REVISITING THE TRIBES OF YAHWEH

Norman K. GOTTWALD1

The year 1999 was the 20 anniversary of the publication of The Tribes of Yahweh. The occasion was recognized at the annual meeting of the Society of iblical !iterature "#S$% by a panel of scholars &re'reading( Tribes and its place in biblical studies. The organizer of the panel described Tribes as a &classic() by which he meant that it belonged &to that rare collection of critical te*ts that have not been superseded or fallen by the wayside of criticism(th. +e went on to say that &classics ta,e on new roles in different situations) answering and responding to new sets of -uestions. Thus) the classic is never the same as in the moment of its emergence) for it is seen in different ways in varying situations(2. The seemingly e*travagant claim that Tribes is a classic is based) . /udge) on the far'reaching challenges that it has posed to traditional biblical scholarship) challenges that are as pertinent today as thirty years ago. These challenges were not delivered in the abstract but as part of a large scale re'conceptualization of early .srael that &shoo, up( dominant assumptions about its formation and identity. To be sure) many of the particular claims and hypotheses about early .srael mounted in Tribes were) and continue to be) controversial and problematic. 0hat has outweighed the controversial status of those arguments) distinguishing Tribes as a seminal contribution to biblical studies) is that the framewor, in which the in-uiry was pursued and methods employed have helped to open pathways to multiple fruitful ways of using social scientific lenses to enrich our understanding of the ible. ut that is not all. This ponderous academic tome has had unforeseen impact on the interpretation of the ible in ecclesial and para'ecclesial circles) and even in some secular -uarters) far beyond the audience of professional biblical scholars for which it was e*plicitly written. The &afterlife( of Tribes has flowed into and merged with new literary) cultural) ideological) and feminist studies and with liberation and political theologies) to open up the ible as a resource for engagement with the social) political) and religious issues and conflicts of our time. Thus it may be said that there are &two Tribes() or more precisely) &two faces of Tribes() the one turned inward toward biblical studies and the other turned outward toward the wider world and the social mission of the church and synagogue.

The Inward Face of Tribes 1 Pacific School of Religion, Berkeley, CA, Estados Unidos. th Roland BOER, ntrod!ction" On Re#Reading THE TRIBES OF YAHWEH$ in Tracking The Tribes of Yahweh On
the Trail of a lassic%, ed. Roland Boer. Sheffield" Sheffield Acade&ic Press, 2''2, (. 1. 2 BOER, Tracking, (. 2.

1elat 2345 1evisiting The Tribus of Yahweh

The single most significant impact of Tribes within biblical studies has been to encourage and promote social scientific theories and methods) contending not only for their legitimacy but also for their indispensability in achieving a well'rounded view of ancient .srael and the +ebrew ible. .ncreased familiarity with the range of methodological and theoretical options in the social sciences has prompted biblical scholars to employ a plethora of social scientific strategies for accessing and processing the biblical data. 6ne can now spea, of an ongoing sub'discipline of social critical biblical study that is building agreed upon practices and protocols within the framewor, of a community of discourse. The most -uoted sentence in Tribes declares that &only as the full materiality of ancient .srael is more securely grasped will we be able to ma,e proper sense of its spirituality(). The aim of most of these social critical in-uiries is to grasp the &materiality( of ancient .srael) namely) to visualize its people in all the dimensions of their lives and not simply in the religious and political spheres which were the primary scope of previous studies. 6ne might even spea, of an .sraelite &material spirituality() or &earthy7mundane spirituality(. $s for the substantive argument of Tribes) a number of its claims have gained widespread credence among scholars. 8specially persuasive has been the contention that early .srael was indigenous to 9anaan and that its cultural and religious identity is not ade-uately e*plained by an invasion or infiltration of pastoral nomads from without. The emphasis of Tribes on the agrarian roots of .srael has been greatly elaborated in subse-uent studies) drawing in particular on archaeology and studies of peasant societies. The insistence in Tribes that early .srael was not mar,ed by an initial cohesive ethnic identity) but was in the process of developing slowly toward such an identity. has won a sympathetic hearing. !i,ewise) many scholars now agree with my insistence that a simplistic polarization of 9anaanite vs. .sraelite does not do /ustice either to the biblical data or to the archeological data and the probabilities suggested by social and political anthropology. .n other words) what we see in the tribal period is .srael'in'the'ma,ing) as 9anaanite peasants in the highland begin to distinguish themselves as &proto'.sraelites(. The matri* for the emergence of .srael was a combination of socio'economic and religio'cultural elements) including the cult of Yahweh. This emergence of .srael out of a 9anaanite milieu is analogous in some ways to the continuities and discontinuities evident in the emergence of early 9hristianity out of proto':udaism and to the development of ;rotestantism out of 1oman 9atholicism. To be sure) certain arguments in Tribes remain problematic or have ac-uired new formulations. <y argument for the social e-uality of .sraelites was muddled and imprecise) since there is evidence of status and wealth differentials) but the society was clearly less hierarchical than in the surrounding states and it provided e*tended family and clan'based &social safety nets( for those in greatest need. . have since come to spea, of .srael=s tribal society as &communitarian(. Setting aside the mista,en notion that a peasant revolution is a dramatic one'shot event that succeeds or fails in one stro,e) it may be reaffirmed that .srael was a peasant movement cast in opposition to city'state hierarchy and struggling for independence from outside control. The e*tent to which the social and political difference between .srael and it city'state neighbors can be called &revolutionary( depends) . believe) on how intentional the .sraelite peasants were in pursuing and e*ploiting their independent manner of life. $ great deal hinges on the e*tent to which the tribes of .srael were simply the haphazard result of a brea,down in dominant 9anaanite institutions and the e*tent to which the tribes of .srael were consciously formed or shaped as an alternative to oppressive social and political institutions. <y own belief is that there

) *or&an +. ,O--.A/0, The Tribes of Yahweh! A Sociolog" of the Religion of #iberate$ Israel% &'()*&)() B E ,
Sheffield" Sheffield Acade&ic Press, 1111 re(rint, (. 223.

>orman ?. @6TT0$!A

was both a brea,down and an intentional movement of peasants in the midst of that brea,down. $lternatively) the tribal system of early .srael may be conceived as a &devolution( from hierarchic society) facing backwards to a pre'state mode of life) or it can be conceived as both an &evolution( and a &revolution)( facing forwards in anticipation of modes of social and political freedom that were not yet realizable or sustainable under the conditions of anti-uity. ;resently the greatest challenges to any hypothesis about the origins of .srael is twofold) the one literary and the other religious. <any biblical scholars date the te*tual sources about early .srael late in the e*ilic and post'e*ilic ages and dismiss the li,elihood of forming any reasonably accurate notion of .sraelite beginnings. The grounds for believing that we can grasp the socio'political contours of pre'state .srael have to be argued anew) as . have tried to do in my most recent boo,) The Politics of Ancient Israel4. $lso) it is now abundantly clear that the cult of Yahweh in pree*ilic times embraced beliefs and practices deemed &heterodo*( from the point of view of the poste*ilic compilers of the +ebrew ible. $rchaeological and te*tual studies have revealed beliefs and practices in pree*ilic Yahwism that were later ruled out of bounds in the developing monotheism in restored :udah. $mong these eventually forbidden elements were ancestor veneration) necromancy) divination) iconography) fertility rites at local shrines) and even a li,ely consort for Yahweh. These religious features) once thought of as 9anaanite &corruptions( of true Yahweh worship) are now seen as having been accepted among many) if not all Yahwists) in pree*ilic times. So it loo,s as though the cult of Yahweh was only one form of early .sraelite worship) that it too, diverse forms) and that it was an uphill battle for Yahwism to supplant other forms of worship as the primary basis for the ideological unity of the .sraelite tribes. The argument of Tribes denies a con-uest as described in :oshua and) although it allows for the possibility of a small group of .sraelite refugees from 8gyptB it does not depend on an e*odus of any sort. .t remains the case that) apart from the biblical te*t) we possess no evidence whatsoever for an e*odus from 8gypt. >evertheless) it must be as,ed5 if the e*odus lac,ed historical basis) why did the tradition arise and why does it bul, so large as the fountainhead of .srael=s e*istenceC . believe the answer lies in the intimate bond between the 8gyptian overlordship of 9anaan at the moment of .srael=s emergence and the struggle of the .sraelite hill people to be free of foreign hegemony. The <erneptah stela) dating ca. 1203 b.c.e.) reports that in the course of trying to maintain control over its $siatic empire) the 8gyptian army defeated an opponent in 9anaan called .srael. 0ithout implying that this .srael was identical with any particular te*tual construct of .srael) the stela does attest to 8gypt as the ultimate threat to .srael) standing behind the 9anaanite city'state princes who were the immediate threat to .srael according to :oshua and :udges. .n time) the 8gyptian'9anaanite mantle of dominion passed to the ;hilistines. Thus) in the late 12 and the 12th'11 thth centuries) .sraelites faced a hegemonic threat that they visualized as embracing 8gyptian) 9anaanite) and ;hilistine components. .n the formation of .sraelite tradition) what seems to have happened is that all these hostile relations with 8gypt and with 8gyptian surrogates in Canaan were caught up into the paradigm of a single mass captivity in Egypt) and similarly) all the successes of .sraelites in eluding or chec,ing 8gyptian'9anaanite';hilistine control were bundled into the paradigm of a single mass deliverance from Egypt. .n this manner) any and all of the actual defeats and victories of .sraelites could be symbolized by the group' reinforcing bondage'e*odus scenario. This scenario served as a root metaphor designed to bond together tribes of diverse origins and traditions. This tradition would

4 *or&an +. ,O--.A/0, The +olitics of Ancient Israel, /o!is3ille" .est&inster 5ohn +no2, 2''1, ((.)1#46, 161#
172.

1elat 2345 1evisiting The Tribus of Yahweh

have functioned in much the same way as the motifs of &e*odus( from the &bondage( of 8uropean monarchies served to strengthen the notion of a single $merican peoplehood among colonies with differing origins and self'images. This symbolizing genesis of the bondage'e*odus scenario allows of course that there may have been some group of 8gyptian refugees who /oined .srael in 9anaan) even as the vast ma/ority of .sraelites e*perienced the heavy hand of 8gypt in 9anaan) either directly or through the aegis of 9anaanite or ;hilistine rulers 6.

The Outward Face of Tribes

The second face of Tribes is its e*traordinary reception in sectors of church and society committed to social /ustice Traditional academic study of the ible had e*plained the motifs of social /ustice in early .srael either as a function of its culturally undeveloped pastoral nomadism or as the miraculous &spin off( of its revealed religion. 0ith theology put to one side) an actual .sraelite society could be seen embar,ed on an intentional -uest for corporate /ustice) a pro/ect to which its innovative religious &ideology( lent critical support. iblical notions of social /ustice were no longer simply rootless &ideals( but beliefs and practices &at home( and &at wor,( within actual communities. .n sum) Tribes encouraged left'oriented 9hristians and :ews to reclaim biblical tradition as a relevant resource for their own hopes and endeavors for positive social change. ;articularly liberating was the claim of Tribes that not only did early .srael not annihilate 9anaanites en masse) it never even sought to do so. .srael=s -uarrel was with the ruling classes of 9anaan and not with 9anaanites at large) for after all .sraelites were themselves 9anaanites of a marginal socio' cultural stratum. So if Tribes is correct on this point ' and . continue to believe that it is ' the conflicts in early .srael were much more a matter of inner'societal strife or peasant resistance than they were a con-uest and sub/ugation of one people by another. <oreover) the characterization of early .srael as a peasant society see,ing relief from economic and political domination was felt to resonate profoundly with the socially and politically oppressive conditions of many &third world( countries in which many of the most engaged readers of Tribes lived and wor,ed. Dor readers in such baldly oppressive conditions) there was often an instantaneous grasp of the plausibility of the depiction of early .srael set forth in Tribes. . treasure some especially vivid memories of such encounters with Tribes. There was the 9atholic nun wor,ing with base communities in 9olombia who made flip charts of Tribes for ible instruction and reported that &even -uiet people spo,e up( when she used them. . have heard much the same from /ustice see,ers in places such as .ndia) ?orea) the ;hilippines) >ew Eealand) South $frica and from many parts of !atin $merica) not to neglect sites of social resistance in the #nited States and 9anada. . even ,now of instances where Tribes was read and pondered by people imprisoned for their audacity in opposing un/ust power. . attribute this e*traordinary impact of a heavy scholarly tome on ordinary 9hristians) not to the s,ill of its author) but to the intrinsic power of the biblical te*t when it is liberated from the strictures of tradition and reaction. >ow amidst all the praise that has been heaped upon Tribes and all the re/ection it has e*perienced from others) there is one development that . believe must be recognized and vigorously resisted. .t is a perfectly understandable tendency that one

6 ,O--.A/0, Tribes, ((. 214#16, 417, 6'8#19 -he E2od!s as E3ent and Process" A -est Case in the Bi:lical
,ro!nding of /i:eration -heology$, in The F,t,re of #iberation Theolog"! Essa"s in Honor of -,sta.o -,ti/rre0 , ed. ;. <. E// S and O. ;A0URO, ;aryknoll, *=" Or:is Books, 1181, 26'#>'9 and The +olitics of Ancient Israel, ((. 1>>#>7, 218#1' nn. 21#2).

>orman ?. @6TT0$!A

of the scholars in the 1999 panel identified as &the reification of Tribes)( its &thing' ification() hardening its concepts and claims into fi*ed and unchanging ob/ects of adulation or of scorn. .n some ways) the tendency to ta,e Tribes) not only as a finished wor,) but as a wor, that &finishes off( the issues it raises) is the biggest problematic haunting the reception of the volume because that attitude of &closure( threatens the ongoing fruitfulness of its accomplishments by undercutting or abandoning efforts to correct its errors and shortcomings in the pursuit of the critical issues Tribes addressed. This reifying urge to isolate and fi*ate on the argument of Tribes is at wor, both among those who praise it and those who dismiss it. 6n the one hand) there is the temptation for advocates to canonize Tribes and the portrait of early .srael that it hypothesizes but to their own theoretical and practical detriment. 6n the other hand) its detractors may accept some of the boo,=s methods and topics as scientifically valid for &normal( biblical studies) while insisting that the factual errors and blinding ideology of Tribes invalidate the social critical pro/ect as a whole and thus eliminate the need for ongoing research and theorizing in a social critical fashion. $dvocates) detractors) and uncommitted readers ali,e may thus miss the lin, between theory and pra*is that is the driving force of Tribes and a large part of the subse-uent wor, . and others have done in a social critical mode. .nstead of a highly instructive but fallible beginning in the theorizing of .srael=s social history as a resource for the church=s social mission) Tribes is vulnerable to being displayed as a -uaint museum piece or venerated as a near sacred te*t) which in either case is no longer li,ely to be read in all seriousness since its message) true or false) has been delivered with finality. .n his boo, Specters of Marx) :ac-ues Aerrida) who is often accused of being an unhistorical and socially indifferent postmodernist) spea,s of <ar* as the founder of an entire discourse absolutely tied to a pra*is. Aerrida describes this discourse as &a day of /ustice in history() and as a pra*is & see,ing this day of /ustice( >. $t the moment) this discourse and pra*is of /ustice'see,ing are institutionally and intellectually suppressed or derided throughout 8urope) >orth $merica) and elsewhere among those in commanding positions of political and economic power. Since . have been repeatedly charged with an e*cessive idealism and unreality in my evocation of ancient .srael) . would li,e to reflect on the day of /ustice as a historical possibility) specifically in the case of early .srael. 9ommenting on my account of early .srael in Tribes) one of my graduate students made the following poignant remar,. &.t was satisfying to have a historical reconstruction well e*plained that . actually desire to have e*isted) an Felsewhere= that . li,eG( So . as,5 where is this &elsewhere( of the day of /ustice to be locatedC .s it a &utopia( that is literally &no place( at all) or is it an &elsewhere() a time and place that is &not yet( but &has been( and &could yet be(C This hoped and longed for day of /ustice is in my view ever present as the hidden possibility of every moment. .t is first and foremost in the hearts and minds of people) in their hopes and aspirations) and it is concretely present in their multiple life struggles. ut the vision of a day of /ustice is not restricted to any single lifetime or any single era. ecause we have curiosity and memory and the capacity to reason across time) this elsewhere) this day of /ustice lies &behind( us as well as &within( us and &ahead( of us. .t is not a mere specter. .t has tangible embodiment that did not begin with <ar*) or even with the ible) or with anyone in the course of recorded history. 0e can trace the site of this day of /ustice

> 5ac?!es 0ERR 0A, S1ecters of 2ar34 The State of the 5ebt% the Work of 2o,rning% an$ the 6ew International . *e@
=orkA/ondon" Ro!tledge, 1114, 21, cited in 0a3id 5o:ling, BS(ecters of Tribes4 On the CRe3enanceD of a Classic,D in Tracking, ((. 1'#11.

1elat 2345 1evisiting The Tribus of Yahweh

bac, to the millennia of human social life that preceded the rise of the state and of civilization five thousand years ago. .n his wor,) The Sources of Social Power ) <ichael <ann points out that there is ample prehistoric archaeological evidence that human communities repeatedly developed social organization up to a ran,ing level) with strong redistributive chiefdoms) but time and again refused the further plunge into centralized political power. >o general social evolution too, place beyond that neolithic horizon of dispersed social power. .n other words) the state did no arise as a &natural( growth out of ran,ed societies. .t appeared at a few select points in space'time and then spread through imposition and imitation7. The ultimate hope is that this &iron prison( of state and social class will be transcended in the long run. This is the source of the &-uiet optimism( that some readers find in Tribes. 8ven today there are remnants of that less hierarchical pre'state phase of the human story. These remnants constitute &the others() derisively labeled as &primitives)( people who lac, our civilizational history but have a coherent culture and ethos of their own. .n some cases we ,now a fair amount about the social structure and history of these prestate or substate societies. . have surveyed a number of these societies myself) including the +opi and ;ueblo .ndians of $rizona and >ew <e*ico) the Siou* >ation of the Aa,otas) and in 8urope) the Swiss 9onfederacy. Two of them . have studied in greater detail5 the .celandic 9ommonwealth 8. and the .ro-uois Dive >ations of >ew Yor, State1. . need to emphasize that . study these societies without any illusion that they provide blueprints of early .srael. . view them rather as comparative evidence for the li,elihood that roughly analogous societies or sub'societies were present in the ancient >ear 8ast) largely overlaid by state organization) but attested to in early .srael through the happenstance of its preservation in the +ebrew ible.. Durthermore) . study them for clues about the preconditions and circumstances for such societies to ta,e shape and thrive) even in adverse circumstances) not only to illuminate early .srael and its transition to statehood) but also to provide one resource for understanding the preconditions and structural arrangements conducive to our current -uest for the day of /ustice. Dinally) was early .srael actually an instance of elsewhere and the day of /ustice) or in thin,ing so) are we deluding ourselves with wishful thin,ingC .t is my /udgment that such an elsewhere) such a day of /ustice) was appro*imated in early .srael) whatever social organizational label we wish to give it. 0e ,now it less well in its details than we ,now the +opis) the .ro-uois) or the .celanders. ut we do ,now it) artifactually through archaeology and imaginatively through literary te*ts that are vivid and eccentric departures from what ;ersian'age :ewish monotheists might have contrived. This appro*imation of the day of /ustice in early .srael can be appreciated without idealizing it as a lost golden age.) or without thin,ing that .srael was alone in cultivating such a society. The standard of living in early .srael was low) the technology rudimentary) the cultural options minimal) the artisitic creations modest) and the internecine bic,ering and bloodshed considerable.

7 ;ichael ;A**, The So,rces of Social +ower! 7ol! &% A Histor" of +ower fro8 the Beginning to &9:)% Ca&:ridge"
Ca&:ridge Uni3ersity Press, 118>, ((. )4#72. 8 *or&an +. ,O--.A/0, B celandic and sraelite Beginnings" A Co&(arati3e Pro:e,% in The #abo,r of Rea$ing4 5esire% Alienation% an$ Biblical Inter1retation4 Essa"s in Hono,r of Robert ! ,lle" , ed. E. C. Black et al., Se&eia St!dies. Atlanta" Scholars Press, ((. 2'1#24. 1 *or&an +. ,O--.A/0, BStr!ct!re and Origins of the Early sraelite and ro?!ois Confederacy%. Pa(er to :e (resented in the (rogra& !nit, B<e:re@ Bi:le and Political -heory,% at the Society of Bi:lical /iterat!re ann!al &eeting, .ashington 0.C., *o3. 18#21, 2''>.

>

>orman ?. @6TT0$!A

0hen Aavid 9lines introduced the concluding session at the ritish Society of 6ld Testament Studies in 199H) he as,ed what we thought about the -uality of life in early .srael. Somewhat to my own surprise . replied) &. would not have wanted to live thereG(. <y reply was shorthand not only for the impossibility of resuscitating the life style of early .srael) or of any other past elsewhere for that matter) but because it would be undesirable if we could do soG 0e loo, bac,ward in order to loo, forward with a clearer sense of direction) drawing on the early .sraelite and other similar pasts as a resource for as,ing and answering what peace and /ustice re-uire of us in a situation of technological and social comple*ity where outmoded and in/urious political organization and rampant economic greed are despoiling humanity materially and spiritually. ecause these partial manifestations of the day of /ustice are an actual part of our past) and especially because early .srael lies at the historical roots of our religious traditions and moral consciousness) these elsewheres and days of /ustice are not dismissible as idle dreams but weigh upon us as open'ended historical possibilities.