«The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters. Citation No citation. ...»
Honor and Shame in the Deuteronomic Covenant and the
Deuteronomistic Presentation of the Davidic Covenant
The Harvard community has made this article openly available.
Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters.
Citation No citation.
Accessed February 19, 2015 12:14:59 PM EST
Citable Link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11124848
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 (Article begins on next page) Honor and Shame in the Deuteronomic Covenant and the Deuteronomistic Presentation of the Davidic Covenant A dissertation presented by James Nicholas Jumper 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 April 2013 © 2013 James Nicholas Jumper All Rights Reserved.
Dissertation Adviser: Jon D. Levenson James Nicholas Jumper Honor and Shame in the Deuteronomic Covenant and the Deuteronomistic Presentation of the Davidic Covenant Abstract The purpose of this dissertation is to identify the semantics of honor and shame in the Hebrew Bible and to demonstrate how these social values intersect with Israel’s fundamental social organizing principle, covenant. Though many scholars have claimed that honor and shame are pivotal values for biblical Israel and that covenant is fundamental to her conception of the divine-human relationship, no work attempting to explore the juncture of these two important social phenomena has appeared. Thus, our study has two major goals: (1) establish the semantics of honor and shame in the Hebrew Bible; and (2) demonstrate that honor and shame, however conceived in context, are pivotal to biblical Israel’s understanding of her covenantal relationship with YHWH in Deuteronomy 28 and 2 Samuel 7.
With regard to Deuteronomy 28, which defines Israel’s understanding of covenantal fidelity, we show that honor is depicted as pre-eminent military and economic status among the nations and as a major goal of the covenantal blessings and designed to motivate Israel to greater loyalty (vv. 1, 13). Shame, however, is not just the loss of pre-eminent status (vv. 44, 48), but also the loss of social existence (v. 68). The explicit covenantal formulation of both values appears unique to Israel, despite her adoption of other ancient Near Eastern covenantal forms.
With regard to the 2 Samuel 7, we argue YHWH honors David and Zadok with eternal royal and priestly positions because Saul and Eli failed to honor YHWH (e.g., 1 Sam 2:30), but also because David and Zadok would be loyal (e.g., 2:35). As a result,
7:9), denoting David’s military superiority (8:13). Moreover, we show that from a Deuteronomistic prespective, the discipline of the Davidides in 2 Samuel 7:14–15, entails royal shaming (1 Kgs 11:31). Thus, we prove that, while honor and shame are variously conceived in both covenants, they are pivotal to our understanding of the divine-human relationship in the Hebrew Bible.
List of Tables
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.0 The reason and purpose of this study
1.1 The justification for this study
1.2 The biblical scholarship of honor and shame
1.2.1 Psychological approaches
1.2.2 The biblical scholarship on shame (and honor): Anthropological approaches
1.4 The structure of our study
CHAPTER 2: THE VOCABULARY AND SEMANTICS OF HONOR AND SHAME
2.1 Importance versus Unimportance (dbk versus llq, hlq, llz and hzb)........... 55 2.1.1 Importance, high esteem, prestige, fame, high rank: dbk
2.1.2 Inconsequential, unimportant, insignificant, trivial: llq, hlq and hzb.. 63 2.1.3 The Lofty and the Low: Mwr and hbg versus lpv and jjv
2.1.4 Being valuable, great and having a great or valuable name: rqy, ldg and MEv
2.1.5 Miscellaneous “Shame” Vocabulary: vwb I, Mlk, and Prj II.
2.2 Overall summary
CHAPTER 3: BLESSING AND CURSE AS AN EXPRESSION OF DEUTERONOMICCOVENANTAL HONOR AND SHAME
3.1 The concepts of loyalty in Deuteronomic blessings and blessings.......... 124 3.1.1 The second millennium Hittite treaty model
3.1.2 Assyrian vassal treaties of the first millennium
3.2 The place of honor and shame in the blessings and curses
3.2.1 Honor and blessing
3.2.2 Excursus: Honor and the “law-grace distinction”
3.2.3 Shame and curse
3.3 Deuteronomic honor and shame in the history and life of Israel: the Ark Narrative
3.4 Deuteronomic honor and shame in the history and life of Israel: a psalm of lament
Chapter 4: Shame and Everlasting Honor in Deuteronomistic Conception of the Davidic Covenant
4.1 What you see is not what you get: The status exchange of the northern and southern royal and priestly houses
4.1.1 Heart, hatred and sight: The houses of Eli and Zadok
v 4.1.2 The Lofty and the lowly: Hannah’s song as an adumbration of the exchange in rank between the northern and southern priestly and royal houses178 4.1.3 Height and heart: The houses Saul and David
4.2 The Promise of an Eternal House of David and the future House of YHWH: 2 Samuel 7 (cf. 1 Chron 17)
4.2.1 The Prolegomena to the promise: David’s gift of a temple and YHWH’s refusal (2 Sam 7:1–7 // 1 Chron 17:1–6)
4.2.2 Honoring the House of David: YHWH’s counteroffer to build David an eternal House and to allow Solomon to build the deity a House (2 Sam 7:8– 17 // 1 Chron 17:7–15).
4.2.3 David’s response thanks YHWH’s for honoring him with an eternal house:
(2 Samuel 7:18–29 // 1 Chron 17:16–27)
4.3 Honor and shame and the Davidic Covenant in Psalm 89
4.3.1 The Sitz im Leben, unity and structure of Psalm 89
4.3.2 The Hymn: Honoring and “shaming” the Deity (vv. 2–19)............... 251 4.3.4 The Lament: The shame of the house of David (vv. 39–52)............... 255 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
5.1 The vocabulary and concepts of honor and shame
5.2 The Deuteronomic Covenant (Deuteronomy 28)
5.3 The Davidic Covenant
5.4 Future directions
5.4.1 Honor and the Abrahamic Covenant
5.4.1 Priestly conceptions of honor, shame and covenant
5.4.2 Comparative studies of covenant in ancient Near East
vi List of Tables
Table 4.1 YHWH’s Dominion of Honor in the Social Order…………….
..185–185 Table 4.2 The Diminishment of the House of Eli………………………………..192 Table 4.3 Types of Honor Loss in Hannah’s Prayer and the Deuteronomic Covenantal Curses……………………………………………………
encouragement and guidance, and this work has only reaffirmed that belief. I want to thank Professor Jon D. Levenson, my advisor and the chair of my dissertation committee, not only for his willingness to take on and guide me through this project, but also for his sage advice throughout my graduate career. His judicial scholarship continues to be the model of insight and inspiration.
I am also deeply thankful for Professors Shaye Cohen and Peter Machinist, who also served on my committee. Early in this project, when I was adrift in a sea of questions, Professor Machinist helped me to clarify, focus, and simplify the goals of this study. I am grateful to Professor Cohen for his methodological suggestions, and I am most appreciative for the many years that I served as his Teaching Fellow.
Many encouraged me in my darker moments, chastised me in my laziness, and provided me with valuable input. My undying thanks go to Katie Lewis, Mary Ruth Windham, Hilary Kapfer, Rebecca Hancock, John Noble, and Ari Finkelstein. They were friends in the truest sense. I owe them so much more than words.
I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge Drs. Gordon Hugenberger, Douglas Stuart, and Gary Pratico. They are a testimony to personal integrity, and they laid the foundation for my academic career in Hebrew Bible.
There are so many others: Elizabeth Galoozis, who helped edit my manuscript, my family, which has been supportive through thick and thin, and a bevy of colleagues that have richly blessed my life. Lastly, by way of emphasis, it would be a bitter irony not to affirm Isaiah 38:19.
xi SBLMS Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G.
Kittel and G. Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols.
Grand Rapids, 1964–1976 TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed., G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, transl. by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D.
E. Green, 8 vols, Grand Rapids, 1974ThWAT Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament. Edited by G. J.
Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Stuttgart, 1970– TLOT Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by E. Jenni, with assistance from C. Westermann. Translated by M. E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, Mass., 1997 TS Theological Studies TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Edited by R. L.
Harris, G. L. Archer Jr. 2 vols. Chicago, 1980 TZ Theologische Zeitschrift VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Vetus Testamentum Supplements WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZBK Zürcher Bibelkommentare ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche
1.0 The reason and purpose of this study Over the past century scholars have profitably explored the notion of covenant in Israel and the ancient Near East; and as Saul Olyan has noted, “Few would dispute that covenant was a primary basis for social organization in the West Asian cultural sphere in which Israel emerged as a distinct polity.”1 Moreover, most social anthropologists have noted that honor and shame are central social values of the Mediterranean. But as Olyan noted further, “…the points of contact between the universe of covenanting and the notions of honor and shame have yet to be explored in any depth.”2 Olyan began to fill this lacuna in scholarship with his 1996 article “Honor, Shame, and Covenant Relations in Ancient Israel and Its Environment,” though he never actually treats the various accounts of the Abrahamic, Sinaitic or Davidic covenants. Presumably he would have done so had he pursued his intended follow-up monograph.3 David Daube, while not attempting to tackle the intersection of Israel’s social values and covenant, aimed to treat the “shame culture” underlying Deuteronomy.4 For him, guilt and shame permeate the motivations for right-doing in every class of every culture,5 but his brief study only addresses how certain Deuteronomic laws have an
“shame cultures.”6 What is surprising is that he does not address how shame might be involved in, for example, the Deuteronomic curses, which would have seemed a natural area to explore.7 The same inattention to covenant is more glaring in the only works that address the shame in the divine-human relationship. Amy Cottrill, Lyn Huber, and Joanna Stiebert profitably discuss YHWH’s shame without ever exploring the social context of that shame, namely, covenant.8 Thus, from what we can tell, our work seeks to be the first major step in addressing the junction between Israel’s “primary basis for social organization” and what some scholars have claimed are her central social values, assuming for the moment that honor and shame, however defined, are central to Israel’s social values.
We have, though, chosen to restrict ourselves largely to Israel’s and her king’s relationship with YHWH. Because the Deuteronomic Covenant and the Deuteronomistic formulation of the Davidic Covenant have had a major impact on later Israelite literature, we have strategically chosen to concentrate on how honor and 6 Ibid, 28.
7 It is perhaps his guiding principle “of appearances” that prevents him from understanding how shame is present within the divine-human relationship. When speaking about the Deuteronomic curses, Daube asserts, “Now evidently, where it is God himself before whom you wish to preserve appearances, we are approaching the realm of guilt. Perhaps one way of putting the matter is to say that what substantially pertains to guilt is represented here in terms borrowed from shame. Which testifies all the more powerfully to Deuteronomy’s shame cultural leaning. It also shews that Deuteronomy is nothing if not ambivalent, the Fourth Gospel of the Pentateuch.” Ibid, 50. Lurking behind Daube’s statement is also the assumption that guilt is to be connected with the transgression of moral principle (law) and is to be contrasted with a violation of socially inculcated norms.
8 A. Cottrill, Language, Power, and Identity in the Lament Psalms of the Individual (OTS 493. New York; London: T&T Clark, 2008). Lynn Huber originally published her dissertation under the name Bechtel and later published articles under the name Huber. We will refer to her works under the name Huber. L. Bechtel, “The Biblical Experience of Shame/Shaming: the Social Experience of Shame/Shaming in Biblical Israel in Relation to its use as Religious Metaphor” (Ph.D. diss., Drew University, 1983), 3. J.
Stiebert, The Construction of Shame in the Hebrew Bible: The Prophetic Contribution (JSOTSup 346; Sheffield Academic Press, 2006).