RBL 02/2010 Otto, Eckart Die Tora: Studien zum Pentateuch: Gesammelte Schriften Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fuer Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 9 Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 2009. Pp. vi + 714. Hardcover. 98.00. ISBN 9783447059015. Trent C. Butler Chalice Press Gallatin, Tennessee How does one study the Pentateuch while abandoning traditional source criticism for thoroughgoing synchronic and diachronic methods? This is the challenge Otto seeks to meet in his third collection of previously published essays encompassing almost seven hundred pages of complex thought expressed in equally complex German. Of the twentyfive essays in this volume, only two do not have information about previous publication between 1995 and 2007. One of the new essays deals with the change of divine names in Genesis and their relationship to narrated time and narrative time. The other deals with the Song of Moses in Deut 32. The genre of Gesammelte Aufsätze (to use the cover title as opposed to the title page s Gesammelte Schriften) does not lend itself to an ongoing logical argument but does result in considerable repetition among the essays and to reliance upon information provided in the author s voluminous work published outside this collection. Thus the review will not try to follow the book s order. Nor will it seek to mention every essay or argument, especially the long strings of texts related to and/or dependent on one another. Rather, the approach here is to examine Otto s innovative approach to pentateuchal studies. In many ways, Otto wants to let the text do the talking. He isolates Deuteronomy as the key to understanding the Pentateuch and studies how Deuteronomy presents a Rechtshermeneutik, a term taken from the German legal system and quite difficult to translate
into English, as brief discussion with Otto and other German professors at the SBL Annual Meeting soon proved. It involves the legal traditions and the way they address their message from the original narrated situation to the situation of the narrator and the narrative s audience. Otto wants to find within the Pentateuch a hermeneutical system that inheres to the pentateuchal text and leads to an authoritative interpretation within the Pentateuch itself. Otto consistently finds verses and themes that provide a key in a certain passage for understanding the Rechtshermeneutik connected with the passage or to the passage and a series of passages connected to it by repetition or near repetition of words and phrases. Otto s method depends on or involves several strong assumptions growing out of previous study and not always totally clarified in this volume. These include: 1. the centrality of a conscious Rechtshermeneutik by the authors and redactors of the Pentateuch, with strong differences among the various authors/redactors; 2. the importance of literary history so that one can determine the direction involved in one text receiving and utilizing another, much of which Otto has devised outside the confines of this volume; 3. the importance of ancient Near Eastern parallel texts and history for the understanding of Hebrew practice; 4. the narrative indicators within the biblical text distinguishing narrated time from narrative time, that is, the time of the events being described and the time of the narrator and his or her initial audience; 5. the use of both synchronic and diachronic study on a text to confirm one s understanding of the text s Rechtshermeneutik and exposition; 6. the lack of evidence for a Deuteronomistic History, especially centered on Deuteronomy 1 3; 7. the evidence for many stages of redaction history, each involving a series of learned scribes rather simply a single scribe and each with a hermeneutical, theological, political purpose that is difficult to understand, including: a. a late preexilic Moses-Exodus narrative in which the legal tradition is connected only loosely with Moses; Yahweh directly reveals the ritual law (Exod 34:18 23, 25 26); b. a core Deuteronomy from the late preexilic period presenting a sophisticated revision of the Covenant Code and involving reformulation of individual laws and of the structure itself; c. a Priestly use of the Moses-Exodus narrative to add cultic duties and a cult foundation based on creation;
d. a Deuteronomistic Horeb redaction from the exile incorporating core Deuteronomy into the Moses-Exodus narrative; e. a Moab redaction from the exile connected with the early Joshua narrative; f. a Priestly redactor about 550 who created the basic Priestly work ending with the Exodus Sinai pericope; g. a postexilic Hexateuch redaction harmonizing the differing conceptions of Deuteronomy and the Priestly writing, creating a core text of Gen 1 Josh 24; h. a Priestly Pentateuchal redactor about 400 who is antiprophetic and antimessianic and who deleted the book of Joshua from the Hexateuch to form the Pentateuch; i. a fourth-century post-priestly pentateuchal redactor joins Deuteronomistic clichés with Priestly motifs; j. a post-pentateuch redaction inserted theocratic editing and private priestly knowledge; k. postredactional additions let Moses as biblical scholar and scribe decide the difficult situations such as blasphemers, inheritance by daughters, breaking the Sabbath laws, a second Passover; and l. Ezra presupposes the entire Pentateuch. 8. a primary distinction between materials written by God and those written by Moses; 9. a constant written debate and power struggle between those who saw revelation closed with the death of Moses, leading to authoritative priests having authority to interpret the Torah Moses left behind, and those who saw prophets like Moses continuing to provide revelation in the tradition of the great prophetic figures such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel; 10. distinctive hermeneutical keys behind the covenant at Horeb, the one in Moab, and the new covenant the prophets promised; and 11. the false path of source criticism in the Pentateuch with an explanation of the utilization of differing divine names to distinguish narrated time and narrative time; pentateuchal authors attribute only torah sections to Moses and thus are able to deal with several anonymous authors. Such important themes will provide the outline for this review. 1. The centrality of a conscious Rechtshermeneutik by the authors and redactors of the Pentateuch shows strong differences among the various authors/redactors. The authors of the Pentateuch developed a complex system of Rechtshermeneutik that coherently created the laws of the Pentateuch and their frameworks and pointed to the contradictions in the laws as intended and therefore only apparent. Key texts include Lev 10:1 7, 16 20;
26:46; 27:34; Num 13 14; Deut 1:5, 19 46; 4:3; 12:15 16; 29:3. The pivotal point or hinge of the Rechtshermeneutik of the Pentateuch is Exod 24:12. Geographical notices make clear that the authors of the Pentateuch are located with the readers west of the Jordan in narrative time, not with Moses in Moab in narrated time. The goal of all Pentateuch research is to make it possible to understand the plot of the Pentateuch in its totality from Gen 1 to Deut 34 and thereby to determine the literary origins of this plot. This raises the Rechtshermeneutik question, that is, the question concerning the internal clues to the narrative s methods of revealing its meaning, namely, how one is to correlate the Sinai torah with the Moab torah. The law that Moses promulgated in Moab east of the Jordan is declared to be an interpretation of the Sinai torah with present-day hermeneutical consequences. Through the Mosaic interpretation of Deuteronomy, the second generation is introduced to the Sinai torah, which they previously did not know. Deuteronomy 31 with its theory of the preservation in writing of the pentateuchal text is the hermeneutical key for the interpretation of the innerpentateuchal understanding of the laws of Deuteronomy. Moses task as mediator of revelation is completed as he writes down the Torah. In the hermeneutic of the Pentateuch, the Torah written by Moses in Deut 31:9 should replace him after his death as well as cross over the Jordan with the nation in his stead. Myths of origin also feed the pentateuchal hermeneutic. These include the world creation, the calling and promise to the patriarchs with the division into twelve tribes, and the delivery from Egypt national origin myth. The pentateuchal plot sets off Deuteronomy s Rechtshermeneutik from the previous communication of the commandments. The systems entail the reading of the Pentateuch as a whole synchronically, not just the book of Deuteronomy. In synchronic reading, the Rechtshermeneutik of the plot of the Pentateuch gains its logic from the literary history showing the diachronic nature of the Pentateuch. Notes locating actions or speeches are not limited to narrative function in the plot of the Pentateuch but instead serve the Rechtshermeneutik system of the Pentateuch plot. In the plot of the Pentateuch, two systems of interpretation of the hermeneutics of the legal materials appear and point the way to clear interpretation. One is a consistent system of writing down the revelation of legal materials, sorting them as either written down by Yahweh or written down by Moses at Sinai or in Moab. The second system involves headings and captions (Überschriften und Unterschriften). These display the theme of Moses work as mediator of revelation. This becomes central for the Rechtshermeneutik of the Pentateuch, indicating direct or mediated revelation.
Deuteronomy is thus the interpretation of the law for second generation laity without reference to the secret priestly laws and regulations. Otto can conclude that his study has shown that Deuteronomy is an inextricable Rechtshermeneutik integrated element of the Pentateuch. The pentateuchal narrative Rechtshermeneutik in the form of the Sinai torah and its interpretation in Deuteronomy serves as a narrative aetiology for this torah. At the same time, its interpretation is set free for any changing situation and becomes a narrative aetiology of the written interpretation of the Torah and thereby the cradle of the rabbinic scholarly study of Scripture. Deuteronomy is drawn up as interpretation of the Sinai torah. The pentateuchal narrative brings transparence to the narrated world for the reader as Yahweh speaks directly into the situation through the Sinai Decalogue. The Torah interpreted and written down appears in place of Moses as mediating God s will and requires interpretation, for which Moses has created a model with his interpretation preserved in Deuteronomy. At the same time, the Pentateuch redaction designates Moses as the original prophet. 2. The importance of literary history is that one can determine the direction involved in one text receiving and utilizing another, much of which Otto has devised outside the confines of this volume. Key points are: (a) the Deuteronomic editing of the Covenant Code; (b) the basic P source, not layer, comes from the late Babylonian period and ends in Exod 29:42 46, with Leviticus representing supplements; (c) the Holiness Code is dependent on Deuteronomy, the two forming the key to the literary history of the entire Pentateuch; (d) the Priestly writing expanded the inauguration of the festival and sacrifices on the mountain of God to a comprehensive foundational narrative of the cultic institutions on Sinai; (e) to edit the Holiness Code in Lev 17 26, the redactor used Deut 15 as a hermeneutical key, interpreting it in light of Exod 23:10 11; (f) in the Sinai pericope, the material that could possibly be available for P is extremely small, with no trace of a Deuteronomistic editorial layer; (g) P supplies the literary basis into which the Pentateuch redactor integrated the older, non-priestly Sinai tradition in Exod 19 and 34; the exilic Deuteronomistic interpretation in Deut 5 joins the mountain of God with the proclamation of the commandments in whose middle stands the Decalogue; and (h) Jeremiah has no Deuteronomistic redaction layer. 3. Ancient Near Eastern parallel texts and history are of supreme importance for understanding Hebrew practice and literature. The birth of Moses narrative depends on stories of the birth of Sargon, and the development of covenant theology is related to Assyrian loyalty oaths. Prophetic oracles have parallels in Mari and in the royal legitimation oracles of Assyria. Judean priestly scribes used such texts for subversive purposes, opposing Assyrian rule. Use of such texts date the Moses narrative to 673 to 612 B.C.E.
4. Narrative indicators within the biblical text distinguish narrated time from narrative time, that is, the time of the events being described from the time of the narrator and his or her initial audience. The pentateuchal narrative does not intend to be an opposition world closed off to itself but rather addresses the reader directly in his or her world. Ancient authors were certainly aware of tensions, contradictions, divine and human name changes, and repetitions in a text. They put them there or left them there for a purpose, often to call the audience s attention to the distinction between narrated time and narrative time. In the hermeneutical conception of the Pentateuch, the second generation in the narrated time stands for the audience addressed by Deuteronomy in narrative time. Deuteronomy 1 3 uses antiquarian notices to mark off narrated time and narrative time, providing a direct connection for Moses with narrative time. The prelude to Deuteronomy also includes needed teaching and warnings for the second generation. Only through a scholarly scribe interpreting torah can this second generation discover the divine will. Thus Deuteronomy is from its beginning onward interpretation, first Deuteronomic interpretation of the Book of the Covenant, then Deuteronomistic interpretation from the Decalogue. Change of divine names from the transcendent God to one dealing with the real world can indicate changes from narrated time to narrative time. 5. The use of both synchronic and diachronic study on a text is necessary to confirm one s understanding of the text s Rechtshermeneutik and interpretation. Otto insists that synchronic study comes first. This involves an analysis seeking to clarify the pentateuchal narrative framework with its revelations of God in the Torah and its Rechtshermeneutischen Intentionen (that is, the internal pointers that show the author/redactor s intentions as related to the narrator s clues that the narrative time audience is being addressed rather than the narrated time events being described: Zunächst muss der synchron analysierte Text des Narratives des Pentateuch in seinen rechtshermeneutischen Intentionen der narrativen Rahmen von Toraoffenbarungen und -auslegungen erklärbar werden ). The basic task of the scholar is to break down the function of Deuteronomy in the synchronically read plot of the entire Pentateuch. This results from Deuteronomy being the center of biblical theology. Reliable ground can be won in the understanding of the Pentateuch where the synchronically read narrative of the Pentateuch and your understanding of its origin move in agreement with the historical-critical insights won in diachronic work. 6. The lack of evidence for a Deuteronomistic History indicates that scholars should no longer theorize about a non-priestly Tetrateuch supposedly available to Deuteronomy. The opening and closing chapters of Deuteronomy presuppose the Tetrateuch and cannot be part of a separate Deuteronomistic History. At the same time, the final Deuteronomy chapters tie into the following book of Joshua, pointing toward a
Hexateuch. New ground must be broken when the conversation concerns the joining of the Priestly writing with Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch redaction. 7. The evidence for multiple stages of redaction history, each involving a series of learned scribes rather simply a single scribe, includes the following: a. A seventh-century Moses-Exodus narrative b. A core Deuteronomy from the late preexilic period whose dating is quite difficult and questionable, based mostly on the reception of the Assyrian loyalty oaths from after 672. This core contained all the regulations of the Book of the Covenant and others that are lacking in the Book of the Covenant. c. A Priestly use of the Moses-Exodus narrative to add cultic duties and a cult foundation based on creation. This portrayed Moses as leader of Israel out of Egypt to Sinai and as mediator of the founding of the cult program. d. An exilic Deuteronomistic Horeb redaction incorporates core Deuteronomy into the Moses-Exodus narrative. This chief redaction limits direct revelation to the Deuteronomistic form (Deut 5) of the Decalogue while structuring the Deuteronomistic law (Deut 12 26) in accord with the Decalogue and interpreting it for life in the promised land, that is, for life after the exile. The redaction shows how the late preexilic Deuteronomy that was created in opposition to Assyrian claims to power could claim authority despite the late Babylonian-caused catastrophe in Judah. The Horeb redaction claims that, despite Israel s breaking of the covenant, Yahweh remains faithful to it, and the laws remain in force for exiled Judah. The Deuteronomistic frame is the theological cradle for the total conception of the Pentateuch with the integration of the Priestly writing. e. A Moab redaction from the exile connects with the early Joshua narrative and works out Moses function in the covenant ceremony of Deut 29 30. This edition opposed the priestly cult based on Sinai tradition and promised hope for the new generation that knew and could obey the Deuteronomistic law, something their fathers generation did not have. f. A postexilic Hexateuch redaction created a core text of Gen 1 Josh 24. It sought to balance the Priestly and Deuteronomistic concepts by integrating the Moab redaction and the Priestly writing into a work reaching from Gen 1 to Josh 24. Possession of the land stood in the center of interest, with the law as the condition for succeeding in the hope to live in the land. The redaction featured Joshua, who led the people into the land and led in the high point of the Hexateuch, the covenant without Moses. This
edition polemicized against the Persian political ideology and showed the goal of creation and world history to be Israel s settling in the promised land. g. A Priestly pentateuchal redactor focuses on the proclamation of the law, the making of the covenant, and the differences between P and Deuteronomy. The effort is to smooth out differences by correcting D in light of P. This antiprophetic, antimonarchy, and antimessianic redactor worked from the Horeb redaction to place the law at the center of attention. This redaction is complex, involving a process of adding additional writings (Fortschreibung) that were then supplemented (Ergänzungen) while cutting off Joshua from the Pentateuch. Both the Hexateuch redaction and the Pentateuch redaction (including the Holiness Code) come from around 400 B.C.E. and circulated at the same time. The Priestly Pentateuch redaction was based on Deuteronomy and the Priestly writing. h. A fourth-century post-priestly pentateuchal redactor joins Deuteronomistic clichés with Priestly motifs. i. A post-pentateuch redaction inserted theocratic editing and private priestly knowledge. j. Post-Priestly pentateuchal additions placed God in the place of Persia s Ahuramazda while Moses acts as God s prophet in place of the Assyrian king. k. Otto also speaks of a post-priestly redaction joining Deuteronomy with all its Deuteronomistic editorial changes (Bearbeitungen) and the Priestly writing with all its expansions. This he names the Enntateuch redaction, attributing borrowing from Ezekiel to this redactional level. l. Postredactional additions let Moses as biblical scholar and scribe decide the difficult situations as blasphemers, inheritance by daughters, breaking the Sabbath laws, a second Passover. m. Ezra presupposes the entire Pentateuch. 8. A primary distinction appears in the biblical text between materials written by God and those written by Moses. God wrote the Decalogue; Moses, the laws. Anonymous writers are responsible for the narratives. God is pictured as directly mediating the Decalogue, while Moses brought the remainder of the law. This makes the direct-from-yahweh- Decalogue universally valid. Yahweh also interprets his own laws in changing situations. Alongside the revelation of the law on Sinai stands Deuteronomy in Moab interpreting the Sinai law. Moses became the image of the biblical scholar and scribe, implanting the
office in Torah. The Book of the Covenant is to be understood as unfolding the meaning of the Decalogue. Deuteronomy 27 and 31 leave no doubt that the Mosaic task of promulgating the Torah should be divided among priests, Levites, and elders. 9. A written debate and power struggle became a constant factor. The literary history of the Hebrew Bible is structured by a discourse over Moses, with priests on one side and prophetic tradents on the other, each attributing their contributions to the ongoing text tradition to the founder of their tradition, thus gaining authority for their writing. The Pentateuch redactor saw revelation closed with the death of Moses, leading to authoritative priests having authority to interpret the Torah Moses left behind. The prophetic tradents saw prophets like Moses continuing to provide revelation in the tradition of the great prophetic figures such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel and expecting God to engage in history again in the future. The tradition raised Jeremiah as mediator and writer of the Word of God to a place on a level plain with Moses following the Deuteronomic law of the prophet in chapter 18. The Deuteronomic theory pointed to the end of prophecy with Moses death, while the Pentateuch redaction expected future prophets like Moses. Zadokite and Aaronic priests contested one another for power and position. Later, behind the post-deuteronomistic Pentateuch redaction stood Priestly circles of scholarly scribes who reclaimed for themselves the transmission of the pentateuchal laws. 10. Distinctive hermeneutical keys lay behind the covenant at Horeb, the one in Moab, and the new covenant the prophets promised. The complexity of the discussions appears in Jer 31:31 34, in the Deuteronomistic redaction of Deuteronomy, and in the post- Deuteronomistic Pentateuch redaction in Deuteronomy. The Horeb redaction of Deuteronomy shows that only the second generation knew of the revelation of the law in a full way, so that the covenant was valid and in place only for them and their descendants. Gradually in the postexilic period the fears increased that Israel would again be shattered by the covenant demands of Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy 30:1 10 opposed such thinking, promising every generation the possibility of repentance. Jeremiah 30 31 then enters the scene with the picture of a change in God and the promise of a new covenant. The Jeremiah tradents push back the Rechtshermeneutik of the Pentateuch with its claim of not needing a new divine engagement in history and promise the new covenant written on the heart. 11. The false path of source criticism in the Pentateuch includes an explanation of the utilization of differing divine names to distinguish narrated time and narrative time. Source criticism became a recursus ad infinitum because literary-critical reduction of the text hardly lead to basic texts of convincing coherence. Discovering a number of redactional hands in a text does not lead to coherence. Rather, all certainties concerning
the (literary) origins should be mistrusted when they assign every half and quarter of a verse to a so-called redactor. One should rather work with growth via blocks of material or the adding of additional writings (Fortschreibung). The change of divine names in Gen 1 3 is tied into a theological intention of the author. In a synchronic reading of the Pentateuch, the change of the divine names does not occur accidentally. Such change is not simply an incomparable relic of a diachronic text but appears in service of the hermeneutical differences between narrative time and narrated time. Elohim signifies in the horizon of the post-p Pentateuch the uniqueness of God and the impossibility of duplicating the event of the creation of the world. Evaluating such a work approaches the impossible. The erudition and reading behind the essays become almost intimidating. The certainty with which claims are made, often with support coming from an outside source, leaves the reader dependent on Otto or seeking to question assumptions, not detailed evidence. Still, a reviewer must enter into brief dialogue. Otto s escape from classic literary sources and the theoretical Deuteronomistic History is quite welcome. So is his attention to a synchronic reading of the text and his insistence that the synchronic text make clear sense. The search for an internal Rechtshermeneutik proves challenging and thought-provoking, if not totally convincing. Its goal of finding how a text speaks to the narrative world is certainly worth pursuing. The call to a closer look at related texts across Scripture is also worthy of emulation. The strongest questions come in regard to the redactional layers. Done in the name of literary history and redaction criticism, his study leads quite close to those of literary criticism that he joins Perlitt in criticizing as dividing too many verses into halves and quarters and making decisions on that basis. All too frequently we find Greek letters and asterisks employed after verse numbers in Otto s work. The editorial stages of his work amount to perpetual scribal work on an authoritative text and differ so greatly in size and importance that they can hardly be said to belong in the same category. One wonders how many copies of a text were available to editors and writers to make such changes and how such competing schools managed to add materials to the same text. I praise the erudition and creativity behind this opus, but I question the real-world possibility of the system created by such intense scholarly work. Certainly, anyone seeking to study any subject bridging Genesis through Joshua in any manner must pay close attention to the detailed work Otto brings and must respond carefully to his assumptions, his larger theories, and his exegetical care.