Rahel Fuchs examines intergenerational liability in the Old Testament and demonstrates that texts advocating collective and individual liability do not form a contradiction, but together paint a complex picture. In comparison with circa 160 ancient Near Eastern text passages, she shows what is distinctive about the Old Testament tradition.
The Old Testament contains diverse texts addressing the question of intergenerational liability. Some appear to presuppose collective liability, while others reject it and call for individual liability. This observation raises the question of how the respective concepts, texts, and theological conceptions of God relate to one another. Rahel Fuchs engages in this complex field of inquiry and takes up what earlier scholarship termed »family or clan liability.« In doing so, she fills a gap in research, since the topic in its complexity has thus far received little attention, has been limited to individual texts (especially Ezek 18), or has focused primarily on the liability of political entities. The author first surveys three major trajectories in the history of research, identifying key insights and open questions: the history of research on the deed-consequence nexus which emerges as an underlying structure of the texts; the debate concerning the relationship between the individual and the collective; and discussions of collective guilt and collective liability. Following a criteria-based selection of texts and a definition of central terms, the main body of the study analyzes the key texts: Exod 20:5-6; Deut 5:9-10; Exod 34:6-7; Num 14; and Jer 32:16-25 on the side of the so-called collective liability texts, and Ezek 18; Jer 31:29-30; Deut 24:16; and Lam 5 on the side of the individual liability texts. Through contextual analysis, literary criticism and redaction criticism, examination of linguistic structures, and comparison with parallels, the profile of each text is delineated. At the conclusion of each analysis, the respective »portrait of guilt and liability« is drawn - at the level of the final form of the text, within its compositional history, and in comparison with parallels. Because comparison at times reveals striking similarities in key formulations, possible lines of dependence are examined and source and recipient texts identified. Rahel Fuchs ultimately resolves the apparent conflict between the two groups of texts perceived in scholarship. Texts advocating collective liability and those advocating individual liability are not irreconcilably opposed; rather, together - and each in its own way - they depict intergenerational liability in the Old Testament. A significant role is played by the verb פקד (pqd), traditionally rendered »to visit« (in the sense of »to visit with punishment«). A close examination of its semantic range, predominant usage, and immediate contexts in these passages, however, suggests that the translation »to examine« is preferable. This translational adjustment has important implications for the interpretation of the relevant formulations. In a further section, the study broadens its perspective beyond the Old Testament to ancient Near Eastern texts. A corpus of approximately 160 relevant passages is examined, analyzed, and compared with the Old Testament tradition. It becomes evident that the role attributed to the king in ancient Near Eastern texts is assumed by God in the Old Testament. Neither in Old Testament nor in ancient Near Eastern texts can a consistent correlation be established between a particular form of liability and a second factor (such as temporal setting, type of offense, political context, genre, or intellectual-historical background). Within the Old Testament, moreover, certain texts work through Israel's experience of exile through their struggle with collective and individual liability.
Table of contents:
Vorwort
I Bisherige Forschung und Ziel der Arbeit
1. Hinführung zum Thema, Aufgabe und Vorgehen
1.1. Fragestellung und Ziel
1.2. Vorgehen
2. Bisherige Forschung
2.1. Die Struktur des Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhangs
2.2. Kollektives vs. individuelles Denken?
2.3. Kollektivschuld und/oder -haftung?
3. Textauswahl und Methode
3.1. Textauswahl
3.2. Methodik
4. Begriffsbestimmungen
4.1. Schuldbegriff(e) im Deutschen und Hebräischen
4.2. Individuelles und kollektives Denken, Schuld und/oder Haftung?
4.3. Generationenbegriff(e) und „die Väter»
4.4. Das zentrale Verb פקד
4.5. Exkurs: Die Einordnung der Talion
II Die Stimme zentraler alttestamentlicher Texte. Analysen
5. Einführung
6. Die sog. Kollektivhaftung
6.1. Die Textfamilie und ihre Fragen
6.2. Num 14: Ringen um den Fortbestand Israels
6.3. Ex 34,6-7: Auftakt zur Erneuerung des gebrochenen Bundes
6.4. Ex 20,5-6 und Dtn 5,9-10: ,, ... denn ich bin ein eifersüchtiger Gott ... «
6.5. Jer 32: Das Gebet Jeremias nach dem Ackerkauf
6.6. Resümee
7. Die Individualhaftung
7.1. Die Textfamilie um Ez 18, Jer 31 und Dtn 24
7.2. Klgl 5: Klage und Bekenntnis angesichts begangener Sünden?
7.3. Resümee
8. Generationsübergreifende Haftung im Alten Testament
III Der Blick in den Alten Orient. Komparation
9. Besonderheiten der altorientalischen Textsammlung
9 .1. Einführung
9.2. Quellenvielfalt und Eingrenzung der Textauswahl
9.3. Das Problem der Systematisierung
10. Der Befund
10.1. Individualhaftung
10.2. Kollektivhaftung
10.3. Zusammenfassung zum Befund
11. Besonderheiten des altorientalischen Befundes
11.1. Vergleich äußerer Aspekte
11.2. Vergleich innerer Aspekte
11.3. Ausblick
IV Generationsübergreifende Haftung im Alten Testament
Synthese
