What is Good about Noth's Proposal?

Given the methodological problems with Martin Noth's approach to the laws in the Old Testament (see from the perspective of theology), what is good for theology, or at least for Childs' canonical approach?

I can think of two things:

The theological nature of the traditions. One could construe their nature in a number of ways: they primarily reflect economic, social or political forces, with religion used as a convenient veneer. But for Noth, while fully alive to these dimensions of Israel's life, the primary force at work was a theological understanding of God as the gracious elector of a people, and thus their covenant partner. Regardless of a certain historical minimalism concerning the events at Sinai, the traditions of these events serve to delineate the identity of God and his will for his people. This theological construal grounded the sacral confederacy and in the end could only be broken by the prophetic pronouncement that this relationship was over. Admittedly, Noth thinks that the later development in the post-exilic tradition was a retrograde step, but as I pointed out yesterday, theologically critiquing the elements within the Bible is not intrinsically wrong. The problem is the criteria to be used, and here a recognition of the hermeneutical shape of the canon as theological critique makes up for Noth's more historicist approach.

The theological nature of the canonical process is a foundation stone of the canonical approach. If the traditions-cum-texts were not theological, then the ground for the unity of the canon is lost. Noth's approach needs to be supplemented with an appreciation of the theological nature of the editorial process along with it hermeneutical significance.

The power of the traditions in the life of Israel. Childs' canonical approach is predicated on the idea of an ongoing dialectic between Israel's understanding of God and its traditions. In effect, God works through Israel's traditions in order to guide and shape the nation, while bringing them forward according to his eschatological plans. Noth illustrates not only the theological nature of the covenant/law tradition, but also its ability to constrain history, subordinating even kings to its logic. The struggles of the post-exilic community were done in terms of the ancient institution, though admittedly on Noth's estimate the older situation provides the ground for theologically critiquing what came later. Within a canonical framework, there is not distinction between “authentic” and “inauthentic” periods of Israel's history. Rather, the whole process is considered to be a genuine theological witness, so that critical judgement of the elements within the tradition must be done in terms of the structure give to the whole of the tradition.

The Theological Problem With Noth's Approach

In my last post I summarized Martin Noth's thesis concerning the nature of the Israelite law and its place within the Old Testament. I had also suggested (here) that understanding Noth's approach can help us appreciate what kind of history Brevard Childs thought was “allowable” in order for his canonical approach to stand. Today I post my negative evaluation of Noth's approach. Tomorrow comes my positive evaluation.

Leaving aside the self-evident subjectivity involved in all attempts at critical reconstruction, there are theological problems with Noth's method. His construal of the development of Israelite-cum-Jewish attitudes to the Torah involves a clear value judgement. The apparent development of the idea of the Torah as absolute principle, abstracted from any sense of a covenantal relation (a questionable theory in itself), is judged by Noth to be a step in the wrong direction. According to Noth, it is understandable given general human tendencies, but lamentable given the apparently more profound and authentic significance the law had in its original amphictyonic context. In this light, Jesus' attack on the rabbinic Judaism of his day was a valid call to the true meaning of obedience as response to grace rather than requirement for favour.

Making theological judgements like this are not wrong in themselves. Within the Old Testament itself certain traditions are interpreted along certain axes in the later history of Israel. An implicit theological critique is thereby exercised, in which some dimensions of an event are emphasised, reinterpreted or subordinated. The significant theological question is “what are the criteria that are to be used” when making a theological critique? Noth's own criteria are implicit. He talks of “authoritative exegesis” as being the one that interprets the laws in their original context. But by what measure does he judge the later developments to be degenerative? Especially given the fact that this apparent later development is found editorially inserted at all stages throughout the narrative? Childs' contention is that this editing itself was an act of theological critique, shaping the tradition in a particular way so that it may be heard in a new light. The intention of this editorial shaping was to create authoritative Scripture for later generations of the faithful, so that if our theology is to be faithful to the text, it must take into consideration the hermeneutical manoeuvres of these editors, rather than importing criteria from elsewhere and operating with a “canon within the canon.”

Noth couldn't have taken this option, as the canon of rationalism required him separate out what had been put together for the sake of conceptual consistency. But if the editing process is seen to be a hermeneutical manoeuvre with theological intentionality, then a different “theology of the Torah” emerges, one in which law and covenant belong intrinsically together, in which law defines the holiness of the covenant and in which full commitment is demanded in response.

These are some of the conclusions Childs comes to in his canonical reading of Ex. 19 as a whole. The point is that setting the text within its canonical context yields a different reading to the reconstructions of historical criticism. The theological integrity of the final form allows Childs a certain freedom concerning the precise process of the development of the text. Even if Noth's elaborate theory is historically accurate, it doesn't matter. What matters is what it says now.

Except, as I have said, it does matter to some degree what happened in the process of the development of the text. And this something is what Noth preserves, as opposed to the more cynical approaches of recent historical critics. More on that next time.

Jewish Legalism?

As if in response to M. Noth's views about the "degeneracy" of later Jewish attitudes to their own laws, check out this short video clip from Jewish website chabad.org.

Given chabad's chassidic, Lubavitcher inclinations, I wonder of this video represents consensus Jewish opinion?

M. Noth on The Laws in the Pentateuch

In my last post I claimed that B.S. Childs was committed to the “historicality” of the Bible, i.e. its nature as the product of particular people in particular places and times. Not only is it important to come to terms with this dimension of the text, Childs' entire“canonical project” stands or falls depending on how one construes “what actually happened.” To be sure, he allowed for a lot of leeway concerning the historicality of the events portrayed—Childs was no conservative—but the options are not infinite. In order to help us understand what kind of history needs to have taken place, I will illustrate by looking at the critical reconstruction of the history of Israel's laws by Martin Noth.

Childs did not exactly wax lyrical about Noth as he did about von Rad, and “theologian” is not the first job description that comes to mind when one thinks of him. Noth was a historical critic through and through; his passion was uncovering the development of the traditions that eventually led to the final form of the text. Nevertheless, in his actual work we see a sensitivity to the theological dimension of the traditions which Childs held to be critical. Childs respected Noth's work and refers to him positively several times in his Exodus commentary. Though there is certainly plenty in Noth's work that is worth criticising—both historically and theologically—I believe attention to the nature of his historical proposals reveals an attitude common to German critical scholars that formed a positive matrix for the development of Childs' own thinking.

The following is my analysis of his essay “The Laws in the Pentateuch: Their Assumptions and Meaning” in The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Essays (London: Oliver & Boyd, 1966), 1-107. In my next post I will draw some conclusions concerning the relation between this kind of critical construction and Childs' canonical approach.

I should add that it is not my concern to evaluate the historical validity of Noth's suggestions, but rather to see their relevance to understanding Childs' canonical approach.

In his essay, Noth is concerned to uncover the “true nature” of Old Testament laws, which, despite their diversity, are still “an entity of a particular type.” He starts with the general observation that all human laws require a particular social context in order for them to make sense. In the case of the variegated laws of the Pentateuch, this social context is the “sacral confederacy” of the twelve tribes of Israel. In other words, the social matrix in which these particular laws have their being is not primarily political, it is theological. They are, according to the self-understanding of this confederacy (or “amphictyony”), grounded in a covenantal relationship between Yhwh and his elected people, a relationship which is exclusive and to be guarded at all costs. These laws, in other words, only make sense and indeed only have their validity within the context of a theological construal of a divine/human relationship. Yhwh has “graciously” (to use Noth's term) elected his people and out of this election the people respond in obedience.

This concrete, theological entity known as “the twelve tribes of Israel” (in distinction to the purely political entity of the northern “state of Israel”)continued throughout the historical vicissitudes of Israel's history, up to and into the exile. The power of this sacral confederacy is manifested not only in its ability to survive the political developments of the davidic kingdom, the division of the kingdom and the Assyrian invasion, but also in its impact on the development of these political realities. According to Noth, David's election of Jerusalem only worked because he moved the cultic centre of this amphictyony to the city, and the kings themselves were subordinated to the demands of the sacred laws. Even the “Josianic reform” was done in deference to the prior claims of this religious entity. The law book discovered in the temple, according to Noth, was not an expedient invention of the part of Josiah in order to further his own cause, it was a collection of genuine amphictyonic laws which needed to be inaugurated by a covenantal ceremony involving Yhwh and his people. The laws were made operative, “not by an act of state, but by a sacral ceremony” (45). And not only was this event inherently theological, it was theological in deference to and in continuity with prior Israelite tradition. In this sense, Noth can say that “the introduction of the deuteronomic law under Josiah took place under those circumstances to which the law belonged, on its own showing” (45).

As such, the theological reality which undergirded the amphictyonic league had a concrete Wirkungsgeschichte (i.e. it constrained the direction of later tradition). To be sure, according to Noth, the path hence taken was not straightforward. Josiah did turn this sacred law into state-law, thus shifting its emphasis and later kings disobeyed it altogether. Yet despite everything, the sacral confederacy, and thus the basis for the legitimacy of the laws managed to survive until it was totally destroyed by the exile. But even here, Noth is keen to point out that the decisive element in the dissolution of this group was not political but theological. A cult of sorts could still be carried on at the site of the temple, and there was still a remnant that could lay claim to being the “true amphictyony.” The break came with the pronouncement of the pre-exilic prophets, whose prophecies were confirmed by history, that God had decided to end his relationship with his people. If God pulls out, then the ground upon which the law stands is destroyed.

Without the basis of the confederacy, the law should technically have become invalid. Nevertheless, it persisted in fits and starts amongst competing groups out of competing reasons. Some refused to believe that the relationship was over and hung on to the laws, with prophetic backing, which were now understood within a framework of expectancy of restoration. Others promised the inbreaking of something completely new and discontinuous with the past. Whatever people's hopes, they were not realized and so the old laws became fossilized specimens, detached from their original context. The laws remained “by the power of inertia.” Given their detachment from the theological reality that gave birth to them, these laws became absolutized. No longer were the laws dependent on the “community of the redeemed” (my phrase), but rather the community defined itself in terms of its of a now abstract law, understood to be a self-contained entity. “Covenant” lost its true meaning, morphing into something legalistic, whereby the “salvation by grace” of the amphictyonic league is replaced by works righteousness as God is understood to respond to his people on the basis of their fulfilment of “the law.”

Protestantism anybody?