1. For example. E.B. Tylor, Primitive Culture, 6th edn, New York, G.P. Putnam & Sons, 1920, p. 204; W. Robertson Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites, London, Adam and Charles Black, 1894, the local Baalim pp. 91-139, the Arabian hima p. 156, sacred trees and waters pp. 165-197; M.P. Nilsson, A History of Greek Religion, Oxford, Clarendon, 1949, sacred waters p. 80, daimones, pp. 109-115, local gods pp. 149-150; W. Burkert, Greek Religion, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1985, local cults, sacred sites pp. 84-87.

2. Saint Augustine, Civitas Dei, Book 22, Chapter 24.

3. Edward Shils, “Charisma, Order, and Status”, ASR 30, 1965:199f.

4. M. Buber, The Prophetic Faith, New York, Macmillan, 1977, p. 169, “...the absolute centralization [of the cult during the reign of Josiah] takes from the religious life of the people much of its simple continuity and thereby of its naturalness: hitherto meal and offering were bound up together, now they are to be separated, hitherto there was everywhere holy soil, now it is in Jerusalem only” (my emphasis); A. Alt, “Die Heimat des Deuteronomiums”, Kleine Schriften II, München, C.H. Beck, 1953, p. 254.

5. In briefly examining the use of these terms in the Old Testament, I make no rigorous attempt to establish the precise Sitz im Leben of either the contrasting patterns of relation indicated by the respectively contrasting terms maqom, locality or sacred place, and kol ha'arets, all the land or territory, or of the image of the trans-tribal collectivity of kol yisra'el, all Israel. As to the emergence and consolidation of this image of “all Israel”, I note three general possibilities: (1) an origin in the north before 721bc (so G. von Rad, Studies in Deuteronomy, SBT 9, London, SCM, 1953, pp. 60-69; Alt, op. cit. note 4, pp. 251-275; E. W. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1967); (2) a product of the court of Josiah (2 Kgs. 23:1-3, 1 Kgs. 13:2); or (3) an idealized image of either a first or second Deuteronomistic editor (so, F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press, 1973, pp. 274-289), at Mizpah (2 Kgs. 25:23, Jer. 40) or in Babylon. Neither do I undertake a rigorous analysis of how the meanings of these terms vary according to the different literary strata in which they appear within the Pentateuch. Numerous analyses of such variations exist. For one, see the appropriate citations in G. Johannes Botterwech and Helmer Ringgren, eds, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans. I do not deny the importance of recognizing these strata nor the attempt to describe historically what may or may not have occurred during, for example, the reign of Josiah. However, the fact of the matter is that, given the current state of our sources, both historical and literary, nothing definitive can be said about even the probable Sitz im Leben of the development of these contrasting patterns and especially of these images of “all the land” and “all Israel”. What can be said with confidence is that there are these contrasting patterns of relation and most definitely this image of a territory, “all the land”, and its apparent sociological corollary, “all Israel”. Consequently, it is the conceptual elements, both constitutive and derivative, of the beliefs implied by these contrasting patterns and, in particular, by this image of a territory of ancient Israel which will concern us. I acknowledge that to proceed in this manner may be overly inferential. Such a procedure is not to be shunned. It is, however, to be undertaken in a disciplined way, that is, undertaken with attention to the state of our historical understanding and the analysis of the sources, but not equivalent to that attention.

6. A. Harnack, “Die Aufgabe der theologischen Fakultaten und die allgemeine Religionsgeschichte”, Reden und Aufsätze, Gieszen, J. Ricker, 1904, 2. 169.

7. The question of the historical reliability of the Mahāva[UNKNOWN]msa does not in any way invalidate this point.

8. J. Strayer, “France: the Holy Land, the Chosen People, and the Most Christian King” in John F. Benton and Thomas N. Bisson, eds, Medieval Statecraft and the Perspectives of History, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1970, pp. 312-313. See also the more recent studies, Bernd Schneidmüller, Nomen Patriae - Die Entstehung Frankreichs in der politisch-geographischen Terminologie (10.-13. Jahrhundert), Jan Thorbeck, Sigmaringen, 1987; Thomas Eichenberger, Patria - Studien zur Bedeutung des Wortes in Mittelalter (6.-12. Jahrhundert), Jan Thorbecke, Sigmaringen, 1991.

9. J. Skinner, Genesis, New York, Charles Scribner & Sons, 1910, p. 246; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, New York, McGraw Hill, 1961, pp. 279, 289; S.R. Driver, The Book of Genesis, London; Methuen & Co, 1905, p. 146, “the corresponding Arabic word makam is used similarly”.

10. E.A. Speiser, Genesis AB 1, Garden City, Doubleday, 1964, p. 86; C. Westermann, Genesis 12-36, A Commentary, Minneapolis, Augsburg, 1985, p. 153; J. Scharbert, Genesis 12-50, Wurzburg, Echter Verlag, 1986, p. 128.

11. So A. Alt, “The God of the Fathers”, in Essays in Old Testament Religion and History, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1966, pp. 1-77.

12. So O. Eissfeldt, “El and Yahweh”, JSS 1, 1956: 25-37.

13. For example, John Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1973; Thomas L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives. The Quest for the Historical Abraham, BZAW 133, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, 1974.

14. Consider also the apparent requirement of being in the presence of the deity through possession of idols and other objects of the cult, as, for example, in 2 Sam. 5:21; outside the OT, consider, for example, the Chronicle of Nabonidus, ANET 306. Moreover, despite the evident etymological intention of Gen. 32:23-33, it seems to me that H. Gunkel was correct to argue that the deity in this passage has all the characteristics of a place numen of great antiquity: Genesis, Gottingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977, p. 364.

15. For a general overview of purification ritual and sacred sites, see de Vaux, op. cit. note 9, pp. 274-311; W. Robertson Smith, Lectures on the Religion of the Semites, London, Adam and Charles Black, 1894, Note B 446-454.

16. Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1981, p. 86.

17. So the inscriptions from Kuntillat `Ajrud.

18. As a territorial designation, sometimes employed, especially in Ezekiel, is the phrase `adamath yisra'el, “the land of Israel”; occasionally the phrase nhlt Yhwh, the “inheritance of Yahweh”; and often the possessive adjective “my” (Yahweh's) as in “my land” or “my inheritance”.

19. See also Lev. 25:23; Isa. 14:25; Jer. 2:7, 16:8; Ezek 37:22, 36:20; Joel 4:2; Deut. 11:12.

20. See also Amos 7:17; Hos. 9:1-6.

21. See, for example, W.D. Davies, The Territorial Dimension of Judaism, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1982.

22. See also Deut. 11:31, 12:10, 27:2.

23. “Country”, the land of Israel, and not the whole earth; based on 11:4 and especially 11:13, “then Ephraim's jealousy will come to an end and Judah's enemies be put down; Ephraim will no longer be jealous of Judah, nor Judah any longer the enemy of Ephraim”.

24. G. von Rad, op. cit. note 5, p. 39; see 1 Kgs. 8:27.

25. Here note also the relation between the power of the deity, the blessing of Yahweh, the gift of grace, charisma, and the bounded land in Deut. 28:8; 30:19.

26. Here, consider Edward Shils, “Center and Periphery”, Center and Periphery - Essays in Macrosociology, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1975.

27. M. Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, JSOTSup 15, Sheffield, JSOT, 1981, p. 37.

28. Several other passages clearly indicate the belief that the proper relations with Yahweh should extend to the entire, bounded land, indicating that the latter was conceived to be “maqom- like”. In Deut. 24:4, to do something which is detestable in the sight of Yahweh means to “bring guilt on the land that Yahweh your God gives you for your inheritance”. See also Jer. 3:1. In Jer. 2:7, Yahweh says “but no sooner had you [Israel] entered than you defiled my land”. See also Jer. 16:18; Lev. 18:27-28.

29. G.W.F. Hegel, Introduction to the Philosophy of History, Indianapolis, Hackett, 1988, p. 53.

30. I shall not discuss but only note here such telling and important modern developments as cuius regio, eius religio and those countries where there are still, more or less, god(s) of the land, e.g. Sri Lanka.

31. It is the precise nature of the manifestation of Yahweh as an organizing center of the Israelites which differs so dramatically throughout the Old Testament and presumably throughout the history of ancient Israel and which has been an object of scholarly debate, for example, the Judges, the prophets, kingship, and the law.

32. Similarly, Ezek 7:2-7.

33. So, L. Rost, “Die Bezeichnungen für Land und Volk im Alten Testament”, in Festschrift Otto Procksch, Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1934, p. 141, “Lösung vom Land bedeutet den Untergang als goy”. See also, for example, Ps. 83:4; Ezek. 36:12,20; 37:20-28; Dan. 3:37-38.

34. Note Deut 30:16-20: “you will live... in the land... choose life, then... for in this your life consists, and on this depends your long stay in the land”.

35. S.R. Driver, Deuteronomy, ICC, Edinburgh, T.&T. Clark, 1901, p. 272.

36. A renewed appreciation of such earlier works as H. Wheeler Robinson, “The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality”, BZAW 66, 1936: 49-62, is in order; however, freed from the assumptions of a “primitive mentality” and of an obfuscatory, historical contrast of group consciousness with individual consciousness.

37. J.A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire, Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967.

38. Here, for example, the prominence of the land and its relation to the existence of the people in Ezekiel.

39. On “significance” and its bearing on spatial structure, see G. Van Der Leeuw, Religion in Essence and Manifestation, New York, Harper & Row, 1963, p. 672.

40. For goy, E.A. Speiser, “People and Nation of Israel”, JBL 79, 1960: 157-63; A. Cody, “When is the Chosen People Called a Goy”, VT 14, 1964: 1-6.

41. See also Judg. 20:1,2,34 where the phrases “all the sons of Israel”, “all the people” and “all the tribes” are modified by the phrase “from Dan to Beersheba”. As is well known, the terms “Israel” and “all Israel” have different meanings. G.A. Danell, Studies in the Name Israel in the Old Testament, Uppsala, 1946; note the evident “archaic usage” (so J.W. Flanagan, “Judah in All Israel”, in J.W. Flanagan and A.W. Robinson, eds, No Famine in the Land, Missoula, Scholars, 1978, p. 103); for “all Israel” in 2 Sam. 2:9; also the “Israel” described in 1 Sam. 7:15-17, so G.W. Ahlström, Who Were the Israelites?, Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns, 1986, p. 80.

42. Regarding the infamy committed “in Israel” in Judg. 20:10, note the modifying phrases “from Dan to Beersheba” in 20:1 and especially “throughout all the territory” in 20:6. As to “in Israel”, note the expression in Lev. 20:2; 22:18, “Any son of Israel or any stranger living in Israel”. See also 2 Sam. 13:12-13.

43. Consider in this context Josh. 13:1-2, “yet much of the country still remains to be subdued. This is the country remaining”. See also the phrase “enlarges your territory”, Deut. 19:8; 12:20. Recall Num. 35:33-34; note especially that this passage follows a detailed description of the boundaries of the territory, 34:2-12.

44. Note Exod. 13:7, “throughout your territory”, contra Exod. 12:19; again, Deut. 16:4.

45. Continuing with Driver's description by adapting the phrase of Aubrey Johnson, The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God, Cardiff, University of Wales, 1942.

46. W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, Philadelphia, Westminster, 1967, 1.411,416.

47. One can hardly deny the explicit territorial jurisdiction of the Deuteronomic law, a law to be observed in the land (for example, Deut. 6:1, 10; 17:14; 18:9; 19:1; 21:1; 23:20; 25:15; 26:1); a land on which Israel must not bring guilt (Deut. 24:4). See also Eichrodt, op. cit. note 46, 1.416,92; Davies, op.cit. note 21, pp. 19-20.

48. Richard Gombrich and Gananath Obeyesekere, Buddhism Transformed, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1988.

49. Brown, op. cit. note 16.

50. Martin Noth, Das System der zwölf Stämme Israels, BWANT 4/1, Stuttgart, W. Kohlhammer, 1930, pp. 54-55, recognized that such a center was a functional imperative for the consolidation of a “people”. He brilliantly, even if at times tendentiously, sought to account for such a center by the putative existence of a twelve-tribe amphictyonic center. If we doubt the existence of a twelve-tribe amphictyony, then such a concentrating as well as emanating center of this “all Israel” could only have been Jerusalem of the 7th, 6th or perhaps 5th centuries bc.

51. M. Buber, Kingship of God, New York, Harper & Row, 1967, p. 116.

Sociological Implications of the Distinction Between “Locality” and Extended “Territory” with Particular Reference to the Old Testament

Abstract