I. INTRODUCTION. - Faulkner University HCM and...Further this new approach was considered to be...

Lecture 3: Pentateuchal Criticism: A History of Research; BI 5305 Advanced Introduction tothe Old Testament; Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D.; Fall 2008

Ronald E. Clements, One Hundred Years of Old Testament Interpretation (Philadelphia:1

Westminster, 1976), 2.

Clements, One Hundred, 2.2

I. INTRODUCTION.

A. Many of Wellhausen and Duhm’s conclusions about the structure and origin ofthe OT, which rocked the religious world around 1870, were not new, butrepresented more of a refinement of what had already been said.

1. These men put forward a much stronger and clearer case about the rise ofIsrael and its religion.

2. This new case had a strong appeal, and such confidence was placed in it,that scholars came to perceive it as a way to strengthen faith by giving it amore solid foundation.1

B. Scholars soon acknowledged that this forerunner of the historical critical methodforced a break with the traditional view of interpreting scripture.

1. Further this new approach was considered to be broader in scope andtherefore made a stronger case for the ethics found in the OT and itsfulfillment in Jesus.

Where breaks were sharply made with traditional...views about the OldTestament there was felt to be a welcome deliverance from hamperingbonds and new and more lasting ties made with truth, morality and piety ina broad human setting. Where the older Christian view of the OldTestament as a book of ancient prophecies about the coming of JesusChrist was being set aside, it was felt that it was nevertheless beingreplaced by a fresh and more scholarly apologetic which showed that inthe Old Testament were to be found the moral and spiritual foundations ofa universal religion. This found in Jesus Christ the fullest embodiment ofits own earnestness.2

C. In recent years such enthusiasm has moderated.

1. In the 20s there was a consensus of opinion that the documents werechronologically arranged JEDP, with Ezek 40-45 between D and P, and Didentified with the finding of the law book in Josiah's reign (7th century).


J. E. McFadyen, The People and the Book (1925), 183, 218; cited by C. R. North,3

“Pentateuchal Criticism,” in The Old Testament and Modern Study, H. H. Rowley, ed. (Oxford:Clarendon, 1951), 48.

Raymond B. Dillard and Tremper Longmam, III, An Introduction to the Old Testament4

(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 39. On p. 40ff. they provide and excellent summary ofresearch.

2

2. By the 30s J. E. McFadyen wrote: “To a superficial observer the situationtoday must seem like confusion confounded. . . . Everywhere uncertaintiesabound, and, like the dove after the Deluge, we seem to find no solidground anywhere for the sole of our foot.”3

3. This degeneration of confidence has been paralleled by a softening ofpositions between liberal and conservative scholars.

4. No longer are the “lines of war” so sharply drawn between liberal andconservative, for “The sharp division between conservatives and othershas recently been softened by a stronger emphasis on the thematic unity ofthe Pentateuch by critics, while conservatives have been less hesitant tospeak of sources”4

5. Several reasons account for this leveling of positions

a. In recent years many have argued that Wellhausen’spresuppositions and assumptions were wrong.

b. The “Graf-Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis” is a theorydescribing the origins of the Pentateuch. Having manyantecedents, it was articulated best by K. H. Graff (1866) andJulius Wellhausen (1876-1884); thus it bears their name. Addingto the existing hypothesis, the newer hypothesis argued that writtendocuments, were combined and revised over several centuries fromvarying historical and theological points of view, could beprecisely dated and placed in an evolutionary sequence. A J(Yahwist) document (ca. 850 B.C.) and an E (Elohist) document(ca. 750 B.C.) were thought to be combined by a redactor (R )JE

around 650 B.C. The Deuteronomic Code (621 B.C., called D) wasadded by a later redactor (R ) around 550 B.C. The Priestly CodeD


Richard N. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 3d ed. (Atlanta: John Knox, 2001), 69.5

Clements, One Hundred Years, 3.6

3

(ca. 450 B.C.), which was added by a redactor (R ) around 400P

B.C. completed the process. The hypothesis has been under almostconstant revision since its creation, scholars being unable to reachagreement upon an articulation.5

c. There has been an increasing trend among conservative scholarstoward the embracing of these methods.

D. The one assumption that really lies behind the historical critical method is “that afoundation of historical fact can be attained by use of the appropriate methods ofstudy, and that this historical foundation, when known, can shed light upon thetrue nature of biblical faith.”6

1. Faith is made dependent upon rationalism.

2. “Appropriate methods of study” may produce “a foundation of historical”fact in biblical studies, but, as we have seen, faith is a much morecomplicated matter.

3. True faith is rational, but it can never be made the subject of such arationalism.

E. The evolution of the historical critical method in biblical studies runs parallel tothe explosion of knowledge and methods used in a broader sphere.

1. The 19th century saw many new methods used to elucidate the nature ofthe Grecian and Roman cultures which was adapted as a background forNT studies.

2. New archaeological methods and new discoveries in Egyptian andMesopotamian studies furnished information relative to the OT.

F. These events gave impetus to the infant critical method emphasizing the historicalmore than the religious concerns.


Baruch Halpern, The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History (San Francisco: Harper7

and Row, 1988), 3.

4

1. The method was a reaction to the fundamentalism of the day, which madeuse of a confessional, anti-historical approach.

a. The confessional approach made scripture “"a sort of map, a single,synchronic system in which the part illuminates the whole, inwhich it does not matter that different parts of the map come fromdivergent perspectives and different periods.”"7

b. It also leveled historical differences, reading all scripture on anequal footing.

2. As a further reaction the method brought a scientific skepticism to the text.

a. This skepticism put faith aside and viewed the Bible as just anotherhistory book.

b. The more difficult question is: “What does this say about myfaith?”

3. In a previous lecture we saw that the conclusions of this approach are oftenat odds with faith.

a. Therefore one must either ignore the question or realize that suchnew methods are not always everything they claim to be.

b. Halpern’s map image clarifies the differences:

The map, say of Europe, includes cities and highways of the tenthcentury, of the eleventh century, and so on, continuing into ourown time. In effect, the confessionalist maintains that all thosecities were on the map from the start, that God created Europe, andthe map, in the tenth century. Critical study divulges that this is notso, that some of the cities and highways appeared later, and it is thejob of the historian to determine when each town, highway, and soon, was added. Negative fundamentalists, however, date the wholemap by its latest elements. Because the map reflects a view from


Halpern, The First Historians, 4.8

Cf. the excellent summary by Rolf Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Introduction9

(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 157-164.

5

the twentieth century, they argue, it cannot be used to get at earliertimes.8

G. The process of refining these conclusions has continued, which has furthercomplicated the issue.

1. The result is that Wellhausen, and those like him, are perceived as layingthe foundation.

a. Though most of their views are now rejected, their presuppositionsand assumptions have not been.

b. The result is that the methods used by the older scholars have beenrefined and multiplied.

2. This produces a much more complicated situation for the student today.

a. Learning about the Graf/Wellhausen hypothesis and not proceedingany further is like studying a house but refusing to study more thanthe foundation.

b. Learning what is wrong with this hypothesis is really learningabout a straw man.

c. Granted we need to learn about this foundation, but other graverissues also need to be dealt with.

II. GROWTH OF THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS.9

A. Julius Wellhausen.

1. Wellhausen was the son of a Lutheran pastor. W. studied under the famedOT scholar Heinrich Ewald in Göttingen, and became Prof. of OT on thetheological faculty in Griefswald in 1872. He resigned this positionbecause of ecclesiastical opposition to his radical theories concerning the


Soulen, Handbook, 207.10


6

formation of the Pentateuch. He became professor of Semitic languages inHalle (1882), Marburg (1885), and Göttingen (1892). Though proficientin NT, OT and Islamic studies, W. is best known for his documentarytheory which he articulated in his classic work Prolegomena to the Historyof Ancient Israel (1878, 1883 ; reprint; Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith,2

1973).10

2. His reading of Ewald’s Geschichte des Volkes Israel in 1863 broughtabout a change of attitude.

a. He began to study Hebrew and Semitic languages under Ewald.

b. In 1870 he received his Licentiate from Göttingen and publishedhis first book in 1871.

c. In 1878, at the age of 34 and while occupying a professorship atGreifswald, he published his Geschichte Israels, I.

d. The storm of controversy this book caused forced his resignation in1882.

e. He continued to teach in various universities and publish his viewsuntil his death in 1918.

3. Wellhausen was first and foremost a historian.

a. He combined this ability with his linguistic and literary abilities toclarify what others were saying at that time.

b. His history attempted to explain “Israel’s religious institutions, andthe consequences that this had for a proper recognition of thesources and structure of the Pentateuch.”11

B. Wellhausen was not the first to argue such positions.


Joseph Blenkinsopp, “The Documentary Hypothesis in Trouble,” in Approaches to the12

Bible, 2 vols., Harvey Minkoff, ed. (Washington, DC: BAS, 1994), 1:11.

At strategic points in the following discussion graphs will be added to illustrate the13

discussion.



7

1. Witter, “the first person to distinguish between sources on the basis ofdivine names,” whose work was published in 1711, “suggested that Mosesused sources recognizable by the generic name Elohim, as distinct fromYhwh.”12

2. Jean Astruc (1684-1766) and Richard Simon (1638-1712):13

a. Had already argued that the Pentateuch was composed of severalsources originating from different periods.

b. These ideas had been accepted and refined to the point that therewas “a recognition of four basic literary documents, labeled . . . E ,1

E , J and D.”2 14

3. W. M. L. de Wette (1780-1849):

a. De Wette was born in Weimar (Germany) and studied under J. J.Griesbach in Jena. In 1810, he joined Friedrich Schleiermacher atthe newly founded theological faculty in Berlin, but was laterremoved at the urging of Pietists for his liberal theological andpolitical views. “In 1822, he became Professor of Ethics andPractical Theology at Basel.” He was probably the leadinghistorical theologian of his time, other than F. C. Baur. He was thefirst (1817) to argue persuasively that the Deuteronomic Code wasthe book found in the temple in 621 B.C.15

b. His argument of a D source, identified with the law book found inKing Josiah’s reign (2 Kgs 22-23), is an argument whoseimportance cannot be overstated:


Clements, One Hundred Years, 8-9.16

Blenkinsopp, “Documentary Hypothesis,” 12.17


8

A fixed anchorage had been found for one source, which shouldhave facilitated the relative placing of the others in the history ofthe formation of the Pentateuch.16

c. “De Wette's hypothesis...became a pivotal point...because it madepossible a distinction between earlier legislation, which was not inaccord with Deuteronomy, and later legislation, which presupposedit.”17

4. While the D document was thought to be easily established, the samecould not be said for the other documents.

a. None of them could be identified with any known events in Israel'shistory.

b. Nor could they be placed in any logical chronological order.

c. The main problems here was what to do with E and E .1 2

5. Some scholars had regarded E as the oldest and fundamental of the1

Pentateuchal sources, while others claimed it was late.

a. Eduard Reuss (1804-91) had accepted the latter.

b. K. H. Graf (Reuss’ student), “a strange, an almost eccentric figure,given to ambitious plans and unpopular views, who regretted thathe had lost his faith, and who retained an intense interest in OldTestament studies,” modified and popularized the views of his18

teacher, Reusse.

c. Graf (1815-1869) was born in Mülhausen in Elsass. He was aprivate tutor in Paris (1839-43) before becoming a teacher ofHebrew and French in Giessen (1847-68). Wellhausen based hisdocumentary theories on Graf’s suggestion (1866) that the





9

“Foundation Writing” (P) was the latest stratum of thePentateuch.19

6. Thus E , “which basically corresponds with what scholars have come to1

know as the Priestly Document, P, was the latest and not the earliest of thePentateuchal sources.”20

E = P; E = E; Chronologically: E÷÷P1 2

7. The basic theory was, “. . . that the vast complex of regulations for theceremonial laws and rituals of Israel’s worship which it contained werelate and post-exilic. Thus instead of this compendium of laws precedingthe prophets and the early writers of Israel's history, it followed after them,and throughout presupposed them. The law was later than the prophets. . ..”21

a. This represents an evolutionary view of religion.

b. The view is patterned after secular evolutionary theories

c. Biblical Chronology: Law÷÷÷Prophets

d. Evolutionary Theories: Simple÷÷÷Complex

e. Scholars Chronology: Prophets÷÷÷Law

C. Wellhausen accepted these presuppositions completely.

1. He added them to his own studies and made them seem more conclusivethan either Reusse or Graf had been able to do.

a. These he ultimately published in his Prolegomena zur GeschichteIsraels in 1883.



10

b. The Pentateuch and Joshua (Hexateuch) were now consideredreligious history.

2. Scholarship had moved onto a new plane.

a. No longer were they attempting to explain the Pentateuch in termsof sources only.

b. Critical scholarship was now using the sources (JEDP) to explainIsrael's history in evolutionary terms.

(1) Israel’s history was discussed in terms of moving toward anideal theocratic state.

(2) It evolved from a monarchy to a priestly theocracy. Duringthe monarchy,

. . . the nation had not functioned...as...a priestly theocracy. On the contrary this theocracy was an ideal, a patternfastened onto a picture of the past. The more reliableevidence of the nation's beginnings in the books of Judgesand Samuel showed a much more primitive organization,and confirmed the view that the idea of a Jewish theocracy,centered upon a law given to Moses, was a post-exiliccreation which had only arisen once Israel had lost its ownnational existence. The real source of the people's religiousspirit was not to be found in an ancient lawgiver, but in theprophets, who, in the years before the nation's fall, hadestablished a truly ethical faith in one God.22

D. Wellhausen was a historian first and a theologian second.

1. This demonstrates a fact, already observed, relative to the nature of theirfaith.

2. “...the reader can readily discern behind this historical passion [for history]a deep religious feeling, and a very real sensitivity to theological issues. He did not hesitate to see the crowning glory of the religion of the Old



Halpern, The First Historians, 23-4.24

11

Testament in the preaching of Jesus, nor did he shrink from expressing hisown sympathies and antipathies in discussing the rise of the Jewishsectarian parties.”23

E. To sum up Wellhausen:

1. He believed that the critical interpretation of the Hexateuch provided thekey of a proper understanding of Israel's religion.

2. Since these sources were dated late (9th c.), the religion it revealed wasalso late.

3. Nothing could be told of the earlier religion.

F. Objections to Wellhausen.

1. Influenced by Hegelian philosophy and evolutionary concept of religion.

Hegel: Thesis÷÷Antithesis÷÷Synthesis÷÷Thesis

2. Believed the Hexateuchal sources had not been composed before the midninth cent.

a. They tell us nothing of the nature of oldest religion in Israel.

b. Only reflect the situation that had developed by the time ofcomposition.

c. So how could he speak of a history of religion of Israel?

3. Part of the answer is seen in that “Wellhausen . . . was only a mediocrepolitical historian, just because he was so accomplished a culturalhistorian. He never provided a basis in Israelite social structure forevaluating political history. . . . he had produced a programmatic sourceanalysis; but . . . his sources’ claims remained unproved.”24


Halpern, The First Historians, 25.25


12

4. “In sciences such as source criticism, which admits of no confirmation, ahypothetical edifice that is the pride and monument of one era is oftenrazed in the next, to clear the ground for new, modern structures.”25

5. Almost immediately Wellhausen’s work was challenged by HermannGunkel (1862-1932).

III. HERMANN GUNKEL--NEW INSIGHTS.

A. Gunkel went behind the written sources in an attempt to answer the question ofthe evolution of Israel’s history.

1. As such, his work began to point out cracks in Wellhausen's theories.

2. Added to this was the change in confidence following World War Iregarding the evolution of man toward better ways.

3. Thus Gunkel and World War I provided the strongest arguments againstthe fundamental assumptions upon which Wellhausen had built histheories.

B. Gunkel (Gattungsgeschichte)

1. Gunkel (1862-1932), born in Springe, Germany, taught NT in Göttingen(1888) before turning to OT studies at Halle (1889-93). He served asAssociate Professor of OT in Berlin (1894-1907), a full professor inGiessen (1907-20), and ended his career in Halle (1920-27). Gunkel wasovershadowed by the influence of Julius Wellhausen during most of hisown lifetime, Gunkel’s theories have stood the test of time and scholarlydebate far better than Wellhausen’s. Called by Kümmel “the founder ofform-critical and history-of-religions research in OT,” Gunkel was the firstto use the terms “Gattungsforschung” (research of forms) and “Sitz-im-Leben” (setting-in-life). He was the teacher of M. Dibelius and R.Bultmann (History of Religions School). He emphasized theunderstanding of the place and function of the literature of ancient NearEastern societies.26



13

2. He used this as a background and comparison to understanding theliterature of the Old Testament.

3. Form, Traditio-historical, and Redaction Criticism trace their beginningsto him.

4. In his Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit (Creation and Chaos atthe Beginning and End of Time) he examined apocalyptic literature inrelation to ancient Near Eastern mythology and concluded that both Jewishand Christian literature were influenced by these.

5. “Thus...Gunkel expressed his deep conviction that the Bible could beshown to have received deep influences from the surrounding people ofthe ancient East, a claim which immediately drew forth the sharp criticismof Wellhausen against him.”27

C. Gunkel differed from many in his day.

1. He was interested in showing a relationship between the religion of the OTand what was being discovered in Mesopotamia and Egypt.

2. Gunkel was beginning to force scholarship to look at Israel's history andwritings in relation to the larger background of the ancient Near East.

3. Scholars began to compare Israel to its neighbors.

4. Scholarship realized that there were many aspects of Israel that were quitedifferent from its neighbors.

D. Even though Gunkel was severely criticized by Wellhausen and others, his workpresupposed Wellhausen’s.

1. Yet his understanding of the nature of these sources was different fromWellhausen’s.

a. Wellhausen regarded JEDP as original sources developed late inIsrael’s history.


14

b. Gunkel argued that these were committed to writing only after along period of time in which they had existed orally.

(1) In this oral stage they consisted of separate individualnarratives which were independently related to particularplaces and customs.

(2) This Sitz im Leben (setting in life) was important forunderstanding many of the features that the writtendocuments contained.

(3) By examining narratives and laws separately as individualunits it was possible to recover a knowledge of a muchearlier period of Israel's life than that in which the finalcomposition of the source documents had taken place.

2. To Gunkel, each type of narrative had a particular place and function insociety.

a. For example, several of the Patriarchal stories were told to explainhow certain places had come to be sanctuaries (Bethel), or whycertain customs were performed (circumcision), etc.

b. Eventually these were put together as chains of stories relating toparticular individuals (Abraham and circumcision), and ultimatelybecame the extended sources (JEDP) of Wellhausen.

(1) The data these stories contained made possible thepenetration into the earliest spiritual life of Israel, and toprobe its aims, ideals and practices.

(2) Narrative units in Genesis were compared to other popularfolktales and legends—earliest life folk culture, etc.—oralstage to cycles, etc.

c. These ideas he published in his Legends of Genesis (1901).

E. Gunkel was able to push the history of Israel back much further than Wellhausenhad done.



15

1. He showed that these narratives pre-dated the documents by centuries.

2. Though we do not agree with his presuppositions we must admit that herebegan the lack of confidence in the Documentary Hypothesis.

3. Hugo Gressman (1877-1927) refined Gunkel’s methods.

IV. HUGO GRESSMAN.

A. Gressman challenged Wellhausen’s late dating of the Decalogue (Exod 20:2-7).

1. He argued:

a. the separate narratives, which had been pieced together in literaryform, should be studied by themselves.

b. that this same method could also be used in the study of the legalcollections.

2. He thus established that the Decalogue “"was older than the prophets, andrepresented the foundational traditions of Israelite religion.”"28

B. Gunkel and Gressman had forced a split in critical scholarship.

1. One side of the split emphasized the study of the documents JEDP, whilethe other emphasized the study of the shorter narratives which weresupposed to comprise these.

2. But there were even more subtle changes:

a. Examination of the narratives caused scholars to perceive E as anepic history that ran parallel to J.

÷÷÷J÷÷÷úù÷÷÷÷÷÷Rjeù

÷÷÷E÷÷÷ü


The abbreviations used here are for graphic purposes only. Scholars use the terms “J,” “E,”29

etc., again and again, without having explained how “this E is not the same as that E,” or “that Jis not the same as this J.” This process makes for real confusion at times!

C. R. North, “Pentateuchal Criticism,” 57.30

North, “Pentateuchal Criticism,” 57.31

16

b. Further, its disjointed narratives indicated

(1) J was used as a basis.

(2) E was spliced in at significant points when the redactorcombined these two histories (so argued Otto Prochsch).

J÷÷÷§E¨÷÷÷J÷÷÷§E¨÷÷÷J

c. Volz carried this point one step farther.

(1) E never was a continuous document, but representedvarious glosses (GE) and additions to a different J.29

J÷÷÷§GE¨÷÷÷J÷÷÷§GE¨÷÷÷J

(2) The foundational J and E should both be eliminated

(3) Genesis was actually composed by a single story-writer J(SWJ).

(4) The so-called E was actually an editor (EdE) of this largerwork.30

C. Authors or Schools?

1. Volz’s argument that E was actually the editor of J (Genesis), came to becombined with the opinion (of the early 50's) that the various narratives“had reached a certain fixity in oral tradition before they were incorporatedinto the documents [J and E].”31





17

2. These two combined views raised the question of whether thesedocuments were the result of authors or schools.

3. But each theory has its own problems, for “Even...if we think of J and E asindividual authors rather than as ‘schools’, it must be conceded that theywere dealing to a large extent with what were once fragments and whicheven now are only held together by the stamp of their individual genius. Ifthe “authors go—and at the best they are anonymous—what is to becomeof the documentary hypothesis? And if they were “schools”—whichimplies successions of unknown authors and redactors—have we any goodreason for speaking of ‘documents’ at all?”32

D. The strongest case for any of the documents is that found in J.

1. But if scholars such as Volz could argue that there really was no suchthing as J, and if Gunkel and Gressman could emphasize that the smallernarrative units which were based in oral tradition actually made up suchdocuments as J, then the conclusion must be reached that J, or any of theother documents for that matter “is in some degree composite.”33

2. The result is that “J, and with it the documentary hypothesis as a whole, isvolatilized.”34

E. Thus the work of Gunkel and Gressman forced changes in the theories ofWellhausen and set the stage for a multiplication of documents.

V. THE MULTIPLICATION OF THE DOCUMENTS.

A. Otto Eissfeldt (1887-1973):

1. Eissfeldt was born in Northeim, Germany. He studied OT with J.Wellhausen, R. Smend, and H. Gunkel. He taught OT in Berlin (1913-22)and in Halle (1922-57). He became one of the most famous students ofthe Wellhausen-Gunkel school of criticism. He rejected tradition history


Soulen, Handbook, 52-3.35

Die Erzählung des Hexateuchs, cited by North, “Pentateuchal Criticism,” 53 and n. 2.36


18

and avoided any theological interpretation approaches (such as von Rad’s),which, when combined with his concentration on issues in comparativereligions, yielded a conservative appearance to his scholarship.35

2. He advocated that J should be divided into an earlier L and a later J.

L÷÷÷J÷÷÷RLj = J

3. This was not as new as it sounds.

a. Smend had previously argued that the J material in the Pentateuch,and particularly, in Gen 1-11, should be separated into J and J .1 2 36

÷÷J ÷÷÷ú1

ùù÷÷J(Gen 1-11)ù

÷÷J ÷÷÷2 ü

b. Thus Eissfeldt’s theory was really a modification in which heproposed “. . . to separate the pre-Deuteronomic materials in theHexateuch into three continuous strands, which he designated bythe sigla L (Laienschrift or Lay-source), J, and E, his “L” inGenesis being roughly equivalent to what had previously beenassigned to J L is so called because it is at the other extreme from.

the sacerdotal P; it reflects the nomadic and Rechabite ideal, withits hostility to the Canaanite way of life, and is to be dated aboutthe time of Elijah. Eissfeldt has since traced L through Judges andeven Samuel.”37

c. Thus:


R. E. Clements, “Pentateuchal Problems,” in Tradition and Interpretation, G. W. Anderson,38

ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1979), 102.

19

(1) L = Lay Source (950-850), the oldest and represents anomadic ideal, and which corresponds to what otherscholars designate as J in Genesis

Eissfeldt’s L = Scholarship’s J (Genesis)

(2) Jahwistic Stratum = Eissfeldt’s L + J (outside Genesis)

(3) Elohistic Stratum = E + D (Deuteronomic material)

(4) When these were combined together with the priestlydocument (P) they produced LJEP

(J) LJE(D)P

B. Others have proposed similar thing.

1. Fohrer has argued for a similar document N (Nomadenquelle).

a. N was older than J or E, and which also had behind it a G , thus:1

G NJE(D)P1

b. There was also a G which served as a basis for JE.2 38

G N(G JE)(D)P1 2

2. Julian Morgenstern has proposed a document K (= Kenite).

a. K is a kind of biography of Moses composed in 899 B.C. inconnection with the reformation of King Asa.

K = Kenite Biography of Moses


North, “Pentatuechal Criticism,” 54.39

North, “Pentateuchal Criticism,” 54-5.40


20

b. It is the oldest document in the Hexateuch.39

3. R. H. Pfeiffer proposed a S (= South of Seir).

a. S is confined to Genesis and is very similar to Eissfeldt’s L.

Pfeiffer’s S = Eissfeldt’s L

b. Pfeiffer argues that it appeared in Edom in Solomon's time and hassubsequently received many additions (called S ) between 600 and2

400 B.C.40

C. Not only has J been divided, but, as will be seen below, von Rad has divided Pinto P and P .a b

1. Both of these are history works which assimilated much material throughthe years.

2. P ’s author is a better story-teller than P ’s.a b

3. But P is more complex and has a more priestly outlook than P .b a 41

4. With great ingenuity, scholars have made further divisions to such anextent that North describes it as absurd.

It seems likely that with sufficient analytical ingenuity it would be possibleto sort out more such documents.... Documentary analysis can be carriedto such lengths as to result in a return to the old fragmentary hypothesis.... Baentsch...in his Leviticus Commentary (1900), worked with no less thanseven P-sigla: P, Ps, Pss, Ph ([Lev] xvii-xxvi), Po (i-vii), Pr (xi-xv), andRp. Any one of the secondary sources might have a second (Ph , Pr ) ors s

third (Pr ) hand, together with redactors (Rpo, Tph) and even secondaryss

redactors (Rp ). We even meet with refinements like Po , Po , Po , Po . s 1 2 1s 2s


North, “Pentatuchal Criticism,” 55-6.42

P. Voltz, Theologische Literaturzeitung (1923), 389ff., quoted by Staerk, ZAW 42 (1924: 35;43

translated by McFadyen in The Book and the People, 196f.; quoted in North, “PentateuchalCriticism,” 55.

21

This is surely the reduction ad absurdum of the analytical method and it isimprobable that we shall ever see anything quite like it again.42

5. Such absurdity as this justifies Paul Volz’s criticism of Eissfeldt's L sourcebeing applied to the entire method.

“I see in this Synopsis the culmination of the hitherto prevailing method,and I find that it proves exactly the opposite of what it is meant to prove,for the miserable fragments of narrative which for the most part of thecolumns contain prove precisely that there were not four originalnarratives, and that this entire Pentateuchal Synopsis is nothing but theartificial creation of modern erudition.”43

D. C. F. Burney, at about this same time, argued that D originated in the NorthernKingdom rather than the Southern.

1. Thus geographical as well as chronological divisions among the four-plusdocuments began to be studied by scholars.

a. A. C. Welch and G. von Rad modified Burney's argument andasserted that D also had much material that dated to quite an earlyperiod in Israel's history.

b. (What we are observing is the gradual retreat of scholarship to arealization that the material is much older than they supposed.)

c. If scholars in Wellhausen’s day denied that any of the materialcame from the time of Moses, their more modern counterpartswere being forced to admit that much of the material hadoriginated in that time, even though they were denying that Moseswas its author.



22

E. Y. Kaufmann used his investigations and “different understanding of P as a leverwith which to topple the whole of Wellhausen's picture of the growth of thePentateuch.”44

1. Kaufmann argued that the entire P document was itself pre-exilicrepresenting a stream of tradition running parallel with D.

2. This has been unconvincing to most scholars, not in the sense ofwrongness, but in the sense of irrelevancy.

3. Traditio-historical research recognizes that all four of the mainPentateuchal sources contain material which is far older than the time atwhich the final document came to be composed.

a. Increasingly P is seen as a primarily historical narrative, into whichvarious collections of priestly instructional material have beenincorporated in progressive stages.

b. Most of Leviticus was probably not from P but represents acollection of rules, etc. in a later stage.

VI. IVAN ENGNELL AND THE UPPSALA SCHOOL.

A. The traditio-historical work of Gunkel and those who followed him had shownthat the oral nature of the material in all four documents went back much earlier. This produced even more modifications in the theory, largely through the work ofEngnell and the Uppsala School.

B. Engnell represents the third major shift in emphasis in the DocumentaryHypothesis.

1. Wellhausen had emphasized the literary documents JEDP.

2. Gunkel had emphasized the form of the smaller narratives making up thesedocuments.

3. Engnell brought to logical conclusion the concept of traditio-historicalapproach (also rooted in Gunkel's work).


North, “Pentatuechal Criticism,” 64.45


23

4. North describes this approach as follows.

It is characterized by a decidedly conservative attitude towards theMassoretic text, and by great emphasis upon the role played by oraltradition. Fundamental in a high degree for this view is the recognition ofthe role which oral tradition played and still plays in the Orient, andtherefore also in Israel. To a large extent...the Old Testament existed asoral "literature" before its fixation in writing, and even after that itcontinued to a large extent to exist as oral tradition. Oral tradition andwritten fixation must not, therefore, be played off against one another asexclusive alternatives, but regarded as complementary to each other. Instead of sources and “redactors” we have to reckon with units of oraltradition complexes of tradition, and collections of tradition, together withcircles of traditionists and schools within which these traditions werehanded on, often through several generations." Further, the traditio-historical view "unites in itself analysis and synthesis, and adopts a muchmore positive attitude towards tradition in respect of its reliability.45

C. Little wonder then that Engnell rejected Wellhausenian literary criticism andargued that the documentary hypothesis was a “entirely fictitious andanachronistic construction,” and that “. . .the whole . . . system rests upon acomplete misunderstanding of its real conditions, that it represents a modern,anachronistic book-view (boksyn), and is therefore an interpretation in moderncategories. . . . For a right judgment of the problem a “modified” or “moderate”"view of the literary-critical type is...not enough; what is demanded is a radicalbreak with the whole method.”46

1. Engnell based much of his work on Noth’s theory of the Deuteronomist.

2. Noth argued that there were two major literary works:

a. Genesis-Numbers (Tetrateuch) and the Deuteronomistic HistoricalWork (Deuteronomy-2 Kgs).





24

b. These two works were composed of cycles of oral tradition whichwere used in writing them.

c. Very soon after their final composition (6th to 5th c.) they wereunited into one long unit.

D. This theory was largely rejected by scholars for several reasons:

1. Scholars (particularly German ones) had already “moved a good way fromthe original documentary hypothesis, which could picture J, E, D, and P asthe free compositions of individual authors, capable of being fixed...upona single date-line."47

2. “Much of Uppsala’s polemic against ‘Wellhausenism’ is directed againstthe Wellhausenism of fifty years ago, and there is a good deal of bangingupon doors that are no longer obstinately closed.”48

3. (There is a lesson for us here.)

E. Pentateuchal research was about to take a new turn which was largely due to theinfluence of one of Gunkel's students, Sigmund Mowinckel (1884-1966).

VII. SIGMUND MOWINCKEL.

A. Sigmund Olaf Plytt Mowinckel (1884-1965) was born in Kjerrigy, Norway. From1917 he was professor of OT in Oslo. Though he wrote on a wide range ofsubjects, he is especially noted for his studies of the Psalms and the prophets. Hermann Gunkel, Wilhelm Grøbeck, and Johannes Pederesen were mostinfluential to Mowinckel, who combined their approaches in his studies.49

B. Mowinckel had done much of his work in the Psalms.

1. He had come to realize that there were several different kinds of Psalms(lament, praise, royal, etc.).



25

2. Similarly, he reasoned, there were several different kinds of narratives.

C. Using these methods he turned his attention to the Decalogue.

1. He argued two things:50

a. “that an old tradition lay behind the account of Yahweh’srevelation at Sinai, and that the Decalogue represented a collectionwhich had grown up over a considerable period of years.”

b. That “several elements...betrayed a connection with features ofIsraelite worship which his studies of the Psalms had led him toascribe to a great autumnal [Sitz im Leben] celebration in thetemple in Jerusalem in pre-exilic Israel” (the Festival of Yahweh’sEnthronement).

2. Thus Mowinckel argued that the Decalogue had originated in Israel'sworship.

a. This was an expansion of Gunkel’s work.

b. It was also a reversal of Wellhausen’s ideas.

(1) Wellhausen had argued that the Pentateuchal sourcesexplained the worship

(2) Mowinckel was using Israel’s worship to explain the originof parts of the Pentateuchal sources.

VIII. J. PEDERSON (DANISH).

A. Johannes Peder Pederson (1883-1977) was born in Illebolle, Denmark. He waslecturer in OT Exegesis at the University of Copenhagen (1916-22) and laterProfessor of Semitic Philology (1922-50). His major work (Israel: Its Life andCulture, vols. I-IV [Eng.: 1926-40]) greatly influenced subsequent OT research,particularly in Scandinavia. It took a descriptive rather than historical approach to


Soulen, Handbook, 135-36.51



26

Israelite religion and emphasized the role of the cult and primitive psychology inthe formation of OT traditions.51

B. Argued a modification of Mowinckel's theory.

1. Exodus 1-15 was a liturgy (worship plan) of celebration Passover.

2. The stage of oral tradition was thus seen as a period of cultic transmissionwhen the main structure of narrative established.

3. Pederson cast doubt on the three main literary sources, (J, E, and P), towhich Fohrer objected.

C. But the Scandinavian school, etc. used the Traditio-historical method to challengefoundations of Wellhausen.

IX. A. ALT (1883-1956) ATTEMPTED TO CORROBORATE MOWINCKEL'SCONCLUSIONS USING OTHER METHODS.

A. Alt served several positions: Privatdozent in Griefswald (1909-12),professorships in Basel (1914-20), Halle (1921) and Leipzig (1922-48), Directorof the German Evangelical Institut für Altertunswissenschaft des Heiligen Landesin Jerusalem (1921-23), and President of the Deutscher Verein zur ErforschungPalästinas (Society for Palestinian Research) (1925-45).52

B. Alt (1934) identified two main forms of law: basic law called case law (e.g.,Exod 20:22-23:19); a more distinctive form of apodictic law (Exod 20:2-17).

1. He argued that the divine speech of the decalogue indicated that it had atone time been orally transmitted in the cult (worship), and that such acultic setting was in any case essential for an understanding of it as law.

2. The fact that the deity lay behind the commandment, to imposepunishment upon offenders, that it could be rightly regarded as law.53


Clements, “Pentateuchal Problems,” 114.54

27

C. This view has largely been accepted by critical scholars with modifications, andthough different in perceptions, is not far from what is described in the OT itself.

1. Many see these two documents as being established through Moses, J =law, P = cultus and God's revelation at Sinai.

2. E. Gerstenberger:

a. apodictic law from family life.

b. explains its moral institutions, from clan wisdom.

X. G. E. MENDENHALL.

A. Mendenhall noted that the 2nd person style of apodictic laws was similar in natureand form to ancient vassal-treaties from the Hittite empire of the 2nd millenniumBC.

1. He posited that the Decalogue, which formed the original kernel of theSinai legislation, was formulated on such a pattern and was adapted byMoses to serve special religious needs.

2. Here is an admission that Moses was the author of part of this material andthus a return to a “conservative” position, but it is still under debate bycritical scholars.

a. There are those who deny its validity because "Too many featuresof the treaty form are absent from the Decalogue and the form canonly be reconstructed in the Old Testament by drawing on widelydiverse passages."54

b. Further, some have argued that the theory does illuminate Israel'splace in the larger geographical historical context of the ancientNear East and offers an “alternative to the various attempts which




28

have been made to trace the original oral stage of parts of thePentateuchal narrative to a setting in the ancient cult of Israel.”55

B. Other possibilities and theories have also been put forth.

XI. GERHARD VON RAD.

A. Gerhard von Rad (1901-1961) was born in Nürnberg. He studied theology atErlangen and Tübingen. He became a curate (1925) in the Lutheran Church inBavaria. He became one of the leading OT theologians of the mid-20th cent. Hetaught at Erlangen (1929; tutor), Leipzig (1930-34; Privatdizent), Jena (1934-45;Prof.), Göttingen (1945-49), and Heidelberg (1949-67). He argued that thecompiler of the Hexateuch joined two streams of tradition (a Sinai tradition and anExodus-Conquest tradition) into a unified theology of history (Heilsgeschichte). Central to this salvation history was the cultic credo in Deut. 26:5-11.56

B. Gunkel’s Gattungsgeschichte had overturned some of the conclusions ofWellhausen.

1. It cut loose many of the narratives and rules describing Israel's culticpractice from the chronological scheme which Wellhausen had establishedin dating documentary sources.

2. The most comprehensive effort to extend Gunkel - von Rad and Noth.

3. If Gunkel had forced an analysis of the shorter narratives of the literarysources which Wellhausen was supposed to have identified, then these twoscholars refined this technique with two different results.

C. Gerhard von Rad:

1. Von Rad attempted two things.

a. He attempted to show that P was really composed of P and P . a b


29

b. In his The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch (1938) heattempted to show how J made use of the older narratives as he putthem together into their present literary form.

2. He thus went farther than just inquiring about the setting in life about theindividual narratives, but also inquired about the setting in life as thesewere placed into J.

3. He came to identify Deut 6:20-24; 26:5b-9 and Josh 24:2b-13 as shorthistorical credos.

a. He argued that these were typical of a kind of oral brief summary,or confession, which had been used in acts of worship.

b. These confessions recorded God’'s saving acts in history and wereused in the Feast of Weeks in Gilgal in the days of Israel's earlysettlement.

4. According to von Rad, J had taken over these and filled them withadditional information from other historical sources.

5. This resulted in the credos’' separation from their original religious andcultic use and given national significance.

a. Covenant-making was woven in at a late stage.

b. J had taken over basic outline summary of God’'s actions onIsrael’s behalf and filled it out with additional traditions fromvarious tribal and regional sources.

c. The traditions first used in cult were de-sacralized and connectedinto a great national epic - once established this outline remainedthe fundamental scheme for all subsequent presentations of origin.

6. This raised entirely new questions.

a. No longer were scholars content to ask what historical weightshould be attached to documents such as J.

(1) Now they wanted to know why was J written at all.




30

(2) Were there particular religious, and political situationswhich prompted the writing of such a document?

7. Von Rad’s work has paved the way for looking at J, not just as adocument, but as an author as well.

a. With this emphasis there has been much renewed interest bycritical scholars.

b. No longer is the focus on what J is, now they are concerned withwhat kind of an author he was.

8. While von Rad’s thesis has enjoyed considerable support, it has also hadstrong criticism "chiefly on the ground that no firm evidence exists toshow that such credos did circulate in Israel at a period sufficiently earlyfor them to have provided an outline history for the J author to haveused."57

XII. MARTIN NOTH (1902-68).

A. Noth (pronounced “Note”) was born in Dresden, Germany. He becamePrivatdogent at Greifswald and Leipzig before becoming Professor of OT atKönigsberg (1930-44) and Bonn (1945-65). Afterward, he became Director of the“Institute for the Study of the Holy Land” in Jerusalem until his death. A prolificwriter, N. is best known for the History of Israel (Ger.: 1950; Eng.: New York:Harper and Row, 1958; London: A. and C. Black, 1960), A History ofPentateuchal Traditions (Ger.: 1948; Eng.: Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,1971) and his commentaries on Exodus (Ger.: 1959; Engl.: Philadelphia: TheWestminster Press, 1962), Leviticus (Ger.: 1962; Eng.: Westminster, 1968; SCM,1968). His most significant theories impacting on OT studies were: (1) that“Israel” came into being as a tribal “amphictyony” which followed the invasion ofCanaan by the tribe of Joseph, and that no reliable information concerning itsprehistory, including the figure of Moses, exists; (2) the book of Deuteronomy isto be understood as a kind of preamble to the historical books of the OT (theDeuteronomistic History–Joshua-2 Kings) and not as an addendum to theTetraeuch (Genesis-Numbers).58


31

B. In Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (A History of PentateuchalTraditions, 1948) built on this, and gave the fullest exploration of the traditio-historical method in regard to the four books from Genesis to Numbers.

1. From the days of Wellhausen to von Rad scholars assumed that thedocumentary sources could be extended into Joshua.

2. Martin Noth argued that J, E, and P could not be extended to Joshua at all.

a. He argued that the book of Joshua had a different kind of literarymaterial than did the Pentateuch.

b. Since scholars had long argued that D made up most ofDeuteronomy J, E, and P could not be discussed in terms offorming a Pentateuch, or Hexateuch, but a Tetrateuch.

3. Though the traditional hypothesis continues to have its supporters (e.g.,Campbell, Schmidt, and Nicholson), Noth’s version of this traditio-historical approached created a new documentary theory valid until the1970s (Kaiser).

4. Noth also built on von Rad and attempted to ask how all the material wentthrough its various stages.

a. He isolated 5 themes which comprised the various traditions ofmaterial:

(1) promise to the patriarchs.(2) exodus from Egypt.(3) wanderings in the wilderness.(4) revelation at Sinai.(5) entry into the land.

b. These themes allowed the author to include a large amount ofmaterial into the overall Tetrateuchal history.

c. (This also served as evidence for Noth's other hypothesis, i.e., theDeuteronomist [Deuteronomy as introduction to the long history ofJoshua-2 Kgs, all written by one author, or editor].)


A. Campbell and M. A. O’Brien, Sources of the Pentateuch (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993),59

ix + 266p.; W. H. Schmidt, Old Testament Introduction, 2 ed. (Trans. M. J. O’Connell and D. J.nd

Reimer, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999), xiii + 452p.; E. Nicholson, The Pentateuchin the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), vi +294p; M. Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (trans. B. W. Anderson, Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972), xxxv + 296p.; O. Kaiser, “The Pentateuch and the DeuteronomisticHistory,” in Text in Context, A. D. H. Mayes, ed. (Oxford: University Press, 2000), 289-90;North, 71-73.


32

5. Since Noth, for those accepting this view, “the age and character of . . .[these] narrative complexes . . . have been differently defined” (Kaiser),with each scholar adding his or her own particular version to thehypothesis.59

6. With others, Noth’s contention for these five themes “has appearedunacceptable to many scholars, most especially because of its cutting apartof the Exodus and Sinai events, and also because it reduces the person andwork of Moses to very small proportions.”60

a. Here scholars appear to have reversed themselves.

b. If early critics denied that Moses existed, now a modification of thedocumentary hypothesis is rejected because it “reduces the personand work of Moses.”

C. The main critique leveled against both von Rad’s (credo’s) and Noth’s (themes)hypotheses is that there is no firm evidence that early in the history that there wasa separation of the Sinai and Exodus traditions.

XIII. NEW COMPLEXITIES:

A. Arthur Weiser is representative of the new complexity in approaches toPentateuchal studies.

No one method by itself can account for all the features in tradition. The historyof the formation of the Pentateuch is richer and more manifold; the sources-stratathemselves are by no means literary documents which can be defined to the lastdetail. They were transmitted and woven together in the course of the religious


North, “Pentateuchal Criticism,” 73-4.61

R. B. Coote and D. R. Ord, The Bible’s First History (Minneapolis: Augsburg/Fortress,62

1988), 256pp.; See also OTBL, (1990), 71.

J. A. Emerton, OTBL (1993), 76. The book reviewed is R. B. Coote, In Defense of63

Revolution. The Elohist History (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), ix-150.

33

and national history, and cannot entirely account for the Pentateuch on the literarycritical assumption of a more or less mechanical addition of purely literary worksinto a fixed and unalterable form the history of Old Testament literature, indeedeven the bringing together of the sources by the hand of redactors, is more than amatter of arithmetic. Nor are we in a position to understand the problems arightunless we recognize that the origin of the literature lies in the cult. Even after atradition had become fixed in writing it might still be not inconsiderably alteredand developed to conform to actual cultic pronouncements. It is probable that oraltradition continued for a long time side by side with written and even influencedwhat had been written. For this reason it is conceivable that the neat separation ofthe sources from one another can never be entirely successful. Yet it would begoing too far . . . to lose sight of the authors of the sources as individual persons,and to think instead, with Gunkel, in terms of Schools (JE). Even in their laterhistorical development the sources did not lose the stamp of their individualauthors. Finally, it is to be observed that the cultic repetition of Heilsgeschichteimplies something other than simple adherence to the memory of the events ofpast history, and that the Pentateuch, originating as it did in the cult-festivals, issomething rather different from historical literature in the modern sense. Heilsgeschichte is sacramental, realized and immediately experienced in the cult-act. For this reason the question of the origin of the Pentateuch is more thansimply a probe of history and literary history.61

B. Some of the newer approaches are highlighted below.

1. Coote has argued:

a. J was written in the time of David.62

b. “E in the books of Genesis and Exodus was never a separatesource, but was supplement to the J document and was written inthe reign of Jeroboam I as propaganda on his behalf and in supportof the revolution against Jereboam.”63


R. N. Whybray, OTBL (1993), 77. The book reviewed is, R. B. Coote and D. R. Ord, In the64

Beginning: Creation and the Priestly History (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 192pp.

R. E. Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? (New York: Summit, 1987), 1-299.65

34

c. P was written by “members of the Aaronid priesthood who wrote .. . in the latter part of the sixth century BC.”64

2. Scholars’ difficulty in agreeing what material comprises the documentscarries over into the some strange theological theories relative toauthorship.

a. R. Friedman’s book, Who Wrote the Bible? received a scathing65

review by R. P. Carroll in The Society for Old Testament StudyBook List 1988:

This is a curiously absurd book! Just when biblical scholarshave begun to dismantle permanently the WellhausenDocumentary Hypothesis and to understand the nature of biblicalliterature as anonymously produced writing along comes a popularbook written in a racy style to assert, with minor adjustments, theWellhausen thesis and to name the author of some of the biblicalbooks! It is, of course, an American book and is written in thatbrash, self-confident style so typical of American scholarship. Friedman reasserts the classical account of JEDP, follows theIsraeli/Kaufman thesis of the priority of P, and identifies D asJeremiah or his editor Baruch. So now we know the identities ofthe authors of the Bible from Genesis to Kings (i.e. J, E, P andJeremiah/Baruch)! “So what!” the sceptic may say. What followsfrom that? What do we know about P?. . . . . . . I find the bookjaw-sagging in its naivety and bushy-tailedness. It is very muchanother product of the Albright-Bright-Cross school of Americanbiblical scholarship and taken as such may be viewed as a fineexample of that school's kind of writing. Always an easy read it isclearly intended for the non-professional reader of the Bible andperhaps should be judged at that level. It will entertain whoever


R. P. Carroll, The Society for Old Testament Study Book List 1988 (Leeds, 1988), 75.66

R. P. Carroll, Jeremiah (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 1-873. The criticism came from67

a personal conversation with Professor H. B. Huffmon.

R. E. Friedman, “Is Everybody a Bible Expert? Not the Authors of the Book of J” BRev 7 (2,68

1991): 16-18, 50-51; see also, Baruch Halpern, “Bible Books: The Book of J” BRev 7 (1, 1991),8-9; Kenneth L Woodward with Larry Wilson, “The Woman Who Invented God: The ‘Book of J’Stirs a Biblical Controversy” Newsweek, October 1 (1990): 62.

Harold J. Bloom, The Book of J (New York: Grove-Weidenfeld, 1990), 1-335.69

Randall C. Bailey, “Book Reviews,” CBQ 55:1 (1993), 112. The book being reviewed is:70

Mischael D. Guinan, O.F.M. The Pentateuch (Message of Biblical Spirituality; Collegeville,MN: Liturgical Press/Michael Glazier, 1990), Pp. 138.

35

reads it and will undoubtedly make the Alttestamentler reflect onthe nature of this kind of book and the status of its arguments.66

(1) In a similar vein, Carroll himself has been criticized on hiscommentary of Jeremiah for “not allowing Jeremiah towrite enough of the book”!67

(2) This shows how scholars continually popularize theseviews even when they cannot agree on them.

b. Friedman himself and Halpern criticized Harold Bloom’s The68

Book of J, who argued that the author of J was a woman!69

(1) Friedman brutally asked “Is Everybody a Bible Expert?”and then answers “Not the Authors of The Book of J” andthen went on to call the book a “scandal.”

(2) Both reviewers argued that the work is a poor attempt atbiblical studies by the unqualified who attempt topopularize these academic theories.

3. Many scholars, as represented by Guinan, simply bracket historical-criticalproblems and deal with "religious questions."70

a. This is really no answer at all.


Bailey, “Book Reviews,”113.71

Seán E. McEvenue, Interpreting the Pentateuch (Old Testament Studies 4; Collegeville,72

MN: Liturgical Press/Michael Glazier, 1990), Pp. [vi] + 194.

McEvenue, Interpreting the Pentateuch, 43.73

36

b. As the reviewer observed:

Here, however, is the problem with works such as . . .Guinians’s. Is an approach adequate which only seeks tospiritualize the ancient text? Does the exegete sufficiently explainthe passage when he searches out simple connections, illustrations,and examples in these ancient stories in order to apply them aslessons for an audience that has a far different outlook andworldview than did the ancient one? While historical-criticalquestions are inadequate in their application of spiritual lessons,the bracketing of such historical concerns in order to find meaningfor today ignores much significant data. A method which takes intoaccount both application and the critical issues needs to bedeveloped.71

c. This is really a form of eisegesis (reading into the text).

4. Others, such as McEvenue, who attempt to develop such methodologies,do not seem to be able to wean themselves away from the traditionaltheory.72

a. McEvenue attempts a new approach “which retains the traditionalscholarly methodology [the historical critical methodology, rcb];which defines and distinguishes between the activities ofinterpreting, communicating, and theologizing; and which providesexplicitly for the interpersonal aspect of reading.”73

b. At first this seems “an alternative to the dead end to whichtraditional methods have led when it comes to application (see p.


Bailey, “Book Reviews,” 113.74

Bailey, “Book Reviews,” 113.75

Rendtorff, Old Testament, 160.76


37

14)...[because McEvenue] acknowledges the limitations oftraditional critical methods.”74

c. But as the reviewer observed:

Here is the major problem with McE's method. He admitsthe limitations of traditional methods. Then why does he apply the[new] method to the traditional sources of the Pentateuch (JEDP)? These are very elusive in so far as their delimitations areconcerned. If applied to other, smaller thematic units, or to thePentateuch as a whole, would the conclusions be different? Verylikely.75

C. This synthesis of approaches has meant that more and more attention has beengiven to the “authors” or “redactors” and their theological positions.

1. Rolf Rendtorff is one such example:

a. He has attempted to develop von Rad’s focus on the theologicalnature of the writing rather than the sources, which “no longer hasany connection with the classical documentary hypothesis.”76

b. The narrative traditions were combined to form individualcomplexes of larger narrative traditions, each with its own distinctprofile.

c. These independent, distinct units “have been collected and shapedfrom very different perspectives and leading ideas.”77

d. The integration of the larger units into a comprehensive whole tookplace at a level “can be described as theological redaction.”





W. W. Hallo, “Biblical History in its Near Eastern Setting: the Contextual Apporach,” in81

Scripture in Context, C. D. Evans, W. W. Hallo, and J. B. White, eds. (Pittsburg: Pickwick,1980), 4.

38

e. The Deuteronomic editors, or redactors, played a significant role inthe shaping of the Pentateuch as a whole.

f. We should not “ignore the fact that the unnamed men to whom werefer as the redactors of the Pentateuch also acted as itsinterpreters, and contributed to its growth and meaning.”78

2. Thus “The theological problems of the Old Testament canon therefore areclosely related to the redactional processes through which the Pentateuchhas passed.”79

3. Therefore, scholars are now attempting to focus on:

a. how the over-all unity of the Pentateuch came into being.

b. how each author or redactor introduced his own layer of meaningand interpretation.

4. But it “has proved much more difficult in practice to show the nature andscope of their work, than it has been to show what the authors of theindividual source documents were seeking to achieve.”80

5. This being the case then the critical scholar is farther than ever fromproving any kind of documentary hypothesis, reenforcing the axiom, “the‘documentary hypothesis’ which, as its name implies, is doomed to remainhypothetical—that is to say, beyond demonstrable proof. 81

D. Further, critical scholarship today ends with the same problem with which theolder hypothesis began.


39

1. How is Old Testament religion to be interpreted?

2. More particularly:

a. What is the historical value of the Biblical account from Genesisthrough Deuteronomy? Is it reliable?

b. What is its value as a source for the history of Old Testamentreligion?

3. This is actually nothing more than the tension that has always existedbetween rational historical criticism and a conservative approach to theOld Testament.

XIV. CONCLUSIONS:

A. These are only thehighlights of along and oftenstormy history.

B. The documentaryhypothesis hasbeen greatlyaltered since thedays ofWellhausen, andby some,abandoned.

. . . as matters nowstand [i.e., 1951],the history of anyone of the“documents” maywell be ascomplicated as thehistory of thewhole Pentateuchwas conceived tobe only thirty



Blenkinsopp, “Documentary Hypothesis,” 14.83

For discussions of the “J (Yahwist)” see: Soulen, 89-90; cf. Dillard and Longman, 41-2;84

Hartley, 10-1. For discussions of the “E (Elohist)” see: Soulen, 50-1; cf. Dillard and Longman,41-2; Hartley, 10-1. For discussions of the “D (Deuteronomic Code)” see: Soulen, 46-7; cf.Dillard and Longman, 42; Hartley, 11. For discussions of the “P (Priestly Code; PriestlyDocument; Priestly Narrative; Priestly Writer)” see: Soulen, 127-8; cf. Dillard and Longman, 42;Hartley, 11.

40

years ago. We can no longer use the figure of a single date-line, but must thinkrather of a dimensional area, and plot the ages of ideas and institutions upon itwith as much precision as we can.82

C. . . . the earlier consensus, which was never absolute, has suffered some erosion,but no paradigm capable of replacing documentary hypothesis of J, E, P and D hasyet emerged. Some continue pay the hypothesis lip service but do not use it. Afew--for example, the prominent German Old Testament scholar Rolf Rendtorff--have abandoned it altogether.83

D. Those scholars who still adhere to the hypothesis argue for something like thefollowing.84

1. J (Yahwist), the first of the four supposed sources for the Pentateuch,derives its designation from the English spelling of the German Jahve. Scholars have always debated its existence, date and nature. Many todaydate it in the 10 or 9 centuries B.C. in Judah. Epic in style, itth th

supposedly describes the origin of Israel as a fulfillment of Yhwh’spromises to Abraham (numerous descendants and a land their own, Gen12:1-4). It relates this history of the patriarchs to the captivity in Egypt,wilderness period, and conquest of Canaan. Some scholars today believe aredactor supplemented this document with an E document (R ) in the 8JE th

century. Others argue for an older tradition behind J (e.g., Smend’s J ,1

Eissfeldt’s L; Pfeiffer’s S, etc.). J is believed to begin in Genesis 2 andcontinue through Numbers.

2. E (Elohist), the second of the four supposed sources of the Pentateuch,derives its name from source’s supposed preference for the use of theHebrew term for God (Elohim). As with the other Pentateuchal



41

documents, E’s provenance, date, and extent are debated. Its location inthe Pentateuch is so difficult to determine that many scholars believe itwas a redactor’s supplement to the older J. Stylistically, E is supposed toview God more remotely than J and emphasizes religious and moralconcerns. Generally believed to have originated in the 9 or 8 centuriesth th

in Ephraim from much older traditions, it supposedly begins in Genesisand continues through Numbers.

3. D (Deuteronomic Code), the third of the supposed sources of thePentateuch, comprises the core of the laws (Deut 12-26) found in thetemple (2 Kgs 22-23). Scholars debate the form of the law found at thetime, though nearly all date it to the time of Josiah. Stylistically, thesource is perceived as prosaic, wordy, preachy, etc. Wherever suchmaterial occurs in the Old Testament scholars label it D(eutronomistic). Theologically, the source focuses on purity in worship, a central shrine,etc.

4. P (Priestly Code; Priestly Document; Priestly Narrative; Priestly Writer),as with the other hypothetical documents, has been debated by recentscholarship relative to its nature, date and content. Its name derives fromthe Hebrew priests whose theological views and traditions it is supposed torepresent. Most scholars are in agreement that P represents the last of thesource material comprising the Pentateuch. Early on, however, P wasperceived as the earliest of the documents rather than the latest (5 or 4th th

centuries). Scholars perceive P as focusing on those areas associated withthe priesthood—legal and cultic issues, genealogies, lists, dates,measurements, formulas, etc. Repetitious in nature P describes thecreation (1:1-2:4a), can stand alongside similar material such as J (2:4b-25), and summarizes the origins of the people, their institutions and lawsto their settlement in the land, and emphasizes God’s holiness, sovereigntyand transcendence.

E. Many are desperately seeking answers in related disciplines such as comparativestudies, canon theology, structuralism, etc.

F. Rendtorff himself observes that “The history of the ‘newer documentaryhypothesis’ shows that the questions and problems could always be formulatedmuch more clearly than the answers and solutions.”85


Dillard and Longman, Introduction, 47.86

T. B. Dozeman, God on the Mountain (SBLMS: Missoula: Scholars, 1989), 1.87

Dillard and Longman, Introduction, 47.88

Cited August 8, 2006. Online: 89 http://www.sbl-site.org/default.aspx?

42

G. This “dead end” has caused a shift in both liberal and evangelical scholarship.

1. Critical Scholarship:

a. The 100 years of confidence in the documentary hypothesis hasnow shifted to only a loose framework for discussion as continualproblems are found with the theory.

b. “The “next decade will witness some defense of the method, butthese will likely be dying gasps of an approach whose relevance isno longer seen.”86

c. Dozeman characterizes this a “creative period” by which he meansa transition away from the classic documentary hypothesis.87

d. “[seems to be] is leaning in the direction of a tradition-historicalapproach along the lines represented by Rendtorff and byDozeman. In any case, the concern will increasingly be on thefinal form of the text. Indeed, Dozeman’s thesis accentuates apositive picture of the work of the final redactors of thetradition.”88

e. For succinct discussions of the present state of affairs, see, RolfRendtorff, “What Happened to the ‘Yahwist’?: Reflections afterThirty Years” and David J. A. Clines, “Response to Rendtorff’s‘What Happened to the Yahwist? Reflections After Thirty Years,’”SBL Forum 4:6 (2006).89

2. Evangelical Scholarship: is undergoing changes as well.

http://www.sbl-site.org/default.aspx?


Dillard and Longman, Introduction, 47. Cf. G. J. Genesis 1-15 (WBC 1; Word, 1987),90

xxxvii-xlv and A. P. Ross, Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition ofGenesis (Baker: 1988), 35, n. 12.

John E. Hartley, “The Pentateuch,” in Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and91

Background of the Old Testament, William Sanford Lasor, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederick

43

Evangelical scholars recognize that the Pentateuch contains pre-Mosaicsources as well as post-Mosaic glosses. Indeed, some are willing toidentify the sources along the lines of the older documentary hypothesis. Wenham . . . believes that P is an ancient source and that J is the finaleditor-author (and he implicitly allows that J is Moses). Ross . . .nevertheless, reverses the sigla, arguing that J is the source and P isMoses.90

3. Hartley summarizes the situation:

Although the Pentateuch is a complex literary production, the fact that ithas a structural unity is of greater significance. Whatever the process of itstransmission and growth or the date at which it finally reached its presentform, the final creation bears the paramount importance. An overarchingunity is powerfully present in its component parts. This unity transcendsthe existence of whatever sources its complexities may imply. The realdanger of literary criticism is that biblical scholarship can becomepreoccupied with it to the exclusion of more comprehensiveconsiderations. Such a focus reduces the Pentateuch to unrelated fragmentsand results in the draining of power from its message

Recent trends in Old Testament scholarship admit to thisimbalance. There is considerable recognition that Old Testament study hasdevoted itself too heavily to the reconstruction of the origin of the literarytext and the process of its transmission, rather than to the interpretation ofthe text. Increasingly, Old Testament research is treating the text as an endin itself, not just as a means to ascertain its genetic history. One suchapproach is “canonical criticism,” which studies the form and function ofthe text in the shape which the community of faith gave to it. Some whosupport this method focus on intertextual interpretation or inner-biblicalexegesis, the ways that authors use each other’s material in Scripture. Thisfield of study argues for a “post-critical alternative” which, while takingseriously the results of historical scholarship, seeks to determine the rolethat the canonical form of the text played in Israel’s faith.91


William Bush, eds. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 13.

44

H. Therefore, our task is much more complex.

1. No longer can we just learn the classical theory.

2. Today we must learn the new arguments, as well as their presuppositions.

I. INTRODUCTION. - Faulkner University HCM and...Further this new approach was considered to be...

Documents

Transcript of I. INTRODUCTION. - Faulkner University HCM and...Further this new approach was considered to be...