Martin Noth - Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

Martin Noth - Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

BOOK REVIEWS
League of Tribes
or Amphictyony? A review of O. Bächli, Amphiktyonie
Alten Testament. Forschungsgeschichtliche Studie zur Hypothese von
Martin Noth Basel, 1977.
,
im
Horst Seebass
Universität Münster.
may be recommended for reviewing this book. I give
1. B. demonstrates and documents the extreme
particularly
usefulness of Noth’s thesis in its reception and refutation for at least
two generations of OT scholars. 2. In his documentation he holds his own
critical position which neither totally accepts nor rejects Noth’s thesis.
In ch. I, after an introduction (§ 1) listing research studies since
1930, especially N.P. Lemcf~e /1/, A.D.H. Mayes /2/ and C.H.J. de Geus
/3/, there follows the presentation of the hypotheses. In § 4 (day
I<lassische
Vorbild) and § 6 (Spatform einer .Amphiktyonie), this chapter is
much more than a mere presentation; for § 4 discusses the literature on
the Pylean-Delphic amphictyony in a new approach, and § 6 gives a
possible Polynesian analogy to Greek amphictyonies. Ch.II records the
reception of the thesis /4/. Inter alia, B. tries to show that only one
scholar (de Vaux /5/; but I think that de Geus /6/ did too) developed a
historical alternative in rejecting Noti~’s thesis (though this alternative
does not seem plausible to B.). Furthermore, B. judges (e.g. p.53) that the
analogy of the classical amphictyony was much more accepted or
(principally) rejected - e.g. by Foi~rer /7/ and de Vaux /3/- because of
too great a cultural and regional distance) than really discussed or even
looked into. Ch.III &dquo;Aspekte&dquo; is in my opinion the most helpful part of the
book. The aspects that B. found to be important are presented under the
headings of institutional (§ 14 Form der Amphiktyonie, § 155
Zusammenschluss der Stamme, § 16 Zentrum /9/), of characteristic
actions (§ 17 Kult, § 18 Recht, § 19 Krieg) and of functions after the end
of the actual institution (§§ 20-21, mainly of functions in exilic and
postexilic times). Ch.IV contains summaries and a rather convincing
essay on the use and method of a historical analogy (§ 24).
In dealing with Noth’s thesis, one of the greatest problems is the
definition of the kind of community accepted, rejected or modif ied by
the scholars. This problem is well documented by B. with the
consequence that every scholar who works with the thesis should
henceforth say exactly what he is actually accepting, rejecting or
modifying. But as a matter of fact, B. himself has an idea of
amphictyony which not only differs from that of Noth (see below), but
which makes him blind with respect to the really strong and considerable
Many
reasons
two:
61
arguments of Mayes and de Geus against the thesis of North. 13.
seems
to
think that the nucleus of Noth’s thesis is the idea of a sacral confederacy
of tribes which had no political (in the sense of a state) organization but
had religious bonds besides connubium and commercium. But Noth did
not begin with an overall idea of a possible &dquo;Zusammenschluss&dquo; of tribes
in the time before the constitution of kingship, but with certain data of
the OT tradition.
Beginning with tradition, the basic fact for a historical quest was
the constant /10/ number 12 of the members of the tribes-lists /11/. B.
(e.g. 72.82.92f.) is strongly opposed to this being a basic fact. For this,
he finds justification in his presentation of the Greek classical material.
Like de Vaux /12/ before him, B. lays stress upon the fact that some
Greek authors use the word amphictyonia for confederacies of cities
consisting of different numbers. B. has overlooked the fact that this was
a rather late use of the word /13/, that the term seems to mean
originally the league of tribes which derived itself from the hero
,~r!1P_hjktyon at the Thermopiles /14/ and is possibly a name. He
therefore presented a Polynesian league of tribes described by E.W.
Muhlmann /15/ as an additional analogy of the OT amphictyony.
But there is always the danger that the analogy (whether from
Greece or the Ancient Near East or elsewhere) to a certain fact of the
OT tradition begins to dominate the understanding of the fact itself /16/,
and I think this has happened to B. If one gives away the argument of the
number 12 like B., it would be enough to think of loosely agglomerated
tribes (de Geus: clans) in Israel’s early history with a possibly constant
change of the members /17/; but there would be no more need to look for
a special institution or some such thing in the time before the
kings (the
only alternative to Noth’s thesis). Above all, there would be no need,
even
no
justification, for using material of the Pylean-Delphic
ampliictyony as an historical analogy, since there would be nothing left
for comparison, while the very strong differences of culture and ethos
would be overwhelming.
For Noth there was need of an historical quest only because the
number 12 for the members of tribes-lists was overwhelmingly attested
by the OT tradition. This led him to lists of 12 tribes coming from other
traditions: Edomite, Italic /18/ and especially the relatively rich
traditions of the Pylean-Delphic amphictyony. In the meantime we got a
new example from Hittite tradition of
12 Kaska tribes /19/. The
tradition of 12 members had to be explained historically in Noth’s
opinion, even if it might be highly theoretical, as Noth himself observed.
From this point of departure Noth found a historical analogy in the basic
lines or unspoken constitutions of the amphictyony of Pylai/Delphi /20/,
while the details /21/ lead deeply into the Greek culture and mentality
differing strongly from that of the OT /22/.
The consequences of B.’s modification of Notli’s basis5 are
62
far-reaching:
1. He overestimates the
importance of
the details of the
Greek classical material. In my opinion these details are reflexes of
quite a different culture, and only very rare exceptions may help to
understand elements of the OT tradition /23/. With respect to historical
details lead simply to a relatively substantial reconstruction
beginnings and the constitution of the Pylean-Delphic
amphictyony /24/, and only this reconstruction is fit to be compared with
the basic OT material. 2. B. fails to see the importance of the attack
that Mayes /25/ led against Noth’s interpretation of the OT tribes-lists.
On the other hand, he overestimates Mayes’ point, that Noth made too
much use of dtr. texts /26/. 3. Similarly, B. fails to observe the
well-made attack (as I see it) of de Geus against the conception of tribes
and especially the early constitution of the &dquo;house of Joseph&dquo; /27/.
Personally, I think that Noth’s thesis will be at end if it can be proved
that the membership of Joseph in the tribes-lists is of late origin
(Staate_nbildun~ or later /28/).
All this does not mean to take away some of the importance of B.’s
book. One has to draw the conclusion that even after nearly 50 years of
discussion is remains difficult to give a neutral description of what is
meant by an old Israelite league of tribes. B.’s book seems to be a
warning against the use of the term amphictyony, because it seems to
lead away from the OT data. But this is a small point of critique. More
l. It is now more and more
important are the following conclusions:
certain that Noth’s thesis did not help so much as he hoped to explain the
rather exceptional and fortuitous records of the so-called period of
Judges /29/. 2. If the thesis is of any substance - which I think it is /30/,
it will be of help for the explanation of much earlier events. The
question of A. Alt has to be answered: what religious legacy the tribes
had, before Yahweh became the God of Israel /31/. I think that the
league of the tribes was united in the worship of &dquo;El the God of Israel&dquo;
(Gen. 33:20) /32/, i.e. in the worship of one &dquo;God of (one) Father&dquo;, when
Joshua and his people entered Canaan. This meant that Noth’s thesis will
help to understand the way in which Yahweh became the god of Israel
/33/. 3. It is notably this importance of the old league for the people of
Israel which explains the common sense of unity, when the kingship was
constituted in the time of Saul /34/ and institutionalized and justified in
the time of David and Solomon.
One needs to be no prophet to say that in future the tribe-lists have
to take priority in discussion. Contra Bdchii and in part contra Lemche I
do not think that the discussion of the classical material will be as useful
as both authors seem to think. But at least with Bdchli I agree that we
have to take new care of the use of the Greek analogy and that the
discussion of Noth’s hypothesis is as fascinating as in earlier times.
analogy, the
of
the
~
-
63
NOTES
,
Israel i dommertiden
/1/
/2/
Tekst &
4 (1972).
Studies in Biblical
Tolkning
Israel in the Period of the Judges
,
Theology II, 29
(1974).
The(Studia
/3/
Tribes of Israel
Semitica Neerlandica 18, 1976).
de Geus, VT 29 (1979) 238-241, may be
minor mistakes. But it seems unjustified
to say (p.241) that B. reviewed mainly the German literature; however,
he forgot the important article of G.W. Anderson,"Israel: Amphictyony:
AM; KAHAL; EDAH", in: H.T. Frank/W.L. Reed, Translating and
, 1970, 135-151.
Understanding the Old Testament
II. La P&eacute;riode des Juges (posthum. 1973),
/5/ Histoire
Ch. III.
/6/ L.c. 120-164. In his review of de Geus, R. Smend, VT 29, 244 justly
observed that the alternative is more thesis than proof and in nearly
total contradiction to the OT tradition.
/7/ "Altes Testament - ’Amphiktyonie’ und ’Bund"’, in: BZAW 115(1969)
84-119.
/8/ L.c. 24-36; see now also Lemche, "The Greek ’Amphictyony’ - Could
it be a Prototype for Israelite Society in the Period of the Judges? "
JSOT
4 (1977) 48. 58f.
/9/ B. 106ff. discerns the question of a centre for the tribes from the
question of a central shrine. This seems to me a helpful thought. It suits
nicely my proposal to see the centre of the tribes at the pass between
Garizim and Ebal near Shechem (Dt. 27:12f.) and not to estimate the
central shrine at Shechem (Gen.
33:20) too highly: see "Das
altisraelitische System der zw&ouml;lf St&auml;mme", ZAW 90 (1978) 196-220
/4/In his review of B.’s book,
right in criticizing B. for some
Ancienne d’Isra&euml;l
(202-205).
/10/ There are only very few exceptions; see ZAW 90, 213ff.
1966) 4-28.39-60.
2
/11/ M. Noth, Das System der zw&ouml;lf St&auml;mme Israels (
/12/ L.c. 21; for this reason de Vaux, 23, added examples of Scandinavian
tribes-leagues with different numbers of members.
/13/ Lemche, JSOT 4, 53f. mentions Strabo (ca. 64/3 B.C.-A.D. 21) and
Pausanias (2nd cent. A.D.); the first mention of amphiktyones by
Demosthenes (4th cent. B.C.), even earlier, in the 5th cent. B.C.
/14/ Lemche, 54, with reference to two different etymological theories.
One of the theories is that Amphiktyon was a personification of the
proper name amphiktyonia
. Or was Amphiktyon like the name-giving
father Israel the origin of the term amphiktyones
, which played on the
word amphiktiones "neighbours"?
/15/ Staatsbildung und Amphiktyonien in Polynesien (1938).
/16/ B. 21: "So darf nun f&uuml;r den Abriss der ’klassischen’ A.[mphiktyonie]
das Schema NOTHs nicht massgebend sein, weil die Gefahr besteht, in
einem eklektischen Verfahren, das zu sehr auf die Verh&auml;ltnisse im AT
64
zugeschnitten ist, wichtige Elemente zu vernachl&auml;ssigen und
&uuml;bersehen." Right; but there is a danger the other way round, too!
zu
/17/ See also S. Herrmann in B.90.
/18/ The evidence is well known and need not be quoted here.
/19/ E.v. Schuler, Die Kask&auml;er (1965).
/20/ This does not mean an arbitrary abstract from reality, as most
recently demonstrated by P. Amandry, "L’amphictionie delphique"
(unpublished paper read at the International Symposium at Delphi 1978,
soon published in the Proceedings of the Symposium). My thanks and
compliments to P. Amandry for permission to quote his paper.
/21/Very often, they are extremely difficult to interpret, as
one of the
best "Kenner" showed on the detail of the list of tribes in classical times:
G. Daux, Remarques sur la composition du Conseil Amphictionique, BCH
81 (1957) 95-120. After reading this essay,I have to correct the list in
ZAW 90, 201 A.29, since the Perrhaibes were one and the same group
with the Dolopes (Daux, 101ff: the inscriptions of the 4th cent. B.C. show
that the 12 member were the Delphes).
/22/ Lemche, 55f., says that nothing exact is known about the pylagoroi
;
but P. Cauer, in: Pauly-Wissowa I (1894) 1923ff. gave many details from
the sources, see ZAW 90,202. Contra Lemche, 48, 58, it is not convincing
that the Pylean-Delphic amphictyony cannot be a historical analogy,
because some scholars date its beginnings to the 8th cent. B.C.; the date
is not so important. Very interesting is the fact that the first holy war of
the Greek amphictyony made Delphi into the second centre (after Pylai)
and was itself initiated by the oracle of Delphi, see Amandry, 5: "Selon le
r&eacute;cit, qu’ a fait Eschine de ces &eacute;v&eacute;n&eacute;ments, les Amphictyons
demand&egrave;rent &agrave; Apollon de quelle punition il fallait frapper les sacril&egrave;ges
scil. des Kirrh&eacute;ens, ca. 590 B.C.). La Pythie leur prescrivit de mener la
(
guerre jour et nuit contre les Kirrh&eacute;ens, de ravager leur ville et leur
pays, de vendre les habitants comme esclaves, puis de d&eacute;dier la terre &agrave;
Apollon Pythien...". (Kirrha/Krissa was the polis to which Delphi
).
belonged before the first holy war; after that, Delphi became a polis
Amandry explains that on the whole the holy wars were much more
destructive than helpful for the amphictyony. Even for the amphictyony
the holy wars seem therefore to be rather late phenomena; see ZAW 90,
207 A.53 for Israel.
/23/ Such a detail may be the place of Delphi as second shrine, in
parallelism to Jerusalem as second shrine, see ZAW 90, 202-204.
/24/ It is very curious that B.,91, seems to enumerate as independent
amphictyonies those of Delphi, Anthela and the Thermopyles, which are
one and the same.
. 16-34.
/25/ L.c
. 5, see B. 165.
/26/ L.c
/27/ Tribes 70-108. B&auml;chli 99-102 discusses the problems of some of the
tribes, but without appreciating the arguments of de Geus or Mayes, 24ff.
65
I hope to deal thoroughly with this point in a paper on Gen. 49.
de
Geus, VT 29, 240 criticizes B&auml;chli for seeming not to reconize
29/
the rapid change of our picture of the so-called period of Judges is
undergoing. That seems to be true though B. is mostly quoting other
authors. - In the conclusions I refer strongly to G.W. Anderson, Israel,
see above n.4; and to R. Smend,"Geh&ouml;rte Juda zum vorstaatlichen
Israel?" Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies I (1967) 57ff.; "Zur
. 31 (1971) 623ff.
Frage der altisraelitischen Amphiktyonie", Ev. Th
30/ With Anderson and Smend, see n.29.
1059) 1ff. in his famous essay "Der Gott der
2
31/ Kleine Schriften I (
V&auml;ter".
32/ See C. Steurnagel, Jahwe, der Gott Israels (1914) 343ff.; ZAW 90,
208f. I need not here
into the problem of Israel being one of the
fathers. It is enough to observe that the tradition sees him as one of the
fathers and that his name is structurally a personal name, see ZAW 90,
208 A.35. There must be a second nucleus of the god of the fathers
Abraham and Isaac with very old connections with Yahweh of the desert.
33/ On this point there seems to be a kind of agrement with de Geus, VT
29, 240! That a tribal confederacy was constituted at Sinai is certainly
possible (see inter alios Anderson 149). But even the tradition knows
nothing of such a constitution.
34/ It is not the place here to show that 1 Sam. 11:6 is quite right in
describing the borders of Saul’s reign, though they were borders of claim,
not of actual realization.
28/
go
66