Collective Accountability among the Sages of Ancient Israel The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Kapfer, Hilary Claire. 2013. Collective Accountability among the Sages of Ancient Israel. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11129143 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Collective Accountability among the Sages of Ancient Israel A dissertation presented by Hilary Claire Kapfer to The Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts May 2013 © 2013 Hilary Claire Kapfer All Rights Reserved. Dissertation Advisor: Professor Peter Machinist Hilary Claire Kapfer Collective Accountability among the Sages of Ancient Israel ABSTRACT The purpose of this dissertation is to consider Israel’s biblical wisdom traditions comments on collective accountability in a systematic way. In order to accomplish this, each of five biblical wisdom books—Proverbs, Job, Qoheleth, Ben Sira, and Wisdom of Solomon—will be examined individually. The investigation of each book will include an examination of any statement that refers to collective or individual accountability and of the author’s position on the power of wisdom instruction to help the student overcome intergenerational punishment passed down to him by a sinful parent. In addition to a comprehensive look at biblical wisdom books, this study will also consider a proverb concerning collective punishment known from two prophetic books, Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 18, and the use of the divine attribute formula (Exod. 34:6-7), which describes YHWH as a deity who exercises collective punishment and reward, in wisdom texts. My analyses of these investigations produce the following conclusions: 1) The concept of collective accountability is not restricted to Israel’s narrative, legal, and prophetic traditions. Israel’s sages were familiar with and made use of the concept. 2) Israel’s sages’ use of collective accountability often differs from the concept’s depiction in other parts of the Hebrew Bible. For the sages, collective accountability serves pedagogical functions and vindicates divine justice. 3) The representation of collective accountability in Israel’s biblical wisdom tradition is not static. As the wisdom tradition itself iii undergoes developments, like including historical and literary references or drawing upon non-biblical philosophical positions, so too does its depiction of collective accountability. 4) Israel’s wisdom literature is not, as is often claimed, concerned solely with the individual. Communal notions held importance for Israel’s sages. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. COLLECTIVE ACCOUNTABILITY AMONG THE SAGES OF ANCIENT ISRAEL 1 I. Introduction and Definitions 1 II. The Problem 2 III. A Brief History of Scholarship on Collective Accountability 8 IV. Israel’s Wisdom Literature and Collective Accountability 17 V. Outline 24 2. COLLECTIVE ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE BOOK OF PROVERBS 26 I. Introduction 26 II. Collective Punishment in Proverbs 26 III. Collective Reward in Proverbs 46 IV. The Role of Wisdom Instruction for the Righteous and the Wicked in Proverbs 51 V. Summary of Findings in Proverbs 60 3. COLLECTIVE ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE BOOK OF JOB 64 I. Introduction 64 II. Collective Punishment in Job 65 III. Collective Reward in Job 91 IV. Rejection of Collective Punishment in Job 96 V. The Role of Wisdom Instruction for the Righteous and the Wicked in Job 104 VI. Summary of Findings in Job 110 4. COLLECTIVE ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE BOOK OF QOHELETH 113 I. Introduction 113 II. Collective Accountability in Qoheleth 116 III. The Role of Wisdom Instruction for the Righteous and the Wicked in Qoheleth 123 IV. Summary of Findings in Qoheleth 126 5. COLLECTIVE ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE WISDOM OF BEN SIRA 129 I. Introduction 129 II. Collective Punishment in Ben Sira 130 III. Collective Reward in Ben Sira 142 IV. Rejection of Collective Punishment in Ben Sira 148 V. The Role of Wisdom Instruction for the Righteous and the Wicked in the Wisdom of Ben Sira 152 v VI. Summary of Findings in Ben Sira 158 6. COLLECTIVE ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON 164 I. Introduction 164 II. Collective Punishment in the Wisdom of Solomon 164 III. Collective Reward in the Wisdom of Solomon 173 IV. Rejection of Collective Accountability in the Wisdom of Solomon 181 V. The Role of Wisdom Instruction for the Righteous and the Wicked in the Wisdom of Solomon 186 VI. Summary of Findings in the Wisdom of Solomon 188 7. COLLECTIVE ACCOUNTABILITY, WISDOM SAYINGS, AND THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTE FORMULA 191 I. Introduction 191 II. a. The Reuse of Exodus 34:6-7 in the Biblical Tradition (Excluding Wisdom Literature 193 b. The Reuse of Exodus 34:6-7 in the Biblical Wisdom Tradition 208 III. Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 18 in the Biblical Wisdom Tradition 219 IV. Summary of Findings 233 8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 236 I. Introduction 236 II. Summary of Findings 236 III. Diachronic Developments in the Depiction of Collective Accountability in Israel’s Biblical Wisdom Tradition 245 IV. Concluding Thoughts 247 BIBLIOGRAPHY 250 vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am especially grateful to my dissertation committee for their guidance through the process of writing my dissertation. My advisor, Professor Peter Machinist, has provided me not only with feedback on my writing, but also encouragement to pursue a topic that I am passionate about. I owe a debt of gratitude to Professor John J. Collins for guiding me through my pre-doctoral studies at Yale, following and supporting my doctoral studies at Harvard, and agreeing to serve on my dissertation committee. He has provided me with a wonderful model of mentorship, and I hope some day I will be fortunate enough to be able to pay this kindness forward. I am also thankful to Professor Andrew Teeter for his support of my project and insightful feedback. I am also indebted to my many colleagues in the Hebrew Bible doctoral program at Harvard. Memories of their friendship and support will last long after the details of what we studied together have faded. And finally, I would like to thank my family and husband for their support, understanding, and encouragement throughout this very long process! vii Chapter One: Collective Accountability among the Sages of Ancient Israel I. Introduction and Definitions The remembrance of one’s ancestors and concern for one’s descendants are frequently occurring themes in the Hebrew Bible. Israelite men and women often worry about producing offspring and the fates that will befall their progeny in the future. In addition to the concern to ensure a promising future for their offspring, Israelites also appeal to their ancestors to explain their own fortunes as punishment or reward for their ancestors’ deeds. These concerns, namely that offspring may suffer or prosper because of the actions of their ancestors, fall under the rubric of collective accountability. Collective accountability, in contrast to individual accountability, involves holding a group, whether it be generations of a family or the members of some other collective, responsible for the actions of an individual. Individual accountability holds only the individual accountable for the consequences of his actions. For actions that provoke individual punishment, the penalty generally fits the crime in accordance with the principle of lex talionis (Exod. 21:23-25; Lev. 24:19-20; Deut. 19:21). Collective accountability does not manifest itself in only one form. The diachronic side of collective accountability, in which one’s offspring inherit the consequences of their parents’ deeds, is often referred to as intergenerational reward or punishment. The synchronic side of collective accountability, in which the contemporary members of a group prosper or suffer because of the actions of an individual member, is often referred to as intragenerational reward or punishment. These different 1 manifestations of collective accountability contain further sub-classifications and likely do not share a common origin.1 The different origins and forms of collective accountability will be discussed in more detail below. II. The Problem Although scholars have investigated the issues associated with collective and individual accountability in Israel’s legal, narrative, and prophetic materials, Israel’s wisdom literature has largely been ignored with respect to this topic.2 The dominant trend in Israel’s wisdom literature, which is often packaged as the instructions of a father to his son, is to instruct the pupil to avoid the negative consequences associated with sin and to reap the rewards of righteousness.3 How, according to wisdom literature, do the 1 For example, David Daube has proposed a category of collective accountability that involves the suffering of a group because of the actions of its leaders, such as the king or high priest. David Daube, Studies in Biblical Law, vol. reprint ed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 154. The successor to a sinful leader can even inherit the consequences of his predecessor’s sin. Joel S. Kaminsky, Corporate Responsibility in the Hebrew Bible (Continuum International Publishing Group, 1995), 111. In Mesopotamia, for example, the king holds personal accountability for his actions, and this appears to be related to the fact that his actions hold consequences for his subjects. See Hayim Tadmor, “Monarchy and the Elite in Assyria and Babylonia: The Question of Royal Accountability,” in The Origins and Diversity of Axial Age Civilizations, ed. S. N Eisenstadt (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986), 203– 226. Giovanni B. Lanfranchi, “Ideological Implications of the Problem of Royal Responsibility in the Neo- Assyrian Period,” in Hayim and Miriam Tadmor Volume, ed.