ez 14,1–11 unter Berücksichtigung des dialogischen Rahmens in Ez 8–11 und Ez 20 (AnBib 141). Rome. Needham, R. 1972. Belief, Language, and Experience. Oxford. Neef, H.-D. 1999. “Vom Gottesgericht zum universalen Heil.” ZAW 111:530–546. Neumann, P. K. D. 1973. “Das Wort, das geschehen ist ……….: Zum Problem der Wortempfangsterminologie in Jer. I–XXV.” VT 23:171–217. Nielsen, K. See Ringgren, H., and K. Nielsen. Noort, E. 2002. “Genesis 22: Human Sacrifice and Theology in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 1–20 in The Sacrifice of Isaac: The Aqedah (Genesis 22) and its Interpretations (Themes in Biblical Narratives. Jewish and Christian Traditions 4). Edited by E. Noort and E. Tigchelaar. Leiden. North, C. R. 1948. The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah: An Historical and Critical Study. London. Odell, M. S. 1998. “You are what you eat: Ezekiel and the Scroll.” JBL 117:229–248. Ohnesorge, S. 1991. Jahwe gestaltet sein Volk neu: Zur Sicht der Zukunft Israels nach Ez 11, 14–21; 20, 1–44; 36, 16–38; 37, 1–14. 15–28 (FB 64). Würzburg. Oost, R. 1986. Omstreden Bijbeluitleg: Aspecten en achtergronden van de hermeneutische discussie rondom de exegese van het Oude Testament in Nederland: Een bijdrage tot gesprek. Kampen. Osterloh, E. 1939. Die Offenbarung Gottes in der Fremde: Die Botschaft des Buches Ezechiel. Munich. Otto, E. 1994. Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments (Theologische Wissenschaft 3,2). Stuttgart. Overholt, T. 1996. Cultural Anthropology and the Old Testament (GBS, Old Testament Series). Minneapolis. Pareira, B. A. 1975. The Call to Conversion in Ezekiel Exegesis and Biblical-Theology: Exerpta ex dissertatione ad doctoratum in facultate theologiae pontificae universitatis gregorianae. Rome. Patrick, D. 1979. “Political Exegesis.” Pages 139–152 in Encounter with the Text: Form and History in the Hebrew Bible (Semeia Supplements 8). Edited by M. J. Buss. Philadelphia. Patton, C. 1996. “ ‘ I Myself Gave Them Laws that Were Not Good’: Ezekiel 20 and the Exodus Traditions.” JSOT 69:73–90. —— 2000. “Priest, Prophet and Exile: Ezekiel as a Literary Construct.” Pages 700–727 in SBL Seminar Papers, 2000 (SBLSP 39). Atlanta. Payne, E. A. 1946. Henry Wheeler Robinson: Scholar · Teacher · Principal: A Memoir: With Seven Unpublished Lectures by Dr. Wheeler Robinson. London. —— ed. 1942. Studies in History and Religion: Presented to Dr. H. Wheeler Robinson, M.A., on his seventieth birthday. London. Pedersen, J. 1926. Israel: Its Life and Culture I–II. London. Repr. London, 1946. Perdue, L. G. 1997. “The Household, Old Testament Theology, and Contemporary Hermeneutics.” Pages 223–257 in Families in Ancient Israel (The Family, Religion, and Culture). Edited by L. G. Perdue et al. Louisville.

bibliography

277

Perlitt, L. 1972. “Anklage und Freispruch Gottes: Theologische Motive in der Zeit des Exils.” ZTK 69:290–303. Pleins, J. D. 2001. The Social Visions of the Hebrew Bible: A Theological Introduction. Louisville. Podach, E. F. 1951. “Zum Abschluß von L. Lévy-Bruhls Theorie über die Mentalität der Primitiven.” Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 76:42–49. Pohlmann, K.-F. 1992. Ezechielstudien: Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Buches und zur Frage nach den ältesten Texten (BZAW 202). Berlin. —— 1996. Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel): Kapitel 1–19 (ATD 22/1). Göttingen. —— 2001. Das Buch des Propheten Hesekiel (Ezechiel): Kapitel 20–48 (ATD 22/2). Göttingen. —— 2006. “Forschung am Ezechielbuch 1969–2004.” ThR 71:60–90, 164–191, 265– 309. Pola, T. 1995. Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift. Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von Pg (WMANT 70). Neukirchen-Vluyn. Pons, J. 1986. “Le vocabulaire d’Ézéchiel 20: Le prophète s’oppose à la vision deutéronomiste de l’histoire.” Pages 214–233 in Ezekiel and his Book: Textual and Literary Criticism and their Interrelation (BETL 74). Edited by J. Lust. Leuven. Porteous, N. W. 1938. “Prophecy.” Pages 216–249 in Record and Revelation: Essays on the Old Testament by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study. Edited by H. Wheeler Robinson. Oxford. Porter, J. R. 1965. “The Legal Aspects of the Concept of „Corporate Personality” in the Old Testament.” VT 15:361–380. Powers, D. G. 2001. Salvation through Participation: An Examination of the Notion of the Believers’ Corporate Unity with Christ in Early Christian Soteriology. Leiden. Premstaller, V. 2004. “Ez 20,5–9: Der Exodus im Dunkel des Exils.” Pages 55–60 in Führe mein Volk heraus: Zur innerbiblischen Rezeption der Exodusthematik: Festschrift für Georg Fischer. Edited by S. Paganini, C. Paganini and D. Markl. Frankfurt am Mein. Rad, G. von. 1964. Das fünfte Buch Mose: Deuteronomium (ATD 8). Göttingen. —— 1984. Theologie des Alten Testaments: Band II Die Theologie der prophetischen Überlieferungen Israels. 8th ed. Munich. Radin, P. 1960. The World of Primitive Man. New York. Rahlfs, A., ed. 1979. Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graeca iuxta lxx interpretes: Editio minor: Duo volumina in uno. Stuttgart. Raitt, T. M. 1977. A Theology of Exile: Judgment/Deliverance in Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Philadelphia. Rankin, O. S. 1969. Israel’s Wisdom Literature: Its Bearing on Theology and the History of Religion. New York. Redford, D. B. See Freedy, K. S., and D. B. Redford. Reindl, J. 1987. “Zwischen Gericht und Heil: Zum Verständnis der Prophetie Ezechiels.” Pages 58–90 in Zwischen Gericht und Heil: Studien zur alttestamentlichen Prophetie im 7. und 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr.: Im Auftrag der Alttestamentlichen Arbeitsgemeinschaft in der DDR. Edited by G. Wallis. Berlin. Renz, T. 1999. The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel (VTSup 76). Leiden. Reventlow, H. G. 1962. Wächter über Israel: Ezechiel und seine Tradition (BZAW 82). Berlin. —— 1999. “Ezechiel 18,1–20: Eine mutmachende prophetische Botschaft für unsere Zeit.” Pages 155–165 in Recht und Ethos im Alten Testament—Gestalt und Wirkung: Festschrift für Horst Seebass zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by S. Beyerle, G. Mayer, and H. Strauss. Neukirchen-Vluyn. Richter, H.-F. 2007. “Schädliche Gesetze Gottes? (Zu Ez 20,25–26).” ZAW 119:616–617.

278

bibliography

Ridderbos, H. 1978. Paulus: Ontwerp van zijn theologie. 4th ed. Kampen. Robinson, H. Wheeler. 1923. “The Psychology and Metaphysic of “Thus saith Yahweh”: (A Paper read before the Society for Old Testament Study, meeting in London, January 3rd, 1923).” ZAW 41:1–15. —— 1925. “Hebrew Psychology.” Pages 353–382 in The People and the Book: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study. Edited by A. S. Peake. Oxford. —— 1936. “The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality.” Pages 49–62 in Werden und Wesen des Alten Testaments: Vorträge gehalten auf der internationalen Tagung alttestamentlicher Forscher zu Göttingen vom 4.–10. September 1935 (BZAW 66). Edited by P. Volz, F. Stummer, and J. Hempel. Berlin. —— 1937. “The Group and the Individual.” Pages 152–170 in The Individual in East and West. Edited by E. R. Hughes. London. —— 1938. “The Theology of the Old Testament.” Pages 303–348 in Record and Revelation: Essays on the Old Testament by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study. Edited by H. Wheeler Robinson. Oxford. —— 1944. Redemption and Revelation in the Actuality of History (The Library of Constructive Theology). 3d ed. London. —— 1946. Inspiration and Revelation in the Old Testament. Oxford. —— 1947a. The Christian Doctrine of Man. 3d ed. Edinburgh. —— 1947b. The Christian Experience of the Holy Spirit (The Library of Constructive Theology). London. —— 1948. Two Hebrew Prophets. Studies in Hosea and Ezekiel. London. —— 1949. The Old Testament. Its Making and Meaning (The London Theological Library). London. —— 1956. The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament (Studies in Theology 24). 2d ed. Revised by L. H. Brockington. London. —— 1964. The History of Israel. Its Facts and Factors (Studies in Theology 42). 2d ed. Revised by L. H. Brockington. London. —— 1965. “The Cross of the Servant.” Pages 59–114 in H. Wheeler Robinson. The Cross in the Old Testament. 4th ed. London. —— 1981. Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel. 2d ed. Edinburg. —— ed. 1938. Record and Revelation: Essays on the Old Testament by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study. Oxford. Rogerson, J. W. 1970. “The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality: A Reexamination.” JTS (N.S.) 21:1–16. —— 1978. Anthropology and the Old Testament. Oxford. —— 1985. “The Use of Sociology in Old Testament Studies.” Pages 245–256 in Congress Volume: Salamanca 1983 (VTSup 36). Edited by J. A. Emerton et al. Leiden. —— 1991. “Anthropology and the Old Testament.” Pages 17–37 in The World of Ancient Israel: Sociological, Anthropological and Political Perspectives (Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study). Edited by R. E. Clements. 2d ed. Cambridge. Rom-Shiloni, D. 2005. “Facing Destruction an Exile: Inner Biblical Exegesis in Jeremiah and Ezekiel.” ZAW 117:189–205. Rösel, M. 2000. Adonaj—warum Gott ,Herr‘ genannt wird (FAT 29). Tübingen. Rost, L. 1974. “Die Schuld der Väter.” Pages 66–71 in L. Rost. Studien zum Alten Testament (BWANT 101). Stuttgart. Repr. from pages 229–233 in Solange es “Heute” heißt: Festgabe für Rudolf Hermann zum 70. Geburtstag. Edited by P. Althaus. Berlin, 1957. Roukema-Koning, B. 2002. “Het sociaal constructionisme en zijn meta-theoretische betekenis voor de theologie.” NedTT 56:48–64. Rowley, H. H. 1956. The Faith of Israel: Aspects of Old Testament Thought: The James Sprunt Lectures delivered at Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, Virginia, 1955. London. —— 1967. Worship in Ancient Israel. Its Forms and Meaning. London.

bibliography

279

Rubinstein, R. A. 1992. Review of G. Samuel, Mind, body and culture: Anthropology and the biological interface. Cambridge, 1990. The American Anthropologist 94:193–194. Russell, D. S. 1964. The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic: 200 B.C.–A.D. 100 (OTL). London. Sakenfeld, K. D. 1978. “Ezekiel 18:25–32.” Int 32:295–300. Samuel, G. 1990. Mind, body and culture: Anthropology and the biological interface. Cambridge. Scatolini, S. S. 2003. “‫‘—על־אדמת ישׂראל‬al ’admat yiśrā’ēl—in Ezek 12,22, 18,2 and 33,24.” ETL 79:403–422. Scharbert, J. 1958. Solidarität in Segen und Fluch im Alten Testament und in seiner Umwelt: I: Väterfluch und Vätersegen (BBB 14). Bonn. —— 1982. “Beyt ’ab als soziologische Grösse im Alten Testament.” Pages 213–237 in Von Kanaan bis Kerala: Festschrift für Prof.Dr.Dr. J. P. M. van der Ploeg O.P. zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres am 4. Juli 1979: Überreicht von Kollegen, Freunden und Schülern (AOAT 211). Edited by W. C. Delsman, J. T. Nelis, J. R. T. M. Peters, W. H. Ph. Römer, and A. S. van der Woude. Kevelaer. Schenker, A. 1981. “Saure Trauben ohne stumpfe Zaehne: Bedeutung und Tragweite von Ez 18 und 33.10–20 oder ein Kapitel alttestamentlicher Moraltheologie.” Pages 449–470 in Mélanges Dominique Barthélemy (OBO 38). Edited by P. Casetti, O. Keel, and A. Schenker. Freiburg. Schmid, K. 1999. “Kollektivschuld?: Der Gedanke übergreifender Schuldzusammenhänge im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient.” ZABR 5:193–222. Schöpflin, K. 2002. “‫— ָמ ָשׁל‬ein eigentümlicher Begriff der hebräischen Literatur.” BZ 46:1–24. —— 2006. “Ezechiel—das Buch eines Visionärs und Theologen.” BN (NF) 130:17–29. Schuman, N. 1993. Gelijk om gelijk: Verslag en balans van een discussie over goddelijke vergelding in het Oude Testament. Amsterdam. Schwartz, B. J. 1994. “Repentance and Determinism in Ezekiel.” Pages 123–130 in Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies: Jerusalem, June 22–29, 1993: Division A, The Bible and its World. Jerusalem. Sedlmeier, F. 1990. Studien zu Komposition und Theologie von Ezechiel 20 (SBB 21). Stuttgart. —— 2002. Das Buch Ezechiel: Kapitel 1–24 (NSK-AT 21/1). Stuttgart. Seidl, T. 1979. “Die Wortereignisformel in Jeremia: Beobachtungen zu den Formen der Redeeröffnung in Jeremia, im Anschluß an Jer 27, 1. 2.” BZ (N.F.) 23:20–47. Shedd, R. P. 1958. Man in Community: A Study of St. Paul’s Application of Old Testament and Early Jewish Conceptions of Human Solidarity. London. Smend, R. 1880. Der Prophet Ezechiel (KeH 8). 2d ed. Leipzig. Smith, D. L. 1989. The Religion of the Landless: The Social Context of the Babylonian Exile. Bloomington. Smith, J. Z. 1978. Map is not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions (SJLA 23). Leiden. Sneed, M. 1999. “A Middle Class in Ancient Israel?” Pages 53–69 in Concepts of Class in Ancient Israel (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaim 201. The Hebrew Scriptures and Their World). Edited by M. R. Sneed. Atlanta. Sperber, A. 1962. The Bible in Aramaic: Volume III, The Latter Prophets according to Targum Jonathan. Leiden. Sprinkle, P. 2007. “Law and Life: Leviticus 18.5 in the Literary Framework of Ezekiel.” JSOT 31:275–293. Stager, L. E. 1985. “The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel.” BASOR 260:1–35. Strack, H. L., and P. Billerbeck. 1986. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vols. 9 th ed. Munich.

280

bibliography

Stuart, D. 1988. Ezekiel (MOT 18). Dallas. Sweeney, M. A. 2000. “Ezekiel: Zadokite Priest and Visionary Prophet of Exile.” Pages 728–751 in SBL Seminar Papers, 2000 (SBLSP 39). Atlanta. Talmon, S. 1978. “The “comparative method” in biblical interpretation—principles and problems.” Pages 320–356 in Congress Volume: Göttingen 1977 (VTSup 29). Edited by J. A. Emerton et al. Leiden. —— 1987. “Har and Midbar: An Antithetical Pair of Biblical Motifs.” Pages 117–142 in Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East. Edited by M. Mindlin, M. J. Geller, and J. E. Wansbrough. London. Taylor, J. B. 1969. Ezekiel: An introduction and commentary (TOTC). Leicester. Thompson, T. L. 1992. Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and Archaeological Sources (SHANE 4). Leiden. Toorn, K. van der. 1996. Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life (SHCANE 7). Leiden. Torrey, C. C. 1930. Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy (YOSR 18). New Haven. —— 1970. Pseudo-Ezekiel and the Original Prophecy: Critical Articles by Shalom Spiegel and Charles Cutler Torrey: Prolegomenon by Moshe Greenberg (LBS). New York. Turner, V. W. 1964. Schism and Continuity in an African Society: A Study of Ndembu Village Life. 2d ed. Manchester. —— 1974. The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. 3d ed. Ithaca. —— 1968. The Drums of Affliction: A Study of Religious Processes among the Ndembu of Zambia. Oxford. —— 1975. Revelation and Divination in Ndembu Ritual (Symbol, Myth, and Ritual). Ithaca. —— 1985. On the Edge of the Bush: Anthropology as Experience (The Anthropology of Form and Meaning). Edited by E. L. B. Turner. Tucson. Uffenheimer, B. 1992. “Theodicy and Ethics in the Prophecy of Ezekiel.” Pages 200–227 in Justice and Righteousness: Biblical Themes and their Influence (JSOTSup37). Edited by H. G. Reventlow and Y. Hoffman. Sheffield. Utzschneider, H. 1996. “Text—Reader—Author. Towards a Theory of Exegesis: Some European Viewpoints.” JHS 1:article 1 (22 pages). Online: http://www.arts.ualberta .ca/JHS/Articles/article1.pdf. Van Seters, J. 1999. “In the Babylonian Exile with J: Between Judgment in Ezekiel and Salvation in Second Isaiah.” Pages 71–89 in The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times (OtSt 42). Edited by B. Becking and M. C. A. Korpel. Leiden. Vaughan, P. H. 1974. The Meaning of ‘bamâ’ in the Old Testament: A Study of Etymological, Textual and Archaeological Evidence (SOTSMS 3). Cambridge. Vawter, B., and L. J. Hoppe. 1991. A New Heart: A Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel (ITC). Grand Rapids. Veldkamp, H. 1940. De profeet Ezechiël: Deel I: hoofdstukken 1–24 (De Bijbel toegelicht voor het Nederlandsche volk). Kampen. —— 1941. De profeet Ezechiël: Deel II: hoofdstukken 25–48 (De Bijbel toegelicht voor het Nederlandsche volk). Kampen. Verdam, P. J. 1949. “«On ne fera point mourir les enfants pour les pères» en droit biblique.” RIDA 3:393–416. Viberg, Å., 1992. Symbols of Law: A Contextual Analysis of Legal Symbolic Acts in the Old Testament (ConBOT 34). Stockholm. Victor, P. 1965. “A Note on ‫ חֹק‬in the Old Testament.” VT 15:358–361. Vogt, E. 1981. Untersuchungen zum Buch Ezechiel (AnBib 95). Rome. Vriezen, Th. C. 1949. Hoofdlijnen der Theologie van het Oude Testament. Wageningen. —— 1954. Hoofdlijnen der Theologie van het Oude Testament. 2d ed. Wageningen. —— 1966. Hoofdlijnen der Theologie van het Oude Testament. 3d ed. Wageningen.

bibliography

281

—— 1974. Hoofdlijnen der Theologie van het Oude Testament. 4th ed. Wageningen. —— 1977. Hoofdlijnen der Theologie van het Oude Testament. 5th ed. Wageningen. Watson, C. W., ed. 1999. Being There: Fieldwork in Anthropology (Anthropology, Culture and Society). London. Weber, R., ed. 1975. Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem: Adiuvantibus B. Fischer OSB, J. Gribomont OSB, H. F. D. Sparks, W. Thiele: Recensuit et brevi apparatu instruxit R. Weber OSB, editio altera emendata Tomus II. 2d ed. Stuttgart. Weisman, Z. 1981. “The Nature and Background of baḥur in the Old Testament.” VT 31:441–450. Westbrook, R. 1991. Property and the Family in Biblical Law (JSOTSup 113). Sheffield. Wevers, J. H. 1982. Ezekiel (NCB). Grand Rapids. Willoughby, B. E. See Freedman, D. N., and B. E. Willoughby. Wilson, P. J. 1992. Review of G. Samuel, Mind, body and culture: Anthropology and the biological interface. Cambridge, 1990. Oceania: A Journal devoted to the Study of the Native Peoples of Australia, New Guinea and the Islands of the Pacific Ocean 62:158–160. Wilson, R. R. 1984a. “Prophecy in Crisis: The Call of Ezekiel.” Int 38:117–130. —— 1984b. Sociological Approaches to the Old Testament (GBS, Old Testament Series). Philadelphia. Wolff, H. W. 1973. Anthropologie des Alten Testaments. Munich. Wong, K. L. 2001. The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel (VTSup 87). Leiden. Wright, C. J. H. 2001. The Message of Ezekiel: A new heart and a new spirit (BST-OT). Leicester. York, A. D. 1977. “Ezekiel I: Inaugural and Restoration Visions?” VT 27:82–98. Ziegler, J. 1948. Ezechiel (EB 6). Würzburg. —— ed. 1977. Ezechiel: Mit einem Nachtrag von Detlef Fraenkel (SEPTUAGINTA, Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, vol. XVI, pars 1 Ezechiel). 2d ed. Göttingen. Zimmerli, W. 1954. “Die Eigenart der prophetischen Rede des Ezechiels: Ein Beitrag zum Problem an Hand vom Ez. 14 1–11.” ZAW 66:1–26. —— 1958. “Israel im Ezechielbuch.” VT 8:75–90. —— 1969a. Ezechiel: 1. Teilband Ezechiel 1–24 (BKAT 13/1). Neukirchen-Vluyn. —— 1969b. Ezechiel: 2. Teilband Ezechiel 25–48 (BKAT 13/2). Neukirchen-Vluyn. Zyl, A. H. van. 1961. “Solidarity and Individualism in Ezekiel.” Pages 38–52 in Studies on the Book of Ezekiel: Papers read at 4th meeting held at Bloemfontein 31 January–3 February 1961 (OTSWA 4). Edited by A. H. van Zyl. Pretoria.

AUTHOR INDEX Aalders, G. C. 20, 27, 28, 30, 61, 65, 164 Adamiak, R. 172, 231 Alaribe, G. N. 19 Albertz, R. 9, 239, 241, 247 Allen, L. C. 23–26, 28, 29, 33, 36, 38, 54, 56, 57, 59, 62, 64–66, 71, 72, 78, 88, 89, 96, 97, 100, 164, 231 Andersen, F. I. 240 Anderson, B. W. 176, 177 Anderson, G. W. 178, 179 André, G. 48 Andrew, M. E. 224, 231 Aulén, G. 153, 154 Auvray, P. 164 Baltzer, D. 231 Bardtke, H. 164 Barnard, A. 199, 200, 203 Bartelmus, R. 88, 164 Barthélemy, D. 13 Barton, J. 227 Baumgärtel, F. 210 Beauchamp, P. 165 Becker, J. 4–7, 88, 164, 222 Becking, B. 225 Beecher, W. J. 167 Beentjes, P. C. 80 Bendor, S. 239–245, 247, 249 Ben-Ḥ ayyim, Z. 62 Berger, B. 128 Berger, P. L. 128 Bergsma, J. S. 56, 234 Berquist, J. L. 215, 224, 227, 230, 239, 242 Bertholet, A. 49, 50, 57, 64, 99 Best, E. 183 Beuken, W. A. M. 88, 89, 231, 233 Beyse, K.-M. 76 Billerbeck, P. 32 Birnbaum, N. 127 Blenkinsopp, J. 73, 164 Block, D. I. 73, 88, 89, 106, 164, 230, 234, 237, 239 Boadt, L. 5, 9, 19, 72, 237 Bodi, D. 22, 48, 75 Boer, P. A. H. de 58

Born, A. van den 164 Bradburd, D. 200 Brandenburger, H. 164 Braulik, G. 211 Brody, E. B. 250 Brownlee, W. H. 164 Bruce, F. F. 186 Brunner, R. 164 Buber, M. 63 Bückers, H. 211 Budde, K. 112 Calès, J. 210 Carter, C. E. 225 Cazeneuve, J. 197, 198 Childs, B. S. 3, 7 Clements, R. E. 7–11, 107, 164, 231 Cohen, M. 32, 66 Conzelmann, H. 165, 184, 185 Cook, S. A. 120, 121, 126, 132, 188 Cooke, G. A. 18, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 34, 35, 38, 45, 50, 52, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 63–65, 164, 235 Cooper, Sr., L. E. 73, 164, 181, 182 Craigie, P. C. 164 Crenshaw, J. L. 215, 225 Croft, S. J. L. 163 Cullmann, C. 167 Darr, K. P. 3, 218, 227, 233, 234 Daube, D. 190, 220 Davidson, A. B. 140 Deist, F. E. 239, 241, 252 Dever, W. G. 224, 225 Devita, P. R. 200 De Vries, S. J. 7 Di Vito, R. A. 187, 207, 244 Dijkstra, M. 9, 26, 72, 88, 164, 231 Doughty, C. M. 126, 140, 146, 191 Douglas, M. 194, 196, 203 Drewermann, E. 204, 205, 212, 224, 256, 260 Duhm, B. 166 Duin, C. van 163 Durkheim, E. 125–128, 130, 133, 139, 144, 146, 207 Dussel, E. 167

284

author index

Eberharter, A. 211 Eichrodt, W. 151, 164, 210 Eilberg-Schwartz, H. 200–202, 204, 206 Eissfeldt, O. 119, 125, 126, 128, 166, 167 Elliger, K. 13, 18–20, 22–25, 30, 33, 34, 38, 45, 52, 54 Ellis, E. E. 165 Erickson, P. A. 203 Eslinger, L. 87, 88, 101, 230, 233 Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 193, 194, 197, 201–207 Eysink, R. 196, 197, 200, 201, 203 Faust, A. 224, 239 Feist, U. 3–6 Festorazzi, F. 167 Fiensy, D. 203 Finegan, J. 71 Finnegan, R. 203 Finsterbusch, K. 56, 234 Fisch, S. 36, 38, 164 Fish, S. E. 241 Fishbane, M. 214, 222, 233–235 Fohrer, G. 3, 60, 64, 65, 78, 88, 99, 101, 164, 210, 226 Fraine, J. de 177, 178, 185, 186, 194 Franken, H. J. 167, 168 Frazer, J. G. 201 Freedman, D. N. 32, 48 Freedy, K. S. 71 Fuhs, H. F. 29, 70, 164, 226 Galling, K. 157 Garscha, J. 5–7 Geertz, C. 201, 253 Gergen, K. J. 249, 253 Geus, C. H. J. de 240, 242 Geyer, J. B. 227 Gill, R. B. 241 Gillen, F. J. 130, 133 Gnilka, J. 185, 186 Gölz, F. 196, 197, 199–201, 204, 206, 250 Goshen-Gottstein, M. H. 54 Gosse, B. 73, 94 Gottwald, N. K. 239 Graffy, A. 78, 231 Gray, G. B. 88, 112 Greenberg, M. 4–8, 17, 18, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28–32, 37, 47, 54, 58, 62, 63, 65, 66, 69, 72, 76, 78, 79, 83, 88–90, 99, 164, 220, 221, 223, 225, 230

Gross, W. 216 Gruenthaner, M. J. 220, 227 Gundry, R. H. 176, 183 Gunkel, H. 120 Gunning JHz., J. H. 210 Haag, H. 166, 167 Hahn, S. W. 56, 234 Hallpike, C. R. 202, 204, 206, 250 Halperin, D. J. 5 Halpern, B. 174, 212, 224, 260 Hals, R. M. 70, 71, 74–76, 78, 79, 88, 99, 214, 237 Harland, P. J. 25 Harvey, J. 210 Hattori, Y. 233 Hehn, J. 211 Heider, G. C. 234 Helfmeyer, F. J. 49, 51, 52 Hempel, J. 211, 212 Hengel, M. 167 Hermisson, H.-J. 167 Herrmann, J. 3, 5 Herzog, P. 244 Herzog, Z. 224 Heschel, A. J. 153 Hitzig, F. 23, 64 Hölscher, G. 3, 5 Hoppe, L. J. 73, 164 Horst, P. W. van der 234 Horton, R. 197, 203, 207 Hossfeld, F.(-L.) 4, 9, 17, 74–76 Houtman, C. 175, 243 Hunt, R. C. 201 Hurvitz, A. 9 Janowski, B. 167 Johnson, A. R. 168, 170, 175–177, 181–183, 185, 194 Jong, M. J. de 6 Joyce, P. M. 5–7, 10, 11, 69, 70, 164, 210–212, 214, 220–222, 226, 230, 232, 233, 235, 236, 243, 260 Jung, C. G. 196 Junker, H. 226 Jurgens, H. W. 250 Kaiser, Jr., W. C. 164, 181, 182, 211 Kaminsky, J. S. 173, 188, 189, 197, 199, 204–206, 212, 214, 217, 220, 222, 232, 233, 235–238 Kapelrud, A. S. 127 Käsemann, E. 165, 185 Keesing, R. M. 195, 199, 254

author index Kessler, R. 226 Kilpp, N. 226 Kimḥi 63 Klein, R. W. 214, 231 Kloos, P. 199–201, 239 Knoblauch, H. 127 Knohl, I. 9 Köbben, A. J. F. 205 Koch, K. 58, 172, 173, 178 Koole, J. L. 238, 248 Kottak, C. P. 239 Kraetzschmar, R. 4 Krašovec, J. 212, 226, 227, 260 Kraus, H.-J. 127, 163 Krüger, T. 5, 6, 64, 70, 78, 83, 86, 88, 90, 106, 226, 230, 231, 233, 234 Kuper, A. 203 Kutsch, E. 71 Kutsko, J. F. 3 Labuschagne, C. J. 21 Lalleman-de Winkel, H. 164, 173, 174 Lamparter, H. 164 Lang, B. 2–4, 74, 75, 187, 204, 206 Lanczkowski, G. 127 Lapsley, J. E. 210, 211, 213–217, 222, 223, 234, 236, 237, 243, 260 Lattey, C. 172, 227 Leach, E. 200 Leene, H. 225, 227 Leeuw, V. de 167 Leeuwen, C. van 20 Leibniz, G. W. 209 Lemke, W. E. 214, 227 Lennox, R. 167 Levey, S. H. 63, 233 Levin, C. 211, 212, 220, 226 Levitt Kohn, R. 9 Lévy-Bruhl, L. 2, 118, 125–128, 130, 133, 134, 139, 144, 146, 147, 193–207, 247, 250, 258 Lindars, B. 211, 212, 219–221 Lindsay, R. 241 Lindström, F. 168–170, 174 Liwak, R. 47, 88, 230 Löhr, M. 211 Lust, J. 3, 5, 9, 19, 88, 100, 101, 222, 230, 233 Lyon, M. L. 250 Maag, V. 211 Maarsingh, B. 78, 181 MacIver, R. M. 130, 136 Maier, G. 88, 164, 230

285

Maine, H. 129, 130, 191–193 Malina, B. J. 205, 206 Malinowski, B. 199, 200 Manson, T. W. 183 Martin, J. D. 239 Matties, G. H. 9, 78, 79, 86, 182, 210–212, 214, 222, 237, 239, 241, 243, 244, 260, 261 May, H. G. 211 Mayes, A. D. H. 196, 205, 206, 244 McKeating, H. 71 Mehta, D. 250 Mein, A. 4, 5, 7, 215, 216, 222–224, 226, 230, 233, 239 Mendenhall, G. E. 187, 188, 191 Messel, N. 88 Meuzelaar, J. J. 165, 182, 183 Milgrom, J. 66 Miller, J. E. 72 Mol, J. F. 7, 215 Moore, S. F. 243, 245 Moran, E. F. 200, 201 Morris, B. 196, 197, 202, 203 Mosis, R. 164 Mowinckel, S. 166 Mozley, J. B. 129, 191 Mulder, M. J. 64, 95 Müller, E. W. 125, 127 Mussner, F. 186 Nay, R. 106, 230, 231 Needham, R. 197, 206 Neef, H.-D. 70 Neumann, P. K. D. 17, 74 Niehr, H. 61 Nielsen, K. 101 Nöldeke, T. 112 Noort, E. 234 North, C. R. 165, 166 Odell, M. S. 72 Ohnesorge, S. 88, 230 Oost, R. 69 Osterloh, E. 164 Otto, E. 239, 240, 244 Overholt, T. 204, 249 Pareira, B. A. 88, 89, 213 Patrick, D. 241 Patton, C. 222, 223 Payne, E. A. 111, 113, 114 Pedersen, J. 117, 125–128, 130, 133, 135, 136, 138, 139, 144, 163, 173, 177, 258

286

author index

Perdue, L. G. 174, 179, 239 Perlitt, L. 227 Piaget, J. 204 Pleins, J. D. 227 Plöger, J. G. 18 Podach, E. F. 195 Pohlmann, K.-F. 3, 5, 73, 106, 164, 227, 233 Pola, T. 88, 99, 106, 230 Pons, J. 230 Porteous, N. W. 153 Porter, J. R. 187–191, 193, 194, 198, 199, 203, 220, 258, 259 Powers, D. G. 204 Premstaller, V. 230 Preuss, H. D. 22, 46 Rad, G. von 210 Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. 199 Radin, P. 196 Rahlfs, A. 18 Raitt, T. M. 217 Rankin, O. S. 244 Rashi 63 Rattray, S. 66 Redford, D. B. 71 Reindl, J. 226 Renz, T. 5, 7, 9, 10, 64, 70, 72, 73, 222, 227, 230, 237 Reumann, J. 111, 114, 162, 163 Reventlow, H. G. 78, 87, 227 Richter, H.-F. 56, 234 Ridderbos, H. 165, 183, 184 Ringgren, H. 32, 53, 101 Robinson, H. Wheeler 1, 70, 107, 111–171, 173–183, 185, 186, 188, 189, 191–193, 195–199, 203–205, 207, 210, 238, 246–249, 258, 259, 261, 262 Robinson, T. H. 126 Rodd, C. S. 162, 163 Rogerson, J. W. 2, 130, 169, 181, 187–199, 202–206, 238, 246, 249, 250, 258, 259, 263 Rom-Shiloni, D. 88, 101 Rösel, M. 5, 13, 19, 35, 54 Rost, L. 226 Roukema-Koning, B. 249, 251–253 Rowley, H. H. 194, 211, 212 Rubinstein, R. A. 250 Russell, D. S. 194 Sakenfeld, K. D. 227 Samuel, G. 244, 249–256, 259, 262 Scatolini, S. S. 19 Scharbert, J. 164, 170–173, 210, 239, 240

Schenker, A. 78, 218, 226, 227 Schmid, K. 211, 220, 221, 226 Schöpflin, K. 9, 76 Schrödinger, E. 251 Schuman, N. 172–174, 178, 223 Schunk, K.-D. 101 Schwartz, B. J. 215, 260 Sedlmeier, F. 88, 89, 95–102, 164, 230, 231, 236, 237 Seebass, H. 46 Seidl, T. 17, 74 Shedd, R. P. 165, 194 Smend, R. 2, 3 Smith, D. L. 224, 239 Smith, J. Z. 197, 202 Sneed, M. 224 Soggin, J. A. 167 Spencer, B. 130, 133 Sperber, A. 62, 233 Sprinkle, P. 234, 236 Spronk, K. 13 Stager, L. E. 240 Stolz, F. 58 Strack, H. L. 32 Strathern, A. J. 195, 199, 254 Stuart, D. 73, 180 Stuhlmueller, C. 167 Sweeney, M. A. 219 Talmon, S. 29, 105, 205 Taylor, J. B. 180, 181 Thompson, T. L. 224 Thornton, L. S. 183 Toorn, K. van der 240 Torrey, C. C. 4 Tournay, R. 167 Turner, V. (W.) 254 Uffenheimer, B. 215, 230, 236, 260 Utzschneider, H. 69 Van Seters, J. 9 Vaughan, P. H. 59 Vawter, B. 73, 164 Veldkamp, H. 164 Verdam, P. J. 220, 221 Viberg, Å. 47 Victor, P. 53 Vogt, E. 86 Vriezen, Th. C. 170, 171, 174, 181 Watson, C. W. 200 Weber, R. 23 Weisman, Z. 62 Westbrook, R. 239

author index Westermann, C. 127 Wevers, J. W. 164, 236 Willoughby, B. E. 32 Wilson, P. J. 72, 250 Wilson, R. R. 204 Wolff, H. W. 176 Wong, K. L. 222, 223, 227, 230, 231, 235 Wright, C. J. H. 164, 173, 211

York, A. D.

287 72

Ziegler, J. 18, 164 Zimmerli, W. 3–5, 8, 9, 17–19, 22–28, 30, 32, 34–36, 38, 39, 46, 50, 51, 54, 56, 57, 59, 61–66, 72, 78, 88, 99, 164, 174, 221, 230, 231, 238 Zyl, A. H. van 170, 227