THE CONCEPT OF CORPORATE PERSONALITY IN ANCIENT ISRAEL: ITS CONTRIBUTION TO THE UNDERSTANDING AND TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE

Extracted text from Corporate_Personality.pdf:

THE CONCEPT OF CORPORATE PERSONALITY IN ANCIENT ISRAEL: ITS CONTRIBUTION TO THE UNDERSTANDING AND TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE By Dr Youssouf Dembele

Introduction Translation is commonly defined as an effort to express clearly and naturally the exact meaning of the original message in a new language. To achieve this goal, we need to remember that every language has it own genius (Nida, Taber, TAPOT, 4) and that the way a particular people understands God, the universe, and itself bears on their language, on their saying certain things and not others, on the way they express the things they say. We may say that language is shaped by the culture it is the bearer. Keeping these elements in mind, I would like to talk about an aspect of Ancient Israels self-understanding that is widely expressed through the Bible, namely, The Concept of Corporate Personality. The choice of this topic results from my conviction that the more we understand Ancient Israel, the better we will understand the meaning of their Scriptures in order to transfer it accurately, clearly, and naturally in our own languages. I. Defining the Concept of Corporate Personality Under the lapidary formula of corporate personality,1 the English Baptist scholar Henry Wheeler Robinson (1872-1945) studied the different aspects of the way the individual is united to the group. According to Robinson, the concept of corporate 1

H. W. Robinson presented the classic formulation of the concept of corporate personality was presented at the Second International Congress of Old Testament scholars at Goettinguen in September 1935.

1

personality is this aspect of Hebrew psychology that gives account of the fact that the whole group including its past, present, and future members can act as a single individual through any of its members viewed as its representative.2 In using the concept of corporate personality we must keep in mind four main characteristics: (1) the synchronic and diachronic unity of the group, (2) the possibility for one individual to represent the whole group and speak for it as an I, (3) The fluidity of transition between the individual representative of the group and the group viewed as an individual, (4) the concreteness of these phenomena, and (5) their persistence through the Tanak. Let me define in few words each of these characteristics. 1. Israel as a Synchronic and Diachronic Unity The concept of corporate personality implies a synchronic and diachronic unity of the group, that is to say, the unity of the group includes it past, present, and future members. In a nutshell, we may say that time and space are unable to break the unity of the group.3 Thus Amos could address his eighth century contemporary as the whole family that I brought up out of the land of Egypt since they are its representatives and concrete 2

H. W. Robinson, Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1935, 1980): 25; Henri Blocher, La doctrine du pch et de la rdemption, vol. 2, p. 186; B. Lefrois; Johnson, The Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel, 7-8. F. Dreyfus, Lactualisation lintrieur de la Bible, Revue Biblique 82/2 (1976): 161-202.

3

2

members4. The Scripture uses certain terms and phrases to express the synchronic and diachronic unity of Israel. a) The term [;, people and common phrases like: yM'[; la, @s,a'YEw, : and he was gathered to his people (Gen 25:8, 17; 35:29; 49:33; Deut 32:50) and to lie down with the fathers (tAba]-[i bk;v'; Gen 47:30; Deut 31:16; 2 Sam 7:12; 1 Kings 1:26) highlight the diachronic and synchronic unity of Israel. These phrases are not mere euphemisms for death and burial in the family tomb as some scholars has thought (see for example Pederson, 480). In fact, there is strong evidence that they point to something beyond death and burial. The burial is sometimes mentioned separately and the expression does not always correspond to a burial place (Ringgren, 10). The words of Jacob, When I lie down with my fathers, carry me out of Egypt and bury me in their burial place" (Gen 47:30 and of the Lord: Aaron will be gathered to his people. He will not enter the land I give the Israelites. For Aaron will be gathered to his people; he will die there" (Num 20:24-26) show that the phrases aim beyond death and burial. Jacob will be gathered to his fathers before being buried with them. In Deut 32:50, Moses is gathered to his people though he is not buried. Likewise, Jacob was convinced that Joseph had been killed by a wild animal, that he will not be buried in the family tomb, yet he mourned: No, I shall go down to Sheol to my son, mourning (Gen 37:35). Kidner is therefore right when he says that the gathering to the fathers is symbolized but not created 4

Amos 3, 1; cf. H. W. Robinson, Corporate Personality in Ancient Israel, p. 28.

3

by the burial in the family tomb.5 Therefore it is not accurate to translate these phrases by phrases that mean only physical death (see Franais Courant, TEV, CEV on Num 20:24). These phrases,

to lie with the fathers, to be gathered to the fathers, to be gathered to his people, seem to highlight the continuity of the soul after death. No matter where and how he dies, the one who dies is gathered to his fathers, to his people, that is, to all the Israelites who died before him. b) Another significant fact is the appellation of Israel as laer'f.yI tyBe, the house of Israel (Exod 16:31; 19:3; Lev 10:6; 22:18; Num 20:23; 1 Sam 7:2). This phrase emphasizes the fact that Israel is a unified body. The house (tyIB;) is not a mere juxtaposition of individuals, but rather a blood unity, a community to which all the Israelites belong. laer'f.yI tyBe, the house

of Israel includes past, present, and futures Israelites in an indissoluble unity. Thus, all the kings of Israel are kings of the one and same house of Israel (1 Kings 20:31; Jer 2:26; Ezek 43:7). It is this very house whom the Lord has upheld since it was conceived, and has carried since its birth (Is 46:3). It is to this house of Israel (oi=koj VIsrah.l) that Jesus has been sent (Mat 15:24) and to which he sent his disciples (Mat 10:6). c) One of the most important consequences of Israels diachronic and synchronic unity is that fathers and offspring are bound in fortune and misfortune. The God of the fathers, the Promised Land, and Gods saving acts in the past, the teaching 5

Derek Kidner, Genesis (Tyndale Tyndale Press, 1067, 1968), 212.

Old

Testament

Commentaries;

London:

The

4

and example of the fathers, and even the sins of the fathers are elements of continuity between past, present, and future generations. This is very obvious in Ezras confessing the sins of the fathers using the pronoun we, our (Ezra 9:6). Daniel also mentioned the sins of the fathers and the sins of Israel: O LORD, we and our kings, our princes and our fathers are covered with shame because we have sinned against you (Dan 9:8). In the light of these facts we can try to understand one of the most controversial texts of the Old Testament: Samuels farewell speech (1 Sam 12:15): ~k,yteboa]b;W ~k,B' hw"hy>-dy: ht'y>h'w> hw"hy> yPi ta, ~t,yrIm.W hw"hy> lAqB. W[m.v.ti al{-~aiw>. How are we going to translate this verse? The verse has three main parts: (1) hw"hy> lAqB. W[m.v.ti al{-~aiw>, But if you do not obey the LORD, (2) hw"hy> yPi-ta, ~t,yrIm.W, and if you rebel against his commands, and (3) ~k,yteboa]b;W ~k,B' hw"hy>-dy: ht'y>h'w > . It is this third part that poses problem to modern exegetes and translators. How can Yahwehs hand be against you and against your fathers since the fathers are no longer alive? Some scholars take ~k,yteboa]b;W ~k,B' hw"hy>-dy: ht'y>h'w > as a later addition that needs to be dropped6. This is an easy solution. There are four main trends in interpreting the end of this verse. (i) The Targum solves the problem by taking the waw as a comparative waw or adaequationis waw: and Yahwehs hand will be against you, as it was against your fathers. The Peshitta, NIV, NEG, Reina6

A. Schulz, Die Bcher Samuel, 1919, p. 172 quoted by Weiss, La main du Seigneur sera contre vous et contre vos pres (1 Samuel XII, 15), Revue Biblique 1 (Janvier 1976): 51-54.

5

Valera, PDV, and Keil follow this lesson7. Keil explains that the comparative waw occurs frequently before entire sentences but he adds that here ~k,yteboa]b;W has the force of a whole sentence as it was against your fathers. S. R. Driver opposes this interpretation. To him, there is no single case of copulative waw in Scripture meaning as 8. Ewald, Gesenius, and Joon assert all that the comparative waw is to be found only in poesy. None of them mention this verse as an example. Following Smith, we affirm that this lesson does violence to Hebrew grammar and therefore it should be discarded9. (ii) Instead of ~k,yteboa]b;W, the LXX has kai. evpi. to.n basile,a umw/n, and against your king. To Keil, this is a very unfortunate conjecture10. To the lesson of the LXX, the lucianic version adds evxoleqreu/sai uma/j, to destroy you. Those who prefer one or the other of these lessons argue that the previous verse is put in contrast to our verse. It begins with a condition and mentions the people and the king: If you fear the LORD and serve and obey him and do not rebel against his commands, and if both you and the king who reigns over you follow the LORD your God-- good! (1 Sam 12:14). The last verse of the chapter also mentions the kings (1 Sam 12:25). These interpreters think that our verse should also have 7

Keil & Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Books of Samuel, trans. J. Martin (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1965). S. R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Samuel, Oxford, 1913, p. 94, quoted in Weiss, La main du Seigneur sera contre vous et contre vos pres (1 Samuel XII, 15), 52. In BDB, Drivers insists again that this verse cannot be explain by the adaequationis waw, p. 253 j. H. P. Smith, Samuel; International Critical Commentary, ed. S. R. Driver et all. (Edinburgh: T. & T. CLARK, 1961). Keil & Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Books of Samuel, trans. J. Martin (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1965): 119.

8

9

10

6

king. In doing so we are imposing our own logic on the author of the text. Weiss thinks that the Greek translator has been influenced by the repetition of you and your king in v.14 and v.25. (iii) Weiss intends to solve the problem by admitting a slight corruption of the text. He notices that in some Scripture texts misfortune does not come on individuals alone but also on their household. Likewise, this verse focuses on the fact that the hand of the Lord will be against them and their houses. Instead of ~k,yteboa]b;W Weiss wants us to read then ~k,yTeb'b.W. How did the change occur? Weiss explains: - the copyists could easily add an aleph, - the copyists could be influenced by the common biblical phrase ~k,yteboa]w: ~T,a; (Jer 16:13; 44:3, 21). - The copyists would have been influenced by the presence of ~k,yteAba] in 1 Sam 12:6 and 8 and by the combination ~k,yteAba]-ta,w> ~k,T.ai in 1 Sam 12:7. This solution seems very ingenious but it just a conjecture like the previous one. (iv) The Vulgate translates almost literally: erit manus Domini super vos et super patres vestros, the hand of the LORD will be on you and on your fathers. H. P. Smith deems this lesson unsatisfactory and absurd11. Cappel rejects this solution saying that threats may concern the living and their offspring but not the ancestors who are already dead12. What is striking here is the lack of serious argument against the Masoretic Text. Barthlemys conclusion is very significant: Nous voyons donc que ce qui, en ce cas, peut faire figure de variantes textuelles 11 12

Smith, Samuel.

Quoted with approval by Dominique Barthlemy, Critique Textuelle de lAncien Testament: 1. Josu, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Nhmie, Esther; Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 50/1 (Fribourg; Suisse : Editions Universitaires, 1982): 174.

7

se rduit des exgses traditionnelles, In this particular case, we see then that what could be considered as textual variants consists merely of traditional exegeses13. In the light of the diachronic and synchronic unity of the people of God, the Masoretic Text does not seem so absurd as thought Smith. The arguments we bring forth in favor of the Masoretic Text are as follow: - It is a common practice in Scripture to associate individuals and their household both in misfortune and in fortune (Jos 7). - Because the unity of the household includes past, present, and future generations, what is done to the offspring is done to the fathers. Yahwehs hand will be against the fathers because of the indissoluble link between them and their offspring in the unity of the household. - 1 Sam 12:15 has a parallel in Isaiah 65:6-7. Yahweh asserts that he will repay the iniquities of the living generation and their ancestors' iniquities together.14 This is a result of the principle of extension of the corporate personality. 2. The fluidity of transition between the individual and the group Another characteristic of the concept of corporate personality it the oscillation or fluidity of transition between the individual representative of the group and the group viewed as an individual. This fluidity of transition does not imply the abolition of clear, firm, and indelible distinctions between the two entities. It does not result from an incapability of the 13 14

Barthlemy, Critique Textuelle de lAncien Testament, 175. Contra Cappel.

8

individual to discern the limits of his own body (contra Lucien Lvy-Bruhl, La mentalit primitive) but rather from his total adhesion to the values of the group, from his identification with the collective we. This fluidity of transition is expressed in the Scripture by the use of collective nouns with singular and plural verbs at the same time, by the alternation of singular and plural pronouns that have the same referents, and by the use of the same name for a group and an individual. a) The use of a collective noun as subject of singular or plural verbs, or in the same sentence, of a singular verb and a plural verb: daom. Wmc.[;Y:w: ~[h ' ' br,YIw( : Exodus 1:20). The collective noun ~[' is subject of br,YIw: 3rd pers, masc. sing. and of Wmc.[;Y:w: 3rd pers. Masc. plur.15 Lambert calls this phenomenon plural by syllepse16, that is, an agreement according to the meaning and not according to the rules of grammar. Words like ~[', tyIB;,and ~yIAG evoke at the same time the ideas of unity and plurality, the unity of the people, of the family, of the nation, and the plurality of the individuals that form this unity. The mind constantly oscillates from one object to another. b) The singular alternates with the plural of verbs and pronouns. Thus in Genesis 44:7, we have: .. .ynIdoa] . . . wyl'ae Wrm.aYOw:, they said to him. . . my lord. . . They alternates with my. In Deut 5:1, we have: ~h,lea] rm,aYOw:, he said to them followed by

15

See 1 Kgs 18:39; Exodus 14:31; Judges 1:22; 1 Chron. 11:13; Mic 4:3; 2 Sam 23:11 parallel to 1 Chron 11:13; 2 Sam 6:19. M. Lambert, Trait de Grammaire hbraque 2e Edition (Hildesheim: Verlag Dr H. A. Gerstenberg, 1972): 462.

16

9

laer'f.yI [m;v, . hear (imperative, second pers, masc, sing), o Israel followed by ~k,ynEz>a'B, . in your (second pers, masc., plur.) ears. c) The same facility of transition from the individual to the group is expressed through the designation of the individual and the group by the same name. The name Adam designates both

the first man and the whole race that came from him (Gen 5:1-3; 16:12). Likewise Jacob or Israel is both the name of an individual and of a group (Gen 25:26; 32:28; 37:14; 49:7, 24; Joshua 4:22). Hosea marks well the fluctuation between Jacob, the individual and the nation that came from him: The LORD has a charge to bring against Judah; he will punish Jacob according to his ways and repay him according to his deeds. In the womb he grasped his brother's heel; as a man he struggled with God (Hos 12:2-3 NIV). The ancestor is inseparable from his offspring. The close relationship between the ancestor and the offspring explains their sharing a common fate. They have reciprocal influence on one another for good or for evil. The acts of the fathers apply to the offspring, while an extermination or lack of offspring amount to cutting off or wiping out the name of the ancestor from his fathers household or from his people (Ruth 4:10; 1 Sam 24:22). 3. the possibility for one individual to represent the whole group and speak for it as an I A third important characteristic of the concept of corporate personality is the possibility for one individual to represent the whole group and speak for it as an I (See J. De Fraine, Adam et son lignage, 15-16). Jacob could speak in the 10

name of his family saying: rP's.mi ytem. ynIa]w, : I am men of number = I am few men (Gen 34:30). The corporate individual, while assuming the function of the community, maintains his individuality. Likewise the psalmist speaks mostly in the name of a community when he uses I. This is mainly obvious in Ps 44, where I and we alternate in a way that it is manifest that the referent is the same (see, Mowinckel). 4. The Concreteness of the Concept of Corporate Personality The concreteness of the concept of corporate personality is intended to show that it is not mere stylistic procedure. It is different from figures of speech such as metonymy, synecdoche, and metaphors? a) Metonymy has an element of substitution. The name of one thing is used for that of another of which it is an attribute or with which it is commonly associated. DuBois defines it more

extensively: Metonymy is a figure of speech in which an author uses a word (or words) for another word (or words) based upon either a sequential, spatial, temporal, or attributive association between the two. It is not the substitution of one synonym for another based on similarity of meaning in a variety of contexts. Rather, in effect, it is the substitution of one lexical item for another as though they were synonyms, even though each word retains its distinct area of meaning and its distinct collocational sets.17 The concept of corporate personality tends rather to envision a single entity with

11

different manifestations and the substitution it allows is based on a quasi-organic concentration of the group in one individual. Here the association is not merely common but rather necessary. b) Metaphors draw their force from resemblances between two different spheres of reality, but the undergirding worldview of the concept of corporate personality is one of unity and fluidity of transition between two ontological spheres inextricably bound. c) A synecdoche is a figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole or the whole for a part because the part and the whole are necessarily associated. It is based on

quantitative relationship between two elements but this quantitative aspect has minor interest in the concept of corporate personality. We should therefore never lose sight of the realistic aspect of the concept of corporate personality. 5. The Persistence of the Corporatness through the Whole Scripture Some of the books of the Tanak lay stronger emphasis on the individual but none of them deny its validity. It is erroneous to oppose the so-called individualism of Jeremiah and Ezekiel to a hitherto predominant concept of the group. The prophets address Israel as a single being with common responsibility.18 Jeremiah is sent to Israel as a group and not to isolated individuals. He uses terms like my people, house of Jacob, a prostitute, a vine, and bride to underscore the 17

DuBois, Carl D., Metonymy and Synecdoche in the New Testament: A revision and augmentation (1999) of John Beekman's Metonymy and Synecdoche in Notes on Translation 23 (1967). In Translators Workplace.

12

unity of Israel. In the book of Jeremiah, the group still speaks as an I (Jer 2). Even Ezekiel 18 is no denial of the concept of corporate personality. It is a strong assertion of personal responsibility which does not preclude corporate guilt. Human life cannot be conceived as an isolated unity nor as entirely absorbed in a corporate personality. A strong rejection of one of the errors often leads to the opposite. Conclusion The concept of corporate personality sheds light on the nature of the relations between the individual and the group in Ancient Israel. The OT does not oppose the individual to the group but rather shows continuity and interpenetration between them. The individual is member of the people of God. He fulfils his individuality by being part of a continuity that goes beyond him. This consciousness of forming one body in which "everyone is bone and flesh of the bones and flesh of his neighbor preserves everyone from a splendid isolation. Everyone is the keeper of his brother or sister and his brother or sister is every Israelite, for Israel is one and the same family, a brotherhood. The understanding of this important aspect of the life of Israel will help understand many texts of Scripture in order to transfer them in another language. For instance, the sign of Immanuel in Isaiah 7:13-14, is for the house of David (dwID' tybe), which includes past, present, and future generations.19 18

It is to this house (dwID'

Is 1:5-6; Ez 16; Hos 2:4.

191

Sam 19:11, 20:16; 2 Sam 3:1, 6; 1 Kgs 12:20; 2 Kgs 17:21; Isa 7:13, 22:22; Jer 21:12.

13

tybel.) that the plot was reported and the sign was given, as is attested by the use of dwID' tyBe an"-W[m.vi and of ~k,l'.20 Isaiah 7:8-9 seems to focus on Rezin and Pekah as corporate personalities so that the fate of their land is not tied to their own fate as individuals. The land over which they were ruling would still be

called their land after their death inasmuch as it is under the control of the group to which they belong. Thus, the sign could

be fulfilled many years later without losing its function. Yet, in some ways it raises some hard questions. How do we translate the alternation of singular and plural pronouns in a way that is both accurate and natural in the target language? How do we translate this concept in a culture that is predominatly individualistic? 20Isa

7:2, 13, 14, 17, 8:13, 9:6.

14

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY BARTHELEMY Dominique, Critique Textuelle de lAT : 1. Josu, Juges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Nhmie, Esther (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 50/1 ; Fribourg (Suisse) : Editions Universitaires ; Goettingue : Vandenhoek et Ruprecht, 1982). BLOCHER H., La doctrine du pch et de la rdemption Deuxime fascicule (Fac tude ; Vaux-Sur-Seine : Facult Libre de Thologie Evanglique, 1983), 3 fascicules. BLOCK Daniel I., Israels house : Reflections on the use of Byt ysrl in the Old Testament in the light of its Ancient Near Eastern Environment, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 28 no 3 (1985), pp. 257-275. CAIRD J. B., SCHROEDER J. C., LITTLE G., The first and second Books of Samuel (The Interpreters Bible, vol. 2 ; New York, Nashville : Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1953). CANNIZZO Antonio, The corporate personality : Rapporti tra individu e communit, LAnthropologia Biblica (coll. Studio Biblico Teologico Aquilano ; Napoli : Edizioni Dehoniane, 1981), pp. 593-644. De FRAINE Jean, Adam et son lignage, Etude sur la notion personnalit corporative dans la Bible (Paris : Descle De Brouwer,1959), 287 pp.

DREYFUS F., Lactualisation lintrieur de la Bible, Revue Biblique 82 no 2 (1976), pp. 161-202. GOBA Bonganjalo, Personnalit collective en Isral et en Afrique, Chrtiens dAfrique du Sud face lApartheid, Rcit et textes prsents par A. M. Goguel et P. Buis (Paris : Editions de lHarmattan, 1978), pp. 177-188. GOLDINGAY J., Corporate Personality, New Dictionary of Theology, edited by Sinclair B. Ferguson, David F. Wright, J. I. Packer (The Master Reference Collection ; Downers Grove (Illinois), Leicester : InterVarsity Press, 1988), p. 169. JOHNSON Aubrey R., The One and the Many in the Israelite conception of God (Cardiff : University of Wales Press, 1942, 1961), iv-41. JOHNSON Aubrey R., The Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel (Cardiff : University of Wales Press, 1949), 107 pp. KARFF Samuel E., The I and the we : Personal Religion in a corporate covenant, Journal of Reform Judaism 33 no 1 (1986), pp. 47-54. KEIL C. F., Biblical Commentary on the Books of Samuel, translated from German by J. Martin (Grand Rapids, Michigan : Eerdmans, 1965). KLEIN R. W., 1 Samuel (Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 10 ; Waco, Texas : Word Book, 1983). LATTEY C., Vicarious solidarity in the Old Testament, Vetus Testamentum 1 (1951), pp. 267-274. LEFROIS Bernard J., Semitic Totality Thinking, The catholic Biblical Quaterly 17 no 2 (Avril 1955), pp.195-203. PEDERSEN Johs, Israel, its Life and Culture I-II (London : Oxford University Press & Copenhagen : Povl Branner, 1946), x-578. PORTER J. R., The Legal Aspects of Corporate Personality, Vetus Testamentum 15 (1965), pp.361380. QUELL Gottfried, The Father Concept in the Old Testament, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Friedrich, translator and editor Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. V (Grand Rapids, Michigan : Wm B. Eerdmans, 1967), pp. 959-974. RINGGREN Helmer , v, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament 1, edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, translator John T. Willis, Revised Edition (Grand Rapids : Wm B. Eerdmans, 1977), p. 19.

15

ROBINSON H. W., Corporate Personality Fortress Press, 1935, 1980), 64 pp.

in

Ancient

Israel

(Philadelphia : A

:

ROGERSON J. W., The Hebrew conception of Corporate Personality Examination, Journal of Theological Studies 21 (1970), pp. 1-16.

Re-

SMITH H. P., Samuel (International Critical Commentary ; Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark, 18991, 1961). SPADAFORA Francesco, Collettivismo e individualismo nel Vecchio Testamento (Quaderni Esegetici no 2 ; Rovigo : Istituto Padano di Arti Grafiche, 1953), xxiv-398. WEISS, R., La main du Seigneur sera contre vous et contre vos pres (I Samuel, XII, 15), Revue Biblique 83 no 1 (Janvier 1976), pp. 51-54. WRIGHT G. Ernest, The Biblical Doctrine of Man in Society (Ecumenical Biblical Studies no 2 ; London and Southampton : The Camelot Press, 1954), 176 pp.

16