Two Centuries of Pentateuchal Scholarship - Joseph Blenkinsopp

7/25/2019 Two Centuries of Pentateuchal Scholarship - Joseph Blenkinsopp

1/31

l

t

I


2/31

1

,N

OF PBN1 A1 EUCHAL

SCHOLARSHIP

F CRrrtC Al INQUIRY

vie

\

'

lo

,

nn

traditio

nn]

in both

Judaism

and Cl1ristianity is that Moses

red the

t1tirl'

Pentatel1cl1. Here and there

in

the Pentateuch Moses

i

aid t

hnve

\vritten

certni11

tl1ings , including laws (Ex 24:4) and the vow

t xtirp.ite

tt1e

An1ttlekites (Ex 17:14), but nowhere is it affirmed that the

Pt>ntateucl1

'

as authored by Moses. or indeed by anyone else. One would

th re

thi11k tl

t

t

\Vhat calls for an explanation is not

why

most people

t pped

in

tl1e dogn1a of Mosaic authorship, but rather why any-

011e belie, d it i, tl1e first place. One explanation is to be found in the

con

em

f

r

a

uU

rship and book production that first emerged in late

nntiquit ''

Tl1e \\' isdom of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus), written

in

the early

sec-ond cen tur} a is tl1e .first Jewish book in anything like the modem

sense of

tl1e

tenn

tht1t

ha s corne down to

us,

and one

in

which the author

for the

fust

ti

nle

ide11tifies himself (Sir 50:29 . From about the same time

pole1nical

reqttirenlents

led Jewish apologists to compare Moses favorably,

as la\''giver a11d compiler of tl1e national epos, with his Greek counter-

parts. The sru1

1e

point

is 111ade

forcibly and tendentiously

by

Josephus

v

here

e

an es

Moses as author

of

five

books containing the laws and


3/31

ti aJ istory pion 1:37 }. Give-n the frequent occurrence iii

'

A .

.. o uch phrases as

4

'the

book of the

Ja of

Moses.

1

the tt t

co . es of the ws,. and

eventually

of

the narrative

in hich

the

ta

is

understandable

. Aod

.here Mosaic

authorship U> t

1

to e

aintained,

the belief

that inspiration must

be

ch nrte

r u ecific named individuals bas certainly played a part.

The

ose.

ss.ociation

een

oses and

the

Ja

fir

t

cf

ear

Jy

n1f

ently ttested in Deuteronon1y and commonplace durin

nd i. anple period, goes far

to

explain how the entire

or

. carrie

t

,ttributed to

im.

Just as

it

became tandar.d procedure to a

'si

s pien

i

Ompositions

(

Pr

overbs,

Song of

Sonp)

to olomoo ti1

turgical ymns

to

David.

so la ,

wherever and whenever en cted

r:

1

.. omulgaterl, came

to

be attributed to Moses and end ed i. b th

o.rity

f

IS

name .

In

this

respect the Pentateuch as a

hole.

and u

omy

articular, are among the

earliest

example of

Jewi

h d

p

4

enre abundantly

attested

.from the last two centurie

..

ef


4/31

VO CEN ftJ f

fS.S OP P

EN T T EtJC

H L SC H OL Al{ S

HIP

3

critical inquirers

into

bi

bli

c

al matters.

The

French Oratorian priest Ri

ch-

Simonf a

0011temporary

of Spinoza and one of

the pioneer

s in th

e

attical

study of the Penta.teuch , discovered the

need for

prudence

the hard

way

afU. 1

r

>ttb

l

is

hing hi

s

Hi.ftoire

Critique

du

Vieux

Testament

in

1678

.

imon ack

now

ledged the role of

Moses

in

the

production of the

Penta

ttuch,

merely

a

dding

the

s

uggestion

that the work owed its final form

to

scribes a4.1ive up

to

the

time

of Ezra.

The

outcome, nevertheless, was that

his book fo

ll

ow

ed

Spinoza s on the

Roman

Catholic Index, most of the

1,300

copies

printed were destroyed, and he himself was,

in

effect, ban

.

to a

remote

parish in Normandy, the French hierarchy s equivalent

of Dev11

1

s I

sland

.

Some copies survived, however, and one

was

translated

into

Oemi

an

a

ce

ntury

later by Johann Salomo Semler, and

in

that form

contributed significantly to research on the formation of the Pentateuch

that was then getting under way in German universities. The book was

also translated into English, but

was

received no more favorably in En-

gl nd

than it had been in France.

The occurrence in the Pentateuch of different divine names Elohim

nd

Yahweh (Jehovah in its older form) was first exploited

as

a means of

distinguishing between parallel sources in a book published in 1711

by

Henning Bernhard Witter, pastor of the Lutheran church in Hildesheim.

Far from maki

ng

the bestseller lists, Witter s monograph went completely

unnoticed

and

was rescued from oblivion only in

1925,

by

the French

scholar Adolphe Lods. Witter avoided possible censure

by

speaking of

sources used.

by

Moses in compiling the Pentateuch. Independently of

Witter,

as it

seems, Jean Astruc, physician at the court of Louis XV and an

amateur Old Testament scholar, published in Brussels in 1753 a study in

which

he

sing

led out in Genesis an Elohistic and Jehovistic source, to

.

gether

with

other material independent of both of these. These sources he

designated simply A, B, and C. Astruc was not interested in challenging

the dogma of Mosaic authorship. On the contrary, his aim

was

to defend it

against those who, like Spinoza, rejected it out of hand. What he proposed

was the rather odd idea that Moses had arranged these early sources

sy .

nopticalty, rather like a synopsis of the gospels, but that the pages got

mixed up in the course of transmission. This theory of distinct and parallel

sources or

memoire

s as Astruc called them-was taken over, amplified,

and

fine tun

ed

.

by

Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, professor at Gottingen Uni

ve

1sity and author of: the first critical Old Testament introduction ( 1780-

83). Eichhorn also assigned an authorial role to Moses, at least with re-

spect to Exodus-Deuteronomy, but did

so in

his own way. As a child of the

Enlightenment, he argued that Moses began his career as an Egyptian

savant and o

nl

y subsequently went on to found the Israelite nation. Later,

however, after de Wette published his famous treatise on Deuteronomy1

Eichhorn abandoned the idea of Mosaic authorship altogether.


5/31

THE

P E N T T E U C H

It is important to

bea

,r in mind that the criterion

of

divine names was,

from the beginning, quite limited

in application. Initially

it

was applied

only

to

Genesis

and the first

two

chapters of Exodus-in

other

words,

down

to

the point in

the

narrative

at

which

the

divine

name

YHWH

was

revealed to Moses Ex 3:13-15, with a parallel version in

Ex

6:2-3). It was

thought that after this point there

was

no further need for

the

Elohist

source to avoid

using the

name

YHWH.

Assuming

a

reasonable

level

of

consistency in the narrative, and a

desire to

avoid anachronism on the part

of

the Elohist writer, this argument

makes

reasonably

good

sense.

But it

has

since

been

pointed out by several

critics

of the theory that the

inci-

dence of

divine

names

is

not nearly as consistent as the

hypothesis re-

quires,

that

in particular the

Garden

of Eden story combines both in a

single designation YHWH Elohim), and that the

alteration

of

names

is l

patient of other explanations Whybray 1987, 63-72) .

We

shall have ample

opportunity

to

confirm

these

misgivings in the

course

of our study.

During this first

period

of critical

inquiry

there were also

those

who,

while rejecting the traditional belief, remained unconvinced

by

the argu-

ments for parallel sources. One alternative was to suggest a plurality of

quite disparate sources which,

when

eventually

put

together long after the

time of Moses, eventuated in the Pentateuch. The first to propose this

fragm

e

nt

hypothesi

s,

as

it

came

to be

called,

was

th

e Scottish

Roman

Catholic

priest Alexander Geddes (1737-1802).

Geddes

was one

of

the

few British biblical

scholars

at that time who took the

trouble to learn

Gern1an

and

keep up with developments in German academic circles. Like

Simon before him, he inc,urred ecclesiastical

censure

for his pains, in addi-

tion to

widespread

vituperation from conservative churchmen of other

denominations.

His work had little effect in Britain,

but

its most important

conclusions were taken over by

Johann

Severin

Yater

, professor at the

Universit

y of

Halle

from

1800,

to

be

further

developed,

with

important

modifications,

in

the writings

of Wilhelm

de Wette

during th

e first decade

of the next .century Fuller 1984; Roger

so

n 1984, 154-57).

TH NrNEl 'EENTH CENTURY FROM DE W IT TO W ELLHAUSEN

The situatio

n at

the beginning of the nin

etee

nth century wa

s then,

that

practically all Old Testament schol

ars outs

ide

of

the

ecc

l

es

i

as ti

cal

stream

rejected the idea

that

Moses

had

authored

th

e

Pentateuch

in

its

entirety.

S

ome were prepared to concede that

h,e

compi

led Jaw

s

others

that

he

may

have left behind

an

account

of

I

sr

ael's

vici

ssitudes i11 the

"1i derness. Perhaps, too, the bulk,

of Deuteronomy

co uld be

tr tl ct

t .

J1

tage in the progres of the b olutc pirit

t

d t n1 l t t 1 tt 11

k

Christian reality. The

fai

lure of

11in

etee

ntt1

- e

11

t

h

i

1 tit

t

t

tl

v

J

satisfactory account of post-e

xi

lic Jud

ai 1n

r vcttl m) I

riv

ft

.

v

thing else, it seems to me , the art

ifi

c

ia

l natur . f

tt

te

tt

i f

I

v In

.

ment according to wh

ic

h the hi tory of 1 r' l w iti onqtt

The prac

ti

ce, comm on to much ninete tttl1- ntu I . t-1 t

1f

iii

tracting religious ideas from sourc

est

and hypotb

t

I r t I 1. wua

also not free of difficulty. Constructing a '\r ligi rt. of I r ti ti

11

of these

id

eas b

egs

the question

to what

if

at

11

,

tl1

1

1 '

f

th

write

rs

and compilers corresponded to

what p o

pl j

11 an i l

l

t t r

actually doing and thinking in the religious

ph t , J\l1i i1r

1 m

l

. t

.

course, still with us . Even a tentative recon t1uc

ti

ot t'

tt1

r

'Ii

it1t1 f

Israel in any given period requires that we t ke fl ount

.f

rtlU

la

ttl 1t

than the ideology of those indiv

id

uals or

co

llectivlti pro1 1 ti , .

J

t

onomic, priestly, Levitical,

scri

bal, or whatever to wt m

th 1

t

i t

attributed. There

is

also the fact

th

at

the Old T

t

n1

nt

t

tr

i

tily

part of the literary output of ancient Israel lected,

tt ' lt t1g

d.

11

d

t .

according to a very specific religious and ideologi 1point f \ . w.

In attempting to reconstruct the religiou hi

t ry f t th tiol1

l

whose work

we

have been discu

ss

ing had little to n

np

.rt

fro r11

l

Testament texts themse

lv

es. The

fi

rst archaeologi al ex v ation it, M { .

potamia those

of

Paul-Emile Botta at

Khot bnd

11d

Au

t

h l t nt

Layard at Nimrud and Nineveh took

plac

in

tl1

1840

n

t

Mt

j

Henry Creswicke Rawlinson took the

fi

rst st p in d

ci

pl1

11 Akk. t11

cuneiform, with the help of the trilingual

Bi

situ11

in

ti

ptiot1

f

J.

it

1849. But it was not until George Smith publi hed his ltlli ft tJIJ ttt

o Genesis

in

1876,

based on the eleventh tablet of the ii

1111

l 11

discovered at Nineveh, that these d

isco

veries began to 11

ttv

a t1

i1

p t

tt

ft

Old Testament studies and on the publ

ic

in gene

ra

l.

Pu

l ti

ni 11 11 t1

1

ogy

had

an

even later debut, the

fi

rs

t more or l

ess

sci

11t

ifl

x11l

t1r

t

l'l

ll

being that of the Egyptologist Sir Flinders Petrie at 11 i i1l 189(). .P

t

most of the nineteenth century,

therefore, Old T

es

tam nt

1

l1e:>l r 11 d t

work more or less exclusively with the bi

blica

l text witliout \,

tt

fit

f

controls today considered essential.

JULIUS W

ELLHAU

SE

N


11/31

10

TH E

P E N T T E U C H

extinct today. In addition to his text-critical and philological

works he lso

commentaries on the gospels and

was

one of the pioneers

in pre

-

Islamic Arabic studies. But his principal achievement

was

to

sy

nthesi

ze

and refine the work of predecessors, from de Wette to Graf,

in

a

historical

sketch of the religious history of Israel which, in a certain sense

has

dic-

tated the agenda of Old Testament studies to the present day. While Well-

hausen had very definite and very critical ideas about religious phenomena

which he

took no trouble to disguise, it is important to note that

he

wrote

as

a historian, not as a theologian. An instinct of honesty not shared by ll

his

contemporaries led him to resign his first appointment

in

the

theologi-

cal

faculty of Greifswald when it became clear to him that

he

should

not

be training candidates for ecclesiastical ministry, and thereafter he pur-

sued

his

scholarly career in other faculties at other universities-succe

s

siyely Halle, Marburg, and Gottirtgen. .

In keeping with the revised Reuss-Graf-Kuenen dating, the basic

premise of Wellhausen s historical reconstruction was that the Mosaic la\v

stands at the beginning not of Israel but of Judaism. The source

criticism

on

which .this

conclusion was based was laid out in impressive detail in

articles published

in 1876

and

1877

and republished

in

book form

tw

e

lve

years later under the title

Die Composition

des

Hexateuchs und

der his

-

torischen Bucher

des

A/ten Testaments The Composition o

the

exat

euch

and

the

istorical Books o the Old Testament).

The principal

conclusion

s

may

be summarized as follows. The earliest sources J and E not always

clearly

distinguishable on the basis of the respective divine names, were

combined

into a coherent narrative

by

a J ehovistic editor.

A distinct

source to which Wellhausen assigned the siglum Q (standing for quattuor

,

four , with reference to the four covenants Weilhausen claimed to find in

the narrative

from

creation to Sinai) provided the basic

chronological

structure for the Priestly material that was fitted into

it.

In its final form

this P material included the ritual

law

contained

in

the so-called

Holiness

Code

(Leviticus 17-26) which itself was dependent on Ezekiel. P, ther

e

fore

forms

the lat

es

t stage in the editorial history of the Pentateuch

or

Hexateuch, apart from

so

me very late retouchings in the Deuteronomic

style . Deuteronomy itself came into existence independently of the other

so

urces. A

fir

st edition appeared in connection with the

J

osian reform

in

622

s.

c. and was subsequently expanded with narrative, homiletic

and

lega l materia

l.

Since the narrative in Deuteronomy betrays familiarity with

JE

but

not

with P

the boo k must have been combined

with

the earlier

so

urce

s before

it

wa

s

co

mbined with

P.

The correct sequence, ther

efo

re, is

JE

DP

, and the end resu.lt was the publication of the Pentateuch in its final


12/31

T W 0 C E N T U R l B S F :r . N T A. ' t l

lf

t. S

11

\ R l l l l 11

the

religious history

of lsra 1. TI1is

\Va

tl1

t,

sk

W

llh

.au .n

t

hin1

it1

his

History o Israel

, the

fir

st of

t\VO

pr

j . t d

volwn

published in 1878,

his

Prolegomena zu,r Geschicht

lsra ls

of 1

(tran

lat d into English

in

1885

under the title

Prol

ego

m na to tJ History o

Anci

l it Israel)

.

and,

covering much the same

ground,

th

articl

4

1

rn

..

l

i11

th

ninth

edition of

the Encyclopaedia Britanni

ca

(1881, 39 , 1).

In

th P ol

egomen

Well-

hausen examined the principal religious

ii1stitutions

of Israel

in

their

his

-

torical development, dealing successively

with place

of

wo rs

hip

,

sacrifice,

festivals, priests and Levites,

a d

the

endowme

i1t

o

tl1e

clergy.

Under

each of these headings he claimed to find

evide11ce

for progressive institu-

tional control eventuating in the comprehensive legal and ritual

system

of

the post-exilic theocracy. These findings were then confirmed

by

a survey

of the historical books including the narrative in the Hexateuch. From

all

of this Wellhausen concluded that the legal-ritual

system

attributed to

Moses

in the Pentateuch stands a.t the end

rattier

than at the beg inning of

the historical process, and therefore constitutes the Magna Carta not of

Israel but of post-exilic Judaism.

As closely argued and brilliantly original

as it is,

Wellhausen s histori-

cal

reconstruction

is

very much a product of the intellectual milieu of the

late nineteenth century. While certainly not Hegelian

in

its main lines (as

is

often claimed), it

is

dominated by the kind of generalization characteris-

tic of the Hegelian philosophy of history. Ideas have an almost hypos ta ic

character; witness, for example, his statement that the idea

as

idea

is

older than the idea

as

history

Prolegomena,

36). We

also note the urge

to explain the historical process by periodization, following a very com-

mon

tendency in nineteenth-century Old Testament scholarship, no doubt

influenced

by

Hegel, to tripartite organization (e.g., nature religion,

propheticism, Judaism). In Wellhausen s work, then, J

corresponds to

the period of nature religion, of worship arising spontaneously from the

circumstances of daily life and of festivals

firmly

attached to the agrarian

calendar. The Deuteronomic centralization of worship put an end to this

spontaneity and at the same time sealed the fate of prophecy

by

its insis-

tence on a written

law:

With the appearance of the

law

came to

an

end the old freedom, not

only

in the

sphere of

worship,

now

restricted to Jerusalem, but

in

the sphere of

the

religious

spirit as

well.

There

was now in

existence

an

authority as

objective

as could be; and this was

the end of prophecy

Prolegomena,

p

402).


13/31

in

its own image, thereby judaizing it, and Israel

was

tran

sformed from

a

people to an ecclesiastical community.

While there can be no doubt about Wellhausen s aversion

to Jud

ais

and the prevalence of antisemitism in academic circles at that

time,

it

becomes clear

as we

read to the end of the

rolegomena

that

his animu

s

is

directed more at the propensity

of

religious institutions

in

general

to

st

i

fl

e

the free and spontaneous expressions of the human spirit. For that reason

the Christian church also comes in for censure in that,

according to

Well-

hausen, it modeled itself on Judaism rather than on the teachings of Jesu

s.

Wellhausen s Jesus proclaimed a natural morality (his term) and

threw

off the stranglehold of the legal-ritual system, but

his

teaching

was be-

trayed

by

the Church in the same way that Judaism, while

preserving th

e

mess

ag

e of the great prophets, ended by neglecting it.

To

THE

END OF

W ORLD

W R II

The

fo

ur

-so

urce documentary hypothesis in the form proposed

by

Wellhausen quic

kl

y established itself

as

the critical orthodoxy and was

repro

du

ced,

wi

th considerable variations, in a great number of introduc-

tions to

the Old

Testament and monographic works. Dissenters

were not

l

acki

n

g,

b

ut un

t

il

recently dissent did not present a serious

challenge

,

and

a

century after We llhausen no alternative paradigm has as yet threatened to

replace

i

t. Fo llowi

ng

a

pre

di

ctable pattern, observable

long before

We

ll

-

ha

usen, opposition continued to come from conservative

churchmen

.

In

the mid-nineteenth

ce

.ntu

ry

E. W.

He

ng

stenberg, professor

at

the

Univ

er-

sity of Berli.n

from

1828 to

1869,

wielded considerable influence as th

e

repre entative of conservati

ve reaction to

the new criticism and arbiter

of

acad mic politics.

E.

B. Pusey, hold

r

of the R

eg

ius Prof

ess

ors

hip of He-

br

w

at Oxford

for

over half a century unt

il

h

is

death in 1882,

pla

yed a

some vhat in1ila.r

ro

le in

E11g

land. 11le co nservative te

mp

er of most

hurcl1m n

in

the English

S

p aking world

ass

ured the proponents

of

the

new

id

as

a 1

tha11

nthusiastic reception. So

fo

r exampl

e,

John W

ill

iam

Col

n

Bishop

of Natal and author of a deta

il

ed anal

ys

is of the

Penta-

t

uch

in

rp

rating

tl1

lat t G

rn1an scl1olarship, \Vas

deposed from

his

bish .Pri in 1 6 . Willi nl R b rt n . 1nith, n ted Senuticist and the ear

ti

e

t ll

mpion

f

W -llhnu en in th United Ki11 d m (h also translated

m t f

th Prol

0

na ,

wa r n

d

fr 111

hi chair

in

Aberdeen

in

l 1. itl1 t

ndin .

th

.

tb , tl1 docum i1tary

.hypothesis in

one

i

rm

or n ther, bt.

nin

d .

ftnn

f

th ld in n

den1i

ir

le

in

Britain

and,

t 1 , s r .

t

nt, in tht: - nit d t t

al

..


14/31

T

o CEN

C U R fES

O f

PE T T E U C H

l S HOL R S H

IP

13

among Jewish scholars

in

the ninete

,enth century.

It

was

also underst,and-

able that the sci

en

tific

study of

Judaism

Wissenschaft des Judentums,

hen

it ga-t

u nder way in

the

early

decades

of

that century,

abandoned

rese rch

on the

He

brew Bible to Christian

scholars, concentrating

instead

n other spects and epochs of Jewish history. The

point

was made

forc-

ibly,

if

with so

me

exagger

ation

,

in Solomon

Schecbter s characterization

of

the t higher

citicism

as

the higher antisemitism.

In the period

with

which w.e are howev

er

, several Jewish scholars took direct jg,..

sne with

the

position of Wellhausen.

Yehezhel Kat1fi11ann and those who

followed bis lead

attacked

the dating of

the

sources, especially P, though

without

1

challenging

the

b

as

ic

methods

used by historical

critics (Kauf-

:

mann

1960, 175-200; Hurwitz 1974). There were

others,

however-con-

spiru()u.sly

U

mberto Ca.ssuto and Moshe Hirsch

Segal

who

rejected

the

hypothesis m

tot

1

0 (Cassuto 1

961

;

Segal

1967). Only

in the

period after

World War Il. with the emergence of Jewish biblical scholarship in the

United S tates .and

Is

rael

do we find any real convergence between Chris-

tian

an

d Jewish

scholarship

on

the Pentateuch and the Hebrew

Bible in

general

With

some

few distinguished exceptions

including

Richard Simon_

Jean As:truc, and Alexa,nder Geddes

,

mentioned earlier

Roman

Catholic

scholarship

had taken little part in the earlier phase of

the

historical-criti-

c l

study

of the Bible. The situation was not improved

by

the

violent

conservative reaction

to

1

the

Mod

.emist

Movement

during

the

pontificate

of ius X in

the

first decade

of

the twentieth century, a reaction also

directed against c.1itical biblical scholarship

in

general.

2

A decree of

the

Biblical

Gommission o,f

1906 reaffirmed

the

Mosaic authorship

of

the

Pen-

though it conceded th

at

Moses may have used sources and

need

nut have committed everything writing with his own hand.

In

the course

o.f time more liberal counsels prev

ailed_,

but

the net

result

was that Roman

Catholic scholars entered the critical mainstream only

in

the period after

World W

a:r

IL at

about th

e same time

that Jewish

biblical scholarship was

,

:

g to make

an

impact.

For the fundamentalist

churches

in the En-

glish-speaking

wor

ld

,and

else.w

here

, Mosaic authorship

has

,

of

course,

re-

mained a basic article of faith.

Apart

from

wi

dening

th

e gap between the Church and

the

academy,

rejection of the historical-critical method has

had

little effect in

the

long

mn. It

neither

promoted

nor significantly

hindered further inquiry into its

implications. More detail

ed

investigation of

the

criteria

u.sed to

identify

the four sources threatened, however, to s.ubvert the documentary hypoth-

esis from

within.

A

mo

re

rig.orous

application

of

these

criteria lexico-

graphical, thematic

led

seve.ral documentary critics to posit


15/31

had emerged from an originally undifferentiated Elohist source E). The

Y

ah

wist

source (J),

by

most documentarians considered the earliest,

proved to be especially vulnerable to this kind of fragmentation. Rudolph

Smend 1912) divided it into parallel strands named simply J

1

and

2

and

several others followed his lead, adding their own variations e.g., Simpson

1948). Otto Eissfeldt identified a more primitive strand

in

J to which he

assigned the siglum

L

for

Laienquelle

(lay source) (Eissfeldt 1966

, 191-94).

Along much the same lines Julius Morgenstern came up with a Kenite

source K), Robert Pfeiffer with an Edomite strand S for Seir

E

dom ,

and

Georg Fohrer with a nomadic source (N), all identified as components

of J.

3

Something of the same fate awaited E, always something

of a

ghostly oppelgiinger to J, which Otto Procksch (1906) divided into E

1

and

E

2

There were also those who wanted to eliminate

E

altogether

,

notably Paul

Volz

and Wilhelm Rudolph (1933). Wellhausen himself had

argued for

a

double redaction of Deuteronomy (D ), and since then th

e

composite nature of this book has been generally acknowledged. The

Priestly source (P),

finally

,

was

found to contain at least two strands,

desig

-

nated by Gerhard von Rad. pa and pb (von Rad 1934), and

by others

in

different ways.

The problem inherent

in

these procedures

is

fairly obvious.

If

the

de

mand

for absolute consistency is pressed, the sources tend to

collap

se and

disintegr.ate into a multiplicity of components or strands. While th.is

de

-

mand

has not

always been pushed to its logical, not to

say

lunatic,

limit

s,

the possibility

has always been present. At the beginning of the

century

we

have

the chastening

experience of Bruno Baentsch, who identified

sever

Ps,

each with a prima.

ry

and sometimes a secondary redaction, necess

itat

-

ing

a veritable alphabet soup of algebraic signs.

4

If, on the other hand,

variations

and

in.consistencies are admitted within one and the

same

com

position, a situ.ation entir.ely normal

in

literary works ancient and modern ,

.it

would be a short step to questioning the need for distinct

so urce

s

or

doouments

identified

by

features peculiar to each. This need not happen,

of course, but work

on

the sources since Wellhausen has shown that t e

hypothesis

is

m.or.e

vulnerable than

the documentarians of

the

ninet

eenth

century imagined.

During

the latter part of the nineteenth century few Old Testame

nt

sch lars ,evinced

any great

inter.est in the

po

ssibility of a comparative

ap

p.o lcb to the biblical texts.

Wellhausen

himself made

no effort

to exploit

what

was then available from the ancient Near East. This was not the case

with Herman.n Gunkel 1852-1932), wb.ose commentary on Gen

es

i

s, th

e

first edition

of

which app,eared in

1901

,

marked

a

new

departure

in

a

direction that

was

eventually to lead away from the reigning hypothesis.


16/31

W

O C

:tt

l

R

i

t

1

of I r cl b for tl1 ri e of the n l rtn :h ,

\ltlk

l \Vt\. mti h lt1tlu

11ced by

the I-Ii

t

ory

of Religions

ch .

1,

repre

d

ot tllut tit

n pr

1ni11

e11tly by

M

x

MUJlcr, a inovement \Vltid1

gave

greut imp -rtan t lll 01t1pnrative

s

tud

y

or religious

texts.

He

was

also

f

milinr

\Vith

th

pio11

e .

ri

n

work

in

g

nrc tudies of Eduard Nord_ n (1898 and F rdirtnnd re (1890) .

By clo e attention to the literary and

nestl1

ti

f nt

tt:r s

of tl1 i11dividual

narr t\tive

units

in

Genesis, he be

li

eved it

possillle to s

tnbli

1 th ir

respec-

tive

types

, or Gattun

gen

and

identif)1

h sociul sitt1u

tio11 \vhicl1

ger1erated

them. A

basic postulate

was that th

ese

narrnti a. r a ll

d

tl1

-

ir present

form

by a process of oral

composition and

oral

trl\tl

n1iss

io11

. The

w ight

wiis

therefore

shifted from

large-scale

d.o u1n

w1ts

J

n d

to srnaller

unit

s,

from

t

ex

ts

to

traditions,

and

fr-0m

individttal nuth

rs

to

tlte

ar ot

y

mous products of a

preliterate

societ

y.

Following

the

lead

of the

Danish folklorist Ax 1 lrik, Gunkel

charac

terized the narrative

material

in Genesis as saga.

Us

of

tllis

tertn l1as

given rise to

much

discussion and confusion s..it1ce, strictly speaking , in

English

usage

the

term

refers

to

medi

evaJ

Icela11dic pros

11arratives

\Vhi

ch

may or may not have incorporated oral traditio11s. Olrik, 110\vever, \\ l1os

e

much-quoted

paper Epic

Laws

Of Folk

Narrativ

,, i11flt1 t1ced

tl1e

third

e

dition of

Gunkel's

Genesis

(1910), used the

Gem1an

ten11

Sag

e

in a

quite

general way to include

myth,

legend, and the

like. In

this

respect he

was

simply following

accepted

usage

in

Germa11

.

A ce11tury ear

li

er

the

Gri1nm

brothers had followed up their Kinder

z nd a Js nlir

l n

(1812-15)

with

Deutsche Sagen

(1816-18), a collection of stories

\Vl1ich

, unlike folk tales,

were

at

least ostensibly related to historical individuals

ru d eve11ts.

Gunkel

's

use of the ter111 for the Genesis narratives

\Vas

therefore not as

inappropriate

as is

generally thought, at least \Vitl1

respect

to

tl1e

stories

about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

One problem left unsolved

by Gunkel is the

rather fundan1ental one

of

how to deterrnine the oral basis of a literary work. Gimkel operated partly

by intuition and partly

by

making certain assumptions about the .nature of

early Israelite society.

On

this latter point

he

see1ns to have been misled

by

the analogy with European and especially Ger1nanic antiquity. The social

sett

ing of the storyteller entertaining his audience around

tl1e

fir

e

on

a

winter night

is perfectly fitting for the peasant culture of the Black Forest.

but rather

less

so

for early Israel. There

is

also the need to distinguish

between

narrative

forn1ed

as a result of oral composition and transmission

and a

literary work incorporating oral traditions.

The

Kalevala

epic

of

Finland is full of oral folklore material, yet it is

a

literary \Vork composed

by Elias L-Onrot in

the 1830s and

1840s.

Failure to keep in mind this dis -

tinction has bedeviled discussion of oral tradition in the Old Testan1ent

context since Gunkel's time.

Gunkel did. not challenge the documentarians, whose contributions he


17/31

ac now eugeu

a u

nau : us :

u

r s

uc cs s cummc ary, ou oe

new

approaches

introduced

by

him, known

as

for1n criticism

Formgeschichte,

literally

' 'the history of forms'') and

the

history of

traditions

Traditionsge

schichte were

eventually

to elicit

questions

which the documentarians

would find difficult to answer. His emphasis on oral tradition is reflected

in

the work of Gerhard von Rad, one of the most prominent Old Testament

scholars of this

century, whose

essay

' 'The

Form-Critical Problem of the

Hexateuch''

(1938) was

to

prove very

influential.

Starting

from the

convic-

tion

that the standard

source

criticism had reached a dead end, von Rad

proposed to

begin

with the final

form

of the Hexateuch (Genesis through

1

Joshua),

which he regarded as a massively expanded version

of

an origi-

nally

brief and

simple

credal statement. This

''historical

credo''

is found

in

its clearest and

most

pristine

form in

Deut 26:5-9, the liturgical or of

words pronounced

by the

Israelite farmer at

the offering

of

the firstfruits

in

the

sanctuary.

It

is also reflected

in

similar

texts in the

Hexateuch (Deut

6:20-24;

Josh

24:2-13)

and,

freely

adapted, in certain

psalms which

re-

hearse

the

saving

deeds wrought by YHWH on behalf of

his people Pss

78; 105; 135; 136). He noted

that

this ' 'Hexateuch in a nutshell, as

he

called it, deals with

the entry of

the

ancestors into

Egypt, the exodus

and

occupation

of

the land, but says

nothing

about the giving of the law

at

Sinai. He

went on to

argue

that

this omission

can be

explained only on

the

supposition

that

Sinai belongs to an entirely separate stream

of

tradition.

This led to the conclusion that

the

exodus-occupation tradition originated

in

the

festival

of Weeks (Shavuoth)

at Gilgal

during

the time of

the

Judges, while the Sinai

tradition

had its origins in the festival

of

Tabernacles

(Sukkoth)

at

Shechem in

the

Central

Highlands. These

dis

-

tinct traditions,

he

concluded,

came

together for the first time in the work

of the

Yahwist writer (J)

during the time

of the United Monarchy, and it

was the same writer who added

the

primeval

history (Genesis 1-11) as a

preface to

the

story bounded

by the promise

to Abraham

and

the occupa-

tion of the

land.

Von Rad therefore believed, with

Gunkel,

that

the

answers sought y

the source critics are to

be

found

in

the earliest period, before any of the

sources were put together. But unlike

Gunkel

he located the social origin

of the

narrative n

the

amphictyonic cult of

early

Israel,

and

specifically

in

the

time-hallowed form

of words

accompanying

certain

acts

of

worship.

With the taking over of this ' 'canonical'' language by the Yahwist, cultic

recital was transformed

into

literature, the

catalyst for

the

transfor1nation

being

what

von

Rad

called

' 'the

Solomonic

enlightenment.

Von

Rad

ac-

knowledged the contribution of

the

later sources, but the pattern

laid

down by

the

controlling genius of the Yahwist

remained

essentially

unal-

tered.

Von Rad was not the first to propose a cul ic origin for the traditions of


18/31

T W 0 C T U R I E S 0 P P l A U C

A t, ff > I

t

t ,

17

ncje

nt

Israel. Some yea

r

earlier the , an ho1

r

Si nd

kel bad argued that the

decalogue ori

ted p

n f gr

dt

ew

Year Fes

tival in

the pe

ri

od before the monarc

hy

(

Mt>win

c I

J'iZ7.

120-45), a

nd

another Scandinavian scholar, Johanne n.

inter--

preted Exodus 1- 15 as the depo it of cultic recital for P .,'KWCr(Pe r n

1934

). Along somewhat the sam e lin

es

the German hoJar

AJ

r

uht Alt

argued that the apodictic

law

s, especially

the '

th

ou

halt

not

type

Ut

which

the deity addresses the community

direct ly.

mw t havt originated in

a

cultic

setting (Alt

1934)

. Narrative obviously can have l place

in

cult,

but

unfortunately none of these scholars felt

it

neces

ary

to

exp

l

ain

prcciJely

how cult

can generate narrative.

It

has

also become apparent

that

von

Rad s alluring hypothesis was based on

so

me ra

th

er dubiou M

umptiom.

Most

scholars would now agree that the style and Wrding af Deut 26:5-9

the

wandering Aramean pa

ssag s

uggest a Deuteronomic

ccmpo.s1

tion

rather than

an

ancient liturgical formulation. Not all

h

ave been per-

suaded

by

the thesis that the exodus-occupation and Sinai traditio-11 devel-

oped from

geographically and calendrica

lly d

is

tin ct

tur

gie

,

and

portrait of

the Yahwist

(J)

as a product

of

th e

So

lomon

ic ufkliirung

remains

very much

in the realm of speculation.

Closely linked with the name of von Rad is that of Martin oth, for

whom

the cult

of

the tribal federation in the pre-state period was also of

decisive importance. Noth

was

primarily

a historian, but

h

is contribution

to

the

study

of the Pentateuch was scarcely less significant than that of von

Rad

.

In

his

Uber

lieferungsgejchichtliche Stud

ie

n

of

19

43 (

lhe

first

part

of

which

ha

s appeared in English under the title

The Deu

te

ronomi.stic

H

is

tory

;

see Noth 1981)

he

argued that Deuteronomy,

with the

exception of

some parts of Chapters 31- 34 ,

wa

s composed as an introduction to the

Former Prophets, i.e., Joshua through 2 Kjn gs . It is therefore to be distin-

guished from the

first

four books of the Bible

cont

aining

th

e history of

universal and

Israelite origins. Five

years

later

he

publ

is

hed Ube

rl

iefer

ungsgeschichte

des Pentateuch (trans., A H story of Pentateuchal Trad

i

tions

Englewood Cliffs

, N.J. ,

1972)

which

,

in

spite of

th

e titl

e,

a

ss

um

es

a

Tetrateuch

rather than a Pentateuch. While his stated aim

in

th

is

work w

as

to

give a comprehensive account of the formation of

th

e Tetrateuch . much

the greater part of the book deals with its prehistory before the emergen

ce

of the monarchy . It is also rather curious that neither von Rad, who

worked

with a Hexateuch, nor Noth,

who

worked with

a

Tetrateuch,

th

o

ught

it necessary to account for the

fact that

what we have is neith,er a

Hexateuch

nor a Tetrateuch but

a Pentateuch.

P. the title of his later work suggests, Noth set out to reconstruct the


19/31

18

T

Ji e

p E N

r

A T E

u c 1

1

sanctuaries. In th e co urse of tim e they coalesced into fi ve major themes

ident

ifi

ed as guidance o

ut

of Egyp t,

guidance into

th

e arable land ,

promi

se

to the ancestors, guid ance in the wildern ess, and the revelation at Sinai.

They

may

have b

ee

n

written do

wn

at

an

early stag

Noth w

as

un

certain

but

sp

oke

of a

run d

sc

hri t but

in

a

ny

case they represent a deposit of

very early o

ra

l t

ra

di

ti

on. The social situation in which these traditions ,

coalesced and achieved

fixi

ty was the tribal

fe

deration a

nd

its cult , a situa-

tion which Noth be lieved was analogous with that of the ancient Greek

a

mph

ictyonies . At this point, therefore, we are fairly close to v

on

Rad s

little

cr

e

do

and his

theory of cultic origins in general.

From

wh

at has

be

en sa

id

so far,

it

will

be

seen that the

main

di

ffere

nce

be

tw

een the approach of these tw o scholars is that for Noth the essent ial

co

n

tent

, them

es, and se

quence of th

e histo

ry

were laid down be

for

e

any

of

the d

oc

ume

nt

s

wa

s written. He even

makes

th e remarkable c

laim

that the

emergence of

th

e total Pe ntateuch . . . is no lon

ge

r of great

imp

ortance

tra

diti

o-hjstori

ca Jl

y. For what is i

nv

olve d

here is a

purely lite

r r

y work [my

e

mphas

is

J,

one th

at

l1as contributed neither new tradition material

no

r

s

ub

stantive

vi

e

wp

oints to the rework

in

g or

in

terpretation of

th

e m

ateri

-

a}

g, Jn

otl

1e

r words, he

acc

epts the doc

um

ents

J,

E, and P,

which

he

attributes to individual a

ut

l1ors; but with

fe

w exce ptions- the addit

ion

of

the

ea

rly

histo

ry of

l1um

anity by

J,

ge

nealogical linkage by P- they a

dded

no

th

ing esse

nt

ial to w 1at was already

th

ere.

1 pointed o

ut

a m

rnc

nt

ago that Noth was primarily a histo

ri

an, and it

i fai rly cl

ea

r tJ1at the pria1cipal aim of his traditio-historical labors was to

l

ay th

e foundat

io

n for a

hiRorica l reconstruction of th e earlies t ph

ase

of

1

rae

lltc h

js

t

ory.

Si

n

ce

fo

rm

-c

riti

cal and

tradi

ti

o-

historical

investi

ga ti

ons

t>

ffcr tl1c

possibility

of getting behind

later editorial constructs, it is obvi-

OUH

Llat

tl ey

h

ave

i

mp

ortant i1nplic

a.ti

ons

for the historian. Su

ffice

it to

how tJ

1e fotm cr

itica

l studic ij on the

gospels of Dibelius

an

d

}j uJtmann. lJo th at one tin 0 sludcnts o Gunkel, have influenced the

st

udy

of tl1c t1intorJcaJJc URun(I of ea

rli

es

t

Christianity. Noth

s co

nc

lu

si

on

s with

re }peel to l

it

e l1istoriclty ot Mof1ca mat

ched

those of Bultm ann with re

p

e

t

t

(J

Je u ,

He

tl1

f\

t tl1e o

nl

y

sec

ure

datum is the burial trad

iti

on

locu lfl

tJ

1e et

l8t l

1nr

1k

of the

Jo

rd

an,

but

omitted to expla

in

how Mo

ses

came

l

Npl y n clo11l11anl role in

th

e tradition as it developed toward

t mtl l

urc

fo

1m

ul

;ttJ

>o

i11

tl1e

Pentt\teuch.

l f t1c: fll

L

o

cl

ol

og

J

ca

l

p

ro

blems in l1erent in the

approach of

v

oa

ll

d.

Not

lt,

t

ttcJ

otl1 r wt10

w

orkec

l

along

s

imi

lar

lines have alre

ady

beeo

11trt , 111

r

l

tJ1e qu

io

l1ow worsl

1ip

,

which

ca

n certa

inl

y act

as a

.,,

11

I

f

l

A

tt

rrnti-v t.

ro,

lll

io

t

1.

c

nn

nl

Ro

ge

nerate

it. There

is the pro

bl

em

{tf

I

111;

wJ1

tl1 o

wrtt

t n text

originated

in

oral tradition and, if so,


20/31

T WO c

TURl

OP p

NT T

tJ Ji L

l t

O \ R

ttrr 19

sh

wn that

thi

s is by no means always the

case

.

And

ev n h r it

au

h

bown that oral material h

as

been incorporated

in

to a writt n v r ,

1

t t

\Ve

hnv

is still a

lit

erary

work

which merits stu

dy

ac ording to

th6 an l\

of

lit

erary criticism.

It

would,

finally,

be

as

tonishing

if th

e histori

al

e

p

ri

once

of

Israel over at least half a millennit1m made as little

impr

ssi n

the Pentateuchal narrative

as

Noth seemed to i

mpl

y.

More

radical theori

es

of oral tradition, especially tho e d b 1

Scandi

navian scholars, have provoked even greater skepticism. Dra fing

on the

work

of the Uppsala scholars H. S. Nyberg and Harris B

ir

keland,

Ivan Engnell argued

for an

alternative to the documentary b

ypoth

i

according to

which

the ancient traditions contained in the Pentateuch er

tr

ansmitted orally down into

th

e post-exilic period, at

whi

ch

tim

e th

e

we

re

finally committed to writing in a comprehensive P-edited

do

c

\1

ment

(Engnell, 1960,

1969).

The Pentateuch

in

its final

form is ce

rtainly a pr l-

uct

of the

post-exilic period, but E

ngn

ell failed

to

dem

ons

trate

how

th

traditions in

question could plausibly have been transmitt

ed over

a p

erl

d

of

at

least five

or six centuries exclu

sive

ly

in

oral form.

The

e . en

siv

lit

er

ary

corpus

from

Late Bronze Age Ugarit (Ras Sharnra)

demon

strat

es

at least the possibility that substantial liter

ary

works could have been

duce

d

in

the

early period of Israelite history. In this respect, at

th

e

thesis of a verse epic underlying early Isr

ae

lite pro

se

narrative, proposed

with

the Ugaritic texts in mind

by

William

Foxwel

l Albright and Frank

Moore Cross,

makes better sense.

6

The o

nl

y ques

ti

on

is wheth

er

th

e

th

-

matic and

prosodic evidence supports this

conclu sio

n, on \vhich point

th

e

verdict has been generally negative. In

any case th

ere is

mu

ch

in

tl

e

Pen-

tateuch that

is

not patient of this explanation, so that

we

are left vith a

literary

work

which

at most incorporated and

modifi

ed some

seg

ments of

early

epic

material.

R ECE NT DEVELOPMENTS: THE CU MENTARY H YPOTHESIS IN C .RISlS

Many of the scholars whose work we have been disc\1ssing re

n

ained

active

for several years after the end of World War II, when

norn1al

sc

hol

arly

activity

could

be

resumed. For at least two deca des, in

fact

, it \\E\S

mor

e

or less

business

as

usual

in

Old Testament studi

es.

Practica

ll

y a

ll

introductions which appeared during those years continued to expot1nd

the documentary hypothesis

as

the consensus opinion and

th

e received

wisdom. Of these the most influential remains that of Otto Eissfe ldt , tl1e

third

edition of

which,

published

in 1964

,

was

practically

id

entical with

th

e

original publication thirty years earlier. The same impr

ession

was given

by

th

e s

urvey

s that appeared from time to time- those of the Britisl

scholars

H. H. Rowley (1950), C. R. North 1951), R. E. Clements 1979), and

th


21/31

20

THE P E NT TE UCH

French scholar

Henri Cazelles (1966, 1968).

One

notes

in

particular the

pervasive influence of von Rad s portrait of the Yahwist as the great theo-

logian

of

the

early monarchy,

especially in the context of

th

e

Biblical

Theology

Movement which flourished in the twenty years or

so

following

the war, especially in the United States. Theologies of the individual

so

urces

began to appear,

especially of

J and P.

(For reasons that should

now

be obvious, E had a

much lower

profile; as Cazelles wryly

remarked

,

ce malheureux

elohiste n a

pas de

chance ). Dissident

voices were

still

heard for example,

Umberto

Cassuto s The ocumentary Hypoth s s

first

published

in 1941, was

translated

into English and reprinted

often

in

the

postwar

years

but they

failed

to

disturb the general scholarly

consen

-

sus.

question which still needs to be asked is whether the history of

traditions approach pioneered by Hermann

Gunkel is in the

last

analy

sis

reconcilable with the hypothesis of distinct documents. We have seen

th

at

von Rad

and Noth worked

with both traditions and documents,

but it

is

significant that the latter, while accepting the existence of the docum ents,

assigned a very

minor

role to them. Ivan Engnell, on the other hand,

published his traditio-critical Introduction to the Old Testament in

1945 in

which he

denied

the existence

of

pre-exilic sources altogether,

retain

ing

only a

compre

hensive

post

-exilic P work alongside the Deuteronomi

stic

corpus. Other Scandinavian scholars (e.g., Nielsen, 1954) adopted

similar

positions, as we have seen. It would

appear

possible, theoretically, to trace

the history

of

the tradition within each

of

the sources, but the

prob

lem

would

then

be

to

reconcile

the

results with

the

individual blocks

of

tradi-

tional material, e.g

.

von

Rad s

exodus-occupation and Sinai traditions

nd

Noth

s five

major

themes.

Other

problems arise in connection with the dating of the

sources.

In

one

prominent s

trand

of English-language scholarship, especially in

the

United States,

there

seems

to be

a correlation between theologically con-

servative opinion and a predilection for higher dating. The trend

is

partic-

ularly in evidence in

what

has

been

called

the

Albright school,

now

in

its

third or even fourth generation. W. F. Albright himself held that the Pen-

tateuch was substantially complete by 522

B c

at

the

latest (Albright

195

7

345-47). David Noel

Freedman,

who studied with Albright, has

opted

mor

e cautiously for

the

fifth

or

possibly

the

sixth century, the final

stag

e

being the separation of the narrative down to the death of Moses

from

the

later epoch.

The

earliest sources, from the tenth

to

the eighth

centu

ri

es

a

.c.

were edited together during the reign of Hezekiah after the

Assyrian

conqu

est

of

the Northern

Kingdom.

Deuteronomy

and the

first

edition

of

the De uteronomic History (hereafter Dtr) were dated by

him

to the sev


22/31

T \\'

21

l'VV

\lp

ti

n t th

r

i\1 tl\ p ri d and as

rp rat lint th 11 \,,\ l l s(i >ty n la tl1a11 tl1 tt1id- th century.

Freedman i. in 'ltl\ ,l

t,,

l

t lt\ ti

ad

t 11al ,.

e\

l fa

,

red b , \1

e

ll

-

hau

,

e-n , th

at

th P t\tat \l \'t\ d 11 l l l

t\I

'

to

tu a a re 'Ult

of

the

ft tivity

f

t\

t l

\\1(\1\

l '\

1 1

).

ttempt,

t

\hlisl' 9,t

t

n1\t i4uit f tl1e t li i

u

traditions of

IsraeJ on nonlitel '

l\ud

i

111t

li ati r1 f r tl

1e

dating of the

sources

i11 '''ht

11 t

ht' ' ' t lit 11, l l1 ' ls e p ciu

ll

tl1e case \vith

the cov 1lant,

th

l)\\

t\qt1 t f '

l1ir

.1, u ideu

a11d

i11 \Vas

rgi1ed' by org ln oj

J l'ent

teu

hJ

nd D

J n J.1nf1hri ng ( 1 3, l 1 l 7

71

Old

l n_,,,.

titc nl

f

orm

indepen ntly of ch

oth r

cdit< tri

tit) '

nly

t

t

te

t

c.

1

ere

re

th

tef

r n

con

l

pt

#

e

ili

11 irt tivc Crrc ndan to tl1c J nd f lh

lll .

(1 nc

1

1- 11 h ltl rar ct1 r ct r u1

c iffcr

flt

(

;c1lcs1

12-. 0 nd h. ' ' intr1n 1c

rJr

n ce f ) oonnc J

-

-

t \J

Xe not

pr

UJ

th

fllr nd the

Ole

can be .

i1cJ

fclr the: rem

1n1n n bf(

S J I

r

I

lttlk 1 fi t effected hy n D r d t r. pr1m

r1J

'

prtlrni c {lf t nd , natinhood . unc.l d1\ inc

u1

n nd I

t

n

i:n

c

n to s

tire

corpl1

b

mt.:,

n

or

strategi

ll

pl

d

er c lcr

n

.. .c.

.

024

: 1=

3. :

1- 3 ). Rcndtnrf

f

I

()

ccpt

I c 111

Jlt

tr

nd

. but lltl nlUll1 rcduccti I . nd

' ' '

1t1 ion ttll\' trtlo

th l;cctitcd o. rr tivc (di w

cd

in ( hupl r 7). i 11c1t tl1 l 't1l l l h

iti

ftn t form J>ri slly r th n I u'croaiom1c or 'l (2) ( ' 111 tl\ l

'

A,...'., cited b Rcndtorff lin in

l l

l l

(l)f

or llt l\\

l t l tll'

I

t\il

\ cnts, cncr

lly

no

nlore tl1

n 41 vcrs or t

>

'

)

'

1 1l>

l

l

ll

\lt

l

l1

t'

r1

1

l

1ld f)

utcron

(>

m1

c'/

(1)

l1

r

1t

'

11l '1

.ti

s

\\

\'''l

l

' '

{

t 1t

nl

f

ll r

i (>tlt

h ,,,

r

ti\

l lt't n.\1


26/31

1 ta No

v

. Since the Jo

sep

h story forms the

narrat

ive link between

tlle t\nccstors and the sojourn in Egypt, the question of its date and prove-

nar

cc wou ld

inevitably hav e

con

se

quences

for the

development

of the

t

rndi

t

i.o

n

a

11d

it

s

lit

erary

expression.

(2) riticisrn of

th

e 't

an

d

ar

d

paradigm

has

taken

aim at the J source,

ut d it

is

diff

icult to

see

how the

hypothesis

could survive

its

displa.cement

to a

much

lt1ter d'

1te

, a fortiori, its complete elimination. On this issue the

positio11s of

Johr

Van

Se

t

ers

and Hans Heinrich Schmid, while

by no

u1ea11s generally accept

ed

, have won some

adherents

. By

way

of example,

we

111ay

nention the study

of

H .

Yorlander

(1978), who argued for an


27/31

J

J;, c , ,

, , J

1

t

t Kl

ll '

lltl

V 1 ,, W(lt k, pr n ipally on tl1 basis of the

It

. f '''''J'I t i1

f, it Jll

11 ,. t t lll ide th Tetrnt u h of allu-

i

ltl fl sa

tttJh

tl

vt )ltt1rJ ttlfll

t,

lt lth1ttl1 Babylonian

1(\1 '

''ti lx

tl

1t ''tt1iy t\,t

1

ll . 111 tcl

J)f tlViLlt) tl1

nto"t: plausible se tting

.

,,, tll

t

v

l

J'''

f

'J .

111111

ll

ftl't

tlgtt\phic

tl

trnclition

a nd

for

the

l

l

tl

.,,, c

f

tt

It 111ytt1 ,,

tl l

i it t

tr

fLtlttt1 n ten

is

l-

11

. Vor

t '' t ,

W lllt It t\t

1

v

1

y w ll l l\c; l fll1l mt inh rent tn tablishing a

t'l

n1t

11,, At \1 1 1

11ltlt t', 1t1 ' i\n i

t1t

tc. t .

V

n Rad's

1

' . c1

lttJ11trt)

11ll) lt

lillt '1t . ''

.t 1 l l' tl1

1

g

l1t

opt

.n

nt rte tim ,

bt1t

t 11

lv ty

1 w

w1 tl

tl

it 1 1tl11y.

'l

1

l1

11t

l\1

\

n

\t1 tle

is also

argu-

n JI I

' ' ' f I

J

1 \Iv

{

1

')

r

'I t\ t I 4-)1 i ' l R.

(

)

'l'

la

ttcl

1

ea

'

y

I

l

,1111l'H

ttt\al

l n r itlen

in

nt

\ rrtt-

i

tl>f w1tfitt 't fn ,,,,,, l

t

, l'tl

l

\1\

,,,,,,

,,1,1f

t

t nt it ha to

' t

1tt

' ' '

Ht l fl ft .v

1 r

1ltltJ

lll ,

l l

l

t\.

ptlt t , n tl1e

pri11c\p\e

th t

l1lv ,t l l l

t\\

fl l \ ( l \ l J\rl 'll\\1

t l

ltlt t 7, 1 .

Jt

1

11Jt

r4 tlltl

fi

1

' '

''Y l l

t l\t

'

,,f

ft \ \lrt

. s

\tnl\ r ohlig

ti ,n

t , fl I t t

v

1'

l

t

l

J

I

I t i

1

tI l ' ' l '' l '

t

t \

t , t

\l r ll

pl n1c

n

, in

t1 tlt Wtjf Jq,

t

) 1

t

'\i\tl ' r,,.,,, \\tlt tl\ ment

l

f

th

lt1

t

"'

lflt

' f

ll

l

l1t

''

1,

l l \ \

'''

\

,,tl\,

1 '-

f

tl\

pr

f

t '

t

i , l v i

t

'l

' ' , \ t \ I \ \

t

( I) M11 I I

'rti

ll\ 11 l ' \\ . t\

'l in , t\t t th

ct

l\

r

ti \lV

tll

1\\IJlll \\ , f h . ' C

1'

th t

l'f I 11 ati11_

J

\lt\ ll i lf' \ ' \, t\

r

l\1\\ ''' \l\ 1, m

f

-.

.

t 'ning it.

1 ,,,

111 .,

v

Rf i

i ' t. , r ,, ''' , t ,,, , ,, -

t

th

.

t111, ..

l

, ) .

)1 V Jltl1 qfl

t1

1

l i l l

ti t

I

l

ltt

\1\

' tl l (

f'-\\\l

\ ' ' ' l

,,

TI\ tt th

l

ill

j f ) t t

ti\

i j

It

f i

' I

\l l ,.,

,

1

1\\

\,\

\

,

\\

,,f

1h

\I\ . \

f

tll . fl\1'l

fttttJ

ll

ti t

ti

tll t\tll\ t

flt '

t\r\lll\J ) t \\

1

l

\t

,\, .

Cl

\\, \)' t

ff

I J I '

i1 I '

I I J l l

\ ' \ '

l 't

1 \ \" \ t l .. \

l f

ll

t11

A

ilt

fl ( \ \\ i\l\ \ t\l

' \ ,

1

,

,.\

t\

' \ ,, t\l

\.n

lq

, l ,.

I l l 1\ ,,, \ \\ t1\, ft \ \ , \ \ \

.\

\

f \\

l

K

\t

It

1F

t If

tlllli

\ \

ltl

' l { ' . , , \ l \ \

\

' ,\ l 1 ,. t t . , l

I i

' ' \ ' , , \ \ \

lJl tfJ

1

I il l\ t\'\ I\ \\ i t ' ' ' ' \ \\ \ ,\

t\\ \

t

t

t '

f .

i t' 1 l11 t

1

' \ \ \ t ' t \\, l" ' \

t I ,

I

t I ;

R

t

1

I it t ' 't ' l ' \ \' '

IJt ltt ll\ t' 1\ Ol \ l'' 1 \ \, ,, \ l

, , i

l

t

I

\\t l '

\l ,, ' \ \ \

1.. t' . . , \' I ' ' ' t I . l \

l

t ' 1 ' \ \ . '

I'

11

I

l

1 '

1

l \

l \

t \ \ \ \

t

1 '

l ' ,, ' . ' \

1, , t I 1 \ l \ t l , \, ,\ t \ \,l ''

n


28/31

1' W 0 C N i U l ll U JI P ' I 4 (.1 tJ A

f

1 C

lf

0 L A R I P

27

dus 20-23) with and tlle o-caJle


29/31

28

T H E

P NT T

H

practiced

on

biblical texts,

and

it is no surpri

se that their

arrival coincide

with a growing disillus

ionment

with

th

e

excava

tive'' techniques d

oc

u

me

nt

ed in this chapter. This is not

th

e place to review

the

considerabl(

output of recent years,

but

it would be safe to say that the results to dat

have not been overwhelming.

It is

also no surprise

that

the best r

esult

:

have come from

tho

se professional

}jt

erary critics with an informed

int

er

est in the Bible and a knowledge of Hebrew, conditions which

of

cours.

reduce

th

e p

oo

l considerably.

What ha

s come

to be known

as ''

canoni

ca

criticism, represe

nted

preeminently by

Br

evard

S. Childs

of Ya

le

Univer

sity, has something in

common

with

the

New Criticism,

though

its con

cer

ns are theological rather than literary. The basic point seems to be tha

the appropriate

ob

ject of

the

ol

og

ical reflection is

the

biblical text in it

fi

nal form

rather

than hypothetically reconstructed

earlier

s

tag

es of fo

r

a

tion

(C

hilds 1979). This is not the place to

evaluate

this

approa

ch at th

level

of

detail which it merit

s

The discuss

ion of the

canonical form of th

Pentateuch in Cha

pt

er

Two

will r

evea

l

some

overlap

with C

hild

s' positio

but also a considerable

amount

of disagr

eement

.

What

should be affirmed

at

the

pr

esent

jun

c

tur

e is the

ne

ed for coexis

tence between different interpretative syst

ems

with

their quit

e differen

but not necessari

ly

incompatible agendas. We n

eed

an edict

of

toleratio

to discourage the tendency of

new

th

eo

ries to proscribe

their pred

ecessors

This might, for example, encourage us to recover th e insights

of th

e patris

tic writers or the great Jewish exege

te

s

of

th

e Middle Ages.

It

would le

av

us free to l

oo

k for

the

aesthetic aspects

of th

e ''text in itself'' withoul

feeling obliged to condemn the

quit

e different

project

of the historical

critical practitioner. It is simply false to affi

rm

, as

Northrop

Frye does, tha

historical criticism is

of

a kind for which ''disintegrating the text becam

an end in itself'' (Frye 1982, xvii).

It

was not always

done

\Veil , but its goal

access to the religious experience of Israel in

the

different stage of

development, was

qu

ite differe

nt

from

th

at

of

lit

erary

criticism

in th

broader sense.

There

are aspects of re ligious experience and levels

ol

meaning in biblical texts accessible only by using a historical-critical ap

pr

oach to them. Returning finally to

the Pentateuch

, it

is

true that th

docum entary hypothesis has increasingly been

shown

to be ft aw ed, an

will

survive,

if

at all, only in a greatly modified form, b

ut

that does

no

mean

that

we should ignore

th

e results of the l

ast

two centuries of in

vestigation. Our task is to find better ways of

und

erstanding ho\v

t

Pentateuch came to be without writing off the real advances of ou

pr

edecess

ors

This is the task we

aim

to

pursue

in the

fo

llo\

vin


30/31


31/31

30

T H E P E N T T E U H

University of Neuchatel, entitled

Deuteronomist

und

Jahwist Untersuchungen zu

den Beruhrungspunkten beider Literaturwerke (Zurich, 1981). Following the lead

of

H. H. Schmid, he proposes that the J passages constitute a late D stratum

reflecting the

somber

effect

of

the

disasters

of

the sixth century a.

c.

There is there-

fore no consecutive narrative

of

national origins prior

to

the work of the Deutero-

nomists. See also his more recent article La Croissance du Corpus Histori-

ographique

de

la Bible-Une Proposition,

RTP

118 (1986), 217-36.

10. A

point

well

made

by George W. Coats, JSOT (1977),

30 32

, based on

hi

s

own work on the wilderness traditions and the unifying factor of the life of Moses.

We shall return

to

this point later.

11. I have in mind particularly

the

perceptive reading of biblical texts by Rob-

ert Alter

in The Art

o

Biblical Narrative (New York, 1981 ). Harold Bloom's

commentary on the

J

source , which he attributes to a lady of the court and proba-

bly also

of

the blood royal during the reign of Rehoboam, is based on the new and

very free

translation of David Ros

enberg

(see Harold Bloom and David Rosen

berg,

Th

e

Book

o (New York, 1990).

Documents

Two Centuries of Pentateuchal Scholarship - Joseph Blenkinsopp