CHAPTER V

IS THERE A DOCTRINE OF "COLLECTIVE RETRIBUTION" IN THE HEBREW ?

The general imprecision of attempts to define "collectivism" and "individu- alism"-and the equally uncertain term "doctrine"-in relation to punish- ment or retribution makes any examination of the complex question of " collective retribution" all the more difficult. We shall start, therefore, with a brief clarification of the key terms used in this study: the adjective "collec- tive" with its synonyms and antonyms, the concept of "doctrine," and possi- ble applications of "retribution." The use of the term "collective" must reflect the structure and role of soci- ety in ancient . Provided the general characteristics of that society are adequately defined, the nature and function of the "community," the "clan" or "family," and the "self' or "individual" as reflected in the Hebrew Bible can be properly determined.' There are many different views regarding "collectivism" and "individualism" in ancient Israel. It remains incontest- able, however, that the Hebrew understanding of any type of community, on the one hand, and the role of the individual, on the other, could never dete- riorate into "collective determinism" or "autonomous individualism," as is often the case in the Enlightenment and emancipative types of society, for the Israel of history was animated by profound sentiments of responsibility and solidarity within the community. Walther Eichrodt responds to the challenge of philosophical idealism in its handling of concepts of "collec- tivism" and "individualism" thus: "Instead of employing such conceptual categories it is better to keep firmly in mind the striking fundamental char- acteristic of all forms of community in the ancient world, and in particular of those of Israel, namely the strength of their sense of solidarity-a sense which adjusts itself in a variety of ways to changes in the shape of society,

, For the background and the relationship between these terms, see especially J. de Fraine, "Individu et societe dans la religion de ]' Ancien Testament," Biblica 33 (1952). 324-355, 445- 475; F. Spadafora, Collellivismo e illdividualismo Ilel Vecchio Testamellto (QE 2; Rovigo: Isti- tuto Padano di Arti Grafiche, 1953); J. Scharbert, Solidaritdt ill Segell ulld Fluch im Altell Tes- tamelll und ill seiner Umwelt (BBB 14; Bonn: P. Hanstein, 1958); W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testamelll, vol. I (trans. from the German J. Baker; London: SCM Press, 1967), esp. chap. 20 (pp. 231-267): 'The Individual and the Community in the -Man Relation- ship"; E. E. Gendler, "Community," Contemporary lewish Religious Thought: Original Essays 011 Critical Concepts, Movemellts, alld Belief5 (ed. A. A. Cohen and P. Mendes-Flohr; New York: Free Press (Macmillan); London: Collier Macmillan, 1987),81-86; P. Ochs, "Individu- ality," COllIemporary Jewish Religiolls Thought, 483-485; C. E. Vernoff, "Unity" COlltempo- rary lewish Religious Thought, 1025-1032; P. D. Hanson, The People Called: The Growth of COlllmunity ill the Bible (San Francisco, Calif.: Harper & Row, 1987). IS THERE A DOCTRINE OF "COLLECTIVE RETRIBUTION" . .. III but is always the essential determinant of its distinctive quality."2 It is generally recognized that the documents of the Hebrew Bible imply a progression in the role and value of the indi vidual and some strengthening of individuality within the various types of Israelite society. In the pre-monar- chic period, Israel shared the clan or tribe-centered community sense charac- teristic of a nomadic way of life. The clan is founded on a close spiritual and psychic association of individual and community. It seems that the tribes' view of the covenant was based not only on their particular concept of God but also on genealogical relationship. After the settlement in Canaan this sense of solidarity was transferred from the clan to the local communities, on the one hand, and to the immediate family, on the other. It is taken for granted that the underlying sense of solidarity within a clan or a family, or even within a local community, implies an idea of communal responsibility (collective li- ability) and corporate guilt, and a concept of collective divine retribution. 3 But "a permanent organic connection between the descendants and the father of the family, by virtue of which they partake of his special powers or suffer as a result of his guilt, is unknown."4 In the monarchic period the predomi- nantly collective sense of solidarity was reshaped by the new entity desig- nated as the "house of Israel" and by the personalist stamp of the covenant. The more God was perceived as the One and transcendent, the more the whole existence of the nation was seen to depend on the divine will, and the individual appreciated for his distinctive personal quality and capacity for de- cision. The divine demand for repentance proclaimed by classical prophets to the nation as a whole was decisive in finally transcending the confrontation of "collecti vism" and "individualism." The supremacy of Israel's over all forms of and polytheism brought about a strengthening of unity between various forms of Israelite society (the community) and between that society and the individual. It is justifiable to claim: "For Israel's sages, God alone endures, while the things of this world pass away, acquiring individuality only as in- struments of God's purposes. Only idol-worshipers place their trust in mere

2 See W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testamellt, vol. 2,232. 3 See the great study of this issue by G. Glotz, La solidarite de la famille dalls Ie droit crimillel ell Grece (Paris: A. Fontemoing, 1904), esp. chap. 9, pp. 557-597: "La responsabilite collective dans la religion." See also Plutarch (c. 46-120 C.E.) on solidarity within a city, pre- sented in hi s 011 the Delays of the Diville Vellgeallce (De Sera Numb/is Villdicta) (559al--e9); trans. P. H. de Lacy and B. Einarson, Plutarch's Moralia, vol. 7 (LCL 405; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press; London: W. Heinemann), 245: "A city, like a living thing, is a united and continuous whole. This does not cease to be itself as it changes in growing older, nor does it become one thing after another with the lapse of time, but is always at one with its former self in feeling and identity, and must take all blame or credit for what it does or has done in its pub- lic character, so long as the association that creates it and binds it together with interwoven strands preserves it as a unity." 4 See W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testamellt, vol. 2, 235.