4.1 An Introduction Source Criticism & History of Traditions:

4.1 An Introduction 4.1 An Introduction Source Criticism & Source Criticism &

History of Traditions:History of Traditions:

OT/HB Hermeneutics - 2006OT/HB Hermeneutics - 2006

Source Critical StudiesSource Critical Studies

1. Older Documentary 1. Older Documentary Hypothesis: Witter Hypothesis: Witter (1711); Astruc (1756); (1711); Astruc (1756); Eichhorn (1780)Eichhorn (1780) – J and E Source based on J and E Source based on

the two divine names in the two divine names in Genesis. This was then Genesis. This was then applied to the whole applied to the whole Pentateuch.Pentateuch.

Source Critical StudiesSource Critical Studies2. The Fragmentary/Story-2. The Fragmentary/Story-

Cycle/Block Model: Cycle/Block Model: (Geddes, Vater, De (Geddes, Vater, De Witte; )Witte; )– "The work might have been "The work might have been

compiled by a single editor compiled by a single editor who joined together into a who joined together into a single but somewhat single but somewhat jumbled whole a mass of jumbled whole a mass of quite independent short quite independent short written pieces." [Whybray, written pieces." [Whybray, The Making of the The Making of the PentateuchPentateuch, 17], 17]

Source Critical StudiesSource Critical StudiesThe Fragmentary/Story-Cycle/Block The Fragmentary/Story-Cycle/Block

Model: (R. Rendtorff & Blum)Model: (R. Rendtorff & Blum)– ““In this model the basic component of In this model the basic component of

composition is the individual narrative composition is the individual narrative that may have been brought together by that may have been brought together by one or more collectors or editors, or which one or more collectors or editors, or which may have come together as story-cycles, or may have come together as story-cycles, or developed over time as blocks of tradition developed over time as blocks of tradition that were combined on in the final stages that were combined on in the final stages of the Pentateuch's 'redaction'. The same of the Pentateuch's 'redaction'. The same could apply to the laws as well with each could apply to the laws as well with each 'code' having it own history of 'code' having it own history of development before its combination with development before its combination with the narrative framework. Inconsistencies, the narrative framework. Inconsistencies, lack of coherence between smaller or lack of coherence between smaller or larger units and lack of cohesion in the larger units and lack of cohesion in the process of redaction could be accounted process of redaction could be accounted for by this model.” [van Seters, 28]for by this model.” [van Seters, 28]

Source Critical StudiesSource Critical Studies3. The Supplementation or 3. The Supplementation or

Expansion of a Basic Text Expansion of a Basic Text Model: (Ewald, Bleek)Model: (Ewald, Bleek)– One basic source with One basic source with

numerous expansions.numerous expansions.– ". . . there might originally ". . . there might originally

have been a single, consistent, have been a single, consistent, unified account composed by unified account composed by a single author, to which, for a single author, to which, for various reasons, later writers various reasons, later writers made additions, so distorting made additions, so distorting the original unity of the the original unity of the composition." [Whybray, composition." [Whybray, The The Making of the PentateuchMaking of the Pentateuch, 17], 17]

Source Critical StudiesSource Critical Studies3. The Supplementation or 3. The Supplementation or

Expansion of a Basic Text Expansion of a Basic Text Model: (John van Seters)Model: (John van Seters)– ““This compositional model This compositional model

suggests that one can recover suggests that one can recover a basic Pentateuchal or a basic Pentateuchal or Tetrateuchal text that was Tetrateuchal text that was supplemented and expanded supplemented and expanded from time to time and that it from time to time and that it was primarily the additions was primarily the additions that created inconsistencies that created inconsistencies and destroyed the coherence and destroyed the coherence and cohesiveness of the earlier and cohesiveness of the earlier text.” [van Seters, 28-9]text.” [van Seters, 28-9]

Source Critical StudiesSource Critical Studies

4. Newer Documentary 4. Newer Documentary Hypothesis:Hypothesis:– Hupfeld, 1853 the Hupfeld, 1853 the

independent sources of independent sources of P, J, E, D.P, J, E, D.

– Reuss, Graf, Kuenen, Reuss, Graf, Kuenen, and Wellhausen: place and Wellhausen: place P at the end and dated P at the end and dated it post-exilic and it post-exilic and therefore: JEDP.therefore: JEDP.

Documentary HypothesisDocumentary Hypothesis

1. Main Features:1. Main Features:– “. . . the Pentateuch took shape in a series

of stages in which, during the space of several centuries, four originally distinct books (‘documents’), each written at a different time, were dovetailed together by a series of ‘redactors’ to form a single work.”


2. This was achieved in the following 2. This was achieved in the following ways:ways:– The earliest of these works was that of the a

‘Yahwist’ (J). It began with what is now Gen 2.4b, and its various parts are now found in Genesis, Exodus and Numbers, together with a few short passages in Deuteronomy. Whether it ended at this point or continued into the book of Joshua or beyond was disputed. It is not represented in Leviticus.


– The ‘Elohist’ work (E) began with the story The ‘Elohist’ work (E) began with the story of Abraham in Gen 15 and then followed of Abraham in Gen 15 and then followed the same general course as J.the same general course as J.

– J and E were subsequently combined to J and E were subsequently combined to form ‘JE’ by a redactor (Rform ‘JE’ by a redactor (RJEJE). The process ). The process of redaction involved the omission of parts of redaction involved the omission of parts of J and E, especially of the latter.of J and E, especially of the latter.

– The third ‘document’, Deuteronomy (D), The third ‘document’, Deuteronomy (D), consists mainly of the book of that name.consists mainly of the book of that name.

Documentary HypothesisDocumentary Hypothesis– D was subsequently appended to JE by a D was subsequently appended to JE by a

second redactor (Rsecond redactor (RDD), who also inserted a ), who also inserted a few passages into JE and incorporated a few passages into JE and incorporated a few passages from JE into D.few passages from JE into D.

– The final work, the Priestly ‘document’ (P), The final work, the Priestly ‘document’ (P), began with what is now Gen 1.1 and began with what is now Gen 1.1 and followed the same chronological scheme as followed the same chronological scheme as J. Material from P predominates in Exodus J. Material from P predominates in Exodus and Numbers, and is the sole source of and Numbers, and is the sole source of Exod 25-31; 35-40 and of Leviticus.Exod 25-31; 35-40 and of Leviticus.


– P was subsequently combined with JED by P was subsequently combined with JED by a third redactor (Ra third redactor (RJEDJED) to form the present ) to form the present Pentateuch.Pentateuch.

– A few passages (e.g. Gen 14) are not A few passages (e.g. Gen 14) are not derived from any of the main four derived from any of the main four documents but must be regarded as documents but must be regarded as independent fragments. It is not possible to independent fragments. It is not possible to determine at what point in the above determine at what point in the above scheme they were inserted, but a late date scheme they were inserted, but a late date for this is probable. A few otherfor this is probable. A few other


passages were added after the bulk of the passages were added after the bulk of the Pentateuch was completed. Both Fragment Pentateuch was completed. Both Fragment and Supplement Hypotheses therefore, and Supplement Hypotheses therefore, retained a minor place in the scheme of the retained a minor place in the scheme of the Documentary Hypothesis.” [Whybray, Documentary Hypothesis.” [Whybray, The The Making of the PentateuchMaking of the Pentateuch, 20-21], 20-21]

Cassuto’s Summary

• The use of Different Names for the DeityThe use of Different Names for the Deity

• Variations of Language and StyleVariations of Language and Style

• Contradictions and Divergences of ViewsContradictions and Divergences of Views

• Repetition, Parallel Accounts (Doublets), and Repetition, Parallel Accounts (Doublets), and Redundancy [Conflations]Redundancy [Conflations]

• Theological Unity of Each DocumentTheological Unity of Each Document

Jewish ScholarshipJewish Scholarship• The Jewish community did not respond positively to

Wellhausen’s thesis due to the negative depiction of the Priestly-Second Temple-Early Judaism religion.

• U. Cassuto and others exemplify this stance.• Yehezhel Kaufmann re-dated the sources, especially the

P source so that it was more acceptable. [Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, 175-200]

• “. . . they tend to accept the basic source division of the documentary hypothesis, but maintain that P is not the latest source but that it antedates Deuteronomy and reflects the worship of Solomon's temple. P may therefore come from much the same period as J. Some of the more important works from this school of thought have come from A. Hurvitz, M. Haran, J. Milgrom, and M. Weinfeld.” [Wenham]

AdjustmentsAdjustments1. 1. Noth, MartinNoth, Martin::

– ""G (Grundlage = a common G (Grundlage = a common basis) underlying J and E basis) underlying J and E according to Noth: "The according to Noth: "The situation at hand cannot be situation at hand cannot be explain very well except by explain very well except by postulating a common basis postulating a common basis (Grundlage) for the two sources, (Grundlage) for the two sources, for which both - independently for which both - independently of each other - have drawn the of each other - have drawn the nucleus of their content. In nucleus of their content. In those elements of the tradition those elements of the tradition where J and E run parallel, they where J and E run parallel, they concur to such an extent that concur to such an extent that their common Grundlage their common Grundlage already must have existed in a already must have existed in a fixed form, either onefixed form, either one

AdjustmentsAdjustments

fixed in writing or one which had already fixed in writing or one which had already been quite distinctly formed according to been quite distinctly formed according to structure and content in oral transmission. structure and content in oral transmission. The question as to whether this Grundlage The question as to whether this Grundlage was written or oral can hardly be answered was written or oral can hardly be answered with any certainty; but then, traditio-with any certainty; but then, traditio-historically this is not of great consequence. historically this is not of great consequence. . . . Every thing which J and E concur can . . . Every thing which J and E concur can be attributed to G." [Noth, be attributed to G." [Noth, A History of A History of Pentateuchal TraditionsPentateuchal Traditions, 39], 39]

AdjustmentsAdjustments

2. Rad, Gerhard von:2.1 The Form-Critical Problem of

the Hexateuch

2.2 The Hexateuch was simply an expansion of the historical creed(s) found in Deut 6:20-24, 26:5b-9 and Josh 24:2-3.

2.3 The Exodus and the Sinai Tradition was separate from the Creedal tradition.

AdjustmentsAdjustments3. 3. Cross, Frank MooreCross, Frank Moore::

– Cross school claims that Cross school claims that J and E cannot really be J and E cannot really be separated positively separated positively therefore the "Epic therefore the "Epic Sources."Sources."

– ""By "Epic" we mean JE By "Epic" we mean JE and the epic of which J and the epic of which J and E were, in origin, and E were, in origin, oral variants." [Cross, oral variants." [Cross, Canaanite Myth and Canaanite Myth and Hebrew EpicHebrew Epic, 6], 6]

– P is the final editorP is the final editor

Recent DevelopmentsRecent Developments1. Questioned Material:1. Questioned Material:

1.1 "First, historical scholars have questioned a 1.1 "First, historical scholars have questioned a number of its basic aspects: the dating of the number of its basic aspects: the dating of the earliest pentateuchal stratum (“J”) to the ninth earliest pentateuchal stratum (“J”) to the ninth or tenth centuries, the existence of an or tenth centuries, the existence of an independent elohistic document (“E’) or independent elohistic document (“E’) or identifiable elohistic supplementary layer, the identifiable elohistic supplementary layer, the limitation of deuteronomistic and post-limitation of deuteronomistic and post-deuteronomistic elements to the book of deuteronomistic elements to the book of Deuteronomy, and the idea that the priestly Deuteronomy, and the idea that the priestly material ever existed separately as a priestly material ever existed separately as a priestly document." [Carr, "Controversy and document." [Carr, "Controversy and Convergence . . .", 22]Convergence . . .", 22]

Recent DevelopmentsRecent Developments1.2 "Second, biblical scholars attuned to debates in 1.2 "Second, biblical scholars attuned to debates in

literary theory outside of biblical studies have literary theory outside of biblical studies have increasingly asked whether we can say anything increasingly asked whether we can say anything meaningful about the formation of the Bible. Some meaningful about the formation of the Bible. Some have drawn heavily on the “new” literary criticism have drawn heavily on the “new” literary criticism or more directive types of reader-response criticism or more directive types of reader-response criticism to argue that the text is actually far more unified to argue that the text is actually far more unified than we previously supposed, that it is seamless than we previously supposed, that it is seamless where we once mistakenly saw indicators of sources where we once mistakenly saw indicators of sources or redactions. Alternatively, other scholars more or redactions. Alternatively, other scholars more influenced by postmodern literary theory have influenced by postmodern literary theory have argued that the text is far more complex than we argued that the text is far more complex than we supposed." [Carr, "Controversy and Convergence . supposed." [Carr, "Controversy and Convergence . . .", 22]. .", 22]

Recent DevelopmentsRecent Developments2. John Van Seters:2. John Van Seters:

2.1 2.1 Abraham in History and TraditionAbraham in History and Tradition (1975); (1975); Prologue to HistoryPrologue to History (1992); (1992); The Life of MosesThe Life of Moses (1994); (1994); The Pentateuch: A Social-Science The Pentateuch: A Social-Science CommentaryCommentary (1999) (1999)

2.2 ". . . crucial parts of the Abraham story 2.2 ". . . crucial parts of the Abraham story conventionally assigned to the tenth century conventionally assigned to the tenth century Yahwist were actually part of a post-Yahwist were actually part of a post-deuteronomistic Yahwhist." [Carr, 23]deuteronomistic Yahwhist." [Carr, 23]

2.3 ". . . non-priestly pentateuchal texts show 2.3 ". . . non-priestly pentateuchal texts show signs of dependence on deuteronomistic and signs of dependence on deuteronomistic and prophetic traditions." [Carr, 23]prophetic traditions." [Carr, 23]

2.4 ". . . the historiographic form of the non-2.4 ". . . the historiographic form of the non-priestly Pentateuch is best understood as part priestly Pentateuch is best understood as part of a broader sixth-fifth-century of a broader sixth-fifth-century historiographic movement in the historiographic movement in the Mediterranean, a movement also seen in the Mediterranean, a movement also seen in the works of early Greek historians." [Carr, 23]works of early Greek historians." [Carr, 23]

Israel Knohl1. The process starts in the

premonarchic time with the oral composition of poems now embodied in the Torah.

2. The writing of the Priestly Torah takes place in Jerusalem, between the tenth and the eight centuries B.C.E.

3. The composition of the E source and the Covenant Code (Exod 20:19-23:33) in the northern kingdom of Israel occurs in the first half of the eighth century B.C.E.

Israel Knohl4. In the second half of the eighth century

B.C.E., the stage moves back to Jerusalem, where the Holiness Code (Lev. 17-26) and the J source are composed and the E is redacted by the J circle.

5. In 622 B.C.E., the Book of Deuteronomy is published by Josiah in Jerusalem.

6. After the exile in 586 B.C.E., the activity moves to Babylon, where the final redaction of the Torah takes place.

7. The last act is the publication of the Torah by Ezra in Jerusalem in the middle of the fifth century B.C.E.

Documents

4.1 An Introduction Source Criticism & History of Traditions: