• No results found

Israel’s Traditions and Social Inequality (The Mosaic and Davidic traditions) The evidences of traditions complex as they are reflected in Israel‟s historical

Vss 19-22. These verses have been described as laws of charity which require that part of the three main crops (grains, olives, grapes) be reserved for the poor, a form of welfare

5.3 Israel’s Traditions and Social Inequality (The Mosaic and Davidic traditions) The evidences of traditions complex as they are reflected in Israel‟s historical

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

159

experience of Israel in her historical development has been repeated in the global scene in recent times. It is not far from the truth to say that upheavals and civil unrests are mostly connected with social inequality.236

5.3 Israel’s Traditions and Social Inequality (The Mosaic and Davidic traditions)

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

160

narrative was at first formulated and transmitted in the Israelite Cult. This was because it was meant to have a determinative and controlling effect on the social life of the people.

M. Noth observes;

…….The tradition was not handed down as a dead chronicle of the past, a kind of historical mummy, but a living and dynamic story in whose drama the people participated in their present situation. Even the accretions from daily life or from Universal human experience are important in the reappriopriation of the meaning and power of the tradition.240

The two traditions, namely the mosaic tradition and the Davidic tradition, though suggests continuity and the fact that one derives from the other, however recent investigations show that both came from very different centers of power and different processes of tradition building.241 According to Murray Newman the provenance of the Abraham-David tradition is derived from the south while the Mosaic tradition comes from the North. For Brueggemann, the difference is more cultural and sociological than geographical. Although it is possible to trace the continuities in the literature shaped and energized either by the Mosaic or the Davidic covenants, there is to a large extent, a difference in the social vision of both traditions. This difference has been explicitly expressed as follows;

While the Mosaic tradition tends to be a movement of protest which is situated among the disinherited and which articulates its theological vision in terms of a God who decisively intrudes, even against seemingly impenetrable institutions and orderings,

240 M. Noth.1972. A History of Pentateuchal traditions. Englewood cliff N.J: Prentice-Hall Inc:XXII

241 W. Brueggemann. 1979. Trajectories in Old Testament literature and the sociology of Ancient Israel.

Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL) June. 98 .2. 9:161-185.

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

161

the Davidic tradition, on the other hand, tends to be a movement of consolidation which is situated among the established and secure, and which articulates its theological vision in terms of a God who faithfully abides and sustains on behalf of the present ordering.242

The Mosaic tradition traces its beginning to the Sinai event where Israel enters into a covenant relationship with Yahweh which involves two but complementary obligations.243 In the view of D. Noel Freedman and G.H Heron (et al) these dimensions of relationships that are involved in the covenant, are the vertical relationship with Yahweh and a horizontal relationship with the neighbour. Freedman observes;

The second area of new covenant life involves the horizontal relationship with others. In saving Israel from the Egyptians Yahweh was involved in social behaviour; the covenant at Sinai revealed an intrinsic connection between the nature of Yahweh and the demands of social justice. How Israel treated each other would be a sign of how seriously they were devoted to Yahweh. A special area of concern here is the treatment of the poor, the oppressed, the alien. A motive frequently found in covenant law (e.g. Ex. 2221, 239 Lev. 1934 Deut 15

1-11) for not oppressing the weak is because you were once strangers (aliens) in the land of Egypt. It would be a contradiction for Israel, freed from oppression by Yahweh, to become themselves oppressors of the weak.244

Thus the Mosaic tradition articulates its social and theological visions in terms of a God who acts on behalf of the down trodden and the voiceless of the society. This is quite evident in the Exodus tradition which incorporates the protection of the marginal group

242 W. Brueggemann. p.162.

243 E. Kutch proposes that the word „berit‟ which means covenant should actually be translated as

„Obligation‟.

244 D. Noel Freedman, G.A. Herion et al “Eds.” 1992. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol .4, London;

Doubleday, p.907.

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

162

(Ex. 2221) in the act of telling of the salvation history. According to D. Noel Freedman et al, the morality embodied in the Mosaic covenant is that of responding to the mandates of the covenant. Israel is called to respond to the blessings of the gift of Salvation, by obedience to the commandments, a theme which occurs as a leitmotif in Deuteronomy (Deut. 712, 81, 11, 91ff, 111ff).

The Davidic tradition, on the other hand, hangs its theology on the institution of the monarchy. By the prophetic declaration i.e. the Nathan Oracle, Yahweh establishes the Davidic dynasty in the promise in which God will build a house for David. Yahweh here chooses himself to set up the kingship (2 Sam. 78-12)…. And I have been with you wherever you went and have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make for you a great name like the name of the great ones of the earth (2 Sam 79) The father-son imagery common in the ancient near east (ANE) is re-echoed here (see Pss. 8927-28, 27-8).

The king is not considered divine as in the ANE but he is raised above the common person in his relationship with God. The king is a vice-regent. This theological persuation gave rise to the entrenchment of the doctrine of inviolability of Zion. Failure of the king will bring punishment (Ps. 8931) but it will not terminate the covenant (Ps. 893-4, 20-24) This persuation did not come without its negative impact on Israel‟s social life. It gave rise to the abuse of the theocratic powers invested on the King; A situation that resulted into a tension between the king and the people. It is this dividing line that parts the Mosaic tradition from the Davidic. According to D. Noel Freedman, Deuteronomy with its overriding Mosaic concerns admits kingship but stresses that the king is simply one of the people. The king is one of your kinsmen (Deut. 1714-20). He must not multiply horses for himself. This rejection of absolute power in the Deuteronomy comes from the mosaic

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

163

tradition whose center of tradition building process ideology is inclined to an egalitarian humane society. It must be realized that though Israel‟s emerging social and political structure copied the Canaanite socio-political system, Israel was constantly reminded to remember their covenant status and their peculiarity.

Both the Davidic and Mosaic traditions find significance in the Israelite cult.

According to Xaxier Leon- Dufour245 the traditions in order to transmit themselves, the sacred deposit necessarily takes a literary form such as laws, maxims, hymns, rituals etc.

While the literary form of the Mosaic tradition is expressed mainly in the laws and cultic rituals, the Davidic tradition expresses its theology in the Hymns and Psalms (see Ps.

5920-21, 22-29, 32-37). In the legal texts under consideration the Deuteronomist consistently remind Israel of the social obligations which Israel has towards the marginal groups as a covenant community. S.R Driver observes, „Nowhere else in the OT do we breathe such an atmosphere of generous devotion to God, and of large-hearted benevolence towards man; and nowhere else is it shown with the same fullness of detail how these principles may be made to permeate the entire life of the community.246 The contemporary relevance of the Deuteronomic response to social inequality has been observed in Blenkinsopp‟s argument. He says, „The way Deuteronomy interprets the Old law of leaving the crops ungathered every seventh year so that the poor could help themselves shows its concern for social action and collective responsibility.247 He observes further,

We find a great concern to legislate for the deprived classes which we have learnt to realize is still very

245 Xavier Leon-Dufour. 1997. Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Wellington House.125 Strand London:

Geoffrey Chapman.

246 S.R Driver. 1956. An Introduction to the Literature of Old Testament. New York: Meridian Books.p.79.

247 J. Blenkinsopp and J. Challenor. 1971. Pentateuch London: William Cloves & Sons Ltd. p. 225.

UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY

164

much necessary in our affluence western society.

In the light of the above arguments Deuteronomy is held to be a response addressed primarily to the rather well-off bound classes who were behind the conservative reform of Josiah. Both traditions tend to have their cultural orientations. By culture here is meant the total ways of a people‟s life. While the Mosaic tradition is more disposed to the culture of equity and social egalitarianism, the Davidic-royal tradition is dominated by class and social stratification.