|
0. Introduction
One of the most fatal errors of theologians, at least in the Western
hemisphere, has been a greatly exaggerated confidence to be in
possession of absolute truth, and nothing but the truth, to the
exclusion of every and all divergent theological concepts. This
kind of certitude may be found already in some biblical writings,
and even in some ancient Near Eastern documents long before Israel
came into being. It does seem to correspond to an indominable
desire of the human mind to be perfect, to be like God, to act
like God, to transcend the limits of transiency and relativity.
In fact, much of theological reasoning and confessional boldness
does give the impression, as if theologians were majority shareholders
of the divine estates, or private secretaries in the heavenly
palaces, or butlers of His or Her majesty who selflessly pursue
nothing but their royal duties.
Circumstances and realities, however, are not supporting those
lofty arrogations. We are living in a transient world, our bodies,
minds and capacities are not of the eternal fibre we wished they
would be. Even if pure divine actions and words neatly descended
into our realms of time and space they surely would become flesh
and eventually turn stale and decay, like the manna of Ex 16,
under the attempts of conservation, formalization, and manipulation.
Theology in itself is a thoroughly transient science; God-talk
is a precarious affair, the words must not be bottled or put into
cans. Leaving aside idealistic patterns of thinking, that is,
our customary division of transcendence and immanence, we come
to the same conclusions when arguing within other philosophical
systems. There is no tangible eternal world within our reach,
nor any unalterable meaning. We are constantly involved in the
search for fundamentals, but we do never possess them. My experience
as a pastor and teacher of the Bible informs me this way. The
presence of God, of healing, goodness and salvation are real in
faith and hope, but elusive as far as our temporary structures
and realities are concerned. Theology, therefore, does occur not
outside but completely within the parameters of transiency and
relativity. It is, in its innermost substance, nothing but a stammering
effort to point towards that depth and immutability, which we
surmise, but are unable to grasp. And, strange as it may seem,
more than that enduring stableness and unchangeble validity, Biblical
wittnesses do teach that very transience, contextuality, pluralism
of human theological insights. - A brief survey of concomitant
as well as successive models of faith in the Hebrew Scriptures
is to follow. To some extent these paradigms are tied to clearly
recognizable social organizations.
1. Family and clan-religion.
For endless milleniums human beings lived exclusively in small
wandering bands, gathering foodstuffs, hunting game, moving on,
when ressources failed. The experience of these immense periods
of life in primary or kinship-groups is deeply entrenched in collective
memory, perhaps even fixed in genetic structures. Until the dawn
of most recent history - about ten thousand years ago - there
effectively were not in existence larger social organizations
than these archaic and archetypical hords of humans, numbering
perhaps 20 or 30 individuals, forming a tightly knit social unit
of interdependent parts. The survival of all could be achieved
only by favorable living conditions, and - most of all - by close
cooperation and solidarity among the members of the group. Isolation
from the gang was dangerous. Remember that bronze-age man, found
recently in the Alps (we call him "Össi") with
a flesh in his body. Lack of ressources or internal rivalry would
split bands, as we see in the story of Lot and Abraham (Gen 13:1-12).
The age-old mentality of small-group-life has modelled human minds
up or down to our own times, although family structures have changed
radically under the onslaught of industrial ways of production.
Influential modern ideas of exclusively individual happiness still
today are competing with that primeval longing for human warmth
in a closed group situation.
Given these circumstances it is small wonder, indeed, that the
original living conditions did shape, to a large extent, not only
mental frames and world views of emerging humankind, but also
its religious beliefs. More astonished we may be at the Bible's
sober acknowledgement of this fact. The oldest stories about the
wandering fathers and mothers in faith tell about specific religious
experiences and theological conceptions, not easily to be compared
with later encounters of Yahweh, the terrifying Mountain God.
In fact, Joshua flatly states at one point: "Long ago your
ancestors ... lived beyond the Euphrates and served other gods"
(Josh 24:2). Jacob does away with the "alien Gods" (Gen
35:2) and Moses fully recognizes that the divine name he is encountering
is a totally new and unheard one (Ex 3:14; 6:3). Thus, the Hebrew
tradition has faithfully preserved millenary memories of fundamental
shifts in God-experience and God-talk, linked to the different
forms of social organization.
What, then, was the essence of family- and clan-religion in the
old times? How does this basic experience of the Divine within
intimate circles of human life linger on in subsequent history
of faith? The kinship hord of old was the fundamental group of
survival; it was at the same time the group that worked, played,
believed, rejoyced, and mourned together. Since it did include
members of both sexes and different ages as well as physical and
mental capacities, it strictly divided all vital chores among
eachother. The group - in order to maintain its strength - also
took care of the sick, handicapped, young, and frail. It could
survive only in close collaboration and good solidarity. A firm
network of customs and social roles would support the coherence
of the group. Division of labor principally along gender lines
was an important device to this end. Religion perfectly adapted
itself to this context. The deity of the small group was almost
a family-patriarch or matriarch him- or herself. He or she belonged
to the group, very likely in the remote past ancestor worship
played an important role on this level of social organization.
What is called in modern research a "personal God" in
ancient reality was the leading, more than human power to guarantee
the familial group and give guidance to it. Just like everywhere
and at all times theology happens within the boundaries of given
human entities - a child's fantasy does mold godly images as profoundly
as a dictator's does - so small group living conditions all along
have shaped the connotations of the Divine. Or vice versa: The
absolute manifests itself on different levels of human existence;
family horizons receive the Unspeakable in the form of a more
or less benign patriarchal or matriarchal authority. That means:
In the realm of small group theology God is the provider of food,
and housing, and progeny; the healer of sickness and protector
of all evils. As Jacob puts it in his famous contract with an
unknown Deity near Bethel:
If God will
be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will
give me bread to eat and clothing to wear, so that I come again
to my father's house in peace, then Yahweh shall be my God.
(Gen 28:20-21).
In a very
down-to-earth way the ancient family lived face to face with its
superior chief. The relationship is personal throughout, there
is no great concern for heaven and earth, humanity at large, statehood
or international affairs. It seems to me, since kinship groups
have been the most fundamental human clusters of unfathomable
duration, that the experiences with divinity in this very realm
are still at the center of our present day theology. We cannot
miss the personal God vigilant on our behalf, disposed to save
us from dangers and provide sustenance.
It would be necessary to elaborate in some detail the cultic and
ethical consequences of familial experiences of the divine. Our
time is limited, therefore suffice it to sketch but briefly what
we can discern in matters of family observances and norms. The
Hebrew Scriptures again are quite lucid on both issues, although
they do not serve us scholarly reflections or treatises. As can
be deduced clearly from the occurance of terapim ("house-gods")
in a few passages, notably in Gen 31:30-35; 1 Sam 19:13; Judg
17:3-5 cf. Exod 21:5-6, there has been a representation of the
protective family deity in many ancient Israelite homes. Quite
probably these literary vestiges have to be brought together with
the large amount of clay-figurines of mostly nude female deities
and small incense altars found in ancient Israelite cities. All
indications puzzled together to my mind lead to the conclusion,
that family religion in Israel (corroberated by similar observations
in other ancient Near Eastern cultures) has been practised for
a long time before tribal and state organisations were established.
House cults further on existed side by side with superior cult
arrangements until they finally - probably only in exilic-postexilic
times - were banned under the new exclusivistic veneration of
Yahweh. If all this is tenable we may go on to surmise that women
in Ancient Israel did have a particular affinity to the deities
of the kinship group. Quite likely, in my opinion, they indeed
have been responsible for cultic affairs in their small social
unit. Males, according to widely spread divisions of labor, were
outdoor hunters, shepherds, guardians of property. Their original
religious duties possibly included yearly pilgrimages to a regional
sanctuary, as we witness in the case of Elkana (1 Sam 1). But
regular house-cults before a little shrine or figurine may have
been the incumbency of the principal wife in each home. Further
evidence for home-bound sacred rites may be found in the psalms
of individual complaint and thanksgiving.
Ethical orientation in family groups was of supreme importance.
Only properly educated each member could become a loyal and useful
part of the survival group. Yet, we do not exactly know its precise
original contents and working mechanisms. All of the norms preserved
in the Hebrew writings are of later origin, presupposing, as it
were, communities of larger dimension than the family. Most of
the old family-ethos probably was a nonverbal configuration of
behavior, best described as unconditional solidarity. The members
of each group had to assist each other in a special, prioritarian
way which still can be felt in our own crumbled, atomized family
structures. Each member of the familial group had to engage him-
or herself for the common good to the best of abilities. And each
member likewise could count on mutual help in every critical situation.
Brothers would together face any external enemies (Gen 34; Ps
127:5). Sisters, although at times in bitter competition, might
take a stand against their own father, while defending their husband
(Gen 31:14-16). Blood revenge is a natural outcome of this absolute
priority of one's own family bonds. Sexual taboos certainly were
kept within household groups (cf. Lev 18:6-18) , and the authority
of father and mother seems to have been a pillar of family unity.
In short, all the members ideally did form a tight and unified
body. Caring for one another, sharing ressources, defending common
interests was the essential spirit of the intimate group, taught
by the older persons to all those who grew up in the family or
who were incorporated into its midst. Needless to say, such special
solidarity certainly was sanctioned by the Deity. Family loyalty
was a sacred duty; David used it as an excuse to disobey his royal
master Saul (1 Sam 20:5-6.28-29), just as the Navajo worker in
a saw-mill, who had to take part in a sing of his clan.
2. Faith in village, town populations
Sedentary life in larger communities is quite different from existence
in small primary kinship hords. Any communitarian social organisation
transcends familial horizons. Several or many kinship groups live
together in a settlement. They continue to do their work as farmers
on nearby fields and pastures. But they clog together, seeking
protection from marauding elements, be it in a walled or unwalled
neighborhood. Precondition of such a development is the invention
of farming techniques. The transition from hunting and gathering
to an agrarian subsistence economy is in itself an important step
in human civilization. In the ancient Near East it had happened
back in the 7th and 6th milleniums B.C. But settling down to sedentary
farming had to be re-invented ever so often in that region, as
ethnic or social groups at one point or another turned back to
nomadic ways or else immigrated from outside the region. Whenever
such nomads or semi-nomads tried to settle down again, the conflict
with old city populations was unavoidable. Anyway, ancient Israelites
showing up in Canaan, already were farmers and used to community
life. They spread over the hill country of today's Palestine and
for the most part organized themselves in rather modestly sized
villages and towns. Family structures were vital in this ancient
society. Collateral communitarian forms of organisation, however,
complemented and superseded the older parameters.
Let us try briefly to imagine the particularities of living together
in a larger than family grouping. To have neighbors, not related
by blood ties. Of course, any neighborhood does share common interests
and suffer jointly from threats and dangers. It has to defend
itself against enemies, and, perhaps more importantly so, organize
an orderly as well as fruitful coexistence among the different
social sub-units. Furthermore, any conglomerate of more than family
size will provoke intellectual, technical, religious activities
in accordance with common needs and expectations. Settlements,
in short, create a new and different climate among those living
together.
For our purposes it is crucial to recognize the new theological
dimensions arising from communities of about 100 to 500, in some
cases up to 2000 inhabitants, as we see them in ancient Palestinian
villages and towns. The struggle for survival still remains a
concern of family labor and -religion. But shared seasonal problems
with rain, winds, heat open the spiritual eyes of the people to
stand in awe before divine powers inherent in nature. The necessities
to seek justice in conflicting familial interests or in case of
serious transgressions against life and property of one's neighbor
call for a supervising and authoritative deity. Thus it happens
that in communitarian structures new theological concepts come
into being. Local deities are different from familial protective
Gods. They take care of the needs and desires, anxieties and joys
of a more sizable association of human beings. Or, to spell it
out from our perspective: The one and absolute God reveals him-
or herself to citizens as patronizing community life, sanctioning
civil order, providing moisture, pasture, and abundant harvests,
warding off enemies etc.
It is quite impressive to see how the Hebrew Scriptures acknowledge
and sometimes idealize this stage of religious affairs. Some historical
accounts freely tell about the fact, verifyable by archaeologists,
that each settlemente did have a very simple, archaic open air
sanctuary, where people got together for sacrifice and feasting.
Samuel in one account is presiding the yearly event (1 Sam 9:11-14).
Some towns may have owned small temple buildings, like Shilo,
Nob, Arad (1 Sam 1 - 2; 21:1-10) , but these solid buildings and
institutions seem to have exercised more than local functions.
Be it as it may, the sancturies of old throughout Israelite territory
- condemned and banned by later theological thinkers - have been
vital for ancient Israelitic communitarian life, and they surely
existed at least until the end of the Judaean monarchy. Only exilic
and postexilic developments made them obsolete; they were prohibited
by deuteronomistic law (Deut 12). The neighborhood God constitutes
a new and specific type of deity and religious faith. He or she
has nothing to do with tribal or state Gods, nor with the protective
power of the family.
From our vantage point we observe, then, a very colorful cultic
life going on in Israelite villages and towns during the monarchic
period. "On every high hill and under every green tree",
as Jer 2:20 vehemently laments, villagers would venerate a variety
of other Deities than Yahweh. Internal relations between families
and people had to be regulated by custom and institutions like
the council of elders. Chiefs of families would constitute a governing
body for each settlement - a very ancient, and somewhat democratic
arrangement in the Near East. The book of Ruth likely composed
in the 4th century B.C. still counts with jurisdiction by city
elders (Ruth 4:1-11). The prophet Ezechiel quite naturally deals
with elders of townships as it seems even in the diaspora (Ez
14:1; 20:1-3). The communitarian way of life, especially in emerging
capitals, stimulated collection and discussion of ethical traditions.
It was among citizens that codes of behaviour like the original
"Book of Alliance" in Ex 21:1 - 23:19 were brought together.
Also, the process of socialization of young people was formalized
above the level of individual families. We find in the Hebrew
Scriptures a variety of ethical norms, mostly fashioned as negative
counsels or "prohibitives": "You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal" (Exod
20:13-15). In my opinion, these early catalogues of socially destructive
acts are to protect community structures and individuals who need
to be sheltered by them. Counsels of wisdom did exercise milder
pressures to keep up the good, established order (cf. Prov). To
sum up: In the history of humankind settled agrarian societies
posed a serious challenge to social organisation beyond family
and kinship ties. Theological concepts had to accompany this transition
to a different social structure. The ancient Near East went through
these changes to agrarian settlements starting about 10 000 years
B.C. Israel's tradition much later, that is, sometime during the
first half of the first millennium B.C., reflects an analogous
movement from family to community religion. Exclusivistic faith
in Yahweh had not yet appeared on the scene.
3. Tribal and state societies
Tribal and state-organisations are clearly distinct social structures
with all its consequences for theological concepts and cultic
ritual. Biblical witnesses are much aware of this fact; transition
from tribal leadership to monarchy is recorded to have caused
a good amount of conflict in ancient Israel (cf. Judg 9; 1 Sam
8). Nevertheless, there is something in common between these forms
of government. At this point, I primarily want to stress the convergent
features in comparison to family and village religion, but also
highlight one particularity for each of these larger societal
patterns. ...
>> Click
here to read the complete text (and other texts
in German and Portuguese language).
|
