Comments on David Rapoport: “Moses, Charisma, and Covenant”

• Author: Rolf Knierem
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/106591297903200203
• Published date: 01 June 1979
• Date: 01 June 1979
• Subject Matter: Article

COMMENTS

ON

DAVID

RAPOPORT:

“MOSES,

CHARISMA,

AND

COVENANT”

ROLF

KNIEREM

School

of

Theology,

Claremont

T

IS

a

phenomenon that

a

modern political scientist should address himself

to such

a

topic. This endeavor is to be highly commended, not only because

of

the courage on the author‘s part but

also

in view of the rich potential the

I

find the subject itself fascinating and dealt with in a very interesting way.

subject itself offers.

There is little around of this sort in Old Testament studies. The problem

I

have

with the article is concerned with its thesis.

I

take

as

the heart of the thesis the

proposition that charisma and

laiv

evolved together out of the bilateral Mosaic

Sinai Covenant and in mutual supplementation provided the authoritative factors

for the ever-new reinforcement of that Covenant,

as

their

own

authority

was

derived

from it. This proposition is advocated in opposition to Weber‘s theory that charisma

is

based on the newness

of

the charismatic’s vision which becomes the basis for

subsequent commitment and organization.

I

agree with the author that “newness” is no legitimate criterion for defining

or

authorizing charisma. The Old Testament evidence does not support Webeis

assumption. However,

I

see no sufficient evidence for locating the alternative to

IVeber where the author sees it.

Substantively,

or

conceptually, it must

be

doubted whether the only alternative

to IVebex‘s concept of authoritative charisma (the “newness”) lies in the subsump-

tion

of

charisma together with

laiv

under covenant. Neither internal

nor

external

evidence supports this proposition. Internally, hloses is presented

as

a

charismatic

before Sinai, and certainly one with authority, regardless of

a

covenant. The same

is

true

for the

Moses

traditions from Numbers

11

on. These traditions present his

charisma without explicit reference to the Covenant. Only

by

implication

can

one

infer the Covenant ideology here. Furthermore, the Sinai-pericope itself would

support the thesis that

Moses

became the Covenant mediator because he

was

the

charismatic at least

as

much

as

the thesis that his charisma resulted from his medi-

atorship and the Covenant. And even though the latter assumption seems much

less

likely in my opinion,

I

would not quarrel over the question which of the

two

possibilities

is

the more likely. JYhat matters is that the texts themselves pose

a

problem in this respect: at least

a

problem! This being

the

case, one cannot

take

for granted that which is the subject of investigation. This alternative possibility

is not investigated.

If

it were, one would realize that the alternative to Weber does

not necessarily lie in the direction in which the author sees it.

Externally, it must be said, first of all, that neither the texts in Judges nor

most

of

the prophetic tests mention

or

even presuppose the Sinai Covenant

-

and

still presuppose charisma and its

political

function.

More

important is the fact that

older texts about the postmosaic judges (including

Saul)

portray

a

profile which

show those “judges”

first

as

charismatics and

after

the public proof of their

charisma

;IS

institutional judges. This profile, not mentioned by the author, squarely

contradicts his model. Similar observations could be made

on

prophetic materials.

I

cannot but conclude that the author

was

so

preoccupied with the centrality

of

the “covenant” element that under this influence decisive methodological and

substantive points were neglected.

I

NOTE:

This

is the initial reaction

of

an

Old Testament scholar

to

Professor Rapoport’s paper,

and

it

should be taken

as

an initial reaction.

It

has lead to

subsequent

stimulating con-

venation between

Professor

Rapoport

and myself.