Study on Pentateuch Trajectory of the Paper This essay reviews two books concerned with Pentateuchal studies. It begins with summaries of both books and proceeds with critical analysis of each in turn. Book Summary Nicholson, Ernest. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. The main purpose of this book is to re-evaluate the Documentary Theory in the light of the vast literature that has appeared on the Pentateuch since it was first put forward (p. v). The book is divided into two parts consisting of nine chapters (three in the first part and six in the second part). In the first part of the book, chapters 1-3 summarize the literature on source, form, and tradition-historical criticisms of Pentateuchal study. The rest of the chapters concern newer approaches and contemporary debates. In chapter 1, Nicholson rehearses well-known scholars endeavors on Pentateuchal source criticism from Jean Astruc to Wellhausen. Indeed, Wellhausen s work was a systematic study of what has been said about the sources that presumably have constituted the final form of Pentateuch. Thus, Wellhausen s work gave rise to the Documentary Hypothesis (DH). Nicholson points out that for Wellhausen the purpose of source criticism of the Pentateuch was to outline the history and development of Israelite religion. Thus, through his DH Wellhausen argued that Israel s pre-exilic religion was a free religion unbounded by law. The Sinaitic law and Priestly legislation are either exilic or post exilic work of the priestly community. As such, the P source formed the last in the sequence JEDP. Post-Wellhausen scholars debated endlessly such issues 1
as whether J preceded E or vice versa, how many layers of the Pentateuch include J and E, and whether J and E are manifestations of J and E schools, respectively. The P source was further divided into P G (Grundschrift), P H (Holiness code), P S (Supplement). Furthermore, debate arose concerning whether P is an independent source or a redacted material. But by the end of the nineteenth century a new wave of study arose, namely the study of the pre-compositional stage/tradition-historical criticism/form criticism, which was represented by Die Religionsgeschichtliche schule. In chapter 2, Nicholson turns to the study of the pre-compositional stages of the documents. This study investigates the origin and development of the tradition(s) prior to reaching the status of a written document. Hermann Gunkel s contribution in this area of study stands out. Besides Gunkel s work on the Gatung and sitz im leben of the text, he asserted that patriarchal stories circulated before Israel entered Canaan. He also pointed out that each patriarchal story ( cycle ) might have existed as an independent unit that was later joined orally and that these cycles were primarily concerned with origins of people and places. Thus, for Gunkel, the writers of J and E, unlike P, were not authors but mere collectors of documents. Another scholar who is worth mentioning at this stage is Albrecht Alt. He provided the framework (tradition-historical method) for the later works of Gerhard von Rad and Martin Noth, the two most prominent contributors to Pentateuchal studies in the twentieth century. Alt s study opened a window that provided glimpse into the period of tribal confederacy prior to the monarchial period. For Alt, the documents J and E depict a period when Israel had already advanced to the Yahwistic stage from that of a polytheistic religion. In chapter 3, Nicholson explores the contributions of von Rad and Noth. Von Rad, in his work, The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch (1938), was not concerned about the 2
composition and the development of the Hexateuch as a whole; rather, he was interested in analyzing the scheme that directed the composition of Hexateuch. He believed that the Hexateuch is an achievement of the Yahwist during the later part of the tenth century ( Solomonic Enlightenment ) who took the settlement tradition as his underlying theme and later incorporated the Sinai tradition, the patriarchal history, and added the primeval history to the whole. Thus, it was the Yahwist who formulated the programmatic plan of the Hexateuch. For von Rad there is no doubt that both the Elohist and the Priestly writers were great, authentic writers, but their works operated within the massive framework provided by the Yahwist. Noth in his book, A History of Pentateuchal Tradition, opined that an important common base text/source he called Grundlage (G) existed in the pre-monarchial period. It is this G source that gave the impetus for the formation of other smaller sources. In other words, for Noth all the non-deuteronomist sources (such as J, E, and P) were the works of individual authors who depended on G for the basis of their content. In von Rad and Noth one finds the synthesis of form criticism and tradition-historical criticism at work. In spite of their differing conclusions, their works provided the basis for further research in the field of Pentateuchal study for many years to come. Although there were differences among the Pentateuchal scholars (such as von Rad and Noth), the larger framework of DH was not rejected up to this point in history. However, that fact would soon change. By the beginning of 1970s the study of the Pentateuch became far more fragmented as scholars even rejected the basic structure of DH. Nicholson turns a discussion of this development in chapters 4-7. In chapter 4, Nicholson focuses on the work of Rolf Rendtorff. Rendtorff s main argument is that form criticism and source criticism are completely different methods of investigation (contra von Rad and Noth). Thus, Rendtorff asserted that the Hexateuch consists of 3
a number of original complexes of traditions (such as the patriarchal narratives in Gen 12-50), which developed independently of each other until they were merged at their final stages by the Deuteronomic editor. Erhart Blum, one of Rendorff s students, agreed with him concerning the development of the patriarchal complexes but disagreed concerning other narratives following Genesis. He argued that there were two redactions that dominated the formulation of Pentateuch, namely D-Komposition (K D ) and P-Komposition (K P ). It is K D who connected the patriarchal history to that of Exodus and the remainder of the Pentateuch during the post-exilic period under the influence of the Deuteronomistic authors. Thus, in Rendtorff s and Blum s works one does not see the traditional J, E, or JE sources. In chapter, 5 Nicholson focuses on the issue of re-dating the Yahwist (J). One scholar who has contributed much to this issue is John Van Seters. The nucleus of his argument is that J is a late exilic material, and P is a post exilic material. He argued that Yahwist was a historian in the mold of the Greek antiquarian writers. Further, he asserted that JE material emanated from the hand of the Yahwist and that the Yahwist was dependent on the work of the Deuteronomistic historian. In fact, he concluded that the Tetrateuch is written by the Yahwist as a prologue to the Deuteronomistic History. In chapter 6, Nicholson points out with reference to the works of Blum and Christoph Levin that, although pre-p Tetrateuch material was composed in the exilic or post-exilic period, the composition still depended on pre-exilic sources. In chapter 7, Nicholson discusses issues relating to P: is P an independent source or is it supplementary to JE? Is P a pre-exilic or postexilic source? For the first question Nicholson discusses Frank Moore Cross and Blum, who argued that P is not an independent source but merely a redacted (Cross) or compositional (Blum) work. For the second question Nicholson discusses the works of Jewish scholars (such as 4
Y. Kaufmann, M. Weinfeld, M. Haran, and A. Hurvitz) who are of the view that P predates D. For instance, Weinfeld argued that Deuteronomy 4 employs a number of Priestly idioms, and other passages in the Deuteronomistic corpus similarly show knowledge of P (p. 218). In chapter 8, Nicholson offers a rebuttal explaining why he still believes DH is a better option. He critiques Whybray, who has rejected DH and appraised pre-p Tetrateuch sources as exilic/post-exilic production. Nicholson depends on scholars such as J. Tigay to argue against Whybray. Finally, in chapter 9, Nicholson analyzes the issue of synchronic study of the Pentateuch. He rightfully acknowledges the importance of synchronic study but also, and most importantly, points out how synchronic study should be done. In the course of his discussion, he rejects the synchronic study of Clines and Whybray but endorses the canonical approach of Brevard Childs mutatis mutandis. Nicholson points out the tendency of Childs to negate the theological significance of the pre-canonical sources by absolutizing the significance of the final form. He concludes in light of von Rad s observation that every source that the final redactor of the Pentateuch utilized had theological significance for the community of the pre-final form text of the Pentateuch. To sum up, Nicholson provides an excellent summary of the issues surrounding the DH of Pentateuchal study. His work reappraises the DH as the best option, in spite of the cacophony of issues in the recent times in this field of study. His remarks on synchronic study are positive and balanced. However, his comments on the dating of P and the relationship between P and H leave much to be desired. 5
Shectman, Sarah and Joel S. Baden, eds. The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments. TVZ: Zürich, 2009. The raison d ȇtre of this book is to analyze critically the issues surrounding the Priestly (P) source. The first article by B.J. Schwartz puts into perspective the scholarly debates concerning P and H materials. Schwartz begins by defining Priestly literature, its distinctive features, and its strata. He also points out the issue of whether P is an independent author or redactor. Then the rest of his article is on the current discussion of the Priestly strata of H. He argues that H post- dates P (in line with Israel Knohl and Jacob Milgrom). He rejects the earlier view that H material reflects natural and less institutionalized laws and thus pre-dates P. This view, he argues, falls within evolutionary thinking. Rather, he asserts that such analysis of P and H materials should solely depend on literary and philological analysis. He avers that, although H post-dates P, some of its contents are pre-p. Schwartz further asks what the intention of the H writer was in creating the corpus. He states that the H writer was not aiming for a new and independent corpus of legislation but rather a supplement to what already existed (p. 7). Unlike Knohl, Schwartz urges caution concerning HS as the final redactor of Pentateuch. In a similar way, he avers that the theologies of H and P is not a de facto but depends on portions of literature allotted to H and P. In the second article, Joel S. Baden gets specific by asking the question, What is P? This inquiry entails two further investigations. The first concerns the stratum of P. Which stratum (narrative or legal) provides the impetus for the P writer? Second, how does one identify the original stratum of P? To the first question, Baden answers, the original stratum of P is defined... by the narrative framework (p. 19). For the second inquiry, Baden demarcates P literature around Sinai law, although it has pre-sinai narratives. Thus, he asserts, if one finds the 6
language of law prior to the Sinai event then it must be secondary insertion. He also avers that P does not use the law as parenesis, unlike H. Thus, H is to be considered secondary to P. The third article by Blum attempts to scrutinize critically the division between P and H. Blum asserts that P literature consists of archaic materials, but the final stage of its writing belongs to the Persian period. Blum also makes a case to indicate that there is no reason to divide P literature into P and H. He argues that biblical portions such as Leviticus 11 and 17-26 do not necessarily suggest that they are the work of H. Rather, he believes that the elaborate admonition in these portions is for the sake of emphasis and also because of the nature of literary content. Otherwise, Lev 11 and 17-26 form essential parts in the overall conception of P (p. 39). In the fourth article, Simeon Chavel analyzes the Sabbath wood-gatherer in Number 15:32-36 in relation to all the other Sabbath texts (Lev 24:10-23; Num 9:1-14; 27:1-11). His intention is to demonstrate how the Priestly writer(s) might have composed the P document, from a priestly oracular law to written legislation (art mimics real life). Chavel points out how Numbers 15:32-36 is interconnected with all the other texts and yet includes a new perspective in the word stoning. According to Chavel, this suggests that Sabbath observation was as important as not cursing God (Lev 24:10-23) or not sacrificing a child to Molekh (Lev 20:2) or not acting as a medium to the dead ancestors (Lev 20:27), in which cases stoning to death is mentioned. William K. Gilders, in the fifth article, argues that P source is an independent source and not a redacted work (contra Kohl). In order to demonstrate his thesis Gilders concentrates on the issue and practice of sacrifice as found in pre-sinaitic materials (J and E) and Sinaitic/post- Sinaitic materials (P/H). Gilders believes that P material does not touch the issue of sacrifice prior to the Sinai event and so he critiques Wenham s view, who argued that P does not reject 7
pre-sinaitic sacrifice and that P s silence was mainly because of space. Gilders explains that P s Passover description in Exodus 12, which is usually considered a sacrificial offering, is actually a ritual and not sacrifice. Gilders argument hinges on the understanding that sacrifice is possible only on the altar in the presence of the priest (Lev 17:3-4). Thus, Gilders concludes that P material is an independent source. In the sixth article, S. T. Kamionkowski studies the passage Lev 24:10-23, which is one of H s texts. She scrutinizes the Name theology of God as found in v. 11. In doing this she could distinguish the theologies of P and H. P s God is holy and glorious, accessible only to the priest. But in contrast to this, H made God accessible to the community through its Name theology. She also points out that in D, God is considered as purely transcendent; however, in H God is accessible to his people, in spite of his transcendence. Christophe Nihan in his essay focuses on the composition of P and its evolution. Nihan chooses the theme of covenant in order to demonstrate its evolution. Nihan argues that the strata of Priestly writing can be divided into three: P, H, and theocratic composition in Numbers 25. Nihan points out that in P the understanding of the Abrahamic covenant is that of everlasting covenant ; in H covenant is understood as a synthesis of P and the Sinaitic covenant, namely, P s everlasting covenant and the Sinaitic conditional covenant. Finally, in Numbers 25 one finds another interpretation of covenant, and this time P s understanding of covenant is appropriated among the Aaronite s dynasty indicating the relationship between the high priest s lineage and the community on the model of Israel s relationship to the nations (p. 127). Eckart Otto provides a diachronic and synchronic understanding of the Holiness Code (Lev 17-26). Otto posits that P and D sources were two different sources on the origin of Israel. These two different sources were redacted and compiled during the post-exilic period. First, it 8
was compiled as the Hexateuch by some priestly writers with the main theme as land. However, during Ezra s time the Hexateuch was cut short into the Pentateuch (Joshua was taken out) with the main theme as Torah. Otto argues that in the redaction of the Pentateuch, the Sinai pericope and the Holiness legislation were added. Synchronically, Otto avers that the Holiness Code was given to Moses, Aaron and the priest exclusively, and this section was later added to Pentateuchal redaction in order to emphasize the importance of Torah as the core of Israel s religious aspiration rather than land. Otto also points out that D s legal material is different from H s legal material because the former was addressed to the lay people, whereas the latter was directed exclusively to the priests. In the tenth article Sarah Shectman analyzes the role of women in the priestly narratives with an intention to contribute to the overall understanding of the P source. Shectman first studies the book of Genesis. The conclusion of this book study is that all the priestly writing in Genesis belongs to P (not H); women appear for genealogical purposes. She observes, Although the covenant is inherited in a line moving from father to son, only the right mother is the proper vehicle for this transfer (p. 179). Next, Shectman studies Exodus-Numbers. She sides with Knohl in asserting that the non-genealogical texts in these books are attributed to H. Shectman concludes this section of her study by arguing that H s view of women is less discriminatory than P for instance, Number 27 and 36 where Zelophehad s daughters are given the quasi-rights of inheritance, and legal autonomy. Römer, in his essay, elucidates P s ideology and its late date origination. Römer believes that P is post-exilic/persian era document, although it might include archaic materials. He further asserts that P writers were the pioneers in combining the creation, ancestral stories with that of the cultic establishment. According to Römer, P s understanding of land is contextual P strives 9
to understand the Israelites both in Yehud as well as in diaspora so that no matter where Israelites were they were still resident aliens because the land belonged to YHWH alone (Exo 6:2-8). Again, Römer points out that P s author was an inclusive monotheist (Exo 6:2-8) over against D s strict monotheism. This probably reflects the Persian imperial understanding of religious system (i.e., there are many gods but only one god is the head). Thus, for Römer, the original priestly account of the exodus should be understood as a contribution to political and religious ecumenism at the beginning of the Persian period (p. 170). Stackert, in his essay, argues that there is much interaction of H s Holiness Legislation with that of P, D, and Covenant Collections. He demonstrates that H s legislation was articulated to supplement/augment P s legal material but to jettison Covenant Collection and Deuteronomy. However, in the final redaction of the Pentateuch, it is hard to visualize the intention of H, and for this reason Stackert asserts H is not the final redactor of Pentateuch. To sum up, this edited volume complements Nicholson s book by providing a full spectrum of the scholarly discussion concerning P, which was merely touched in Nicholson s work. This volume presents the framework and working dynamics of the P writer (Baden, Chavel, and Nihan). It also shows the distinctiveness of P and H (Schetman and Kamionkowski). Through this book one also realizes that issues such as H as the final redactor of the Pentateuch, P as an independent source, or even the existence of H itself are still unsettled. 10
Critical Analysis Preliminary Comments I would like to assert, in general, that I agree with Nicholson s reappraisal of the Documentary Hypothesis (DH), mutatis mutandis. In other words, the DH as a hypothesis provides a scope in understanding the literary quagmire of the first five books of the Bible. This agreement comes, however, not at the expense of understanding the canon as the inspired and revealed word of God. It has to be acknowledged that critical scholarship has not always been productive for the faith community; rather, in some ways it has created a bifurcation between academia and the ekklesia. Perhaps this is because biblical studies in many universities or even seminaries proceeds on the assumption that the Bible is not the word of God but is like any other ancient literature. Conversely, one also needs to acknowledge that there are scholars driven purely by their dogmatic faith. As a result, the interpretation of Scripture remains rigid and superficial. The friction I am describing may be called the problems of skepticism and fideism. The need to bridge these two aspects of course, not just for the sake of it, but to bring cohesion, conviction and logic to one s thinking is imperative. 1 This understanding will be my guiding principle as I critique these two books. The credibility of the DH is enhanced by work such as that of Jeffrey H. Tigay. 2 Tigay provides a compelling comparison between the evolutions of the Pentateuchal Narratives with that of the Gilgamesh Epic. The textual history of the Gilgamesh Epic stretches 1500 years. This is attested by the various archaeological findings of fragments of copies from various periods. Tigay distinguishes four historical periods in the development of Gilgamesh Epic: first, the 1 Bill T. Arnold in one of his works has cogently argued that one can be critical and yet preserve his/her faith or vice-versa. See Deuteronomy as the Ipsissima Vox of Moses, JTI 4.1 (2010): 53-74. Also see Carle E. Amerding, The Old Testament and Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 21-42. 2 J.H. Tigay ed., Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1985). 11
isolated written narratives in Sumerian (2100 B.C.E); second, the completed version of the epic in Akkadian (the Old Babylonian period ca. 2000-1600 B.C.E); third, the revision of the completed version in the Middle Babylonain period (1600-1000 B.C.E); and finally, the latest Standard Babylonian version known from the library of Ashurbanipal (668-627 B.C.E). 3 Tigay further points out that one can observe a clear line of evolution of the epic. In the first instance the isolated narratives are put together according to a common plot, the hero s quest for immorality. 4 In the second stage of evolution, (i.e., in the Akkadian text) one could observe deletion of some narrative such as the narrative of Gilgamesh and Agga. This stage also introduces its own elements. 5 In the third stage, Tigay comments that the vibrant freedom of editing is missing though edition did continue it was more revision and not creation. 6 Some modifications are initiated in the final stage. Adding a prologue that emphasizes the wisdom acquired by Gilgamesh during his adventurous mission is an example of one such modification. 7 This evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic as literature illuminates, to a certain extent, how the Pentateuch might have evolved as amalgamated source literature. Yet one has to be cautious about the comparison of these two works, the Gilgamesh Epic and the Pentateuch. It has to be noted that the latter was people s defining book, whereas the former was not a normative book, although it occupied an important place in Mesopotamian culture. 8 This indicates that contra the Gilgamesh Epic, Pentateuchal literature might have been more rigid and constraining when it 3 Tigay, The Evolution of the Pentateuchal Narrative in the Light of the Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic in The Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1985), 21-52. 4 Ibid., 32-5. 5 Ibid., 33-8. 6 Ibid., 38-9. 7 Ibid., 41-42. 8 Jean-Louis Ska, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch (trans., Sr. Pascale Dominique; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 183. 12
came to editing and revision. 9 At the end, there are similarities in the modus operandi of these two literary products; their differences are in degree but not in nature. One of the assets of the DH is its ability to identify various literary types such as the literature that emphasizes on priestly material (P), covenant relationship (D), anthropomorphic representations of God (J), and the role of prophets (E). Richard Hess, in recognizing the positive aspect of the DH, states, Whether or not these are different religions, they certainly represent different emphases and may reflect the presence of special groups who identified with each method of religious expression. 10 However, if the DH has provided us with the plausible sources that constitute the Pentateuch, then it is the dating of these sources that has generated some crucial notions and debates. 11 Joel S. Baden, in his recent book, has categorically argued that the DH is and should be a literary enterprise and not a historical study. 12 I will not analyze Baden s claim here. However, down through the centuries, the DH has been linked with historical analysis and dating of the sources. In fact, this mark is found in the work of the father of the DH, Julius Wellhausen. For Wellhausen, P is the last document because it depicts a highly developed ritualistic religion, as opposed to primitive naturalistic religion a sign of his inclination toward evolutionary philosophy. 13 It is here that I would state that literary evidences should take precedence over against philosophic and historiographic notions. Schwartz, in conjunction with this position, 9 Ibid. 10 R. Hess, Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 59. 11 The issue of the number of sources that constitute the final form Pentateuch remains far from settled. 12 J.S. Baden claims that the DH concentrates on the penultimate stage of the sources. In other words, sources such as JEDP have already developed into independent sources but have not yet been redacted by the final redactor. The DH is not concerned with Form or Traditio-historical criticism. Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (New Haven: Yale University, 2012), 32 and 247. 13 Baruch J. Schwartz in his introduction to the volume, The Strata of the Priestly Writings, indicates this, although indirectly. See B.J. Schwartz, The Strata of the Priestly Writings, 5. Cf. Moshe Weinfeld, The Place of the Law in the Religion of Ancient Israel (VTSup 100; Leiden: Brill, 2004). 13
states, [N]o philosophical or historiographical ideas of what should have come first in the development of Israelite culture cannot be allowed to supplant this convincing literary evidence. 14 Being cognizant to such critique as well as to new archaeological evidences will generally result in affirming relatively the early dating of the sources (the truth claim) in the Pentateuch. For instance, the discoveries of the Emar (1300-1200 BCE) texts have shed light on the issue of the anointment of the priest with blood and oil (Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8). Formerly it was argued that this practiced was a post-exilic development, a transference of practice from the anointment of the monarch to that of the priest in order to upgrade the authority of the priest to the level of the king. However, one of the Emar texts highlights how the priestesses were anointed with blood and oil. 15 This observation suggests that anointment practice found in Exodus 29 and Leviticus 8 are not a pure literary reconstruction of the postexilic scribes. Hess avers, This does not prove that the priestly anointing ritual of Leviticus 8-9 must date to the end of the Late Bronze Age (1550-1200 BC); it proves only that assumptions of a postexilic origin for this element of tradition within P can no longer be accepted prima facie. 16 Thus, literary and archaeological evidences should be the motivating and guiding factors in studying literature of Pentateuch. In the following paragraphs, I engage in the critique of the two books. However, my critique will be selective in nature and not a wholesale chapter-by-chapter critique. 14 Schwartz, The Strata of the Priestly Writings, 5; cf. Armerding, Old Testament and Criticism, 28. 15 Hess, Israelite Religions, 114. 16 Ibid., 54. 14
Pre-P Tetrateuch Nicholson s chief argument concerning the pre-p tetrateuchal documents (JE) is that these documents are pre-exilic. This contention is the reiteration of the classic DH. However, in doing this Nicholson rejects the views of Van Seters and Martin Rose who in recent times have proposed that the pre-p tetrateuch is a prologue to the Deuteronomistic History. 17 Van Seters especially has contributed enormously to this proposal. He argues that the pre-p tetrateuch is merely a fictitious literary creation of the post Deuteronomistic author. 18 For instance, Joshua s encounter with the messenger of YHWH becomes the model for Moses burning bush experience. Moses unwillingness to be prophet is modeled on the calls of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and the notion of an exodus from Egypt derives from Second Isaiah. 19 Nicholson rightfully avers that this understanding that the pre-p Tetrateuch was composed as a prologue to the Deuteronomistic History does not carry conviction. 20 To critique the pre-p tetrateuch as a fictional production for post-exilic Israel would not only be anachronistic in a later period but also some of the patriarchal customs, beliefs, and actions would be entirely objectionable. Priestly Writing One of the weaknesses of Nicholson s argument concerning Priestly writings is that he does not address adequately the plausibility of P as a pre-exilic work. 21 To be fair, he does mention that post-exilic P writing contains some pre-exilic materials. But, at the end, he remains closely 17 See Nicholson, The Pentateuch, 132-60. 18 See Van Seters works Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University, 1975); In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (New Haven: Yale University, 1983); Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis (Louisville: John Knox, 1992), The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (Louisville: John Knox, 1994). 19 Van Seters, The Life of Moses, 37-63. 20 Nicholson, The Pentateuch, 240. 21 In his 26-page argument on the dating of P (pp. 196-221), Nicholson devotes only the last three penultimate pages to the possibility of P as pre-exilic source. 15
attached to Wellhausen s understanding of the place of law in the Pentateuch. However, as pointed out, this view of Wellhausen is susceptible to his philosophical inclination and not necessarily to hard evidences. Here, I just want to mention the works of Avi Hurvitz and Moshe Weinfeld who provided some good evidences and arguments for the pre-exilic P. Robert Polzin in his study compares the linguistic features of Chronicler, the Priestly document (P), and lexicographic features of Late Biblical Hebrew. 22 He concludes, among other things, that although there are many similarities between P and classical biblical Hebrew (preexilic biblical corpus), classical biblical Hebrew antedates P, namely the Priestly narratives (P G ) and secondary additions to the priestly document (P S ). However, both P G and P S predate the Chronicler's language. In doing this, Polzin agrees with Wellhausen and with the dating formula of the Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP). Avi Hurvitz, against Polzin's view, analyzes the linguistic features of the book of Ezekiel, which is a composition within the Priestly circle of the exilic period. 23 Basically, Hurvitz opines that there is a contrast of linguistic features between the book of Ezekiel and the P document, indicating that P has close affinities to pre-exilic linguistic features. Hurvitz first studies the peculiarity of P linguistic features, followed by the peculiarity of Ezekiel. Then, finally, he studies the similarities of both of these documents. He concludes that the Ezekiel materials consist of late linguistic elements, suggesting late background of the book, whereas the P document does not reveal any late linguistic element, suggesting early background of the P source. The similarities that exist between these two documents suggest their common 22 R. Polzin, Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Prose (Missiula: Scholars Press, 1976). 23 A. Hurvitz, A Linguistic Study of the relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem (Cahiers de la Revue Biblique, 20; Paris: 1982). 16
inheritance from the ancient Priestly literature. Thus, Ezekiel drew directly from the P documents in writing his book. Besides this, Weinfeld, in his argument for P as a pre-exilic source, outlines the five pillars of Wellhausen that allowed him to place P in the post-exilic period. 24 The five pillars: the place of worship, the sacrifice, the sacred feast, the priests and the Levites, and the endowment of the clergy. Weinfeld critiques Wellhausen that he was not aware of the ANE context of the second and first millennia, when the ritual prescription was very common and even more elaborate than that found in the Priestly Code. For instance, Wellhausen has argued that the Tabernacle of Shiloh mentioned in the Priestly documents is a retrojection of the Temple of Jerusalem. Weinfeld argues that this is not a retrojection but that the tabernacle at Shiloh is the prototype and traditional place of Israel. 25 This observation demonstrates that P is not a late construction; rather, it can be grounded early when Shiloh was considered the place of Israel's worship (Jer 7:12 and Ps 78:60). Once again, these evidences literary, historical, and archaeological should guide the dating and interpretation of the sources rather than letting oneself be directed by one s predilection. 26 Form, Tradition, and Redaction Criticisms Nicholson, in his first three chapters, has neatly summarized the impact of formgeschichte and the tradition-historical method on studies of the DH. Gunkel ignited the field of form criticism, which focused on the oral tradition of the sources: the gattung and sitz im leben. Gunkel, along 24 Moshe Weinfeld, The Place of Law in the Religion of Ancient Israel (VTsup 100; Leiden: Brill, 2004). 25 Ibid., 18-26. 26 Weinfeld argues, Wellhausen s revolutionary aim in the Prolegomena was to prove that the main legal sections of the Pentateuch: Exod 12, 25 31, 35 40, all of Leviticus, and the legal material in Numbers, which comprise the Priestly Code (P), are in fact a reflection of postexilic Judaism and must therefore be considered a deviation from the prophetic religion which preceded it. The Priestly Code, he maintained, is the constitution of Judaism, which arose as an entirely new phenomenon after the return from the Exile. Ibid., xi. 17
with Albrecht Alt, set the stage for Gerhard von Rad and Martin Noth to develop their creative works on the theology and history of ancient Israel (see above pp. 2-3). Although von Rad and Noth s view differed from one another in understanding the development of Israel s traditioning process, nonetheless, both of them operated within the broader framework of the DH. However, as noted above in the summary (p. 3-4) Rendtorff began a new paradigm in understanding the literature of Pentateuch by critiquing von Rad and Noth s works. In Rendtorff and his student Erhard Blum s approach, there is no traditional J and E or JE sources; rather, the Pentateuch is considered an amalgamation of discrete narratives, compiled through a process of editing (Bearbeitung). 27 At this juncture, I would like to bring up the issue of the role of redactors within the context of Pentateuchal studies. This issue is intrinsic to the argument of the DH and, of course, Nicholson does elucidate this point: for instance, in the questions such as, whether E is an independent source or dependent on J, or whether P is an independent source of or redacted material. However, Nicholson fails to comment on this issue substantially. The important question is this: Is the redactor an editor or an author? For me, this question has implications for the understanding of the nature of the sources. For instance, were the sources a total reconstruction of the author? Or were the sources existing in complete independence from one another before the redactor compiled them, incorporating his creative imagination? Or were the independent, existing sources theologically and traditionally connected? Von Rad has argued that the Yahwist is an author and not a redactor because of his creativity par excellence; 28 Van Seters has also pointed out that unlike an ancient editor, who operated as strict modern editors, biblical writers should be considered authors because their role 27 It must be remembered that the new paradigm of Rendtorff and his students is also an alternate hypothesis to that of the DH. Rendtorff s approach is, more or less, akin to the older fragmentary hypothesis. 28 Gerhard Von Rad, The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch and other Essays (Edinburgh, 1965), 69. 18
transcended the role of an editor. 29 Eckart Otto has pointedly criticized Van Seters, arguing that he is attempting to sanctify his own hypothesis of a late Yahwist as an author. 30 Otto further argues in line with K. Koch that von Rad was the first who introduced the method of redaction history and that the latter s understanding of Yahwist as author is nuanced (contra Van Seters). 31 Blum s understanding of Komposition renders another and, probably, the better understanding of the meaning of redactor. Blum asserts that the Pentateuch consists of two larger Kompositions: K D and K P. For Blum this Kompostion is neither a source nor a redaction, but it entails a work in which the writer utilizes the received tradition and provides new interpretation to it without distorting the substance of the tradition. 32 I am making this argument to demonstrate that the redactor s job was not simply to compile differing traditions or materials, let alone to compose a fictitious work, but that the redactors, just as the masses, were dwelling within a specific tradition, a tradition shaped by common theological experience and hence, perspective. This common theological perspective in turn shaped the masses experiences as well as the redactor s work. The dynamic I am articulating is clearly depicted in the inner biblical exegesis as shown by Michael Fishbane. 33 Although, I am arguing here from an a posteriori perspective, its probability is high if one considers that, among others the role of a redactor is to preserve the tradition. Such understanding of a redactor allows the truth claim of the Pentateuch to remain credible and viable. 29 See this argument in his book The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the "Editor" in Biblical Criticism (Winona Lake.: Eisenbrauns, 2006); Baden tends to define the Pentateuchal redactor as a modern editor and at the same time attributes the final form of Pentateuch to only one redactor. See Baden, The Composition of the Pentateuch, 214-229. 30 Eckart Otto, review of Van Seters, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the Editor in Biblical Criticism, RBL 10 (2008): 109-114. 31 Ibid., 110. 32 Erhard Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte, (WMANT 57; Neukirchen: 1984), 270. 33 Michael A. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1988); see also Bernard M. Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997); and Arnold, Deuteronomy as the Ipsissima Vox of Moses. 19
Synchronic Approach Nicholson s handling of this topic, though brief, is sound (as noted above in my summary). Generally, a synchronic approach stems from the frustration of the extreme indulgence of source criticism. 34 Although there are varied synchronic approaches (narratology, structuralism, and semiotics), I want to mention two here: the minimally inclined approach and the canonical approach. The former is represented by Whybray and the latter by Brevard Childs. 35 Whybray critiques the DH at the expense of reducing the Pentateuch to a mere, fictional creation of the post-exilic writer. 36 Nicholson rightfully points out that the way forward is that of Childs approach mutatis mutandis. Childs canonical approach has the tendenz to blunt the theological and historical significance within the traditioning process. In other words, Childs does not see the need to acknowledge the historical and theological role a source might have in a given community before reaching its final form. I agree with Nicholson when he comments, Originally discrete stories such as Genesis 1 and 2 and the Joseph story may thus be described as instances of discourse, so to speak, within the life of the community of faith at different times in its history, unless we are to believe that the only community of faith that was relevant was that to which the final redactor belonged and in engagement with which he carried out his work of redaction. 37 This understanding to me is the way forward for any kind of synchronic study of the Pentateuch. 34 David J. A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (JSOTsup series 10; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001). 35 See R. N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study (JSOT Monograph Series 53; Sheffield: Sheffield University, 1987); B.S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979). 36 In fact, Whybray chooses Van Seters path to develop his synchronic understanding of Pentateuchal literature. See, Gordon J. Wenham, Pondering the Pentateuch: The Search for a New Paradigm in The Face of the Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches (Edited by David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999), 116-144. 37 Nicholson, The Pentateuch, 268. 20
The Strata of the Priestly Writings Since A. Klostermann identified the Holiness Code in 1877 as a separate entity (source or redacted) from that of P, it has come to be represented by the letter H. This subject of H was dealt by Israel Knohl in a book arguing that H is later than P. In fact, the Holiness School is the final redactor of Pentateuch. 38 It is this issue of Priestly writing and its strata that constitutes the main concern of the book, The Strata of the Priestly Writings. In current Pentateuchal scholarship, European scholars (such as Blum) do not feel the need to divide the priestly writing into two strata, whereas Jewish and American scholars are mostly committed to this division of priestly strata. Following the seminal work of Knohl, most of the contributors to this book, except for Blum and Gilders, agree that the priestly writing can be divided into the Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (see my summary above). Kamionkowski and Schectman articles (much easier reads than the other articles in this book) bring out neatly the theological and feminine perspectives of P and H. Chavel, Nihan, and Stackert illuminate, through their respective works, the outworking and development of Priestly writings. Baden s essay is interesting. He is a documentary theorist, but he focuses on the final form of the text without casting it in historical, philosophical, traditio conjectures. He fleshes out his present short article in his latest book, The composition of Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (2012). In his essay, he argues that the composition of P is to be realized by studying narrative plot and that both the law and the narrative section of the P document are composite. 38 Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995). 21
However, despite the aforementioned articles on P and H, the fact that the theologies of H and P are not a given fact but depend on portions of literature allotted to H and P (see Schwartz, 10) suggests that this area of critical study is still far from a consensus. Ironically, Römer s remarks in his article of the danger of historical-critical perspective on the Pentateuch seem to be real. Römer remarks, [I]t is quite understandable that some beginners in biblical studies get the impression that anything goes, that all theories can be defended, and that any quest for a new consensus about the formation of the Pentateuch ultimately becomes a losing proposition (see Römer, 157). One cannot call for a halt for such historical source-critical study because there are positive implications that one can extricate. However, and unfortunately, today such studies are also diluted with ideological reading. As a result, one has to be prudent about such studies, lest one fall into the scenario of the late 18 th and early 19 th centuries, when sources J and E were dissected into J 1, J 2, J 3 or E 1, E 2, E 3 or J school or E school. 39 As a way of ending my critique of this book, I would like to pose a question: Did the final redaction of the Pentateuch occur in the Persian era? For Römer, P is the final redactor who redacted the Pentateuch to suit the Persian context. In other words, the Israelites Persian context and plight shaped the final redactor s mind and work. Thus, the essence of Torah was manipulated by such concepts as inclusive monotheism. The problem with Römer s approach is also the constant danger of modern-day contextualization of Scripture: Does Scripture inform the context? Or does the context inform Scripture? Or both? It has to be both, but the essence of Scripture has to be restored. Römer s approach distorts the essence of Torah. 39 See, Nicholson, The Pentateuch, 11-2. 22
William M. Schniedewind has argued that textualization of Torah began from the time of Josianic religious reforms. 40 Moreover, as mentioned above, the role of redactor was not simply to compile sources or contextualize the tradition but also, and perhaps most importantly, to preserve the substance of the traditions. The issue here is not when the final form of Pentateuch was redacted (though it is important) but what is the role of redactor. Conclusion Both of these books clearly highlight the issues surrounding the DH. There is no doubt that the final form of the Pentateuch is an outcome of a long traditioning process. The DH, as a hypothesis, does provide a means to understand the inconsistencies of the literature of the Pentateuch. At the same time, the new paradigm in the study of the Pentateuch beginning with Rendtorff is also a helpful alternate hypothesis. Ultimately, while considering such critical studies, one must be willing to let the truth claim of Scripture stand and prevail. By truth claim, I am referring to the Scriptures the revealed words of God that document the experiences of God s people in history and that has the power to transform lives both then and now. 40 W.M. Schniedewind, How the Bible Become a Book (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2004), 128. 23
Bibliography Amerding, Carle E. The Old Testament and Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. Arnold, Bill T. Deuteronomy as the Ipsissima Vox of Moses. Journal of Theological Interpretation 4.1 (2010): 53-74. Baden, J.S. The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis. New Haven: Yale University, 2012. Blum, Erhard. Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament 57. Neukirchen: 1984. Childs, B.S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979. Clines, David J. A. The Theme of the Pentateuch. Journal for the Study of Old Testament Supplement Series 10. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001. Fishbane, Michael A. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1988. Hess, R. Israelite Religions: An Archaeological and Biblical Survey. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. Hurvitz, A. A Linguistic Study of the relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique, 20. Paris: 1982. Knohl, Israel. The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995. Levinson, Bernard M. Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Otto, Eckart. Review of Van Seters, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the Editor in Biblical Criticism. Journal of Biblical Literature 10 (2008): 109-114. Polzin, R. Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology of Biblical Prose. Missiula: Scholars Press, 1976. Seters, John V. Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven: Yale University, 1975.. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. New Haven: Yale University, 1983. 24
. Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis. Louisville: John Knox, 1992. The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the "Editor" in Biblical Criticism. Winona Lake.: Eisenbrauns, 2006... The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers. Louisville: John Knox, 1994. Schniedewind, W.M. How the Bible Become a Book. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2004. Ska, Jean-Louis. Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch. Translated by Sr. Pascale Dominique. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006. Tigay, J.H. ed., Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1985. Von Rad, Gerhard. The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch and other Essays. Edinburgh, 1965. Weinfeld, Moshe. The Place of the Law in the Religion of Ancient Israel. Vetus Testamentum Supplement 100. Leiden: Brill, 2004. Wenham, Gordon J. Pondering the Pentateuch: The Search for a New Paradigm. Pages 116-44 in The Face of the Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches. Edited by David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999. Whybray, R. N. The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. Journal for the Study of Old Testament Monograph Series 53. Sheffield: Sheffield University, 1987. 25
28