46

THE REVOLUTIONARY ORIGINS OF ANCIENT ISRAEL:

A RESPONSE

TO

GOTTWALD

(JSOT 7

[1978] 37-52)

Alan J.

Hauser

Appalachian
Boone, N.C.

State

University
U.S.A.

28608

I would like to thank Professor Gottwald for his He is to be detailed response to my previous remarks. commended for his desire, as he expresses it, &dquo;to grapple with the issues in an ongoing reformulation of the hypothesis.&dquo; Unfortunately, not all parties in the I look forward to debate have been similarly disposed. reading Ts upcoming The Tribes of Yahweh, which surely will contribute substantially to the ongoing dialogue. Zpace does not

permit

me

to

respond

to all of Gs

I have therefore chosen to focus on several points. One of these concerns items related to methodology. Gs claim that, &dquo;It is simply no valid objection whatsoever to an explanatory theory that it is reductionI would agree with. that, &dquo;All theory list.&dquo; reduces the complexities of phenomena in an effort to

find out the patterns or laws of movement and develop&dquo; ment.&dquo; Yet, G. does not seem to understand the difference between &dquo;reducing&dquo; and &dquo;reductionism.&dquo; The former refers to a legitimate &dquo;abstracting from&dquo; the complexities of life in order to gain a clearly-focused picture which distorts as little as possible. Then latter refers to a procedure wherein one seizes a part of the complex fabric of life and treats it as if it were the whole. Admittedly, there is at times only a fine line separating these two, but it is a critical For example, I suspect that G. would agree in line. calling reductionistic P~s desire to &dquo;counterpose Israelite ethics to Canaanite power politics.&dquo; Unfortunately, some of Gs comments lead me to fear that the term reductionism may apply to aspects of his work (although I would want to reserve judgment until I can read Gs ideas in detail in his upcoming volume).
One example must suffice. G. has what is clarified by the hypothesis in

said, &dquo;I believe question is the

47

total life complex (the material conditions) as an intelligible matrix for the appearance of Israelite

7lhis :;entence S :18&dquo; F&dquo; est s that the and religion.&dquo; theory of ~~ . and 11. encompasses all the important aspects of the life of early Israel, and t:hat religion aDDears as a component whose essence is predetermined by the &dquo;total life complex.&dquo; However, on what basis does one relegate the religious element in the life of ancient Israel to a functional subsidiary of politics Is it not true that what has given the and economics? ~reat religions of the world their vitality is precisely their ability to project mans vision beyond the immediate circumstances of his everyday life, to hold before him an ideal which enables him to transform and recreate his world (and/or himself) in view of a more lofty image? ~he worlds creative religious geniuses have operated with a referent which is cosmic rather than mundane. Certainly no individual (let Luther serve could extricate himself completely from as our example) the social, political, and economic context in which he Rut any attempt to explain Luthers revolt lived. against Rome, and his theological stance, as essentially a product of the social forces surrounding him would indeed be reductionistic. Perhaps G. would concur, but his method of procedure suggests that the religious element in the life of ancient Israel is merely a lengthy footnote to her political and social history.

society

&dquo;

G. has raised the issue of Israels awareness of I would the social factors affecting her existence. that Israel most likely was not aware of agree with G. all the social, economic, and political conditions that contributed to her unique life complex /1/. ~ut neither was she unaware of all the elements that made her life what it was. That is why I am concerned that the Derspectives reflected in the 0.~, have not been taken seriously enough /2/. For example, if G. would give more credence to the cosmic referent which is so all-pervasive in the literature pertaining to early Israel, perhaps he would not so quickly relegate the religious element to being a product of social and economic factors, but would be more inclined to see it as a creative force contributing to the makeup of ancient Israel. Furthermore, one must question whether it is sound methodology to bridge a 3000 year gap and construct a picture of the life of early Israel which

48

derives its orientation essentially from archaeology and sociology (both of which are a long way from being mat.ure disciplines devoid of widely-varying hypotheses), and then go to the text of the O.T. to find examples which substantiate this basic picture /3/.
While Alt and Noth often attempted to do too much on the basis of the text of the 0.1., perhaps there is a good deal of wisdom in their decision to begin with a
cl.ose study of the text.
G. has said, &dquo;H. does not make clear how a higher regard for the biblical traditions would render irrelevant socioeconomic and religioethical perspectives developed as explanatory theory.&dquo; Let me note that I am not denying that certain social and economic factors were in evidence during Israels formative years, nor am I denying that modern scholars can or should attempt What I am expressing is conto analyze these factors. siderable skepticism with regard to the particular socioeconomic hypothesis advanced by ~. and G. This skepticism arises to a considerable extent from the failure of ~. and G. to present convincing and unequivocal evidence derived from the biblical traditions themHere I would cite as an example Gs response selves. He notes: &dquo;What the evidence indito my sixth point. cates is not necessarily that there was no rebellion in areas that did not early become part of Israel but rather that the rebellion may not have succeeded in those areas. Indeed, if the participle and infinitive of to rule/ as yashav be read throughout Judges 1 dominate rather than to live/dwell, then the text probably speaks of the rural populace of the lalley of
...

Esdraelon and parts of Galilee being unable to expel their rulers from key fortified centers in their midst ....&dquo; I wonder whetrler G. urges this reading of yashav because the text of Judges 1 requires it, or because it allows him to correlate the text of Judges 1 with his theory. ~y own study of Judges 1 leads me to be skeptical. It should also be noted that this reference to the biblical text (which is couched in a rather tentative &dquo;if ... then .. , probably&dquo; format) is the only one provided by G. in discussing point 6. The rest of his discussion is highly theoretical and, while I would agree with some of his observations about the form taken by revolutionary movements, I have difficulty convincing myself that these observations are

49

If it to the life of early Israel. cannot be shown on the basis of the biblical traditions themselves that M. and Gs revolutionary framewcrk is e reasonable and appropriate device for analysis, where else is one to turn?

directly pertinent

find Gs statement of the hypothesis more plausible than ~Ts, even if I still remain skeptical. Perhaps Gs upcoming volume will answer some of the objections I have raised.
I NOTES G. incorrectly places me among those who claim "that the only valid social theory is one entertained, at least in rudimentary form, by the social actors themselves." Therefore, his justified attack on such social theorists in no way undermines my own position.

1.

It should be noted that taking the perspectives in the O.T. seriously is not the same as saying that the O.T. should be taken as a collection of historical It is documents in the modern sense of the term. obvious that the "origin stories" therein contained are "schematic" and "fix upon certain traditions for

2.

symbolic exaggeration." But does not the and G. do the same, differing only in that it exaggerates from the perspective of a different set of a priori assumptions?
purposes of theory of M.
to my fifth criticism of M., G. hypothesis texts such as Joshua 24; Numbers 25; and Joshua 12. He also claims to find "abundant textual data concerning more than one form of Canaanite response to the gathering Israelite In my judgment the evidence of the movement .... to the kind of early shifting and nuanced alignments that occur in the actual course of a revolution." I fear the texts cited by G. can be upheld as examples illustrating the hypotnesis only if one assumes a priori a revolutionary context for the rise of early Israel. The texts certainly are open to a considerable diversity of interpretation.

3.

In

responding

cites in support of their

traditions abundantly attests