I believe that the various contributions in the January/February 1998 issue of TSR have fairly established the fact that contradictions do exist in the Bible with respect to the "Sins of the Fathers" issue. However, I would buttress Jeff Shmura's point with one other New Testament passage. In John 9:2, we find that even the disciples were inclined to think that children could be afflicted by God because of the sins of the parents: "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents that he was born blind?" Where else would these Jews have come up with such a notion if the "law," i. e., the Pentateuch, did not affirm that Yahweh could pursue punishment to a third or fourth generation? Interestingly, we are not told that Jesus rebuked the disciples for this kind of thinking by reminding them of Deuteronomy 14:16 or Ezekiel 18:20. Instead, he merely claimed that this one case of blindness had happened so that "the works of God should be made manifest in him."
I would suggest that these contradictions reflect a "theological development" among the ancient Israelites rather than two established but contrary views held by 2 different authors or sectarian camps. Contrary to traditional thinking, the Israelites were not "given" a complete "law" in the 15th or 13th century B. C. E., and then were expected to maintain that same ethic for centuries. Instead, the law and even the history of the Israelites betray a people who were expanding upon and developing their theological and ethical standards as they became more civilized. In other words, the "Sins of the Fathers" contradictions reflect a change in thinking that involved a departure from a more primitive/traditional ethic toward a more enlightened one. This did not occur at the start of the nation, nor did it take place overnight.
The reason that there are so many examples throughout the Bible where children (and descendants) were punished for the previous sins of others is that Deuteronomy was not written at the formation of the nation of Israel and that for the vast portion of the monarchy the more primitive ethic held sway. (This primitive ethic, which punished descendants alongside or in place of the parent can be seen in the punishment of Canaan for what Ham did [Gen. 9:20-25]; in the household judgment against Korah [Num. 16:31-34]; and in Reuben's "magnanimous" offer to allow his sons to be killed if he failed to protect Jacob's youngest son [Gen. 42:37]. Indeed, the near sacrifice of Isaac [Gen. 22] betrays a willingness on Abraham's part to use his son as a means to gain divine favor for himself.) It was not until the reign of Josiah (ca. 640-610 B. C. E.) or later that a radical theologian (Jeremiah) expressed a higher ethic, which affirmed that each person would/should die for [or otherwise suffer the consequences of] his sin alone (31:29-30). Despite the alleged existence of the Pentateuch (and, thus, Deuteronomy) in his day, Jeremiah approached this new ethic somewhat tentatively and even saw it as coming into vogue only in the future: "In those days people will no longer say, `The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.' Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes--his own teeth will be set on edge" (Jer. 31:29-30). This is hardly what we would expect of a prophet who theoretically was able to quote and proclaim this ethic as a Mosaic "law" that had already been in effect for centuries. It was not until the exilic days of Ezekiel (593-571) that this particular ethic was proclaimed with any kind of authority:
"Suppose there is a righteous man who does what is just and right. He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of the house of Israel. He does not defile his neighbor's wife or lie with a woman during her period. He does not oppress anyone but returns what he took in pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked. He does not lend at usury or take excessive interest. He withholds his hand from doing wrong and judges fairly between man and man. He follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws. That man is righteous: he will surely live, declares the Sovereign LORD.
"Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things (though the father has done none of them): He eats at the mountain shrines. He defiles his neighbor's wife. He oppresses the poor and needy. He commits robbery. He does not return what he took in pledge. He looks at the idols. He does detestable things. He lends at usury and takes excessive interest. Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head.
"But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things. He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of the house of Israel. He does not defile his neighbor's wife. He does not oppress anyone or require a pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked. He withholds his hand from sin and takes no usury or excessive interest. He keeps my laws and follows my decrees. He will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live. But his father will die for his own sins, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.
"Yet you ask, `Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him" (Ezek. 18:1-20).
Of course, the reign of Josiah is notable for the mysterious discovery of a "book," which Moses himself had presumably written (2 Kings 22)--as opposed to the stone tablets, which in that day were still with the ark of the covenant, and any other oral and written commentary that had for centuries been fobbed off as the teachings (but not the actual writings) of the legendary Moses. We know that Josiah's "book" was unique because of how the Yahwists of that day reacted to it and how they went about to authenticate it. In other words, it was not a copy of the "law" as we know it today or even the legal autograph (beyond numerous copies of it), which may have been temporarily "lost" after the reign of Hezekiah and during the reign of Manasseh. In short, it was the first time that anyone had claimed to possess an actual text of Moses. This, of course, casts uncertainty on the tradition that the Israelites possessed the literary skills need to write, read, and copy the entire Pentateuch centuries earlier. Actually, it was only during the previous century that the first "writing prophets" (Isaiah, Micah, Hosea, Amos) had appeared, reflecting a budding literary society that was only beginning to develop the skills necessary to produce a Pentateuch. Any previous writings (e. g., court histories, the annals of the kings of Judah, the book of the Wars of Yahweh, Jashar, or even that of Shemiah the prophet) were so archaic in scope and skill that they were merely quoted/interpreted by later authors and allowed to fall into obscurity. In other words, we find no work of the literary sophistication as that of the Pentateuch among the Israelites for seven or more centuries after the time when they supposedly had the capability to emulate the literary standard reflected in the "law."
Not surprisingly, the Israelites even as late as the 7th century B. C. E. betrayed a primitive and superstitious regard for literature--an indication of just how novel writing was at that point in their society. For example, they believed that their god used books in heaven (Ex. 32:32-33; Ezek. 2:9; 13:9; Dan. 7:10) and that a scroll could fly (Zech. 5:1-2). Similarly, they had some peculiar notions of how to use written texts--other than reading them. We see this in the ritualized tossing of a scroll into a river as part of a cursing incantation (Jer. 51:59-64); in the wearing of small texts later called phylacteries on foreheads and arms as a form of amulet (Deut. 6:4-9); in the eating of scrolls as a means to gain knowledge (Ezek. 3:2-4, itself based on the primitive misconception that the seat of consciousness was in the bowels of a human being); and in the adultery test where written curses were scraped off into a holy-mud concoction and then drunk for affect (Num. 5:24, 26). None of these notions reflect a society that had already possessed advanced literary skills for centuries or at least one whose chief literary output had been authored by an omniscient mind! All of this goes to the point of showing that the Israelites were developing their texts as well as their ethics well after the time that traditionalists believe both had been established.
Many textual scholars believe that Josiah's "book" comprised or included most of Deuteronomy. That leaves us with the question of whether the ethic of 24:16 was included in this "book," or if it was added later by another Deuteronomistic theologian during the exile. I lean toward the latter view. It seems hardly credible that the young king having barely finished hearing Deuteronomy 24:16 would turn around and say, "Great is Yahweh's anger that burns against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book" (2 Kings 22:13). I believe the original "book" affirmed the old ethic (a great motivator for the king to take his religious reforms seriously; after all, he had to make up for more than his own generation's failures), which also explains its presence in Deuteronomy 5:9 and the reason why Jeremiah (a contemporary of Josiah) spoke of the new ethic as a future development.
Whatever the case, it would be unlikely that the Deuteronomist invented all of the unique ideas found in that book. Certainly some of these ideas had been percolating for some time and had not yet reached critical mass. Thus, king Amaziah (796-767) may have (intentionally or otherwise) acted a particular ethic (2 Kings 14:1-6) that would not become commonly embraced and enforced as "Mosaic law" until Josiah's reign (or after). Much later, the historian confidently portrayed this king as following the "law" only because by that date, this ethic was written down as Mosaic law. (It is more than coincidence that the author was the first to cite specifically the Deuteronomy 24:16 text.)
The die-for-your-own-sin ethic was advanced by progressive (but late) minds (e. g., Jeremiah) despite the traditional and more barbaric ethic. However, the new ethic did not achieve the status of law until the exile, and even then it did not totally supplant the old one. It was at this time that the proto-Jews probably sought to distance themselves from the perceived sins of their ancestors. Perhaps the inevitable injustices of exile prompted this ethical recalibration. (I sincerely doubt that such a major change would have come about by a sudden introspection over what they had been doing to each other for centuries, much less to outsiders such as the Canaanites and Amalekites!) It is the kind of ethic we could expect of an exiled population, especially of those born in exile, which as a mass could no longer abide an ethic that doomed them for circumstances they had had no part in and that earlier had been so casually applied against the individual, the minority, and the outsider. However, old religious notions rarely die overnight. Tradition alone has a tendency to keep things in play long after their day. Because the older ethic had long been in place, it could not help but crop up in ancient tales or the historian's older source materials. It also appears that some had already accredited this traditional value to Moses and, therefore, it showed up in various legal commentaries. Even as late as the exile, the severity of the old ethic undoubtedly helped to explain national disaster. It is even possible that its reference of a punishment to a "third or fourth generation" was maintained (or reinterpreted) in the hope that Yahweh's anger over their forefathers' sins had a limit. Whether because of the lingering strength of the old ethic or the newness of the higher ethic, even the late historian could not break totally free of the old morality. Thus, he believed that disaster meant for king Ahab could have been shunted over to his sons (1 Kings 21:20-29), that judgment would be passed along to Hezekiah's descendants (2 Kings 20:16-19), or that although Josiah could be spared, Yahweh was still so angry with the sin of Josiah's grandfather (Manasseh) that destruction would be visited on later descendants (2 Kings 23:25-26; 24:3-4). Interestingly, Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians in the third generation after Manasseh, and the initial defeat during the reign of Jehoiachin represented a fourth generation disaster along a different genealogical branch.
Consequently, I see the two ethical positions not as separate theological stances but an entanglement of a newer ethic with that of a traditional one-- without sufficient time or theological development to break fully free of the older. Therefore, I am not surprised that Jews even as late as the 1st century C. E. were yet influenced by the older ethic. After all, the older gained a degree of immortality in that it was preserved in a written text, which came to be viewed as "inspired." Furthermore, vicarious-atonement theology (an extension of the older ethic that contradicted the die-for-your-own-sin morality) continued to be reflected in animal sacrifices at the temple cult. Eventually, a corrupted Christianity would reinforce the archaic ethic by the development of a mystic blood-atonement theology in the human sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Piecing together the events, much less the motivating factors of ancient history, always involves a degree of speculation. (This is often true even of recent events.) However, I believe the "sins of the fathers" contradictions are best explained as a developing theology that took place late in Israelite history. Such an explanation finds not only support in the biblical text but represents a plausible scenario with what we know about human development. Nevertheless, this explanation would demand that we look at that text as the product of a natural religion with all of its human trademarks (including contradictions, obscurities, and misconceptions) instead of an inerrant revelation by an omniscient and holy god.
(Robert Dornbusch, P. O. Box 5000. OTF-160255, Carson
City,
MI 48811-5000)
