God's People in God's Land: Family, Land and Property in the Old Testament (review)

Hebrew Studies 36 (1995) 162 Reviews GOD'S PEOPLE IN GOD'S LAND: FAMILY, LAND AND PROPERTY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. By Christopher J. H. Wright. Pp. 284. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1990. Paper. Revising a doctoral dissertation submitted to Cambridge University in 1977, Christopher Wright presents this examination of land, family and property in ancient Israel as a study in biblical social ethics. He defmes the endeavor as one that integrates the findings of the historical sociologist and of the comparative historian of ancient legal institutions "with the theological concepts and traditions of Israel's faith so as to produce a genuinely ethical approach" (p. xvi). The book is divided into three sections. In the first part Wright defmes the perimeters and lays out his basic thesis that there is an integral relationship between the Israelite system of land tenure, God's possession of the land, and the relationship between Israel and God. He opens his argument with a critique of Von Rad's separation of promisorial land theology (J) from the cultic concept of divine ownership of the land (P). The source critical distinction, according to Wright, is at best only "conceptual." Within biblical land theology the two notions are not independent of one another. for the land is a central and organic component of Israel's understanding of its relationship to God in all the source traditions of Hebrew Scriptures. Using the land lists in the book of Joshua. he demonstrates how the extended family, or "kin group," structure functions as the focal point in which land tenure (and hence the relationship to God) is rooted. The primary function of God's ownership of the land thus becomes the theological sanction it provides for an economic system in which groups of multiple families hold land "in relative equality and freedom " (po 63). As evidence. he points to the protection of family land tenure offered by legislation such as levirate marriage and jubilee years that regulate possession and inheritance. Focusing this notion of landholding household units as the basic social fabric through which God is experienced . he concludes the section with an analysis of the importance of family landholdings for individuals in the community. The second part of the book deals with the rights and responsibilities of property ownership. In the context of the first. he examines the laws regarding land redemption and the jubilee, the prohibitions against removal of landmarks. theft and coveting. Under responsibilities, he looks at the requirements of observing sabbatical years, of filial piety, the laws regarding Hebrew Studies 36 (1995) 163 Reviews the treatment of slaves, of laborers, and of others who come upon one's property. The last section is devoted to dependent persons as property. Here Wright argues that although women did not have an independent legal status , as extensions of their husbands they did in fact possess rights. On the other hand, children, like Hebrew slaves, were considered property. But in both instances, the treatment of that property was regulated and restricted. Wright's argument for an organic, holistic approach to biblical theology has a certain appeal, and his argument is clearly and systematically presented . But this is a very troubling piece of scholarship. Wright adopts the scholar's style; he analyzes the relevant texts and places his analyses in the context of critical engagement with contemporary scholarship. At the same time, however, he introduces his subject with an elegy to the classical Christian typological and paradigmatic readings of Hebrew Scriptures, and closes each section by developing interpretations based on just such readings . Moreover, in his title and throughout the book he unabashedly refers to his source text as "Old Testament." There is a parochial quality to this book, and it compromises the author 's presentation and argument. Nowhere does he explore the mystical, unique aspects of the land promised to ancient Israel, for such an exploration would interfere with his paradigmatic application of land theology to contemporary ecological and population issues. Similarly, in order to make a typological connection between the Israelite notion of kinship and Christian fellowship, he makes a leap from family to individual which the text he is analyzing does not provide for. Perhaps...