The Problem of The Process of Transmission in The Pentateuch

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES
89
Editors David J A Clines Philip R Davies
JSOT Press Sheffield
This page intentionally left blank
The PROBLEM of the PROCESS of TRANSMISSION in the PENTATEUCH

Rolf Rendtorff
Translated by John J. Scullion
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 89
Originally published as Das iiberlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (BZAW, 17; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1977) 1977 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin This translation copyright 1990 Sheffield Academic Press Published by JSOT Press JSOT Press is an imprint of Sheffield Academic Press Ltd The University of Sheffield 343 Fulwood Road Sheffield S10 3BP England
Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Billing & Sons Ltd Worcester
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Rendtorff, R. The problem of the process of transmission in the Pentateuch 1. Bible. O.T. Pentateuch.Critical studies I. Title II. Series III. berlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch. English 222.106 ISSN 0309-0787 ISBN 1-85075-229-X
CONTENTS Foreword Translator's Note 7 9
Chapter 1 THE PROCESS OF TRANSMISSION AND THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS 11 1.1 The new approach of Gerhard von Rad 12 1.2 The modification of this approach by Martin Noth 16 1.3 The documentary hypothesis maintained 24 1.4 The question of the 'larger units' 31 Chapter 2 THE PATRIARCHAL STORIES AS EXAMPLES OF A 'LARGER UNIT' WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE PENTATEUCH 2.1 The stories of Joseph, Jacob, and Isaac 2.2 The story of Abraham 2.2.1 The variety of layers in the process of transmission of the Abraham tradition 2.2.2 The promises in the divine addresses in the Abraham story 2.3 The promises to the patriarchs 2.3.1 The promise of the land 2.3.2 The promise of descendants 2.3.3 The blessing 2.3.4 The guidance 2.3.5 The combination of individual promise themes 2.4 The function of the promise addresses in the composition of the patriarchal story 2.5 The absence of any definite reworking in Exodus-Numbers
43 43 48 49 52 55 57 61 64 66 68 74 84
2.6 The larger units' in Exodus-Numbers 2.7 Traces of an over-arching reworking Chapter 3 CRITICISM OF PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM 3.1 The present state of pentateuchal criticism 3.2 The problem of the Yahwist 3.2.1 Literary analysis of the Yahwist 3.2.2 Characteristics of the work of the Yahwist 3.2.3 The theology of the Yahwist 3.2.4 Reasons against the acceptance of a Yahwistic work 3.3 The problem of a priestly narrative in the patriarchal story 3.3.1 The stories of Joseph and Isaac 3.3.2 The Jacob story 3.3.3 The Abraham story 3.3.4 Genesis 23 3.4 The priestly layer in the patriarchal story 3.4.1 Chronological notes 3.4.2 Theological'passages 3.4.3 The function of the priestly layer 3.4.4 No priestly narrative, but a layer of priestly reworking 3.5 Synthesis Chapter 4 CONCLUSIONS AND CONSEQUENCES 4.1 Dissent from the documentary hypothesis 4.2 The larger units' in the Pentateuch 4.2.1 The patriarchal story 4.2.2 The other 'larger units' 4.3 The problem of the synthesizing, final arrangement of the Pentateuch Index of Biblical References Index of Authors
90 94 101 102 108 108 119 126 133 136 138 140 146 154 156 157 163 167 169 170 177 178
181
181 184 189 207 213
FOREWORD This book marks the terminal, for the time being, of many years of confrontation with the basic methodological questions of pentateuchal criticism. Discussions with colleagues of other countries provided many a stimulus to concentrate more intensively on these questions. And so it is no mere chance that a variety of earlier papers on this complex of questions reflect these discussions. In the lecture 'Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte' in Uppsala in 1965 (EvTh 27 [1967] 138-153) I still supported the view that the current solution to the problems of the Pentateuch was still the most plausible despite all critical trimming. In my contribution Traditio-Historical Method and the Documentary Hypothesis' in Jerusalem in 1969 (Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies, pp. 5-11), I tried to show that as a result of a consistent traditio-historical approach, the documentary hypothesis could not be sustained. In Edinburgh in 1974, I finally questioned the existence of the main pillar of the documentary hypothesis, the Tahwist' (T)er "Yahwist" als Theologe? Zum Dilemma der Pentateuchkritik', VT Supp. 28 [1975] 158-66). Here, a new approach to pentateuchal study is to be outlined on a broader basis. I have to thank many with whom I have been able to discuss these questions in the course of the years. First, there are my Heidelberg colleagues with whom the dialogue has been, and is still being, carried on in a variety of ways. Then there are my colleagues and friends in Jerusalem; after many earlier meetings and discussions, they gave me the opportunity, as guest of the Hebrew University in the winter semester 197374, to devote my attention entirely to these questions and, in intensive exchange with them, to clarify them further. Finally there are Konrad Rupprecht, without whose constant consultation and co-operation the book would never have appeared,
The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
and Erhard Blum who co-operated in the preparation of the manuscript and the proof-reading and prepared the index of biblical passages. I thank the German Research Council (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) which enabled me to spend a first period of study in Jerusalem in 1966. SchriesheinVHeidelberg, July 1975 Rolf Rendtorff
TRANSLATOR'S NOTE In Das iiberlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuchs (BZAW 147; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1977), Rolf Rendtorff is interested above all in the process by which the Pentateuch reached the form in which it now lies before us. He concludes that the classical documentary hypothesis has been tried in the fire and found wanting, and traces briefly in his preface the scholarly path that led him to this conclusion. His approach has met with strong disagreement, cautious agreement, and, in some quarters, relief and a readiness to look for other ways than that of the documentary hypothesis to explain the formation of the Pentateuch. It is sometimes said that Rendtorff has not disproved the documentary hypothesis, as the distinguished Cambridge semitist J.A. Emerton has written of R.N. Whybray's The Making of the Pentateuch. A Methodological Study (JSOT Supp. Series 53 [1987]; VT 39 [1989], 110-16, p. 116). But the documentary hypothesis is a hypothesis and not an article of faith as many scholars, especially in the German-speaking area, seem to presume, showing a stubborn unwillingness to consider seriously another approach. It is hoped that the English version of Rendtorff s contribution will help a wider range of English-speaking students to make up their own minds on the complex matter in Old Testament studies and perhaps go their own independent way. The English versions of most of the German works from which citations appear in the original were not available to me while I was preparing the translation in Heidelberg. I have given my own translation of these. The references in the notes are to the standard English versions. I am grateful to Professor Rendtorff for his lively interest in the translation during my stay in Heidelberg (January-June 1989), and to Professor David J.A. Clines of the Department of
10
Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, and co-director of Sheffield Academic Press, for his encouragement. United Faculty of Theology Melbourne John J. Scullion S.J. Newman College University of Melbourne Parkville, Victoria 3052 Australia
Chapter 1 THE PROCESS OF TRANSMISSION AND THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS In the present state of pentateuchal research, two methods of approach stand juxtaposed. The one is the literary-critical method which, in the classical form that it has taken since Wellhausen, distinguishes continuous literary 'sources' running through the Pentateuch. The other is the method of form-criticism and the history of the process of transmission which, since Gunkel, takes its point of departure not from the final form of the written text of the Pentateuch, but from the smallest, originally independent, individual units, and traces the process of their development right up to their final written form. The two methods therefore are opposed to each other in their starting point and in their statement of the question. This does not necessarily mean that they come to opposite conclusions. However, it is surprising that so far there have scarcely been any studies of the relationship to each other of these two basically different approaches. The main reason for this is obvious. Those scholars who developed or make use of the form-critical and traditio-historical method adhere almost without exception to literary source division. Consequently, one could speak quite frankly of 'an extension of the methods by means of form criticism'1 without realizing clearly or even mentioning that it is in fact not a matter of an extension, but of a fundamental alteration of the statement of the question.2 The procedure is often that which Westermann
1 K. Koch, The Growth of the Biblical Tradition. The Form Critical Method, 1969. 2 K. Koch, op. cit., p. 77. Koch describes literary criticism as a 'part of form-criticism'.
12
criticized in Noth's method: 'both methods are merely added together mechanically in such a way that the text is treated now according to one, now according to the other'.1 But the consequence of this procedure is that the form-critical approach, in its attempt to progress by means of the traditio-historical approach, has not yet developed fully. The present work is an attempt to show the reasons for this and to advance a step further towards this goal. At the same time, it intends to bring out more strongly than hitherto the criticism of the literary-critical source division which is inherent in the different methodological approach. And so I deliberately take up two works which, since Gunkel, have had a lasting influence on pentateuchal studies. I take up their approaches partly in a critical vein, and partly to carry them further. They are: G. von Rad, The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch' (1938; Eng. 1966),2 and M. Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (1948; Eng. 1972, 1981).3 The problem of the process of transmission of pentateuchal traditions will be developed here on the basis of, and in critical dialogue with, these two works. 1.1 Gerhard von Rod's new approach Von Rad wanted to break a deadlock that had been reached in pentateuchal (hexateuchal) research. He saw that the reaso for the general 'scholarly lassitude' lay in this: the analysis of the Pentateuch into sources on the one hand, and the study of individual pieces of material on the other, had introduced 'a process of disintegration on a large scale': and many scholars had been paralysed *by an awareness, vague or clear, that the process was irreversible'. Von Rad's perception was that this process of disintegration pertained especially to the final form of the Hexateuch, which was deemed to be no longer worth any serious discussion in itself; rather it served merely as a
1 C. Westermann, Genesis 1-11, (1966-1974) Eng. 1984, p. 573. 2 G. von Rad, 'The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch', (German 1938), in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, (Eng. 1966), pp. 1-78. 3 M. Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, (German 1948) Eng. 1972,1981.
1. The Documentary Hypothesis 13
13
point of departure 'from which one got away as quickly as possible to deal with the real problems lying behind it'. Von Rad therefore directed attention once more to this final form. He did so by means of form-criticism, attempting to understand the whole Hexateuch as 'genre' (Gattung) 'from which it must be supposed that... its 'setting in life' and its further extension right up to the very expanded form in which it now lies before us, are in some way recognizable'.1 Von Rad has given new and substantial stimulus to hexateuchal (pentateuchal) study with this fresh approach,2 and his initiative has had far-reaching effects beyond this area. His thesis of the 'small historical Credo' has provoked a variety of form-critical and traditio-historical works, and the consequence of his stating the question of the cultic setting of the different basic themes in the process of pentateuchal traditions has been an entirely new branch of research into the history of cult. Finally, his interpretation of the large complexes of tradition in which the pentateuchal traditions, which were originally independent, were collected and passed on, has been of far-reaching significance for Old Testament theology. Two principal features of von Rad's work have had further consequences for the Pentateuch itself: the one, the subdivision of the pentateuchal traditions into several independent complexes of tradition, the other, the importance that he ascribes to the Tabwist' for the final shape of the Pentateuch.3 However, the recognition that there was available a variety of complexes of tradition, originally independent, has not yet thrown clearer light on the final shape of the Pentateuch, as was von Rad's intention. But it has diverted attention from the one-sided emphasis on literary analysis; and further, it has led beyond the treatment of individual pieces of material which featured so prominently in the works of Gunkel and Gressmann, to a concern for the larger units, and so to a new
1 Von Rad, op. cit., pp. 1-3. 2 We will speak of the Pentateuch in what follows, even when the authors quoted speak of the Hexateuch. The term Hexateuch will be used only where it is actually required. 3 See below, 1.3.
14
branch of the study of the historical process of tradition.1 Von Rad recognizes several larger complexes of tradition in the Pentateuch which stand out clearly from each other. This is the case above all with the Sinai tradition, Exodus 19-24. Here is found a self-contained complex of tradition which originally had no connection at all with the preceding tradition of the exodus from Egypt and the wandering in the desert. And so von Rad insists that the process of formation of this complex has, 'in all its essential elements issued into a fixed form' before the tradition settled down to its literary shape in the liexateuchal sources JE, i.e. with the Yahwist and the Elohist'; this latter is to be regarded 'rather as a later procedure... perhaps even the end stage'.2 Von Rad, following Pedersen,3 regards Exodus 1-14 as a further complex of tradition, clearly recognizable as a selfcontained unit. 'We have here... a genuine exodus tradition which is clearly distinct from the tradition of the occupation of the land'.4 This tradition too was at the disposal of the Yahwist. With regard to the tradition of the occupation of the land, the question arises whether one can identify the 'collector' of the Gilgal stories, whose method of working Noth had discerned in his commentary on Joshua, with one of the pentateuchal sources or, as Noth had done, separate him completely from them.5 Von Rad underscores here the internal connection with the pentateuchal traditions by means of the orientation towards the taking of the land; and so for him 'it is no longer just a literary question with J and E, but just as much a question of genre'.6 However, in the long run, the question remains unresolved. With regard to the patriarchal story von Rad, following
1 With Noth, op. cit., p. 1, I understand Uberlieferungsgeschichte as the whole process of the formation of the tradition which extends from origin of the smallest units, across their broader development and insertion into smaller and larger collections, right up to the whole as it now lies before us. 2 Von Rad, op. cit., pp. 18-19. 3 J. Pedersen, Tassahfest und Passahlegende', ZAW 52 (1934) 161-75. 4 Von Rad, op. cit., p. 52. 5 M. Noth, Das Buck Josua, 1938, 1953 (2nd edn). 6 Von Rad, op. cit., p. 76.
1. The Documentary Hypothesis
15
Gunkel, recognized different groups of stories of very different kinds. For the Abraham stories, he supposes that the union of the Abraham and Lot cycles was data available to the Yahwist 'though he often sees the hand of the Yahwist at work giving theological direction'.1 As for the Jacob stories, the union of the Jacob-Esau cycle and the Jacob-Laban cycle... was already complete', though it is all but impossible, apart from intelligent guessing, to demonstrate the part that the Yahwist played'.2 At best, von Rad believes that he can recognize him in the arrangement of the cult-stories of Bethel (28.10-22) and Penuel (32.2S-33).3 Finally he writes: 'It is generally accepted that the Yahwist found the Joseph story a novella already complete and self-contained in its essentials, and fitted it into his work'.4 The primeval story too forms an independent composition whose shape derives 'from a series of originally independent pieces of material', but 'which is certainly the work of the Yahwist',5 just as is the 'joining together of the primeval story and the story of salvation' (12.1-3).6 These studies of von Rad gave pentateuchal research a new theme. Since Gunkel, attention to the smallest, originally independent, units had passed over the old source analysis which took its point of departure from the final form of the text. Von Rad now opens up the question about a stage which is intermediate between the smallest units and the final shape of the whole coherent narrative complex, and for this certain principles of organization clearly hold good. The most conspicious feature is the regular thematic matching within the individual complexes of tradition. On the one hand, many texts are linked which, form critically, are of quite different kinds, and they are fitted together with each other so as to produce new larger units; on the other hand, the independence of these larger units, and the quite different and independent devel1 Ibid., p. 58.
2 Ibid., p. 59.
3 Von Rad sees the beginning of the Penuel story only in v. 25 (Eng. v.24), op. cif.,p.59. 4 Op. cif.,p.59. 5 Op. ci*.,p.64.
6 Op. cit., p. 65.
16
opment of each of them, emerges. This distinction of larger complexes of tradition, each coloured by its own theme, has taken a strong hold on the attention of subsequent scholarship. 1.2 The modification of this approach by Martin Noth The basic contribution which Martin Noth made to the further progress of pentateuchal scholarship finds its clearest expression in that he brought into the discussion the concept of the 'history of the process of tradition' which, since that moment, has become the determining leitmotif of all Old Testament scholarship, far beyond the limits of pentateuchal research.1 It is appropriate to give precedence and attention to the first of Noth's two great works which bear this catchword in their titles. In 1943 he published 'Studies in the History of the Process of Traditions'. It was described as the 'first part' of a planned series of studies which had as its object 'the historical works of the Old Testament which were the subjects of collections and reworkings'.2 In his introductory remarks Noth takes his stand explicitly in strict and historical continuity with von Rad's work on the Hexateuch. The close association consists in this, that Noth is likewise concerned here with the very same stage of the process of development from which the works lying before us, namely the deuteronomic and chronistic histories, reached their final shape out of various elements in the course of transmission of the traditions. A survey of the deuteronomistic historical work shows striking features in common with those concrete elements which von Rad had worked out for the Pentateuch. According to Noth's explanation the Deuteronomist' (Dtr) too found a whole series
1 His understanding of Ubearlieferungsgeschichte (the process of the formation of tradition) is indebted at least to the suggestions made by Hermann Gunkel. The idea takes a somewhat different form in the Uppsala-school'; cf. H. Ringgren, 'Literarkritik, Formgeschichte, Uberlieferungsgeschichte', ThLZ 91 (1966) 641-50; R. Rendtorff, 'Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte', EvTh 27 (1967) 138-53. 2 M. Noth, Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alien Testament, 1943, 1957 (2nd edn).
17
17
of cases at hand to him in which, at least in several instances, larger complexes of tradition had already been joined together. This is true especially for the beginnings of the monarchy of which Noth says: Tor the history of David and Saul the Dtr had at his disposal the broad complex of SaulDavid traditions which had already grown together long beforehand out of the stories of David's rise and the problem o the succession'.1 There were other cases in which the Deuteronomist was able to or had to intervene to shape the material at his disposal because it was too little, or not at all, arranged in the way in which he could or wanted to use it for his total presentation.2 And so, under the catch-phrase 'the history of the process of tradition' (Uberlieferungsgeschichte), Noth dealt with the final stage of the process of development. The work as a whole had acquired the shape in which it now lies before us out of a series of complexes of tradition, smaller or larger, already formed. Despite the different starting points, both the intent and statement of the question agree in substance with the task that von Rad undertook for the Pentateuch. Both approaches reckon with larger complexes of tradition, working with the presupposition that in each case the complexes have grown together or been assembled out of individual traditions. But neither approach took as the object of its study the path that led from the individual traditions to the larger complexes. The last observation is of significance inasmuch as both scholars were aware that they were very profoundly under the influence of Gunkel's form-critical work. Gunkel had directed his special attention to the original, individual traditions which were often described as the 'smallest literary units'.3 They form the proper object of form-critical study. In 1 Op. cit., pp. 61-62.
2 Noth compares the work of the Deuteronomist expressly with that work which von Rad attributes to the Yahwist, and he describes this Yahwist as the 'forerunner' of his Deuteronomist (op. cit., p. 2, n.2). 3 Already, O. Eissfeldt, 'Die kleinste literarische Einheit in den Erzahlungbiichern des AT', ThBl 6 (1927) 333-37 = Kleine Schriften 1,1962, 123-49; An Introduction to the Old Testament (1964, 3rd edn) Eng. 1965. One can well invoke Gunkel himself in this context, Die
18
contrast, the union of several originally independent units represents a second stage in the process of formation. Gunkel paid attention to this stage and in some cases spoke of'cycles of stories'. However, he did not develop any methodological criteria for discerning collections of this kind, but rather expressed his observations in a very loose and casual way;1 he attached no particular importance to this question. The same holds true for Gressmann's important work, Mose und seine Zeit (1913). This is all the more striking as Gressmann's statement of the question in general points very clearly in the direction of the later work on the history of the process of tradition. Gressmann likewise does not go beyond very general formulations when giving criteria for 'cycles of stories'.2 There exists therefore an obvious gap between the study of the original smallest units and the question of the final shape, formed out of larger complexes of tradition, of the works as they now lie before us. The path from the smallest units to the larger complexes, known as larger literary units',3 has not yet been methodically trod and examined. This gap stands out as a basic defect when one takes as the point of departure the statement of the program of the process of the history of tradition as Noth has formulated it in A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. He outlines the 'growth and gradual formation of the larger blocks of tradition which lie before us today in the extensive and complicated literary shape which is the Pentaisraelitische Literatur, 1925. 1 H. Gunkel, Genesis (9th edn, 1977), cf. p. 4 n. 5. 2 H. Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit. Ein Kommentar zu den MoseSagen, 1913, p. 386: 'The cycles of stories can comprise smaller and larger units. They are there wherever several individual stories have been strung together to form a loose composition. Stories which deal with the same material or with a related theme have no need at all to be brought together into a group. Rather, because of the fragility of the individual narrative, due to its original independence, some sort of continuous thread must be spun out which leads from one story to another'. 3 Gunkel speaks of larger units', as does Eissfeldt, See further, A. Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1,1952 (2nd edn) = 1959 (5th edn), 'From the Smallest Literary Units to the Great Literary Complexes', pp. 2523*.
1. The Documentary Hypothesi
19
teuch' as a long process, leading from the formation in oral tradition, across the written record, up to the purely literary redaction. He then continues: It is the task of the history of the process of tradition in the Pentateuch to trace this process from beginning to end'.1 Noth explains what his intention is. His main interest is not so much 'to attend to the later and more and more purely literary procedures... but rather to those beginnings that were decisive for the coming into being of the whole and to the first stages of growth'.2 However, he then went on to speak in great detail about the questions of the final literary shape,3 but not about the intermediate stages of the history of the process. And therein lies a notable unevenness in his work. The major part of his presentation deals with 'the pre-literary history of the formation and growth of the process to what is ultimately, in all essentials, a definitively shaped work';4 it is concerned therefore 'in essence with what is still the oral process of formation and shaping'.5 Then, after a few remarks about 'clamps, genealogies, and itineraries',6 he jumps to the end of the process of formation and occupies himself with the traditional 'pentateuchal sources'7 without having given any consideration to the various stages of the intermediate literary shaping and process of tradition.8 Noth's own methodological approach should have suggested that he study more precisely the final phase of the literary arrangement as he had in the deuteronomistic history; that is, like von Rad, he should have traced the path from the larger literary complexes of tradition to their assembly and arrangement in the 'pentateuchal sources'. On the other hand, given the exegetical tradition in which Noth
1 Noth, cf. op. cit., p. 1, n. 5.
2 Op. cit.
3 Op. cit., par. 15, 16.

4 Op. cit., p. 44. 5 Op. cit., p. 198.
6 See headings to par. 11,12,14. 7 Op. cit., par. 15. 8 The second part of A History of Pentateuchal Traditions carries a heading whose claim was not discharged: The Coalescence of Themes and Individual Traditions.
20
stands, one would have expected a treatment of the smallest narrative units in which the material passed on had taken shape. Finally, Noth's own programme, to trace the history of the process of tradition 'from to end', should have suggested a treatment of the path from the smallest units to the larger complexes of tradition so as to arrive at a coherent picture of the whole process. Noth himself has given the reason why he did not take up and carry through the programme as outlined. Following vo Rad, he took as his starting point the task of unravelling the main basic themes of the Pentateuch as a whole before undertaking an analysis of the material passed on. In this, he accepted von Rad's thesis of the 'historical Credo' as the fundamental principle that shaped the Pentateuch (Hexateuch), at the same time re-interpreting it in decisive and successful wise. Whereas von Rad was concerned with definite complexes of tradition, and so with concrete literary arrangement which were brought together and disposed under the guiding view-points in the credal formulations, and given further shape by means of'inset' (Einbau), 'extension' (Ausbau), and 'remodeling' (Umbau),1 Noth speaks of'themes' which have determined the shape of the Pentateuch. He sees that 'the main task... is to unravel those basic themes out of which the great whole of the Pentateuch as handed on has grown, to lay bare their roots, to trace their complementation from individual pieces of material passed on, to pursue how they were joined with each other, and to make a judgment on their significance'.2 The elements of von Rad's Credo, being described as 'themes', underwent a decisive process of abstraction. From now on, they appear primarily as concepts and ideas which can be developed in a variety of ways and joined with each other and all sorts of other concepts and ideas. Scarcely any attention is paid to their concrete relationship to a particular setting in life or even to their concrete narrative or literary
1 Cf. the corresponding headings and sub-divisions of the chapter on the Yahwist in von Rad's The Form-Critical Problem', pp. 52, 54, 63. 2 Noth, A History, p. 3.
21
development. On the contrary, in the case of the basic theme, 'the leading out from Egypt', the question of the setting in life is rejected explicitly: 'inasmuch as this confession was of too general importance; it was such that it could, or had to be, recited on every cultic occasion that permitted a hymn'.1 With the other themes too this question, so far as it is even raised, has no real significance. One must speak of abstraction here in yet another sense. Noth distinguishes between the *basic themes',2 or 'the main themes of the tradition'3 as they are later called, on the one hand, and 'the complementation from individual pieces of material passed on'4 or 'the filling out of the standard thematic frame with individual pieces of material handed on',5 on the other. Accordingly, everything that does not belong to the main themes is regarded as 'filling out' and so its significance is substantially limited. But even in this limited framework, Noth's interest is directed not to the concrete shaping of the narrative but to the 'enriching of the basic main themes with further traditional material, while the detailed development by means of narrative art is to be regarded rather as an aside'.6 The reason why Noth's work cannot be linked immediately with that of Gunkel becomes clear here, because it is just this 'detailed development by means of narrative art' that was of decisive interest to Gunkel.7 It must be expressly emphasized here that there can be no question at all of calling into doubt the value and significance of Noth's work. On the contrary, it must be heavily underscored that Noth's studies have given rise to numerous insights into the history of the origin and growth of the Pentateuch and brought a variety of stimuluses to Old Testament 1 Op. cit., pp. 49-50.
2 3 4 5 6 1
Op. cit., p.B. Heading to par. 7. Op. cit., p. 3. Heading to par. 8. Op. cit., p.65. Cf. further Westermann, 'Arten der Erzahlung in der Genesis', Forschung am Alten Testament, 1964, pp. 9-91: 'The individual narrative... and what happens in it, recedes (in Noth's presentation) in a remarkable way' (p. 35).
22
research. However, the limits of Noth's methodological approach must be pointed out. His work at the same time bypasses the concrete text. Consequently, it is not possible with his approach to arrive at a history of the process of formation of the Pentateuch which takes as its point of departure the concrete shape of the texts; Gunkel, and after him von Rad in particular as well as others, have made these the objects of their study and exegesis; they have followed them further to the formation of larger complexes of tradition and ultimately to the final literary stage.1 And so once more it is back to Gunkel's approach. Consequently, much of what is found in the important observations of Noth on the history of the process of tradition would have to be accepted on the understanding that it would be set in the context of the pre-literary history of the traditions now preserved in fixed concrete texts. In many ways, Noth actually deals with the pre-history of concrete narratives in such a way that a methodological link between the interpretation of the texts developed by Gunkel and the question of the pre-history of the traditions embodied in them is entirely possible. This would be in a way the first phase of the process of the history of tradition. Methodologically, then, it would be in order to proceed in such a way that the form-critical determination of an individual text as the smallest conceivable unit of tradition forms the point of departure; thence, the further question of the pre-history of the text and the traditions embodied in it would be put. Gunkel, Gressmann, von Rad and others proceeded by and large in this way without, however, having developed a comprehensive understanding of the task of the study of the process of the history of tradition. We must now take up a further critical objection, already noted, to the procedure of Noth's traditio-historical programme It is the fact that Noth, without taking account of the
1 Noth explicitly denies that the growth of the Pentateuch took place in this way when he maintains that its 'form... is not the subsequent and final result of the simple grouping together and arranging in sequence of individual traditions and individual complexes o traditions, but... at the very beginning of the formation of the traditions, there was a small number of themes that were essential for the faith of the Israelite tribes' (op. cit., p. 2).
23
literary growth of the tradition, presupposes the existence of 'pentateuchal sources' in the traditional literary-critical sense and includes them within his presentation of the traditio-historical process.1 Some fundamental remarks are necessary here. The form-critical method and its application mean a basically new approach in the matter of access to the pentateuchal texts. The different 'sources' of the Pentateuch was the answer to a particular question, namely: is the final form of the Pentateuch as it lies before us a unity or not? Source division as used hitherto makes sense only as an answer to this question, inasmuch as it explains that the present text, taken as a whole, consists of several, originally independent, accounts of the whole pentateuchal material which have been brought together in a 'redaction'. The documentary hypothe sis, when all is said, has meaning only as an answer to this question; and it is with this that we are now concerned, whatever different shapes it may take.2 So then, as soon as access to the pentateuchal texts is set in the context of the form-critical method, the statement of the question is basically altered. The Pentateuch as a whole as it lies before us is no longer the point of departure, but rather the concrete individual text, the 'smallest literary unit'. The work begins as it were at the opposite end. The contexts in which each individual text now stands, however large, are not yet a matter of attention in this approach, nor must they be the primary concern of the interpreter. This does not mean that there is no place for questions of literary criticism. However, a fundamental distinction must be made between literary analysis on the one hand, as it puts the question of unity to a concrete, individual text, seeking to explain the tensions and contradictions and inquiring about its coherence with the context, and on the other, the traditional
1 Op. cit.,par. 2-5. 2 For other hypotheses about the formation of the Pentateuch, in particular for the 'complementary hypothesis' and the 'fragmentary hypothesis', one should consult the appropriate sections in the standard introductions to the OT. Also: R. Rendtorff, 'Pentateuch', EKL, III, 1959, cols. 109-14; O. Ploger, 'Pentateuch', RGG (3rd edn) 1961, cols. 211-17; R. Smend, 'Pentateuchkritik', BHHW, III, 1966, cols. 1413-19.
24
division into sources. There will be many cases in which a correct form-critical determination of a text will be rendered possible only after particular literary-critical questions have been put and answered; often it is only then that one can delimit the original smallest unit. But all this has nothing at all to do with the question of whether individual elements, which literary criticism has shown to be separate from each other, belong to particular 'sources' in the sense of continuous 'documents'. It is a fundamental error when literary-critical work on the Pentateuch is equated with source division in the traditional sense, as is so often the case today. 1.3. The documentary hypothesis maintained It is the task of the traditio-historical method which builds on the form-critical statement of the question in the way in which Noth formulated the programme, to pursue the whole process of the formation of the tradition right up to the present final literary stage. This requires that the literary-critical questions as well be put at all phases of the traditio-historical inquiry. But they must be related on each occasion to the stage of the formation of the tradition and limited thereby. Only at the end of the inquiry into the process of the history of the tradition can the question of the literary-critical judgment of the final shape be put. From the standpoint of the traditio-historical approach, one is only justified in accepting continuous 'sources' in the Pentateuch when, at the end of the traditiohistorical inquiry, the source theory offers the most enlightening answer to the questions which arise from the final shape of the text. Recent study of the Pentateuch, however, shows that this is scarcely ever the case. And so the attempt must be made to show the reasons why tradition-history and source division are still for the most part applied side by side. I see two main reasons for this. One consists in the fact that Gunkel, and likewise his pupil Gressmann, both adhered to source division. This could give rise to the impression that the two methods belonged together or in any case could be joined together with-
25
out difficulty.1 The first thing to be said to this is that frequently in the history of research, there is only a gradual awareness of the consequences of a new methodological approach, so that this fact in itself, considered from our present point of view, can say nothing about its methodological justification. The second, that it is clear that Gunkel, and particularly Gressmann, applied the separation of sources in a far less stringent manner than is generally done today. Above all, they did not see themselves in a position to recognize the 'Personalities' of the authors of the written sources. Gunkel emphasized that liere (i.e. with the Tahwist' and the 'Elohist') it is not a question of unities or even of collocations of unities, but of collections which are not from one mould and cannot have been completed at one stroke, but have arisen in the course of a history'.2 And so he continues: "F and 'E' therefore are not individual writers, but schools of narrators. What individual hands contributed to the whole is thus a matter of relative indifference because they differ very little individually, and never reveal themselves with certainty'.3 Gressmann goes even a step further. In his view the distinction of J from E can only rarely be carried out with any sort of certainty',4 and he adds: 'In many cases JE are nothing more than labels which can be exchanged at will. Nevertheless, one must try in the meantime to come to terms with the hypothesis of JE, never forgetting that it is a hypothesis. But for it to establish itself and to find justification for the abundance of variants, the symbols JE are indispensable, even though they can lay claim only to relative validity'.5 In the long run therefore it is merely a matter of giving terms to passages which, from the literarycritical point of view, are separate from each other. The sources have not each its own profile. The other reason for adhering to source division in the traditio-historical context is simply that von Rad conferred a new profile on the Yahwist. He attributed to him the central role in the definitive formation of the Hexateuch. He portrayed in a
1 2 3 4 5 So too Rendtorff, EvTh 27 (1967) 148ff. Gunkel, Genesis, p. Ixxxiv. Ibid, p. Ixxxv. Mose und seine Zeit, p. 368. Ibid.
26
most impressive way the great achievement of the Yahwist as composer and moulder. He underscored that in this case there could be no question of an anonymous growth, but that liere... one plan is at work',1 and he worked out with particular emphasis that, before all else, a theological achievement is to be seen here.2 In von Rad's view, the Yahwist is the one who, in a powerful theological work, 'took up the material which had broken free from the cult and preserved it in the firm grip of his literary composition'.3 The result is a 'massive work',4 and 'it is astounding how firmly it was possible to bind the bewildering abundance of the assembled traditions... to the basic on-going tradition'.5 Why did von Rad attribute this role precisely to the Yahwist? It is surprising to note that von Rad did not put this question, because he obviously saw in it no problem at all.6 He begins without more ado: The Yahwist marks for Israel the intervention that we see continually recurring in the spiritual history of many peoples: old, often widely scattered, traditions are gathered together in a powerful work of composition under a dominant idea and become literature'.7 That this role belongs to the Yahwist derives apparently, without it being said explicitly, from the generally acknowledged image of source division in which the substantial section of the narrative material of the tradition is ascribed to the Yahwist. Von Rad discusses only the question, Svhether we are to consider the work of the Yahwist as that of a collector or of a
1 2 3 4 5 6
'The Form-Critical Problem', p. 59. Op. cit., pp. 67-68. Op. cit., p.50. Op. a'*., p. 52. Op. cit., p. 51. He touches only the other, more basic question, whether instead of reckoning with one 'great collector and moulder* it were better to reckon with 'a gradual, anonymous process of growth' (op. cit., p. 52). But the switch-points have already been set in another direction. 7 Op. cit., p. 48. Von Rad, up to this point, speaks of the Yahwist only in a casual way, on the same literary level as the other sources, without giving him any notable pre-eminence; cf. pp. 15-16; notes 17,27,29,35,53.
27
writer'.1 But the possibility that another than the Yahwist could have brought to completion this 'massive work of composition' is never considered. This shows that von Rad has here simply taken over something already available. But it is all too clear how far von Rad has thereby distanced himself from the original conception of source division which understands sources as parallel and for the most part constituent parts of essentially equal value in the final shape of the present text. Von Rad assigns them a subordinate place and maintains at the same time that their relationships to each other remain in the long run unexplained: 'Not that the way in which E and P are related to J is for us something transparent, an entirely satisfying and explicable phenomenon! The question of the origin and destiny of these two works, of their growth and their readers is after all open and is likely to remain so. But these problems are of a different sort from what we are discussing here. The stratification of E and P in relationship to J and their binding together is a purely literary matter and so, from the form-critical point of view, introduces nothing essentially new over and above what has been discussed. The form of the Hexateuch is definitively the Yahwist's'.2 The picture therefore has basically changed: there is not a number pentateuchal (hexateuchal) sources of more or less equal worth which have been joined together by a process of redaction; rather the Yahwist has provided a basic arrangement; 'the form of the Hexateuch is definitively his', and the 'stratification' of the two other sources in relationship to this work remains basically opaque. But this is to be understood, and in essence can only be understood, as something theological. This new understanding of the Yahwist marks too a basic change in respect of Gunkel and Gressmann who denied any possibility of recognizing the individuality or personality of any of the authors of the pentateuchal sources. There is here so to speak a re-discovery of the personality of the authors of the sources, though only of one of them, the Yahwist, and
1 Op. cit., pp. 50-51. 2 Op. cit., p.74.
28
primarily as a theologian who gives shape to large passages. Noth too at the beginning of the section on the sources of the Pentateuch writes: Tentateuchal narrative has undergone a change with the pentateuchal sources synthesized into the literary whole in which they now lie before us; it has moved out of the realm of the cultic, so necessary for the forming of themes, and out of the realm of the popular, which gives rise to the shaping of narratives out of the themes, and enters into the realm of the theological, the reflective, and the synthesizing over-view'.1 Thus for Noth too, the Yah wist has a special place: his theology contains 'the richest and most important theological accomplishment expressed anywhere in the pentateuchal narrative'.2 Closer examination, however, shows that Noth's portrait of the Yahwist does not agree in important points with that drawn by von Rad. For Noth contests the fundamental statements of von Rad about the way in which the Yahwist composed the work. To be sure, 'the forecourt (Vorbau), which is the primeval story... is clearly the work of the Yahwist... But the two others (i.e."the insetting of the Sinai tradition" and "the extension of the patriarchal tradition") derive from G (Grundlage) (namely, the common basic source that Noth accepts for J and E) and so belong to the same material as that already taken over by J... But the Pentateuch did not come into being by looking backwards, as von Rad would have us believe when he attributes such an epoch-making role to the Yahwist in the traditio-historical process. It is a question rather of a growth that took place step by step'.3 The Yahwist then 'is not the sole author of the most important advances in the process of the development of the Pentateuch... but only one of many... Many others, before him, at the same time as him, and after him had a share in it. When literary criticism unraveled the common basic (G) of J and E, then this was of significance not only for literary criticism, but also for the general traditio-historical process, inasmuch as it pointed con-
1 A History, p. 228. 2 Op. cit.,p.236. 3 Op. cit., pp. 40-41.
29
cretely and clearly to this fact'.1 Von Rad's basic view of the Yahwist can in fact scarcely be contested more concretely and clearly. Von Rad's judgment of the Yahwist as a theologian depends on his view of him as a composer of a work, and it is this view that Noth contests. What is Noth's position here? When discussing the 'question of the basic ideas... which were normative when the material being passed on was given literary formulation... one must prescind from the entity G, because we can know nothing at all of its wording1.2 And so there can be no theological judgment on the basic composition that Noth, at any rate, ascribes to 'G'. Thus the essential connection between the work of composition and the theology on which, for von Rad, everything depends, is abolished. But if E is 'to remain, according to the state of things, almost completely out of consideration',3 then 'the theology of J is all the more clearly before us'.4 It finds expression above all in the arrangement of the primeval story and its binding with the subsequent Pentateuch narrative'; in this, Noth is in broad agreement with von Rad in his explanation of the Yahwistic primeval story and his understanding of Gen. 12.1-3 as a link passage between the primeval story and the patriarchal story. 'So the whole weight of the theology of J lies at the beginning of his narrative. Subsequently, he kept almost exclusively to the traditional stuff of the pentateuchal narrative without intervening to alter or expand its substance. He was satisfied to have said at the beginning how he wanted the rest to be understood'.5 This is clearly a quite different Yahwist from the one whom von Rad described and who certainly was not satisfied 'to have said at the beginning how he wanted the rest to be understood'. On the contrary: it was just this work of thoroughly shaping the whole of the massive amount of traditional material that renders his hand so recognizable. And it must be underscored yet again that von Rad's judgment depends precisely on the work being a theological one. By reducing the contribution of
1 Op. cit., p. 41.
2 3 4 5
Op. cit., p. 236. Ibid. Op. cit., p.236. Ibid.
30
the Yahwist to the shaping of the Pentateuch, Noth has pulled away the mat. While he held to the view of the Yahwist as a theologian, yet he described the stage of the pentateuchal sources as the stage of 'the theological, the reflective, and the synthesizing overview'.1 Many others have followed him here. And so a particular branch of literature has developed which is concerned with the theology of the sources of the Pentateuch. It is worthy of note then that the widespread error of a search for a literary proof of the existence of sources corresponds to the dominance of theological interest in the pentateuchal sources in recent research. This is so particularly for the Tahwist'. In general, its literary content is unraveled by way of negation. The general view is that it is easy to delimit the content of the 'priestly* writing. But opinions are divided over the 'Elohist'; hence his existence is in need of literary demonstration. And so the prevailing view is that which, by means of literary analysis, arrives at the existence of an elohistic source, however imperfectly preserved. What remains belongs to the 'Yahwist' inasmuch as there are no convincing reasons against it (e.g. signs of a deuteronomistic reworking). But scarcely any attempt has been made to demonstrate a literary cohesion between the passages ascribed to the Yahwist. Generally, one has recourse to the presentation of his theology or in any case to the overriding ideas and compositional standpoints. However, it becomes apparent that in many cases the theological ideas and the compositional standpoints are quite different in different parts of the Pentateuch. Here again the (unproven) opinion that these passages belong together as a literary unit must bear the burden of proof that, in spite of this, it is a matter of the theology of one author.2 On the other hand, it must be underscored once more that, from the point of view of the traditio-historical approach, one is only justified in accepting continuous 'sources' when this is the result of a study of the history of the traditions of the smallest units, through the larger literary complexes, right up
1 Op. cit., p. 238. Apart from the primeval story, Noth regards only Gen. 18.22ff. as a passage of Yahwistic theological work. 2 Op. cit., p. 228.
1. The Documenatary Hypothesis
31
to the final stage of the text. If the question that the traditiohistorical approach is taken seriously, then, on methodical grounds, the acceptance of 'sources' is excluded by reason of an analysis made at the final stage, without its being verified through the study of the formation of the tradition. It goes without saying that the traditio-historical study makes use of the varied insights and results of the literary-critical work so as to unravel the layers and growth of the texts. It will itself, of course, have to work with literary-critical tools and, for its part, will have to give answers to the questions raised by literary criticism. And so it will have to proceed no less 'critically' and also, to be sure, literary-critically. But it cannot from the very start equate the literary-critical method of working with the results carried over from the source theory, as is done so widely today. This procedure identifies a particular method o study almost exclusively with one of its conceivable results. From a methodological point of view, the literary-critical statement of the question too must always remain open to results other than those of the traditional source division. And this all the more so when it is to serve as an assistant to the traditio-historical method.1 1.4. The question of the 'larger units' It has already been mentioned that a particular defect in pentateuchal study hitherto is the gaping cleft between the study of the smallest units and concern for the final literary stage. There is a lack of studies of the larger units, formed from a synthesis of originally independent texts before these units were brought together at a later stage in the whole which is the Pentateuch.2 There is many a reference in the literature to the existence of such larger units;3 but they have scarcely ever been the object of independent studies, and there has scarcely ever been any consideration of their function in the process of the formation of the Pentateuch. But above all,
1 For more detail, see below, section 3, Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism. 2 See above, 1.2. 3 Cf. Introductions to the OT by Eissfeldt and Sellin-Fohrer.
32
there has been a lack of studies of the question of how these texts grew into or were arranged into larger units, and how this relates to the composition of coherent written 'sources' whose existence is generally accepted. The peculiar nature of these larger units has already been outlined in the presentation of von Rad's study.1 They are a synthesis, forming a new unit, of texts which form-critically and because of their origin are often to be judged very differently. The larger units that are thus formed distinguish themselves clearly over against others in which the traditions belonging to other cycles of themes have been brought together in like manner. One can in many cases recognize more or less clearly the means by which the collectors or authors have shaped and brought together into a unity the originally independent and often quite disparate material. This procedure must be studied in closer detail in order to close the gap in the study of the history of the origin and growth of the Pentateuch. It requires very thorough special studies for the individual complexes of tradition/larger units; and before all, the methodological pre-requisites must first be broadly established and developed. Hence, the intent of what follows is twofold: on the one hand, and in brief, the larger units within the Pentateuch, so far as they have been worked out hitherto, must be presented so as to acquire, under this point of view, a survey of the material gathered together in the Pentateuch; on the other hand, one example of the growth and reworking of such larger units must be studied so as to arrive thereby at criteria for our statement of the question. The patriarchal stories of Genesis will be chosen as the example. The different stages of the process of the formation of the tradition can be clearly discerned in them: the independent individual narratives, the formation of individual 'cycles of stories', the gradual collecting of the narratives about the individual patriarchs, and finally, the putting together of the stories about the patriarchs so as to form a larger unit. This makes clear the means used in the course of formation of the individual stories and the comprehensive
1 See above, 1.2.
33
larger units and the theolological intentions at work in the process of assembling and reworking them. And finally, some reflections are added on the relationship of the larger units so formed to other units, which once more lead back to the basic question that this work puts. Something must be said first of all about the larger units within the Pentateuch. For the most part they delimit themselves, and the literature is broadly at one in accepting this self-delimitation. The primeval story forms the first larger unit. It comprises Genesis 1-11. The current stage of exegesis sees a clear link between the primeval story and the patriarchal story at the beginning of the Abraham story. One can put the division between the two after Gen. 12.1-3 (von Rad)1 or after Gen. 11.26 (Westermann).2 In both cases Gen. 12.1-3 is regarded as 'a clamp between the primeval event and the patriarchal story'.3 As for the matter of the primeval story in detail, there is broad agreement that the passages stand side by side with no intrinsic link between them. Gunkel writes: The passages begin almost always quite abruptly; they are in rough sequence or are in complete contradiction'.4 Following Gunkel, von Rad distinguishes a 'series of cycles of material originally independent'.5 Westermann tries to arrange the texts into three narrative groups: 'narratives of creation, of achievements, and of revolts and their consequences'.6 But he speaks also of the 'apparently unconnected block(s) in the primeval story which are heaped together*.7 All interpreters try likewise to work out the inner connection between these narratives within the framework of the
1 'The Form-critical Problem', p. 65. 2 Genesis 1-11, p. 562 3 O.H. Steck, 'Genesis 12.1-3 und die Urgeschichte des Jahwisten', in Probleme biblischer Theologie, Festschrift. G. von Rad, 1971, pp. 525-54. 4 Genesis, p. 2. 5 Op. cit.,p.64. 6 Genesis 1-11, p. 566. In the table on the same page, the last group stands under the heading 'Crime and Punishment'. 7 Op. cit.,p.64.
34
present composition. Gunkel speaks of a 'thread as the last collector will have conceived it';1 von Rad sees in the composition 'the directing of the individual pieces of material towards a goal';2 and Westermann puts the question whether these apparently unconnected texts are 'somehow... joined with each other in a much more profound arrangement than appears at first sight, an arrangement which derives from the primeval story as a whole and keeps this whole always in sight'.3 Two things become clear from this first of the larger units: the individual pieces and their narrative shape have preserved a great deal of independence with respect to each other; nevertheless, they seem to have been put together as if by one who wanted to impose a unified form, so that despite this disparity in the individual elements, the whole has the effect of a tightly closed unit. Interpreters try now to work out the intention of the composition and the means used to give it its shape. Neither, of course, is immediately obvious so that very different answers are given. Reference must be made to a further matter which Westermann in particular has stressed: to synthesize the narratives in the primeval story and in the patriarchal story under the general concept of 'Sage' does not do justice to the profound differences in the style of presentation; rather must it be said 'that the style of the narratives in Genesis 1-11 is basically different from that in Genesis 12-50; the two types belong to two fundamentally different styles and lines of tradition'.4 So then, on the one hand there would be formcritical consequences to be drawn with regard to the determination of the different characteristics of the 'Sage'] while on the other hand the question arises, when and at what stage of the formation of the tradition these very different complexes were joined together, and to what extent a common, over-arching, reworking can be discerned. The patriarchal story (Gen. 12-50) forms the next larger
1 2 3 4 Genesis, p. 1. Op. cit.,p.64. Genesis 1-11. Ibid.
1. The Documentary Haypothesis
35
unit; it will be dealt with in detail in the second chapter. Let it be said here by way of summary simply that the same phenomena are evident in it: on the one hand a broad independence of a section of the individual narratives, and on the other a clearly recognizable, synthetic shaping of the narrative materials into larger complexes. Each of the patriarchal stories in itself exhibits such a synthesizing reworking: each of the Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph stories are the result of the juxtaposition and collection of single narratives. And morethe first three have been further joined together to form a larger unit. The dominant intentions and the way in which they have been arranged are clearly evident. However, it is only in the patriarchal story that they are found in this form.1 Various suggestions have been made for the delineation of larger units in the following books of the Pentateuch. Gressmann tries to establish the largest unit when he writes: The largest cycle of stories which one can discern at first sight extends from the birth of Moses and the sojourn of Israel in Egypt to the death of Moses and the arrival of the people of Israel at the border of the promised land'.2 But Gressmann did not himself divide this large narrative complex further. Apart from some smaller cycles of stories within this larger framework, this group of stories in the Moses narrative 'splits into two loose halves'. The stories from the birth of Moses to the arrival of Israel at Sinai3 form a coherent unit up to a point. The second half of the Moses story portrays as its general theme the departure of Israel from Sinai for the promised land.4 Let us turn then to the first part of the Moses story. Gressmann writes: 'The cycle of stories of Exodus 1.1-15.21 can be followed clearly, but after this the contours fade'.5 Pedersen brought a completely new approach to Exodus 115 when he considered it as a coherent larger unit.6 He understands the
1 2 3 4 5 6 For further detail, see below under 2.5. Mose und seine Zeit, p. 386. Op. cit., p. 387. Op. cif.,p.388. Op. cit., pp. 387-88. ZAW 52 (1934) 161-75.
36
whole narrative complex as a cult legend of the feast of the Pasch which lies at the basis of the dramatic arrangement of the feast. Despite all unevennesses and secondary additions, the legend forms a well articulated whole from beginning to end (Exod. 1-15), constructed according to a definite plan'.1 And so an entirely new statement of the question arises here; it considers the history of the growth of larger units within the Pentateuch not only from the point of view of narrative, but also from that of the history of cult and liturgy. It is clear that with such presuppositions the question of the origin, growth and formation of larger units presents itself in a radically altered form. In particular, the intentions and the method of arrangement, which have been at work in the process of assembling the individual pieces of material, must be judged quite differently than from a purely narrative point of view. Von Rad took up Pedersen's 'directive towards the internal coherence of Exodus 1-14 (sic!) and its origin from the feast of the Pasch'.2 His interest was less the liturgical element than the fact that these chapters 'present a well-rounded comple of tradition' in which we have before us 'a genuine exodus tradition'.3 Noth also accepts the validity of Pedersen's thesis, however 'in a somewhat more narrowly drawn framework, confined to the narrative of the plagues of Egypt'.4 This means in particular that he no longer wants to count the narrative of the destruction of the Egyptians in the sea (Exodus 14) as part of this complex. Further, Noth deals with the traditions of the birth and call of Moses, as they have taken form in Exodus 14, in a quite different place.5 But in the division of the book of Exodus in his commentary, he brings chs. 1-15 together again under the heading The leading out from Egypt'.6 Fohrer too has analysed the way in which Exodus 1-15 cohere, including in his approach the criticism by exegetes of Pedersen.7 On the one side, he divides the material into a great
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Op. cit., p. 167. The Form-critical Problem', pp. 51-52. Op. cit., pp. 51-52. A History, p. 66. Op. cit., pp. 156ff., 201ff. Exodus heading on p. 19. See in particular S. Mowinckel, 'Die vermeintliche 'Passah-
37
number of smaller narrative 'elements', but on the other, he comes to the conclusion 'that the exodus tradition is not a selfcontained complex and that the exodus itself is not an isolated event to be evaluated separately and by itself.1 He rejects 'the fiction of a deep cleft that has made it possible to accept an isolated exodus tradition', and continues: In reality, Exodus 1-15 is directed to a continuation of and forms a part of a more comprehensive historical narrative... That larger whole was the occupation of the land by Moses' host which comprised the tradition of how the exodus came about, the exodus, the firm alliance with Yahweh on Sinai, the further wandering right up to the entrance into the territory of east Jordan; then the death of the charismatic leader Moses, and originally too the settlement in east Jordan'.2 It is obvious that very different methods and statements of the question clash in this discussion of Exodus 1-15. Besides the difference, already mentioned, between a predominantly narrative approach and a cultic approach, historical questions too come under consideration which once more are involved with the traditio-historical question of whether the exodus tradition existed and was passed on in isolation; (the exodus is 'not an isolated event to be evaluated separately and by itself); and finally, it is very obvious that interest in the large narrtive complexes is closely bound up with the concept of the existence of continuous narrative sources which embrace the whole of the pentateuchal material. On the contrary, there has so far been scarcely any attempt to look for clues to the conscious shaping of larger units within Exodus 115as is the case too in other parts of the book of Exodus. Within the framework of our statement of the question, this would require an entirely new approach.3 Von Rad has laid special emphasis on the independence of the Sinai passage, in particular of Exodus 19-24. Following Mowinckel, he regards it as a 'cult legend', i.e. he brings into
legende'; 'Ex 1-15 in Bezug auf die Frage: Literarkritik und Traditionskritik', STL 5 (1952) 66-88. 1 Uberlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus. Eine Analyse von Ex 115,1964, p. 121. 2 Op. cit.,?. 122. 3 See below under 2.6.
38
relief once more the cultic, liturgical function of this collection. This is in line with his thesis that the Sinai tradition was first passed on separately from the traditions of the exodus and the occupation of the land, and was joined with them only at a relatively later stage. This opinion has been frequently criticised.1 The criticism is concerned primarily with the questiondo the different complexes of tradition just mentioned belong together or not. The relatively self-contained independence of the Sinai pericope has scarcely been contested, nor can it be, as it is so obvious. But it is just this discussion that has stood in the way of further study of the formation and structure of the Sinai pericope. Hence, there have been scarcely any studies of the question of how the extremely different elements within the Sinai pericope came together.2 It lies before us in a form that reflects a wild growth; Exodus 19 through to Numbers 10 contains an assortment of narrative, cultic, and legal material which has been thrown together. Scholarship has, to be sure, separated out certain blocks of material, in particular different codes of law. But as to how all this came together into a whole, and whether there were any guiding principles of arrangement or discernable intent at work in the process, this question has still not really been put. A further problem in the Sinai synthesis is the fact that it is preceded and followed by narratives about Israel's sojourn in the desert (Exod. 16-18; Num. 11-20).3 Gressmann accepted as a basis for all these narratives a collection of stories connected with the sanctuary at Kadesh. According to him they
1 Cf. A. Weiser, Introduction to the Old Testament. W. Beyerlin, Herkunft und Geschichte der altesten Sinaitraditionen. 2 Further pointers in this direction may be found in L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alien Testament, 1969, pp. 156-238. 3 There are differences in the delimitation of the ending of this complex of tradition. Noth sees in Num. 20.14-21 the transition to the theme 'leading into the land' (A History, p. 206); and so in his commentary on Numbers he makes the division: Num. 11.1-20.13, 'further sojourn in the wilderness', and Num. 20.14-36.13, 'Preparation for and beginning of the "conquest"' (Numbers, pp. 81, 148). V. Fritz represents an opposite view: Israel in der Wiiste. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der Wiistenuberlieferung des Jahwisten, 1970, esp. chs. 20 and 21.
39
were only separated from each other by the inset Sinai passages in the course of the traditio-historical development.1 This question is in turn linked with historical, religio-historical, and traditio-historical questions, especially with the question of whether Kadesh was ever a cultic centre for some or for all the Israelite tribes. Noth has contested this thesis very strongly,2 while others have accepted and elaborated it.3 But in all this, the question of how the narratives came together in their present arrangement has remained undiscussed. That is, in our statement of the question: was there one (or several) larger unit(s) with the theme 'Israel in the desert' whose growth from individual narratives or suchlike smaller units can be outlined.4 Finally, of particular interest is the discussion of the traditions about the Israelites' occupation of the land. At the beginning of this century Old Testament scholarship in general accepted that the traditions of the occupation of the land in the book of Joshua were an immediate continuation of the pentateuchal presentation. The reason for this was that the texts in Joshua were regarded as belonging to the pentateuchal 'sources'. And so one spoke of the 'Hexateuch'. Noth, in his analysis of the book of Joshua, came to the conclusion 'the literary-critical theses, demonstrated above all for Genesis, are not valid for the book of Joshua in the same enlightening way. The reason for this is that it is not possible to arrive at internally coherent complexes for each of the accepted continuous narrative threads'.5 Instead of continuous 'sources' in the narrative parts of Joshua, he discerned a 'collector' at work, who gathered together older traditions which had already been partly joined together and shaped them into a 'very old whole unit'.6 This means nothing else than that Noth here regarded the occupation of the land traditions in Joshua as an independent larger unit. It is surely not due to chance that this occurred in
1 2 3 4 5 6 Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit, pp. 386-87. A History, pp. 164-65. Cf. Beyerlin, op. cit., pp. 165ff. Fritz, op. cit., p. 25. Das Buck Josua, 1953 (2nd edn), p. 8. Op. cit., p. 12.
40
work on a commentary on a single book of the Old Testament which required that one come to grips more accurately with the problems of this larger unit without looking at them in the framework of the usual problems of pentateuchal (hexateuchal) study. Noth then drew the consequences of this: he separated the book of Joshua once more from the Pentateuch and abandoned the thesis of 'sources' extending beyond the Pentateuch, and hence any talk of the *Hexateuch'. However, this raised a new difficulty for Noth. It seemed certain to him that the old pentateuchal sources originally ended up with a narrative of the occupation of the land. One of the main reasons for this surmise is the 'repeated promises right throughout the patriarchal story that the descendants are ultimately to possess the land of Palestine'.1 Further, there is the fact that the book of Numbers begins with the account of the occupation of east Jordan which, in Noth's opinion, requires a continuation in the account of the occupation of west Jordan. Noth thinks that this original description of the occupation of the land in the older pentateuchal sources has Tbeen lost'; the reason being that the priestly writing is not interested in the theme of the occupation of the land; hence, 'its description would have ended with the reports of the death of Miriam, Aaron, and Moses'; the redactor would then have 'tailored the narrative of the old sources to the literary framework of the P narrative and so have simply left out the end of that narrative extending beyond the death of Moses'.2 One can only say that this is an extremely precarious way of arguing. On the one hand Noth, on the basis of his analysis of the book of Joshua, cannot maintain the thesis of continuous sources which end up with the description of the occupation of the land; on the other, he cannot, or will not, draw the consequence of this, namely to submit the source theory itself to critical examination. And so he makes use of a redactor who has simply left out' the postulated, but not extant, texts. Noth's thesis has subsequently undergone lively discussion, and has been accepted by various scholars, again without the consequences for the source theory as a whole being drawn.
1 A History, p. 16. 2 Ibid.
41
It must be stated that, for our context, a large unit consisting of traditions about the occupation of the land has been clearly discerned in the book of Joshua. From the traditio-historical point of view the question, to what pentateuchal 'source' does it belong, plays no role; there is no ground for regarding this larger unit as, in essence, anything else than an independent complex of tradition within the Pentateuch. The question whether it belongs to a broader context is to be put only at a later stage. But for the Pentateuch itself there would be the further question, whether the narratives about the occupation of the land in east Jordan can be understood only as the beginning of a more comprehensive and total description of the occupation of land, or whether the occupation traditions in the book of Numbers can be considered as an indeendent larger unit which has had its own history of tradition. The survey of the Pentateuch according to recognizable larger units with a common theme has shown that virtually the whole pentateuchal material is divided into such larger units: the primeval story, the patriarchal story, Moses and exodus, Sinai, sojourn in the desert, occupation of the land. Each of these units has its own characteristic profile; each is assembled from various elements of tradition and presents itself now as a more or less self-contained unit. Research so far has acknowledged the independent character of most of these units, and there are already many individual studies. These works, however, try consistently to show that the present unity is a constituent part of a larger context, namely the pentateuchal 'sources'. As a consequence, the question of the independence is not dealt with, and the qualities characteristic of the carefully planned arrangement are for the most part very quicklyor even a prioritraced back to the authors of the 'sources'. It is striking that scarcely a single thorough comparison has been carried out of the method of working of the supposed authors of the 'sources' in different larger units And so there has been no convincing demonstration so far that the recognizable reworking of the traditions in the different parts of the Pentateuch goes back in fact to the same redactor or author. One is often content to designate a reworking as 'theological' so as to ascribe it, together with other 'theological' reworkings, to someone called the *Yahwist'. Hence, there
42
must be a new approach: there must be a thorough study of the arrangement and the reworking of the individual larger units in which each must be considered in itself without any previous decision whether it belongs to a larger complex or to one or other 'sources'. It is only in a next step in the comparison that the question of the larger complexes can be put.
Chapter 2 THE PATRIARCHAL STORIES AS EXAMPLES OF A 'LARGER UNIT' WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE PENTATEUCH
2.1 The stories of Joseph, Jacob, and Isaac
Within the patriarchal story several independent narrative complexes delineate themselves clearly. The special place of the Joseph story (Gen. 37-50) stands out most clearly of all. Gunkel has already described appositely its peculiar character. However, he shows himself remarkably uncertain in his choice of form-critical terminology. First of all he writes: The Joseph story is a cycle of stories (Sagenkranz)'. Nevertheless, he continues: 'However, it marks itself off... from the other cycles of stories by its very tight structure'; hence, he describes it as 'a well arranged whole'. It is scarcely possible to separate the individual stories from each other; rather 'the boundaries between the passages are very fluid'.1 After describing the characteristics of the style and the manner of presentation in further detail, he says finally: 'After all this, we can scarcely call this narrative a story (Sage); we must call it a Novelle'.2 Consequently, one must go further and say: the Joseph story is not a cycle of stories. It is clear that here, as in other places, Gunkel uses the notion 'cycle of stories' in a very undefined sense, not only to describe a collection of originally independent stories, but also for literary arrangements, the constituent parts of which are not appropriately designated as stories (Sagen). The notion 'Novelle' has prevailed by and large for the Joseph story. Its special character within the patriarchal story
1 Genesis, p. 396. 2 Op. cit.,p.397.
44
has been generally acknowledged. Von Rad has added a further dimension with his thesis: 'the Joseph story is a didactic wisdom narrative which, both in the ideal that it presents and in its basic theological thinking, is dependent on many a stimulus of Egyptian origin'.1 This classification among the traditions influenced by Egyptian wisdom sets it apart even further from the rest of the tradition in the patriarchal story. Gunkel has also made the most important observations on the Jacob story. He has shown that it consists in essence of two large narrative complexes: the Jacob-Esau stories (Gen. 25.19-34; 27.1-28.9; 32-3G2) and the Jacob-Laban stories (Gen. 2931). Both have been skilfully joined together: 'a 'frame' has been fashioned out of the JacobEsau stories into which the Jacob-Laban stories have been inserted'. He specifies the arrangement that has thus arisen in the following way: This JacobEsau-Laban cycle is, accordingly, not a loose juxtaposition from the hand of a redactor, but an artistic arrangement: a sequence of cross references forwards and backwards... and especially the conclusion which reverts to the beginning, binds the whole together into a unit'.3 Besides these two larger complexes of narratives Gunkel names as a further independent element the 'stories about the places of cult which Jacob founded'4 (besides the 'accounts of the birth and the later fate of Jacob's children'5 which he maintains are not constituent parts of the old arrangements of the stories). It is a question here of the cult stories of Bethel, Mahanaim, Penuel, and Shechem which *have been distributed along the trail of Jacob's travels'.6 Von Rad has taken Gunkel's observations further at this point by showing that the two cultic stories of Bethel (Gen. 28.10-22) and Penuel (Gen. 32.23-33 [22-32]) in particular play an important role in the overall arrangement. They stand at the two turning points of Jacob's journey:
1 The Joseph Narrative and Ancient Wisdom', in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays, 1966 (German 1953), pp. 292-300. 2 Gunkel, however, deals with the passages from 33.17 onwards under the heading 'Jacob in Canaan', p. 368. 3 Op. cit., p. 292. 4 Op. cit., p. 291. 5 Ibid. 6 Op. cit., p. 292.
2. The Patriarchal Stories
45
the flight from Esau and the retreat from Laban. The Jacob story then is supported by these two narratives 'as a bridge is supported by two pylons... These two narrative blocks are clearly markers indicating the guiding theological thinking*.1 Westermann too has arrived at essentially the same division and designation of the constituent parts of the Jacob narrative. Looking at the entire block of the Jacob-EsauLaban cycle of stories, he speaks of a 'group of coherent narratives dominating the whole which can be called one large narrative'.2 He says of this group that 'in the way in which they are arranged they stand somewhere between the type of short, self-contained Abraham narratives and the Joseph narrative which forms a much larger and more complex unit'.3 There is an independent Isaac story in Genesis 26. The literature for the most part does not evaluate this chapter as an independent section, but looks at it within the frame of the Jacob story. Gunkel puts it under the heading 'Survey of the arrangement of the JE Jacob stories'; it is in brackets with the additional note, 'inserted... by a later hand'.4 Von Rad writes: 'There are only two stories about Isaac (Gen. 26.6-11, 12-33) which have been incorporated into the broad arrangement of the Jacob stories'.5 In his Genesis commentary, however, it is different. On the one hand it is fitted more firmly into the 'units of tradition'; on the other, he writes: These Isaac traditions have passed into the literture basically in their ancient form and without any adjustment to the later and broad arrangement of the patriarchal stories'.6 Gunkel too felt that the Isaac story had its own character over against the other patriarchal stories, and so surmised that the chapter liad been taken from another related book of stories and inserted here'.7
1 Genesis, 1972, p. 39. 2 'Arten der Erzahlung in der Genesis', in Forschung am Alien Testament, 1964, pp. 9-91, esp. p. 87. 3 Ibid., also Noth, A History, pp. 98ff. 4 Op. cit., p. 291. 5 'The Form-critical Problem', p. 57. 6 Op. cit., p. 270. 7 Op. cit.
46
The independence of Genesis 26 with respect to the context is well underscored. The chapter is described as a 'mosaic',1 a passage which 'has not become a completely self-contained composition'.2 'On the other hand one can recognize clearly the attempt to weld subsequently the small units of tradition into some sort of self-contained coherent whole'.3 Kessler, on the basis of his study of the cross references within the chapter, comes finally to the conclusion that 'Genesis 26 presents a narrative cluster that can be described as "the Isaac cluster"'.4 We must pursue this question somewhat more closely. Noth stated that the author (for him, J) *has assembled here, as it were in a compendium and with the help of a continuous narrative thread, all that the narrative tradition known to him about Isaac was aware of. He describes the chapter as a 'string of units of tradition that are in part only sketchy and in themselves not tightly knit'.5 In fact, one of the crucial problems for the understanding and evaluation of the Isaac stories is that they are to some extent not amplified as narratives in the usual way. Genesis 26 contains only two detailed narratives: 'the betrayal of the ancestress' (w. 7-11) and the making of the treaty with Abimelech of Gerar (w. 26-31). Both have their parallels in the Abraham story (Gen. 12.10-20 and 20.1-18; 21.22-32). Noth has, in my opinion, proposed convincing reasons arguing that each of the Isaac variants are, from the traditio-historical standpoint, older.6 Both are linked as narrative by the cross reference in v. 29. The remaining parts of the chapter are of a very different type. Two divine addresses stand out which have no immediate connection with the narrative context (w. 2-4, 24).7 Verses
1 Franz Delitzsch, Neuer Commentar fiber die Genesis, 1887, p. 360. 2 Gunkel, Genesis, p. 300. 3 Von Rad, Genesis. 4 R. Kessler, Die Querverweise im Pentateuch. Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der expliziten Querverbindungen innerhalb des vorpriestlichen Pentateuchs, Diss. theol., Heidelberg, 1972, p.108. 5 A History, p. 104. 6 Op. cit., pp. 103ff. 7 However, the first divine address is linked to the context by w. 1 and 6, the second by w. 23 and 25.
47
12-14 provide some very general information about Isaac's wealth, which is described as a result of God's blessing, and about the consequent envy of the Philistines. They have the very obvious function of giving the prerequisites for the subsequent narratives about the disputes over the wells.1 (Verse 28 refers back expressly to this.) Verses 16-17 report quite undramatically Isaac's 'expulsion' from the Gerar territory; and there is a reference back to this in v. 27. It is easy to discern here the concern to form a unified whole. The remainder has to do entirely with wells, and it is a question only of passages that have not been elaborated in narrative fashion. How are they to be evaluated? Verses 15 and 18 report that the Philistines had blocked up the wells that Abraham had dug earlier, and that Isaac had dug them again and given them their old names. Since Wellhausen it has been common to attribute these verses to a redactor (Gunkel, RJ) or to a later hand (von Rad). It is amazing how woolly the arguments for this are. According to Gunkel, the 'insertion betrays itself *by referring back to an earlier story'.2 But no story about the Philistines blocking up the wells dug by Abraham exists. Rather in the place to which reference is made (Gen. 21.25), Abimelech's men took the wells by force, which actually amounts to something different, namely that in this version they wanted to use the wells themselves.3 Wellhausen was consistent in this: 'After all, v. 18 is a harmonizing insertion referring back to 21.22ff which, in a rather infantile manner, wants to put Abraham's wells out of action by blocking them up so that Isaac can dig them again'. Hence, Wellhausen admits that new statements are being made here which are not taken from other narratives. But why should these verses come from a 'later hand'? They give certain pieces of information and are quite comprehensible in themselves. They lack only the usual narrative shaping. Perhaps we can go further if we point to similar short communications, not developed in narrative form, in other
1 Westermann, 'Die Arten'. 2 Genesis, p. 302. 3 Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bttcher des Alten Testaments, 1899 (3rd edn), p. 21.
48
places in the Old Testament. In the story of David's rise (1 Sam. 162 Sam. 5), for example, there are a number of brief passages with self-contained pieces of information which have not been developed into narratives.1 One must conceive of these as the work of a collector or author of a particular group of texts who, side by side with developed narratives, made use as well of information which had not been formed into narrative, but which, nevertheless, he wanted to take into his work; and so by means of short communications he was able to pass on the relevant information. This would mean that, for the Isaac story, the collector or author was aware of certain traditions about wells in the northern Negev which were linked with the figure of Isaac (and Abraham), but which had not been passed on in the form of developed narratives: traditions about the digging a second time and re-naming by Isaac of Abraham's old wells (w. 15,18); about the dispute over the newly dug wells at Esek (w. 19-20) and Sitnah (v. 21), and the undisputed use of the well Rehoboth (v.22), with the naming of each well on each occasion; and finally about the naming of the newly dug well at Beersheba in association with the treaty between Isaac and Abimelech (w.25b, 32-33). There is no reason for considering the tradition in w. 15 and 18 very differently. Further, faced with these short communictions, it is form-critically misguided to say that 'an etymological story has been spun' out of the names of the wells.2 What typifies these short communications is precisely that they have not been turned into story. They have been fitted into the framework of the other Isaac traditions in such a way that the synthesis, despite the variety of the material, gives the impression of a relatively self-contained piece. 2.2 The story of Abraham The interpreter of the Abraham traditions is faced with a
1 Cf. R. Rendtorff, 'Beobachtungen zur altisraelitischen Geschichtsschreibung anhand der Geschichte vom Aufstieg Davids', in Probleme biblischer Theologie, Festschrift G. von Rad, 1971, pp. 428-39, esp. pp. 432ff. 2 Gunkel, Genesis, p.302.
49
unique situation. On the one hand, there are many independent units of tradition in the Abraham stories which have no explicit relationship to their context. There is scarcely any other area in the Pentateuch where the individual narratives stand out as such self-contained and independent literary units.On the other hand, the reader gets the impression of an internal coherence which runs through the whole Abraham tradition and makes it appear to be a relatively self-contained unit. The traditio-historical question then may be formulated thus: Is it in fact a question here of a larger unit so conceived according to a definite plan? If so, what are the characteristics of this larger unit, and what are the means used to arrange these originally independent smaller units, still recognizable as such today, into a larger unit? 2.2.1 The variety of layers in the process of transmission of the Abraham tradition A first step towards answering this question is that closer attention is being given to the connections between individual smaller units already featured in the literature. Gunkel has already spoken of an Abraham-Lot cycle to which he reckons the following texts: Gen. 12.1-8; 13; 18.1-16aa; 19.1-28; 19.3038j1 but he has seen also that the expression 'cycle' is not entirely appropriate here. He describes it in the form-critical context as a collection of originally independent, individual stories (Sagen} which had been woven into a certain unity.2 The term story (Sage) however, as Gunkel himself has explained, is appropriate only for a part of the texts mentioned. This notion is clearly not applicable to the passage Gen. 12.1-8, of which Gunkel, summing it up, writes: The narrative has little concrete about it and can scarcely be called a 'story' (Geschichte)', in its present form it must be considered late. The writer had before him only the 'information' that Abraham had come from Aram-Naharaim and that he founded the altars at Shechem and Bethel. He developed this 'information' into a sort of story (Geschichte) which he has set
1 Genesis, p. 159. 2 As, for example, is the case in the Jacob-Esau and the Jacob-Laban stories.
50
as it were as a 'signature-tune' (Motto) at the beginning of the Abraham stories. Hence we are to regard Abraham as the believer, the obedient one, and consequently the one blessed'.1 Accordingly, Gunkel considers that we are dealing here with something belonging to the collection and the reworking, not with an original story (Sage) or narrative. Gunkel maintains that the same holds for Genesis 13. This narrative is not constructed for itself but is rather a preparation for the two narratives about Abraham and Lot at Mamre and Sodom. This narrative differs qualitatively from old stories inasmuch as it is not constructed for itself but rather presupposes the Sodom story in such a way as to be quite incomprehensible without it... and so one must consider it a later and new formation, a shoot grafted on to an older branch'.2 Hence Genesis 13 would have been placed before the two narratives of Mamre (18.1-16) and Sodom (19.1-28) only after these had been brought together to balance each other. These for their part have been joined together by means of the intermediary passage 18.17-33, and especially by the geographical references in 18.16, 22; 19.27-28, so as to form a larger unit with Genesis 13 (and 19.30-38),3 the intention of which is quite clear, as are the means used to arrange and bind together the individual elements. Gunkel himself limited the function of 12.1-8 in the collection when he described it as the 'signature tune' (Motto) of the Abraham stories as a whole. But this broader context which Gunkel established covers only a small part of the Abraham tradition. A further group of narratives that belong together is readily discernible in Genesis 20-22. Kessler has described them as the 'Negev group' because their common scene of action is in the Negev. Of particular importance here is Kessler's demonstration that the four 'scenes' (Gen. 20; 21.1-7, 8-21, 22-34) are joined together
1 Genesis, p. 167. What Gunkel has to say about these 'pieces of information' is very close to what we have just said about some passages in the Isaac tradition. 2 Genesis, p. 176. 3 Kessler, op. cit.; he gives chs. 13, 18, 19 the title 'Narrative groups', pp. 69ff.
51
by cross-references.1 The note about Isaac's growing up in 21.8 refers back to the preceding passage which tells of Isaac's birth; the passage about the treaty between Abraham and Abimelech at Beersheba in 21.22-34 'is unintelligible in its beginning (w. 22-23) without a knowledge of Genesis 20'.2 And so we are dealing here with a collection of narratives which are joined together by their common scene of action as well as by cross references (with the exception of Genesis 223). These two collections have themselves been obviously joined together at a particular stage of the reworking as is clear from the explicit link at the beginning of 20.1 (Then Abraham set out from there') joining it with the preceding narrative(s). This is all the more striking as the large majority of Abraham narratives begin with introductory formulas which contain no explicit reference at all to the context.4 Quite distinct from these collections or groups of narratives stand a number of other narratives which show no sign of any connection with the context, apart from the fact that the actors in them are the same. This is the case with Genesis 14; 16;5 17;6 23. Further, the narrative in 12.10-20 is self-contained and has no explicit references to the rest of the Abraham traditions. It has, however, been joined to the context in 12.9; 13.1, 3-4 in a remarkably elaborate way by 'resuming7 geographical details. But this procedure is without parallel within the patriarchal story, so that it cannot be taken in itself to be a typical sign of a particular layer of reworking.7 There are some further narratives, likewise self-contained which, however, presuppose the whole context of the Abra1 Kessler, op. cit., pp. 80-87. 2 Op. cit., p. 87. 3 For the relationship of Gen. 22 to the 'Negev-group', cf. Kessler, op. cit., p. 92, n. 6. 4 Gen. 12.10; 14.1; 16.1; 17.1; 23.1; compare too 18.1; 24.1. On the other hand, for a link with the context: 13.1-2; 15.1; 20.1; 21.1, 8, 22; 22.1. 5 The mention of Sarah's barrenness in Gen. 11.30 cannot be alleged against this. 6 Here, however, the birth of Ishmael is presupposed. 7 And so there are no grounds whatever for any claim that this 'resumption' belongs to the Yahwist: this is against Noth, A History, pp. Ill, 221f., nn. 590, 253, 611; cf. von Rad, "The Form-critical Problem', p. 59; and Genesis, ad loc.
52
ham traditions to such an extent that they can scarcely have existed without it. This is true in particular of Genesis 24, the narrative about the winning of a bride for Isaac.1 It presupposes the whole life-story of Abraham. And so it is obvious that it has only been formulated at that stage of the process of formation of the tradition when its different elements had, for the most part, come together. The situation is much more difficult in Genesis 15. Both parts of the chapter (w. 1-6, 7-21) presuppose as a whole, and each in a different way, the general theme of the Abraham tradition: the problem of no son and the promise of numerous descendants joined to the birth of a son (w. 1-6), as well as the departure from the original homeland (Ur-Kasdim) and the promise of the possession of the land (w. 7-21). On the other hand, the chapter stands in the middle of a context with which it not only has no link, but over against which it exhibits clear tensions.2 In contrast to Genesis 24, therefore, it cannot have been formulated with a view to the present context. It presents a unique, independent exposition of the basic themes of the Abraham tradition. Finally, it has already been noted that the passage 12.1-8 has been arranged with a view to the overall complex of the Abraham tradition in its present form. It belongs, therefore, again in contrast to the two chapters already mentioned, to that stage of the reworking which was bringing the Abraham tradition together. 2.2.2 The promises in the divine addresses in the Abraham story The Abraham traditions present, from the literary standpoint, a picture that is very uneven and many-layered. If one asks, what is the overarching element which, despite this, allows the impression of a self-contained unity to emerge, of which we have spoken above, then the answer must without doubt be: the divine promises to Abraham. Closer examination, however, reveals that the element of promise appears in a bewildering variety of forms, both in content and formulation, so
1 Cf. Kessler, op. cit., pp. 92ff. 2 Cf. L. Periltt, see above under 1.4.
53
that at first glance it seems impossible to arrive at criteria for the collection and arrangement of the Abraham traditions.1 Nevertheless, we must undertake the task because it is possible that this may give access to the problems of the composition of the Abraham traditions. Westermann has made an important step in this direction. He has dealt with the theme of the promises to the fathers above all in his work The Types of Narrative in Genesis'.2 His statement of the question must be taken up and developed here. Westermannn first of all raised the question of how the theme of the promise stands in relationship to the individual narratives in the patriarchal traditions. He came to the conclusion that only very few of the individual narratives can be described as 'promise narratives'.3 Genesis 18 is a very obvious example of a promise narrative. The promise of a son is the central narrative element here, and there is no way in which it can be detached. It is similar in the case of Genesis 16 where the promise of the birth of Ishmael to Hagar likewise belongs to the essence of the narrative.4 In 15.1-6, the promise of the son is closely joined to the promise of numerous descendants. The structure of the whole passage is multi-layered and, from the traditio-historical standpoint, very difficult to penetrate.5 Finally, in 15.7-21, the promise of the possession of the land is an essential part of the narrative. Westermann however surmises that the narrative does not lie before us in its original form.6 According to Westermann's analysis, in all other cases the element of the promise does not belong to the oldest constituent part of the narrative. Rather, The promise motif belongs predominantly to that stage when the old narratives were brought together to form larger units'.7 Investigation must
1 Cf. Westermann, see above under 2.1. 2 Op. cit., pp. 11-34.
3 Op. cit., p. 33. 4 Op. cit., p. 19. It is notable that both narratives contain as well elements of a place etiology. 5 Op. cit., pp. 21ff. 6 Op. cit., p. 29. 7 Op. cit., p. 33.
54
carry on from here. However, there must first be a series of preliminary studies before this 'stage when the old narratives were brought together to form larger units' can be clearly set in focus; for the complicated situation, already referred to, does not allow an immediate analysis of the text. The promises occur almost exclusively in divine addresses or in citations from them. Hence, further inquiry commends itself so as to broaden the investigation and to inquire about the function of the divine addresses in the Abraham stories. The first result of this is negative: however significant the role of the divine address is in many places, it is by no means present in all the Abraham narratives. Rather, there is a striking number of narratives in which there is no divine address at all: 12.10-20; 14; 19.30-38; 21.22-34; 23; 24.This means then that neither in the original formulation nor in the later reworking is the divine address used as a regular means of arranging the narrative. On the other hand, in a second group of narratives, the divine address forms a constituent element. This is the case particularly when the divinity itself is present, even though unrecognized at first, and speaks directly to people, as in Genesis 18 and 19. In these cases, the divine address is a direct, constituent part of the narrative. In Genesis 18, the promise element is in the foreground.1 In the remaining cases YHWH only speaks without intervening in the action. And the formula, Then YHWH appeared', remains opaque.2 But the divine address can also be used as an integral part of the narrative in such a way as to initiate a particular event. There is a divine command at the beginning of Genesis 22, which Abraham carries out, but which contains no explicit promise (v. 2).3 There is a command from YHWH to Abraham in Gen. 15.9 to do a particular thing, as there is in 21.12. On the other hand, the event in Genesis 16 runs its course without
1 It is possible that the announcement of the birth of a son was already part of the pre-Israelite sanctuary legend; cf. Gunkel, Genesis, p. 200. 2 Despite Gen. 17.22. 3 On the element of guidance in the promise addresses, cf. below under 2.3.4.
55
any divine address to Abraham; only at a later stage is a promise addressed to Hagar. But it has no influence on Abraham's conduct. The same is true for Genesis 20 where the address is directed to Abimelech only. These examples show that the divine address can be employed in different ways as a narrative device, though does not at all have to be joined always to the promise element. There are some cases where the divine address is so dominant that one can hardly speak of a narrative. This is the case particularly in Genesis 17 where there is but the barest narrative frame (apart from the execution of the command in w. 23-27); the divine address is predominantly promise, joined here with covenant obligation. In 15.1-6 too, the action recedes completely behind the promise address. Likewise in 12.1-3, the promise address carries its own weight in the context. Finally, the divine address occurs as an independent and clearly denned piece in 13.14-17; 15.13-16; 22.15-18, in each case added to or inserted into the context. Each is pure promise address. It is clear, therefore, that when the divine address dominates the context or stands independently over against the context, it becomes more and more exclusively a promise address. This is a clear indication that the promise emerges into sharper relief particularly in the later stages of the history of tradition.1 2.3 The promises to the patriarchs And so we return once more to the promise addresses in the narrower sense. We have mentioned already the difficulties to which this inquiry gives rise. On the one hand, a great number of different promise themes occur in the promise addresses
1 It is of interest, in contrast, that the late narrative form in Gen. 24 contains no direct divine address, nor does the Joseph story, which is an example of a very advanced stage of narrative art. There is therefore a basic difference between the development of the narrative on the one hand, where the direct divine address yields more and more in favour of an indirect divine actionGen. 24 is an expressly 'pious' narrative!and on the other, the development of the increasing use of the divine promise address as an element of reworking.
56
which can be formulated in a variety of ways and whose relationship to each other is difficult to determine. On the other hand, these individual promise addresses are inter-twined with each other in very different ways without there being at first glance any definite principle. Hence, it is very necessary to extend the study across the patriarchal stories as a whole. Though promise addresses are incomparably more frequent in the Abraham story, they occur nevertheless in the Isaac and Jacob stories in the same or similar form;1 but they are completely absent from the Joseph story. Westermann has studied both the individual promise elements and the links between them and has gained important insights.2 But the synthesis of his results leaves the question open. Setting side by side the various possibilities in which the promise elements can appear, he writes: 'At the end, we are left with the cumulative combination of a great deal of promise material, especially in P and the later expansions of the old narratives'.3 This 'combination of a great deal of promise material' presents the most difficult problem in the analysis of the promise addresses and in their development in the process of tradition; it seems that each promise element can be joined to any other in any sequence whatever. And Westermann has not really succeeded in progressing beyond this situation. He writes: 'the combination or addition of a great deal of promise material can be considered with complete certainty as a late stage'.4 He adds, to be sure: This late stage however is evident too in J, in passages like 28.13-15, and
1 In the Isaac story, divine addresses occur only in two independent promise addresses without any immediate connection with the context (26.2-5, 24). In the Jacob story, the practice is somewhat more varied: the divine address occurs in the poetic passage which has been taken up in 25.23; then in narrative context, 31.3 (more of this later) and 31.24; again when referring to the divine address in 31.1113; further, in undoubtedly older narrative passages in 28.13-15 (cross reference in 35.1) and 32.27-30; finally, in the independent promise addresses in 35.9-12 and 46.2-4 and in the account of a promise address in 48.3-4. 2 'Arten', pp. 11-34. 3 Op. cit., p. 33; cf. also the synthesis on p. 32. 4 Op. cit., p. 32.
57
in E, in the addition in ch. 22'. * It is obviously a question of a relatively late stage, that is, a stage which in the process of tradition is to be subordinated to the appearance of individual promise elements, without thereby making any pronouncement about its absolute age. Hence, the principle established by Westermann is of particular importance: 'One must go behind the late combinations which contain a number of promises, and inquire about their individual elements and the particular history of each in the course of tradition'.2 It is this task that we now undertake. The situation is obviously very complicated. And so we must try to make it more perspicuous by a careful analysis of the individual promise elements. In so doing, one cannot avoid extending the analysis across a relatively wide area. In accordance with the methodological principle already mentioned, we will begin with an analysis of the individual elements and so postpone for the time the question of their joining or combination. That means that where we find different promise elements joined together, we will first deal with each of them separately and compare them with the other texts that contain the same promise material. 2.3.1 The promise of the land We begin with the promise of the land which occurs in a variety of formulations. We will try to throw light on the history of the traditions of these formulations, to which the following table should help.3
15.7 13.17 28.13 13.15 35.12 26.3 17.8 28.4)
1 Ibid. 2 Ibid. 3 In this and the following tables, texts which are not in direct divine addresses are placed in round brackets.
58
12.7 24.7) 15.18 26.4 48.4)

15.7 13.17 28.13 13.15 35.12 26.3 17.8 (28.4 to give to you this land as a possession because to you will I give it to you will I give it and to your descendants to you will I give it and to your descendants for ever the land which I gave to Abraham and to Isaac, will I give the land because to you and to your descendants will I give all these lands I will give to you and to your descendants after you the land of your sojournings may he give to you the blessing of Abraham, to you and to your descendants with you, that you may possess the land of your sojournings, which God gave to Abraham) to your descendants will I give this land to your descendants will I give this land) to your descendants I give this land I will give to your descendants all these lands I will give to your descendants after you this land as an everlasting inheritance to possess)
12.7 (24.7 15.18 26.4 (48.4
(Translator's note: (1) the personal pronouns and the personal possessive adjectives 'you' and 'your' are always in the singular in the Hebrew; (2) the word 'descendants' renders the singular Hebrew word zera', lit. 'seed'.)
The table tries to trace a definite line of development in the formalized phrases within the promises of the land. In some cases God's address to Abraham runs: 'to you will I give it (the land)' (13.7; the formulation in 15.7 is clearly outside the pattern); in a number of other cases which occur in addresses to all three patriarchs, the words 'and to your descendants' are added to 'to you'. That it is a question of an addition here will be readily discernible from the fact that in some cases 'and to your descendants' has been inserted only after the verb (28.13; 13.15); in one case the verb has been repeated again in such a way that it is very clear that the phrase is composite (35.12).
59
In other cases, which may be regarded as the latest stage in the process of formation, the words 'to you and to your seed' have been brought together in immediate succession and the verb on each occasion is put either before or after the whole phrase (26.3; 17.8; 28.4). Finally, the personal element has receded entirely into the background so that the 'descendants' alone appear as the recipients of the promise (12.7; 24.7; 15.18; 26.4; 48.4). Before pursuing further the development of this formula, we must take up and anticipate briefly other promise themes which leave themselves open to similar observations. This holds particularly for the promise of the effectiveness of the blessing for others.
12.3 28.14 18.18) 22.18 26.4
12.3 in you will all the clans of the earth find blessing 28.14 in you will all the clans of the earth find blessing and in your descendants (18.18 in him will all the nations of the world find blessing) 22.18 in your descendants will all the nations of the world find blessing 26.4 in your descendants will all the nations of the world find blessing
The table shows clearly that the statements divide themselves into two groups: in the one, the verb is in the Nip'al (12.3; 18.18; 28.14), in the other it is in the Hitpa'el (22.16; 26.4); in the first group the effectiveness of the blessing is directed to 'all the clans of the earth', in the second to 'all the nations of the world'. (18.18 takes an intermediate position.) What is important for our perspective is that in the first group the receiver of the promise, from whom the effectiveness of the blessing proceeds, is the patriarch himself (12.3; 18.18), while in 28.14 'and in your descendants' is attached; that this is a subsequent addition is as clear here as in the corresponding formulations of the promises of the land. Finally, in the second group, in which the verb is in the Hitpa'el, the descendants alone are the receiver. The development corresponds exactly to that in the
60
promise of the land. The key-word 'seed' (Heb zera', 'descendants') also plays a notable role in the promises of numerous posterity. On the one hand there are formulations in which a multiplication of the 'seed' is promised without the use of any image of comparison. These are also expressions in which the image of dust or sand is used; these too regularly speak of 'seed'. On the other hand there are sentences in which the promise of numerous posterity is expressed by the concept of 'nation' , 'assembly* and others. It is surprising that the expression 'seed' is never employed in these.1 This means therefore that we are dealing with two different lines of tradition, one of which links the 'promise of increase' (so Westermann) with the key-word 'seed', the other on the contrary does not. This is a further proof that the use or non-use of the word 'seed' is neither accidental nor arbitrary, but on each occasion has a clear purpose. Let us return to the promise of the land! The question might arise whether the line of development accepted above (2.3.1), in which the expression 'to you will I give the land' stands at the beginning, is to be understood simply in this way. There are, in my opinion, clear indications in favour of this, the most important of which is the following: the formulations with 'to you', and likewise with a juxtaposed 'and to your seed', which has not yet been inserted firmly into the formula, are more obviously related to the context than those formulas which we regard as later in the process of tradition. And so we will have to leave the formulation in 15.7 out of consideration; this is obviously part of a fixed deuteronomistic formula.2 However, the situation in 13.15,17 and 28.13 is clear. In these cases the promise of the land is part of a divine address related immediately to the narrative context and itself too points to the context: 'the land that you see, I will give it to you' (13.15); 'up, walk through the land... , because I will give it to you' (13.17); 'the land upon which you are lying, I will give it to you'
1 See below under 2.3.2. 2 On the deuteronomistic character of 15.7, cf. 0. Kaiser, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Genesis 15', ZAW 70 (1958) 107-26; J.G. Ploger, Literarkritische, formengeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium, 1967, p. 65.
61
(28.13). On each occasion ('I will give it') is found in the Hebrew text, the suffix referring to the land about which the narrative is actually speaking. It is similar again in 35.12: here the promise of the land is set within an independent divine address, and after the promise of increase; but the land is described as 'the land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac', and the words 'I will give it to you', with the same suffix form as in the passages already mentioned, refers to it. At the other end of the scale there are formulations in which the receiver of the promise of the land is the 'seed' only. These occur particularly in short formalized sentences without any immediate relationship to a narrative context: In 12.7 the formula is set within the 'note'1 about Abraham's foundation of an altar in Shechem, which can scarcely be described as narrative; the author is rather using the basic elements of the cult etiology in a very formalized way.2 In 15.18 the formula is part of the note about the striking of the covenant which clearly stands apart from the narrative itself. The phrase in 24.7 is a formalized cross reference to the promise of the land pronounced earlier in Abraham's address; it is similar in Jacob's address in 48.4, where it is set in conjunction with the preceding promise of increase. Finally, the formula in 26.4 is part of a complex divine address with a number of promise elements. More will be said later about the juxtaposed promise addresses where further arguments will be advanced in favour of an earlier allocation of the singular form of the promise of the land in the process of the formation of the tradition. 2.3.2 The promise of descendants The promise of descendants (posterity; the promise of increase) occurs in a variety of forms. First of all, it should be said that the assurance of a son is never pronounced in formalized phrases but always within narratives and in a form determined by the narrative context. This is the case particu1 See above under 2.2.1. 2 Cf. R. RendtorfF, 'Die Offenbarungsvorstellungen im Alten Israel', in Offenbarung als Geschichte, KuD Beih. 1 (1961, 1970 [4th edn]) = Gesammelte Studien zum Alien Testament, 1975, pp. 39-59, esp. pp.41ff.; similarly Westermann, 'Arten', p. 28.
62
larly for the narrative in Genesis 18 in which the promise of a son is the central constituent part of the narrative itself (w. 10,14). In Genesis 16, the announcement of the birth of a son to Hagar is made by taking up a poetic piece which, originally, was certainly independent (w. 11-12). In 15.4 too the formulation of the assurance of the birth of a son is determined entirely by the context, with the resumption of Abraham's hesitant utterances in v.3. Finally, the formulations with which the birth of a son is promised in 17.16, 19 show no formalized elements such as are found in the remaining promises of increase. In the promises of increase, there are first of all a group of expressions which speak simply of the increase of the 'seed' without using further images or metaphors.
21.12
26.24
16.10
21.12 because after Isaac will your seed be named 26.24 I will increase your seed 16.10 I will increase your seed greatly so that it cannot be counted for number
Then there are the images in which the great increase of the 'seed' is described; the stars,
15.5 26.4
15.5 26.4 count the stars! ... so will your seed be I will increase your seed like the stars of heaven.
then, dust and sand.

13.16 28.14 32.13
13.16 I will make your seed like the dust of the earth 28.14 your seed will be like the dust of the earth (32.13 I will make your seed like the sand of the sea which cannot be counted for number)
finally, a combination of both.
22.17
63
22.17 I will increase your seed like the stars of heaven and the sand that is on the shore of the sea
Over against these expressions, there stands another group in which the word 'seed' does not appear. The assurance of the great increase of descendants is, incidentally, entirely without comparative images.
17.2
48.16)
17.2 I will increase you very, very greatly (48.16 may they increase in number over the earth)
For the rest, the talk is of a 'nation' and 'nations' of 'peoples' , and of 'assembly'
and
21.13 12.3
21.18 46.3 18.18 17.4 17.5 17.6 17.16 17.20 35.11 28.3) 48.4)
21.13 I will make you into a nation 12.2 I will make you into a great nation 21.18 because I will make him into a great nation 46.3 because I will make you into a great nation there 18.18 he will indeed become a great and strong nation 17.4 you will become father of a number of nations 17.5 because I will make you father of a number of nations 17.6 I will make you very, very fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings will come forth from you 17.16 she will become peoples; kings of nations will come from her
64

17.20 I will make him fruitful and increase him very, very much; he will beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation 35.11 be fruitful and increase! A nation and an assembly of nations will come from you, and kings will come forth from your loins (28.3 may he make you fruitful and increase you, and you will become an assembly of peoples) (48.4 see, I will make you fruitful and increase you and I will make you an assembly of peoples)
The idea of 'seed' is completely missing from this whole group, as already noted. And so one can recognize clearly that there are before us two different lines of tradition which differ in the use of the word 'seed' as well as in comparative images by means of which the numerous descendants are described. There is a further terminological difference: the verb 'to increase' hip'il) is used predominantly in the first group, though it occurs also in the second; on the other hand, the verb 'to be/make fruitful' qal/hip'il) is found only in the second group in combination with the notions of 'nation' etc. This too makes clear that we are dealing with traditions that are independent of each other. 2.3.3 The blessing The declarations of increase are frequently joined with the assurance of blessing. Westermann has pointed out that blessing cannot really be the object of promise. On one occasion in the patriarchal story there is a report about the actual blessing-event and then the appropriate blessing formulas are pronounced (48.15-16; cf. also 28.1-4). There is no doubt that the idea behind this is that the blessing becomes effective at the instant that it is pronounced, and hence it is not the object of a promise which will only find fulfilment in the future.1 When blessing is assumed into the realm of promise where it did not belong originally, then some uncertainty or vagueness accompanies its use. At times the statement about the blessing precedes the divine address so that the address itself as a whole appears as blessing. In 48.3-4 Jacob says: *E1 sadday appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan; he blessed me
1 Westermann, 'Arten', pp. 25-26.
65
and said to me: See, I will make you fruitful...' Likewise, the whole divine address (consisting of two parts) in 35.9-12 is introduced as blessing: Then God appeared to Jacob again when he came from Paddan-aram and blessed him; and God said to him: Your name is Jacob...' Further, the idea of blessing (or the act of blessing) appears within the divine address. In 26.3 it is linked with the assurance of guidance ('I will be with you and bless you'), and the promise of the land follows it. In 28.4 the possession of the land is described as the immediate consequence of 'the blessing of Abraham'. In 12.2 the promise of increase stands immediately before the blessing ('I will make you a great nation and bless you'); for the rest, the precedence that Westermann1 established of the promise of blessing before the promise of increase holds: 17.16, 20; 22.17; 26.24; 28.3.2 It should be noted further that the pronouncements of blessing begin with both combinations of the groups of promises of increase mentioned above, which use the expression 'seed' (22.17; 26.24), as well as with the others in which it is missing (12.2; 17.16, 20; 28.3). This combination therefore is on a different level in the process of the history of tradition from the individual, independent development of both these sequences of pronouncements. It is striking too that the assurance of blessing for others ('clans' or 'nations') is always combined with promise of increasebut in reversed order: in all five places where the promise of blessing for others occurs, it is preceded by an assurance of increase: 12.2-3; 18.18; 22.17-18; 26.4; 28.14. Here too there is no difference with respect to the formulations, with or without the mention of the 'seed'. The obvious conclusion from all this is that the 'blessing' is not an independent promise theme, but occurs always in combination with other themes, and in the very large majority of cases with the promise of numerous posterity.3
1 Op. cit., p. 25. 2 These are the correct references. 32.12 does not belong here because the word occurs neither in v. 12 nor in v. 13. 3 Cf. Westermann, op. cit., pp. 25-26.
66
2.3.4 The guidance Finally, there is yet another independent element in the promise material, namely the assurance of guidance which includes YHWH's presence or Taeing-with' the patriarch. This promise is formulated in very brief and lapidary wise: 'I will be with you' 26.3; 31.3) or 'I am with you' 26.24; 28.15); it occurs too in the form of a report: 'the God of my fathers has been with me' 31.5; cf. 28.20; 35.3; similarly 31.42); finally, Jacob's words to Joseph and his sons: 'God will be with you' 48.21).1 One must include here as well: 'I will prosper you' 32.10; 32.13). This promise often occurs as someone is about to set out on a journey for which guidance is assured. For example in 46.4: 'I will go down with you into Egypt and I will bring you back again'. Also, the brief formulations already mentioned are almost always there in a corresponding context: 'I will protect you everywhere you go, and will bring you back to this land...' (28.15; cf. also 50.24); 'Return to the land of your fathers and your kinsmen' (31.3; cf. 31.13; 32.10); or in a kind of reverse process: T)o not go down into Egypt, but stay in this land which I bid you' (26.2). It is striking that these stylized, lapidary promises of guidance occur in the Jacob and Isaac stories, but not in the Abraham story. However, there are addresses there which are very close in content to these. For example in 12.1: 'Go forth from your country and your kinsmen and your father's house to the country that I will show you'. This formulation is obviously very close to 31.3, even though the phrase 'I am with you' is missing. A further element, which has links with the promises of guidance, is the reference to 'the land that I will show you'; it recalls the command to Isaac to remain 'in the land which I bid you' (26.2). There is too a clear connection with the words in 22.2: 'Go forth to the land of Moriah and offer him (i.e. Isaac) there on one of the mountains that I will
1 On the formula: H.D. Preuss, '... ich will mit dir sein', ZAW 80 (1968) 139-73; D. Vetter, Jahwes Mit-Seinein Ausdruck des Segens, 1971. Talk of : in 26.24; 31.5, 42, presents a problem of its own in connection with the formula; cf. 2.5 below.
67
show you'. The command to go uses the same language as in 12.1 , and the reference to the 'mountain that I will show you' recalls both 12.1 and 26.2. One must mention further in this context God's command to Abraham: 'Up, go through the length and breadth of the land' (13.17); it contains a divine command which requires Abraham to make a particular journey in trust. Clearly, then, there are no explicit assurances of guidance in lapidary formulations in the Abraham story; but there are pronouncements which, in the opinion of the narrators, show that Abraham set out and undertook a particular journey under divine instructions. One can ask, therefore, if the stylized expression 'I am with you' draws something from this idea which it passes on to the other patriarchs. If this is so, then the basic element in the promise of guidance would have its original setting in the Abraham tradition; thence it would have found its way into the other patriarchal stories in its stylized, lapidary form. By way of conclusion to this resume, it should be further mentioned that a number of promise addresses are introduced by formulas in which the divinity presents itself. They are brought together here.
26.24 28.13 46.3 31.13) 15.7 17.1 35.11 15.1] 26.24 28.13 46.3 (31.3 15.7 17.1 [15.1 I am the God of Abraham, your father I am YHWH, the God of Abraham, your father, and the God of Isaac I am Ha-El, the God of your father I am Ha-El, of Beth-El) I am YHWH, who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldees I am El Sadday I am your shield]
This survey shows that formulas like these were by no
68
means used mechanically and that there was considerable variation in the individual formulations of the divine selfpredications. 2.3.5 The combination of individual promise themes Among the individual themes of promise whose different formulations and variations we have examined and noted, it is only the promise of blessing (above 2.3.3) that occurs always with other promise themes; for the most part it is joined to the theme of numerous posterity (promise of increase); each of the other promise themes occurs also by itself within a divine address. The promise of the land is found relatively seldom by itself, and only in that group which belong together in the process of the formation of the tradition (12.3; 15.18; 24.7; cf. above 2.3.1) and in 15.7. The promise of increase occurs more often without other promises: 15.5; 16.10; 17.2; 21.12, 13, 18. The theme of guidancegiven the overall frequency of its occurrenceis found alone for the most part: 31.3, 13 (cf. 28.20; 31.5, 42; 32.10; 35.3; 48.21). In our investigation of the combinations of different, independent promise themes, we will begin again with the promise of the land. There is in some cases a characteristic combination of the promises of land and increase. In 13.15-16, the promise of the land, 'I will give it to you and to your seed for ever*, is followed immediately by the promise of increase, 'and I will make your seed like the dust of the earth'.1 The keyword 'seed' occurs in both sentences. We have seen already that there is an extension of the original formula in the promise of the land which was directed only to the first patriarch. Consequently, the word 'seed' now stands in an emphatic position at the end of the promise of the land; it is resumed immediately at the beginning of the promise of increase. This situation is even more characteristic in 28.13-14. Here too the key-word 'seed' stands in an emphatic position at the end of the promise of the land: The land on which you are lying I will give to you and to your seed'. The promise of increase follows immediately, with the word 'seed' again in an 1
69
emphatic position at the beginning: 'And your seed will be like the dust of the earth'.1 The link appears even more clearly here as an explicit resumption of the key-word 'seed', a sort of link by association. One might formulate the matter in this way: the expansion of the promise of the land by the attachment of the 'seed' has drawn with it the addition of a promise of increase related to this 'seed'. And so one can speak here of a gradual expansion of the promise. It must be mentioned further that in both cases the promise of increase is formulated with the image of 'dust of the earth', the only two places where that image occurs; the parallelism therefore is clearly discernible. The combination is reversed when the promise of increase precedes the promise of the land. It is immediately clear, however, that the presuppositions here are different in many ways. Firstly, in 35.11 the promise of increase appears in a detailed formulation: 'Be fruitful and increase! A nation and an assembly of nations will come from you, and kings will go forth from your loins'. We are dealing here with those formulations of the promise of increase in which the key- word 'seed' is not used; instead, there are the notions of 'nation' and 'assembly' as well as the verbs 'to be fruitful' and 'to increase'. In this respect therefore there is no immediate connection between the formulations of the promise of increase and the promise of the land. It follows without any explicit link in v. 12; the word 'seed' is at the very end without any reference to the promise of increase. The sequence and the theme correspond in 48.3-4, where explicit reference is made to the promise in 35.11-12. The text by and large is somewhat more compact and shows in addition an interesting shift of emphasis; instead of the two-fold 'to you . . . and to your seed', there is only 'to your seed'. It seems therefore as a whole to be a more developed stage of the combination of the promise of increase and the promise of the land. Finally, in 28.3-4 too the promise of increase is at the beginning with the same terminology; the promise of the land follows at the end with the key- word 'seed' binding the two. In these cases therefore we are dealing not with a gradual expansion of the promise, and certainly not
70
with the resumption of a particular element by association, but rather with the fitting together of two completely self-contained and independent elements. One might describe this situation, in contrast to the former, as one in which a second element of the promise has been attached to the first for the sake of completion without the formulations themselves having given any occasion for it. The reason is rather that these two promise themes were now regarded as belonging together. Genesis 17 belongs here too.1 the real theme of this extensive promise address is the promise of increase. The theme is unfolded in several layers: first, as object of the divine 'covenant' with Abraham (v. 2), then as the unfolding of the change of name (w. 5-6);2 the key-word 'covenant' is taken up anew and developed by bringing it into explicit relationship with the 'seed' (v. 7); and finally, the 'seed' offers the key-word for attaching the promise of the land (v. 8) where, in contrast to 13.15 and 28.13, it stands at the very beginning of the (more detailed) formulation. So ends the long divine address with the combination of different promise themes. One gets the impression that the promise of the land was felt to be necessary here for completion, though the real theme is the promise of increase. There are therefore two clearly separate ways of combining the promise of the land and the promise of increase: in the one case, the promise of the land is firmly embedded in the context and draws the promise of increase with it by means of the key-word 'seed' which is attached and so extends it; in the other case, it is a question of promise addresses which are independent of the context and in which the promise of increase is first of all the real theme; then, without any immediate linguistic link, the promise of the land is attached to it. It is obvious that we are dealing here with a later stage
1 On Gen. 17, cf. G. Ch. Macholz, Israel und das Land. Vorarbeiten zu einem Vergleich zwischen Priesterschrift und deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, Habilitationsschrift, Heidelberg, 1969, pp. 42ff. 2 Cf. also Gen. 35.9-12, where a change of name from Jacob to Israel occurs likewise in a divine address, and linked also with a promise of increase.
71
where promise themes have been simply added, in contrast to the gradual growth and development of the themes in the course of the process of their being passed on. We must now go back again to the first group of texts. In both cases, Genesis 13 and 28, the promise address is not at an end with the combination of the promise of the land and the promise of increase with which we have been dealing so far. Let us begin with ch. 28. There is a sentence in v. 15 which is obviously joined to the context more immediately than those which precede it: it is the assurance of the divine guidance and presence to Jacob on the journey before him. The narrative of the revelation in a dream at Bethel is thus brought into immediate relationship with the composition of the Jacob story as a whole. In the face of this assurance of guidance, the two elements of the promise of the land and the promise of increase have the effect of a later stage in the growth or reworking of the text. Now if the view expounded above is correct, namely that the promise of the land drew the promise of increase with it, then we must assume: (1) that the assurance of guidance (v. 15) was the earliest part of the present context; (2) that in the course of the reworking and with obvious reference to the context ('the land upon which you are lying*) the promise of the land was added (v. 13); (3) that this was expanded, taking up the key-word 'seed', and then drew with it the promise of increase. We must certainly ascribe the addition of these two promise themes to an overarching reworking of the patriarchal story. The situation is very similar in Genesis 13. In this text too, after the combination of the promise of the land and the promise of increase (w. 15-16), there is a further passage in the divine address (v. 17); it is concerned yet again with the promise of the land. When we approach the text with the insights gained from Genesis 28, then it is clear here as well that the relationship of v. 17 to the context is even closer than that of the remaining verses: crossing the land is a pre-requisite for Abraham to arrive finally in Mamre (v. 18) which he must reach for the further continuation of the narrative. In addition, crossing is a much more immediate and concrete way of taking possession than seeing (v. 15). Finally, v. 17 presents the earliest stage of the promise of the land in the process
72
of the history of the tradition, inasmuch as the key-word 'seed' has not yet been added: 'I will give it to you'. Even though the situation here is not quite as clearly discernible as in Genesis 28, nevertheless we can presume a similar process of growth for 13.14-17 as for 28.13-15. Finally, one further text must be mentioned which can be fitted only with difficulty into the reflections advanced so far on the combination of different promise themes, namely 26.25. The promise address begins with the assurance of guidance on which the promise of blessing follows immediately (w. 2,3a). Then comes a promise of the land (v.3b) in the form in which 'you and your seed' are brought together in immediate succession and not separated by the verb, representing an intermediate stage in the history of the process of the development of the tradition. It is striking that the promise is directed to 'all these lands', plural; the plural occurs only here and in v. 4 in the promise of the land in the patriarchal story. Further, it is quite unusual for the promise of the land to be traced back to an 'oath' of God to Abraham, a formulation which elsewhere is all prevailing in deuteronomistic usage.1 A promise of increase follows (v. 4ad) according to which the 'seed' is to be like 'the stars in the sky*; yet another promise of the land is attached (v. 4a), again with the plural reference to 'all these lands', but this time it is a promise to *your seed' only. Finally, the passage concludes with the promise of blessing for others, basing it in detail on Abraham's conduct (w. 4b, 5). The passage contains therefore a series of unusual elements. The two-fold promise of the land is striking; it may be explained as follows: First, the promise of increase was understood as a consequence of the promise of the land; then, a later reworking transposed the promise of the land after the promise of increase where it is often found at a later stage of the process of the formation of the tradition; hence, it is made to follow yet again. The version in v. 4 would also favour this; there, only the 'seed' appears as the receiver of the promise, and this, following our reflections, represents a later stage in the process of tradition than v.3 where the promise holds 'for you and your seed'. In any case, the procedure is to be reck1 On the oath formula, see 2.7 below.
73
oned as involving several stages. Further, the unusual formulations point to a stage of reworking which is not identical with most of the other promise addresses. We will return to this again. Finally, some further observations on the combinations in which the promise of guidance occurs: this too is found together with a variety of other promise themes. In some cases it is clearly linked with the promise of increase; in 26.24 the divine address contains only these two promise elements; in 46.3 the promise of increase is worked into the assurance of guidance: Tor there I will make you into a great nation'. In 26.3, the promise of blessing follows at once on the assurance of guidance, and the promise of the land is linked with these by an emphatic *because'. In 28.13-15 too, according to our earlier observations, the addition of the promise of the land (v. 13b) to the assurance of guidance (v. 15) is the first step in the expansion of the promise address. In the accounts of the divine guidance or the divine presence with Jacob, the 'blessing' in the form of wealth in herds is the consequence of the presence (31.5, 42); likewise in 31.10-11, where there is talk of God's 'prospering* Jacob and the visible expression which this finds in the increase of his possessions. If we include here the non-stylized statements of the Abraham story, then in 12.2 the promise of increase again follows the assurance of guidance, and in 13.17 the promise of the land follows it. There are then a number of possible combinations with the assurance of guidance. Indeed, it has become quite clear now that the combination of promise elements often has something to do with the function of the promise addresses in a particular narrative context. Synthesizing the results of our study of the combination of the different promise elements we see that, despite great variety, definite contours stand out. The promise of blessing is not an independent promise element, as Westermann has already shown; the blessing does not appear as a separate element in his table of possible promise types.1 The promise of the land can occur alone, especially in short,
1 Westermann, 'Arten', p. 32.
74
stylized phrases as in 12.7: 'to your seed will I give this land', cf. 15.18; 24.7. In each of these cases the context is exclusively that of the promise of the land. It is scarcely by chance that we are concerned here with these brief formulations, relatively late in the process of the formation of the tradition, which now speak of the 'seed' as the receiver of the promise. Likewise in 15.7, the promise of the land is not linked with other promise elements; it is in a context stamped by deuteronomistic language. For the rest, on the one hand, the promise of the land is combined with the promise of increase in such a way that the latter, associated with it by the key-word 'seed', grows out of it; in such cases, the promise of the land is the older in the process of the formation of the tradition; on the other hand, it is the reversethe promise of the land is attached to the promise of increase, formulated differently, so as to round off the general theme of promise; in such cases, the promise of increase is earlier in the process of the formation of the tradition than the promise of the land. Finally, in some cases, the promise of the land combines in a characteristic way with the assurance of guidance. The promise of increase occurs rather frequently without the addition of other promise elements. Even when it is combined with the promise of blessing, nothing of importance is attached to it. The promise of increase, in combination with the promise of the land, admits of two possibilities: the one, that it grows out of the promise of the land, the other, that it is itself the earlier element in the process of the formation of the tradition and that the promise of the land has been added to it. The promise of increase is also combined with the assurance of guidance in particular ways. 2.4 The function of the promise addresses in the composition of the patriarchal story The question now arises whether, in the relationships of the promise themes and formulations to each other, more can be said about the function of the promise addresses in the patriarchal story. And so we come to the question of the structure and composition of the patriarchal story and the over-arching
75
reworking. First, let us consider the Isaac story. It contains only two divine addresses, one at the beginning (26.2-5), the other at the end (26.24) of the collection of Isaac traditions. Neither has any immediate connection with the narrative context; hence, they can well be elements of the theological reworking of the collection. Both divine addresses begin with the phrase *YHWH appeared to him'. Both contain the element of the assurance of guidance, 'I am with you',1 even though the language in which it is expressed takes a somewhat different form. When we look at the content of the two addresses, we find that w. 2-5 present, as already noted in detail, a very complex and many layered picture. It is clear, however, that besides the guidance, the promise of the land stands underscored as the centrepiece. In contrast, in the closing address in v. 24, only the promise of increase is there with the guidance. They form, then, the emphatic end-point of the theological interpretation of the Isaac story. The element of guidance plays an important role in the Jacob story as well.2 It is there with all its force in the first divine address to Jacob in 28.15. It marks the first decisive intervention in the life-story of Jacobthe flight to Haran. It appears a second time and is underscored at the next turning point: in 31.3, Jacob receives the divine command to return to the land of his fathers.3 It is particularly striking here that the divine address (v. 3) breaks the narrative thread which i resumed again in w. 4-5 with the words from v. 2. It is only at the end of Jacob's address to his wives that the divine command to depart is mentioned and communicated directly (v. 13). It is obvious here that the divine address with the theme 'guidance' is not part of the narrative, but serves the theological interpretation of the Jacob story in the context. The theme appears yet again at the very end of the Jacob story: in 46.2-4, Jacob is the subject of a divine address before he sets out
1 in 26.3 could also be understood in a future sense. 2 Cf. Kessler, op. cit., p. 140. 3 It is to be noted that the term in Gen. 31.3 is not used of the whole land as in Gen. 12.1 and 24.4, 7. i is the place whence Abraham set out; here it is the goal to which Jacob will return, though it be from Abraham's
76
for Egypt; its main content is the assurance of guidance on the journey. The Jacob story, therefore, is framed by these three assurances of guidance; the beginning, the turning point, and the end of his 'journey', are each marked out by a divine promise address. With regard to the content, our analysis shows that the promise of the land is in the foreground in the first of the divine addresses (28.13), and was elaborated first out of the promise of guidance. At the conclusion, it is only the promise of increase that has been interwoven into the assurance of guidance (46.3). There is a parallel to the Isaac story here. The Jacob story, however, framed as it is by divine addresses, has double conclusion. Yet another detailed divine address stands before the broadly developed Joseph story (35.9-12). More exactly, there are two divine addresses: the first contains Jacob's change of name and thus is clearly a parallel to Abraham's change of name in Genesis 17; the second begins with the extensively elaborated promise of increase, to which again 1 a promise of the land has been attached;2 here too there are obvious linguistic links with Genesis 17. The framework of the Jacob story, and the theological interpretation that goes with it, obviously did not take place at one stroke; rather it exhibits several stages or layers. Let us turn finally to the Abraham story. Here, the theme of 'guidance', as we have already seen, is not as fixed and formalized as with Isaac and Jacob. Nevertheless, the Abraham story too begins with a narrative of guidance or, more accurately, with a divine address in which the element of guidance occupies a central place: 'Go forth from your country... to the land that I will show you' (12.1). Following our observations so far, it is certainly no chance that there is also a guidance narrative at the end of the Abraham story with the injunction to make a particular journey under divine instruction (Gen. 22). The instruction, which becomes divine guidance because of Abraham's obedience, stands at the beginning and the end of the Abraham narrative. Of the promise elements, the promise of the land stands at
1 In v. 12. 2 Compare, for example,
(35.12) with
(17.19).
77
the very beginning, though not in the fixed and formalized form, when Abraham is to set out 'to the land that I will show you' (12.1). For the rest, the promise of the land is found particularly in the early chapters of the narrative (12.7; 13.15,17; 15.7,18; 17.8), and then no more. The promise of increase also occurs at the very beginning: 'I will make you into a great nation (12.2), and then throughout the whole Abraham narrative, 13.16; 15.5; 17 (passim); 21.12; further, it is applied to Ishmael, 16.10; 17.20; 21.13,18. The passage 22.15-18 is of special importance for our purpose. This 'addition', which clearly extends beyond the limits of the narrative of the offering of Isaac, is obviously one of those passages of the framework such as we have encountered already in the Isaac and Jacob stories. These verses underscore the close of the Abraham story.1 As in the other collections, here too the promise of increase is emphasized at the conclusion; it is developed further as an 'oath' of YHWH, with formulations which have been taken up again in the introductory passages of the Isaac story (26.2-5). A further element in the closing address must be mentioned here: the promise of blessing for others (22.18). The function of the divine addresses as framework and interpreters are once more clearly recognizable in this promise element. It appears first with an introductory function in the Abraham story (12.2); it is repeated in the citation in 18.18; and it is found yet again at the close of the Abraham story (22.18). It occurs once in each of the Isaac and Jacob stories, and notably at the beginning, in the first divine address to each of the patriarchs (26.4; 28.14). This promise, that each of the three patriarchs is to be a blessing for the whole human race, brings the traditions about them together into one large unit. This procedure by which the stories of the patriarchs have been brought together allows still more precise distinctions in the process of the history of the traditions. We spoke earlier of the different linguistic formulas of the promise of blessing for others. The nip'al form is found at the beginning of the Abraham story (12.3) and in the Jacob story (28.14), the hitpa'el
1 Chapters 23 and 24 form a sort of appendix or post-script to the Abraham story which has been largely shaped into a unity.
78
form on the contrary at the conclusion of the Abraham story (22.18) and in the Isaac story (26.4). Corresponding to this, 12.3 and 28.14 speak of'all the clans of the earth', 22.18 and 26.4 of'all nations of the world'. But there is more in common, especially between the conclusion of the Abraham and the Isaac stories. The whole of the divine address to Abraham in 22.16 is introduced by a solemn oath formula; this oath is taken up explicitly in 26.3 and the promise described as the fulfilment ('maintenance') of the oath. In both cases the promise address comprises the promise of increaseusing largely the same terminology1and the promise of blessing for others. In both cases the reason is given, introduced by a phrase which one might render by 'that is why9, 'in that', and which is rare in the Old Testament and is found only in these two places in Genesis. The reason is that Abraham listened to the voice of God;2 in 26.5, this statement is expanded in the deuteronomistic style. And so the very tight link both in language and content between 22.16-18 and 26.3-5 is quite clear. Considering this from the point of view of the process of formation of the tradition, the following emerges: a first phase saw the Abraham and Jacob stories bound together by means of the promise of blessing for others; the formulations in 12.3 and 28.14 are, following our observations, older from the point of view of the history of traditions than those in 22.18 and 26.4. A second phase saw the same promise element of blessing used to bind the Isaac tradition as well to the Abraham tradition; later formulations were used here in the process of the formation of the tradition, and another reason was added which in both language and thought is close to that of Deuteronomy. The assembling of the patriarchal stories therefore to form a larger unit took place in different stages. Each of the patriarchal stories had its own antecedent history. First, the collections of the Abraham and Jacob stories that had a more markedly narrative form were joined together. Later, the Isaac story was added to them as a collection in its own right. In contrast to the two other collections of narratives, the divine
1 Talk of possessing the gate of one's enemies' in 22.17 does not occur in 26.3; there, the gift of'all these lands' is assured. 2 See also the phrase 'because of Abraham my servant' in 26.24.
79
promise addresses were not yet inserted into the narrative context but stood by themselves as independent speeches. The different promise elements were taken up into these speeches, and in the process the element of guidance, which plays an important role in the Jacob story, acquired a prominent place. This phase, in which the Isaac story was brought in, coincides with the stage when the final framework of the Abraham story was constructed by means of the promise address at the conclusion of the group of Negev-narratives. In the Isaac story, promise addresses occur and serve only to construct the framework described. In the Jacob story too, their use is to be understood basically in the same way, even though, up to a point, they have been brought somewhat more into the narrative context. In the Abraham story, the situation is somewhat different. There are promise addresses here of broader compass whose function is more than constructing a framework. However, here too one can always discern typical links with the other patriarchal stories. This must be investigated in further detail. We begin with the promise of posterity, because one can discern readily definite layers of tradition and reworking. First, we must take up an observation mentioned earlier. The promise of the son occurs first in narrative form. It is striking here that there are scarcely any connecting links between the promise of the son and the promise of increase in its more detailed form. In Genesis 18, in the narrative of the promise of the birth of a son to Abraham and Sarah, there is no reference at all to a promise of increase in the sense of numerous posterity; there is talk only of the one son. This means therefore that when the promise of posterity was developed further in the form of the promise of increase, the narrative of the promise of a son was not included in it. With regard to Isaac, there is only the brief remark in 21.12: 'because your seed shall be named after Isaac'. The key-word 'seed' is used here; but the primary purpose is to emphasize the legitimate line of the posterity through Isaac in contrast to Ishmael, whereas there is no talk here of numerous posterity. As for the narrative account of the tradition of the birth of Ishmael, the promise of increase only became part of it at a later stage in the reworking. And so the talk of the increase of
80
descendants (seed) in 16.10 stands in a quite isolated divine address; in 21.13,18, Ishmael is to become a (great) nation. By and large, therefore, the promise of the son and the promise o increase are clearly separated. The situation is somewhat different in 15.1-6. This text too begins with the promise of a son as an answer to Abraham's hesitant questions (w. 2-4). But it then moves on to speak of the abundance of posterity, making use of the image of the stars. The promise of the son therefore is developed further towards the promise of increase, so that it is in this that one must look for the purpose of the text of 15.1-6 as it now lies before us. The image of the stars is found again in the Abraham story only in the closing passage, 22.15-18 (v. 17); for the rest, it occurs in the Isaac story in 26.4. A further expression of the promise of increase appears in 13.16 where, in the framework of the extension of the promise of the land to the promise of increase, the multiplication of the 'seed' is to be like the dust of the earth. This formulation does not occur again in the rest of the Abraham story, though it does in the Jacob story in 28.14, a text which is traditio-historically parallel.1 Finally, there is the rather frequent statement, from which the word 'seed' is missing, that the posterity will become a nation, a great nation, or nations.2 The groupings here are again clearly different. First, there is the single statement about a great nation in 12.2 and 18.18 (where it is expanded). Given the context of the Abraham story, there is no doubt that Isaac is in mind. It is also said, and repeated, that Ishmael is to become a (great) nation (21.13,18); the same occurs in a very different sort of context in 17.20. It is noteworthy that this formulation, as a single statement, occurs again in 46.3, at the conclusion of the Jacob story. There is another group of texts in which an increase to 'peoples' is promised. This statement is heavily underscored in the framework of the alteration of 'Abram's' name to 'Abraham', where the new name is explained in a word play as 'the father of a host Cab-hamon) of nations' (17.4-5); it is
1 See above under 2.3.5. 2 See above under 2.3.2.
81
conceivable that the plural form 'nations' had its origin in this word play. The plural occurs twice more in Genesis 17 (w. 6, 16), and then in the passage that frames the Jacob story (35.912), where there is an accumulation of ideas, 'nation and an assembly of nations' (v. II).1 The promise of increase has certainly not been developed at one stroke in the course of the reworking of the Abraham story; rather, there has been a series of stages which, in part, have had scarcely any connection with each other. We will have to reckon here with a gradual growth of the tradition. It is similar in the case of the promise of the land. We must again begin with a text in which the promise is an immediate constituent part of the context, namely 15.7-21. First, one must note carefully that this verse is formulated in quite obvious parallelism to 11.31.
2.
11.31 15.7
11.31 15.7
he (Terah) brought them from Ur of the Chaldees to go to the land of Canaan I who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldees to give you this land to possess
The gift of the land is here linked closely with the journey to the land. 12.1, where Abraham is ordered to journey to the land which YHWH will show him, fits nicely into this context. The orientation of the promise of the land is different in 13.14-17. Here it is a matter of the assurance of the possession of the land after the separation from Lot; it is the original announcement of the occupation of the land where Abraham is already living. Once again we must refer to the parallel texts in 28.13-15, where a corresponding assurance is given to Jacob.3 There is a further series of texts in which the promise of the land is likewise the consequence of the promise of increase, while the possession of the land is assured to the 'seed' as well.
1 Gen. 17.16; besides also D'D; outside the divine address in the form in 28.3; 48.4. 2 So with the Sam and LXX; cf. BHS. 3 See above under 2.3.5.
82
We have already referred to this combination of the promises of increase and land. This is the case in 17.8, and outside the Abraham story in 28.4; 35.12; 48.4; cf. also 26.3. Here, the promise of the land itself is not the real theme. We can reckon therefore with a stage in the process of the history of tradition in which, in a series of passages where the real interest is the promise of increase, the promise of the land has been added. Finally, the promise of the land occurs in brief, formalized sentences without any link with other promise elements; characteristic of these is that the promise is addressed only to the 'seed'. When Abraham takes possession of Shechem as a place of cult, this is underscored by the brief to your seed will I give this land'. The same formula confirms the striking of the covenant in 15.18; the formulation is notably different from 15.7 and belongs without doubt to a quite different stage in the process of formation. The citation of a divine address in 24.7, with the same wording, belongs here also; it is noteworthy too that the promise of the land is the centre point for the author of Genesis 24 so that he sees it as the decisive assurance of YHWH to which he has Abraham's servant summoned. One could say then that the promise of the land in 12.7 holds a similar emphatic position. However, one must always keep in mind that one is dealing here with a late stage in the process of formation of the tradition. In conclusion, let us add a few remarks on the promise of blessing. We have discovered that it always occurs in combination with other promise elements. Likewise, the place where it occurs is not without significance. In the Abraham story it occurs, and certainly not by chance, at the beginning (12.2) and at the end (22.17), and in precisely in the same places in the Isaac story (26.3, 24); in the Jacob story, before and after the journey to Haran (28.3; 35.9), then again at the very end (48.3) where there is talk of the blessing. For the rest, it is found twice more in the Abraham story in conjunction with the promise of increase, in parallel passages about Sarah (17.16) and Ishmael (17.20). Here too one can recognize clearly a deliberate intention in the placing of the promise elements. Let us summarize: we have seen that the promise addresses have on the one hand gone through a varied and many-lay-
83
ered process of development, but on the other hand have been carefully and consciously made a part of the reworking and theological interpretation of the patriarchal stories. The reworking did not take place at one stroke, but shows signs of different stages and layers. Likewise, the intention and careful planning which have directed the process are in many cases clearly discernible. It is of particular importance that the promise addresses have been used to frame the individual patriarchal stories and to join them to each other. Certain elements are particularly prominent. In the Isaac story, the element of guidance is in an emphatic position at the beginning of the two divine addresses which frame it (26.2-3, 24). It pervades and stamps the Jacob story also; here, besides the divine addresses (28.15; 31.3; 46.34), there are still further passages to mention in which the divine guidance appears as a determining element (28.20; 31.5, 42; 32.10-11). The Abraham story too is determined by it; a clearly stamped guidance narrative stands at the beginning (12.1-3) and the end (ch. 22).1 The blessing for others is a second promise element which joins together all three patriarchal stories. It stands at the beginning (12.3) and at the end (22.18) of the Abraham story, and at the beginning of each of the Isaac and Jacob stories (26.4; 28.14). In these last two, there is a close link between the guidance and the blessing for others. These were obviously the two elements which had established themselves as stamping and covering comprehensively the patriarchal stories, by means, however, of a variety of links with the other promise themesland, posterity, and blessing. There can be no doubt therefore that the patriarchal stories present an independent larger unit which, in the course of the process of its formation, has been reworked in different stages and provided with theological interpretations; and the divine promise addresses dominate both the reworking and the interpretation. It is also discernible that this reworking has had its effect in different ways in the individual parts of the collection: in the Abraham story it has had its most profound
1 The term 'narrative' is not at all appropriate for Gen. 12.1-9; see above under 2.2.1.
84
effect in the narratives; in the Jacob story it shows itself as an element of the composition, while in the Isaac story it appears only in the two divine addresses without any reference to the context. But before all else, it is clear that the reworking has fitted these three collections together so as to form one composite whole, and that once again by means of the promise address. This finds its clearest expression in the promise addressed to all three patriarchs that they are to be a blessing for the whole human race: Gen. 12.3; 22.18 (Abraham), 26.4 (Isaac), 28.14 (Jacob). Thus one can see that this promise, which stands as a signature tune (Motto) at the beginning of the Abraham story, holds for the whole of the patriarchal story. 2.5 The absence of any definite reworking in Exodus-Numbers It has been shown that the patriarchal stories represent a selfcontained larger unit which, in both its individual parts and as a whole, has undergone intensive reworking and theological interpretation. The question now arises whether one can demonstrate a reworking, determined by the same purposes and using the same means, for the rest of the Pentateuch as well. And this suggests that we direct the question first to the continuation of the patriarchal story in the book of Exodus. A first result is a negative conclusion: the promise addresses, as a determining and characteristic element, are not found in the traditions of the book of Exodus. The direct divine address is used far less often than in the patriarchal story; in particular, the contents of the promise addresses of Genesis scarcely occur and are not at all the centre point. This is clear at once in the passages where themes occur which, in the patriarchal story, belong to the content of the promise addresses. The prolific increase in numbers of the Israelites is mentioned in the very first verses of Exodus (1.7), but there is no reference at all1 to the constantly repeated promise of increase
1 In the very redundant Exod. 1.7, referring to the increase of the Israelites, there are but two terms, not very specific, which have already occurred in the promise of increase in the book of Genesis,
85
addressed to the fathers,1 of which the author is obviously not aware. The situation is even more striking with the first mention of the land into which it has been proclaimed, the Israelites are to journey after they have been rescued from slavery in Egypt. The text reads: 'I will lead you into a good, broad land, into a land that flows with milk and honey, the home of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites' (3.8). The land is introduced here as an unknown land, and more, as a land that is the home of foreign nations; there is not a word which mentions that the patriarchs have already lived a long time in this land and that God has promised it to them and their descendants as a permanent possession.2 Following the terminology of the promise of the land in Genesis, those addressed here would be the 'seed' for whom the promise holds good. But they are not spoken to as such. The absence of this link is even clearer when these texts are set over against some passages in the patriarchal story in which the link between the promise of the land to the fathers and the leading out from Egypt is expressly made. In Gen. 50.24, Joseph says to his brothers before his death: 'God will come to your aid and will take you out of this land (Egypt) to the land which he promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob'. One would expect that this promise would be taken up in Exodus 3. It is not, and instead, the land is introduced as something entirely new. In Gen. 15.13-16, there is a theological-historical reflection on the theme that the Israelites must first pass through a period of slavery in a foreign land before, at a time determined by God, they are to return to the land promised them. This text stands in splendid isolation within the patriarchal story; nevertheless, it shows what sort of reflections on the relationship of the promise of the land to the patriarchs and the liberation from the slavery in Egypt can be employed. And so the silence about these links in Exodus 3 is all the more striking. However, references to the patriarchal story are not
the verbs and see above under 2.3.2. 1 Cf. Westermann, 'Arten', p. 27. 2 Cf. Fohrer-Sellin, Introduction to the Old Testament, pp. 124f.
86
entirely lacking. In Exod. 2.23-25, there is a transition piece between the story of Moses' youth and the following traditions about his call and the leading out of Egypt. The text reads: Then God remembered the covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob' (v. 24). This is a reference back to the patriarchal story, but not by way of resuming one of the promise elements; it is rather by mention of the 'covenant' that God made with the patriarchs. Only in Genesis 15 and 17 is there talk of this 'covenant'. In the former, it is the land that is mentioned as the content of the divine self-obligation (15.18); in the latter, the theme 'covenant' is developed extensively, with the whole range of promises sounding, and with the addition of the assurance 'to be your God and the God of your descendants after you' (17.1). In Exod. 2.24, nothing is said about the content of the covenant obligation; one might perhaps conclude that the author had in mind some sort of general statement, rather like Gen. 17.7, than a concrete promise. In Exod. 6.2-9, there is a very extensive divine address, which has no immediate connection with the narrative context, where there is likewise reference back to the promises to the patriarchs. The word 'covenant' is there again, but only in explicit relationship to the promise of the land. The formulation corresponds to that in Gen. 17.8. The land is described as the 'land of Canaan' and 'the land of sojourning(s)' (Exod. 6.4).1 At the end of the divine address, it is once more stated expressly that God will lead the Israelites into the land that he has solemnly promised to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (v. 8). Further, the assurance of God's presence has been taken up from 17.7 in a somewhat adapted formulation (v. 7). The reference back to the patriarchal story is obvious. However, it stands outside the narrative context in an independent narrative address; and moreover, it is a matter of a resumption of those formulations which, within the patriarchal stories, belong to the latest in the process of the formation of the tradition. This means then that this connection has been made only in a relatively late stage in the
1 On the as yet unsolved problem of the understanding of G. Ch. Macholz, see above under 2.3.5, n. 3, n. 141a. , cf.
87
process. There are some further places, though quite sporadic, where there are references to the promises to the patriarchs, especially to the promise of the land. Exodus 13 contains cultic prescriptions about the eating of the unleavened bread and the offering of the firstborn. The prescriptions in both cases refer to the period after YHWH will have led the Israelites into the land. In each case it is said of the land, with certain differences in the formulation, that it is that which YHWH swore to the patriarchs to give to the Israelites (w. 5,11). There is talk here of the oath which is found in the patriarchal stories in Gen. 22.16 and 26.3.* In these places, however, it refers not to the promise of the land but to the promise of increase, whereas it occurs in connection with the promise of the land only twice outside the divine address (Gen. 24.7; 50.24).2 The reference therefore is to a layer of tradition in the patriarchal story which is relatively late and by no means central. In the prayer of Moses, after the people had sinned by making the golden calf, there is extensive reference to the promises to the patriarchs: 'Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants to whom you swore by yourself and to whom you spoke: I will increase your seed like the stars of heaven, and the whole of this land of which I have spoken to you I will give to your seed, and they will take possession of it for ever' (32.13). There is a clear echo of Gen. 22.16-17 with the oath that YHWH swore by himself and the promise of increase under the image of the stars; the promise of the land, missing in Genesis 22, is added here. The address of YHWH to Moses in Exod. 33.1 reads: TJp, go on your way from here, you and your people whom you have lead out of the land of Egypt, to the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: to your seed I will give it'. The address corresponds almost word for word to that of Joseph in Gen. 50.24, the citation of the divine address to that in Gen. 24.7. And so it is a matter of the two passages in which, in the patriarchal story, God's oath is joined with the promise of the land. One can recognize again
1 For the connection with the tradition in Exod. 3.8, see below under 2.7. 2 Further detail see below under 2.7.
88
and again from the different passages throughout the book of Exodus isolated references back to the patriarchal story. There was clearly a layer of reworking which joined the two complexes of tradition together. But the reworking did not find its way into the narrative substance; rather it has the mark of a relatively late layer in the process of formation. There is alongside this another group of explicit references back to the patriarchal story in which the 'God of the fathers' is mentioned. They are stacked together in Exodus 3 and following. The very first of YHWH's addresses to Moses reads: 'I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' (3.6). Then, when Moses has to justify himself before the Israelites, he refers to 'the God of your fathers [who] has sent me to you' (v. 15); and he is to bear the good news of YHWH to the Israelites with the opening words: *YHWH, the God of your fathers, has appeared to me, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob' (v. 16). And finally, when Moses has to justify himself by signs, he is to do so 'in order that they may believe that YHWH, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you' (4.5). The point at issue is this: the legitimation of Moses and the demonstration that the God who appeared to him and sent him to the Israelites to lead them out of Egypt is YHWH, and none other than the God of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The identity of YHWH with the God of the fathers is the central question here. The consequence of this is an entirely new relationship between the Moses tradition and the tradition of the patriarchs. Both are here brought into relationship with each other in a new way and with a new posing of the question. The patriarchs are not now spoken of as receivers of the promise, and the contents of the promises are not mentioned. Instead, the God of the patriarchs takes the central position; more precisely, the question of the identity of the God who appeared to Moses with the God of the patriarchs. It is a question of continuity. But it is not a continuity of the contents of the promises, as one would expect from the patriarchal stories; it is a continuity of God's revelation. This latter question plays no explicit role in the patriarchal stories. God's presentation of himself as the God of the father
89
or fathers occurs once in connection with the promise of the land to Jacob (Gen. 28.13)1 and twice in connection with the formula 'Fear not' together with an assurance of guidance (26.24 to Isaac; 46.3 to Jacob). Further, in the Jacob story there is, besides the divine address, talk of the God of the fathers, and that likewise almost entirely in connection with statements about the guidance of Jacob by YHWH (31.5, 29, 42; 32.10). These references show that this designation for God occurs only in a relatively narrow section of the patriarchal traditions and that it nowhere serves to give expression to the continuity of revelation. In Exodus 3-4, talk of the God of the fathers has acquired a new function which it did not have in the patriarchal stories. Accordingly, this reference back to the patriarchal stories is not something that arose out of the stories themselves, and does not take up a topic already at hand there; rather it looks back to the patriarchal stories with a different formulation of the question.2 It is of particular importance to have established that there are here other questions than those in the patriarchal stories which are determinative. Exodus 3-4 is concerned with a central and theologically important text at the beginning of the Moses tradition in which one is to expect basic pointers to the understanding of that whole, within which the author or redactor wants the questions to be understood. This goes together with the observation that with the information about the prolific increase of the people (Exod. 1.7) and with the first mention of the land into which YHWH will lead the Israelites (3.8), there is no reference at all to the corresponding promise themes in the patriarchal stories.3 Hence, the inevitable conclusion: the Moses tradition has been reworked and interpreted from entirely different points of view than the patriarchal stories. In the basic stage of their formation and reworking, these two traditions obviously did not belong together.
1 It is only here that the divine name YHWH occurs when God is addressing himself to one of the patriarchs; and Jacob, when taking up this episode in 32.10 (Eng. 9), says... In 46.3, the God of the patriarch (Jacob) presents himself as "?n. 2 Cf. further Exod. 15.2; 18.4. 3 See above under 2.5 (beginning).
90
2.6 The 'larger units' in Exodus-Numbers It would be beyond the bounds of this study were we to advance as well proof of the interpretation and reworking that runs through the Moses tradition. First, the methodological criteria would have to be worked out, as we have tried to do for the patriarchal stories, and they would have to be quite different because, as we have seen, the basic element of the divine addresses does not appear in the Moses tradition. And more, the presuppositions are essentially other. Von Rad has indicated briefly1 that one can scarcely speak of stories (Sagen) in the proper sense in the Moses-tradition; rather we have to do at most with 'motifs' (Sagenmotiven).2 This is in accord with the absence, by and large, of 'developed narrative units'.3 In contrast, 'the tight inner coherence of the narrative in Ex 1-14'4 is striking.5 Just a few remarks may now be made on the composition of the Moses narratives. It is clear that Exodus 14 has been composed as a relatively self-contained unit. The verses 2.2325 mark the decisive turning point: God hears the cry of the oppressed Israelites and takes heed of it. The conclusion in 4.31 has clearly several functions: first, it brings to a close the question whether the Israelites will "believe' Moses 4.1, 5, 8, 9): 'the people believed'; then it takes up the statement that God 'saw' (2.25) the Israelites and their distress. Now they experience this themselves; they bow down in worship. This trait occurs again later when the proclamation is made to the Israelites of their definitive rescue by the slaying of the firstborn and of their own preservation (12.27b). Finally, the statement of the "belief of the Israelites is taken up by way of conclusion in 14.31. Their belief is no longer based merely on the proclamation of rescue by Moses, but on the Israelites
1 'Beobachtungen an der Moseerzahlung Exodus 1-14', EvTh 31 (1971) 579-88 = Gesammelte Studien zum Alien Testament 2, 1973, pp. 18998. 2 Op. cit., p. 192 = p. 582. 3 Op. cit., pp. 192-93 = pp. 582-83. 4 Op. cit., p. 193 = p.583. 5 Cf. also S. Hermann, 'Mose', EvTh 28 (1968) 301-28, who speaks of a 'tighter arrangement of events' with regard to Exod. Iff. (p. 326).
91
having 'seen' what YHWH has done. One can discern then a clear connection between the composition of Exodus 1-4 and the overall composition of Exodus 114.1 But these questions must be pursued further. No particular demonstration is needed to show that the Sinai passage is an independent larger unit. Express cross references to the preceding complexes of tradition occur only in isolation.2 The introductory divine address runs: *You have seen what I did to Egypt and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you here to me' (Exod. 19.4). There is only a very general reference here to the event of the Exodus. The references in Exodus 32 are more concrete. The Israelites say: 'As for this fellow Moses, who brought us out of the land of Egypt' (w. 1, 23); YHWH says to Moses: 'your people, the people you brought out from the land of Egypt' (v. 7); Moses uses the same formulation about YHWH (v. II); 3 of the image of the golden calf they say: 'these are your gods, Israel, that brought you out from Egypt' (w. 4, 8). Here, it is a matter throughout of fixed and formalized formulas which on each occasion have been joined by as relative sentences for further precision. It is only in v. 12 that this reference back to the leading out from Egypt is used as an argument: 'Why let the Egyptians say: He had evil intent when he led them out, to kill them on the mountains and to wipe them from the face of the earth?' Then, attached to this, comes the broad reference to the promises to the patriarchs (v. 13).4 Finally, the situation in Exod. 33.1-3 is interesting. YHWH commands Moses to set out with the words: 'Up, go on from here, you and your people whom you have brought out of the land of Egypt'.5 The link with the promises to the patriarchs
1 Cf. von Rad, op. cit., p. 198 = p. 588. 2 Account is not taken here of references which occur within the legal material and the uncontestably priestly layer of the Sinai passage. 3 Here and in v. 12 the verb (Hip'il) is used instead of (hip'il). On the problem of the difference between these two verbs in the 'formula of leading out', cf. W. Gross, 'Die HerausfuhrungsformelZum Verhaltnis von Formel und Syntax', ZAW 86 (1974) 425-53. 4 See above under 2.5. 5 Cf. Exod. 32.7.
92
follows immediately on this reference back to the leading out from Egypt: 'to the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: to your seed will I give it'.1 Then, there is more about the land into which Moses is to lead the Israelites; it is spoken of in the same way as we have known it from the beginning of the Moses narrative, and with that striking absence of any connection with the patriarchal story. The land is described as 'the land that flows with milk and honey' (v. 3), and YHWH announces the expulsion of the nations living there, enumerating them in almost the same terms as in Exod. 3.8.2 The passage is characterized by a striking mingling of traditions. It must be said that in general, reference to the exodus tradition occurs only in isolation in the Sinai pericope and that it plays no role in the central passages of this larger unit; this holds too for the references to the patriarchal story. In the narratives about Israel's stay in the desert, the leading out from Egypt is mentioned often in connection with the 'murmuring' of the people. Its function is, primarily, to set in relief the contrast between the present, dangerous situation in the desert and the comparatively much better position in Egypt, and so bring to the fore the accusations against Moses (and Aaron) (Exod. 16.3 [cf. w.6, 32]; 17.3; Num. 11.5, 18, 20; 14.2-4; 16.13; 20.4-5; 21.53). It is clearly something more than mere passing references or after-thoughts. One rather gets the impression that the tradition of the 'murmuring' of the Israelites contained this element right from the beginning. This does not in any way mean that the two complexes of tradition must have been related to each other originally. Apart from the mere reference back to the better situation in Egypt, the content of these texts shows no further connections with the traditions about the leading out from Egypt. So one can say no more than that knowledge of the fact of the leading out from the fertile land of Egypt was a presupposition for the origin and development of the theme of the 'murmuring1 of
1 See above under 2.5. 2 Verse 2; only the sequence 'Amorites, Hittites' is the reverse of Exod. 3.8. 3 On the question whether ch. 21 belongs to the desert or occupation of the land tradition, see above under 1.4."
93
the Israelites; and hence, that in a limited sense, there is some dependence in the process of the formation of the tradition. There has, however, at the same time been a notable shift of emphasis. The reference to the leading out from Egypt serves only as a contrast to the present situation, whereas its real significance as a historical and saving action of YHWH for Israel is scarcely mentioned. And it is striking that the complex of narratives of Israel's stay in the desert manifests no over-arching reworking which joins it in a positive way with the narratives of the leading out. It is scarcely possible to glean from the texts that the leading out was a saving action of YHWH for Israel.1 There are only two places in this complex of tradition where there are references to the patriarchal stories. In both cases the reference is to the 'oath' that YHWH swore to the patriarchs that he would give them the land (Num. 11.12; 14.23). The first occurs without any links within an address of Moses to YHWH. The second combines the traditions: immediately before, in an address of YHWH, the 'signs' which he had done in Egypt and in the desert (!) are referred to (Num. 14.22). But it is just this rare mention of the patriarchs that makes us aware yet again that there has been no far-reaching connection between the different complexes of tradition. The narratives of Israel's stay in the desert have not, as a whole, been brought into an inner harmony with the traditions preceding them. In the narratives of the occupation of the land in the book of Numbers, Moses sends a message to the king of Moab at the very beginning in which a brief survey of the history of Israel is given; it recalls the 'credo' formulations which we find in other places: 'Our fathers went down into Egypt and we lived there for a long time. The Egyptians treated us and our fathers badly. Then we cried out to YHWH, and he heard our voice and sent an angel and led us out from Egypt' (Num. 20.15, 16a).2 Here, the leading out from Egypt is mentioned
1 On the other hand, cf. Exod. 18, as well as Exod. 16.6; Num. 14.13, 19, 22. 2 Moses' message opens in v. 14 with reference to the 'ill-treatment' that 'befell' the Israelites, so resuming a formulation already used in Exod. 18.8.
94
together with the history that preceded it, though there is nothing more precise as to who is meant by the 'fathers' who went down into Egypt. And further, in the context of the leading out from Egypt, the passage speaks of an angel and not of Moses. In Num. 32.8, 14 the generation of the desert is described as 'fathers' in distinction from the generation that is to occupy the land and is addressed there. The notion of 'fathers' has shifted; it evokes no association at all with the patriarchs of whom Genesis speaks. These are mentioned explicitly within the same context and by name: 'None of the men who came up out of Egypt... are to see the land which I swore to Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac' (32.11). This passage joins together the traditions of the promise of the land to the patriarchs and of the leading out from Egypt. The relationship to the different traditions is clearly quite disjointed in this chapter. Finally, there are two further places, introductions to lists, where the leading out from Egypt is mentioned: in Num. 26.4 the lists of the tribes and clans is introduced: 'These are the Israelites who came out from Egypt'; and in Num. 33.1 the list of stopping places during the wandering in the desert begins: 'These are the camping places of the Israelites who came out from the land of Egypt (ordered) according to their tribal hosts'. In both cases it is a question of a formalized ordering which is aware of the tradition of the leading out of Egypt as a general background without, however, making any concrete narrative connection. And so only isolated references to the exodus tradition and to the patriarchal stories occur in this context. But here too, one cannot speak of any real connection with the larger units of tradition that have preceded. 2.7 Traces of an over-arching reworking Our review of the larger units of tradition within the Pentateuch has shown that each is very independent and self-contained in respect to the others. The cross references, which appear everywhere, do not as a rule belong to the real narrative substance of the individual units. But no comprehensive reworking which shapes the whole into a unit is immediately
95
evident. This is all the more striking because the patriarchal stories which we have examined closely as examples, show a very thorough reworking in which a theological intent arranging them was clearly at work. But this theological intent is not discernible in the same way for the Pentateuch as a whole. In other words: the theological arrangement of the patriarchal stories is not to be equated with the theological arrangement of the Pentateuch. Rather, the patriarchal stories have undergone a theological interpretation and reworking which has turned them into a self-contained piece of well moulded tradition which stands out clearly in all its own independence within the Pentateuch. The reworking and arrangement of the remaining units requires still more careful study; but it has already become quite obvious that it will have to be of a different kind from that of the patriarchal stories. Further studies in the direction indicated will be hard put to it to alter the judgment that the theological arrangement of the individual larger units within the Pentateuch cannot be equated with the arrangement of the Pentateuch as a whole. This does not mean, however, that an over-arching reworking of the Pentateuch, which encompasses the different larger units, would be in no wise discernible. Among the cross-references mentioned, there emerges one particular group of texts to which we must give somewhat more careful attention; they are all concerned with one thingthat YHWH swore to the patriarchs that he would give the land to them. Gen. 50.24 anticipates the exodus story. Joseph says to his brothers: 'God will come to you1 and will lead you out of this land into the land that he swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob'. Talk of YHWH's oath is not very deeply anchored in the patriarchal stories. It appears, however, in two texts which are important for the composition of the patriarchal story as a whole, Gen. 22.16; 26.3. It is noteworthy that the mention of YHWH's oath in 22.16 does not appear in a fixed formula as in the majority of other cases;2 here, YHWH's address (i.e. through the mal'ak
1 For , see also Exod. 3.16; 4.31. 2 See below; cf. also N. Lohfink, Die Landverheissung als Eid, 1967, p. 15.
96
YHWH) is introduced by the phrase: *By my own self I swear*.1 The reason for this is then given, namely Abraham's comportment in the preceding story of the offering of Isaac; the content of the oath is the promise of blessing and the increase of descendants and finally the assurance: 'your seed will possess the gate of their enemies'. One can scarcely see here a connection with the promise of the land where the formulations are quite different. We can only conclude that in this passage, so important for the composition of the Abraham story as a whole, there is talk of YHWH's oath, but without any connection with the promise of the land. The situation is not entirely clear in 26.3. The passage of course is linked with 22.16 in the process of formation of the tradition.2 The words 'I will fulfil the oath that I swore to your father Abraham', can refer only to 22.16; it is followed immediately by the promise of increase and the image of the stars in the sky which appears only here and in 22.17. The passage about the oath is framed by the double promise of the land (w. 3b and 4a ). One can see here a step in the direction of the formulation in Gen. 50.24. Finally, a fourth passage needs to be mentioned, Gen. 24.7, where there is a clear connection between YHWH's oath and the promise of the land: *YHWH, the God of heaven ... who spoke to me and swore to me: to your seed will I give this land'. The formulation is close to that in Gen. 50.24. It occurs in the context of a narrative which is relatively late, and which has obviously been added subsequently to the body of the Abraham stories. The formulation of Gen. 50.24 therefore has not developed immediately out of the Abraham story as it lies before us. It belongs to another context in the tradition in which the oath by which YHWH confirmed the promise of the land to the fathers finds its natural place. But what is most important is that it has the function of a transition piece in the place in which it stands. It joins the patriarchal story to the following traditions,
elsewhere only in Jer. 22.5. Gen. 22.16 is the only attestation of in the book of Genesis; it is completely absent from Exod. and Lev., and appears again only in Num. 14.28, linked with (as in Isa. 49.18; Jer. 22.24, and 11 x in Ezek.). 2 See above under 2.4. 1
97
in particular to the narrative of the leading out from Egypt. It provides a link, therefore, which, as we have seen, is not present in the two units of tradition themselves. The next example does not appear, at first sight, to give any grounds for thinking that it has a corresponding function in the over-arching composition. In Exodus 13, the oath of YHWH to the patriarchs is mentioned twice (w.5, 13) in the prescriptions about the unleavened bread, each time with explicit reference to the promise of the land. In v. 5, the formalized description of the land, 'which he swore to your fathers to give you', is joined with the enumeration of the foreign nations who now occupy it (Exod. 3.8, first occurrence), and with the description of it as a land flowing with milk and honey'. The formulation therefore presupposes both traditions. As for their function, one must remember that the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt has been mentioned immediately beforehand (12.51). What follows in ch. 13 is concerned in content with the prescriptions about the unleavened bread; nevertheless, there is much talk in w. 3-10 about the leading out from Egypt and of the imminent leading into the land promised by YHWH, so that what is said reaches far beyond the ambit of ritual prescriptions. It could then very well be that one can detect in the express mention of the promise of the land in this place, an intent directing the composition, namely that what was announced in Gen. 50.24 is beginning to be fulfilled. This surmise is confirmed further by the fact that a little later in the same chapter there is talk of Moses carrying the bones of Joseph with him (13.19) with express reference back to Gen. 50.25.1 This then is the obvious place where the link with the last words of Joseph could, and had to be made. Seen from this point of view, it is scarcely a surprise that the next important turning point where there is mention of the promise of the land which YHWH swore to the patriarchs is the departure of the Israelites from Sinai. The command to Moses to set out is given in Exod. 33.1-3a: Then YHWH spoke to Moses: Up, depart from here, you and the people you have led out from the land of Egypt, to the land which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: to your seed I will give it. And I will
1 On see above, p. 95 n. 1.
98
send an angel before you,1 and I will drive out the Canaanites, the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusitesto a land flowing with milk and honey'. We find the same traditions joined together here as in Exod. 13.15. So then, after a break in the journey by a stop at Sinai, the promise of the land is again mentioned and confirmed when the journey is resumed; at the same time it is said that this journey to the land constitutes the realization of this promise. The reference to the promise of the land in the prayer of Moses in Exod. 32.13 is also to be seen in this context. The links with the oath in Gen. 22.16-17 are once again clear.2 The function of this cross reference at this place could be that, with YHWH's express decision in Exod. 32.10 to annihilate the people, the fulfilment of the promises to the patriarchs would have become impossible; so Moses intercedes and counters YHWH with his very own promises. These two passages then complement each other. After Moses' intervention in Exod. 32.11-14, YHWH himself resumes the promise of the land to the patriarchs in his command to journey on (33.1-3). There are some further passages where there is mention of the promise of the land to the patriarchs confirmed by YHWH's oath in situations in which its fulfilment seems to be in danger. In the prayer in Num. 11.11-15, Moses gives expression to his doubts; he thinks that he cannot carry out the charge that YHWH has laid upon him to bring the people into the promised land (especially w. 14-15); YHWH's oath is mentioned here, in however concise a form ('the land which you swore to their fathers'). In the episode of the scouts in Numbers 13-14 also, the realization of the promise is put in question: YHWH declares that not one of the desert generation is to see the promised land, with the exception of Caleb (14.22-24); and once again YHWH's oath is recalled in the same concise form (v. 23). (It should be expressly noted here that the rest of the story of the scouts has no connection at all with the tradition of
1 Cf. Gen. 24.7; where Abraham requests that YHWH, whom he describes, among many other things, as the God who made the promise of the land, would send his angel before Eliezer. 2 On (Gen. 22.16); besides, in the context of the promise of increase, 'the stars of heaven' are mentioned, as in Gen. 22.
99
the promise of the land to thw patriarchs. The land is described as quite unknown, strange, and dangerous; it must be first explored; that the patriarchs had already lived there for a long time and that YHWH had promised them possession of itof all this, there is not a word [except in Num. 14.23!]). Finally, these words of YHWH are cited again in Num. 32.11 (with variations in the wording) when Moses sees the final realization of the promise of the land endangered by the desire of the tribes of Reuben and Gad to settle east of the Jordan When one surveys the attestations advanced in the context, one can scarcely avoid the impression of a very deliberate intent in the composition and interpretation of the Pentateuch as a whole. They appear throughout in their present context as 'post-scripts', that is, they belong to a layer of reworking which has not penetrated into the substance of the narratives themselves, but have merely made clear at certain decisive places the guiding point of view under which the whole is to be understood. Two passages are of particular importance for the composition as a whole: the announcement by Joseph in Gen. 50.24 that YHWH will bring the Israelites back into the land promised to the patriarchs, and the command of YHWH to Moses in Exod. 33.1-3a at which the real journey into the promised land begins. Both passages join the patriarchal stories with the traditions which tell of the journey of the Israelites from Egypt back into the promised land,1 and at the same time clamp together all Pentateuch traditions under one allembracing theme: YHWH has given the land to the Israelites. One usually calls the layer of reworking of which we are speaking here 'deuteronomistic' or more recently 'early deuteronomic'2 or 'protodeuteronomic'.3 In any case, it is a matter of a reworking which in its ideas and language is closely related to Deuteronomy. It has been shown that this reworking has left the texts at hand essentially unchanged and has inserted interpretative additions at definite places. It
1 K. Rupprecht also supports this function for Gen. 50.24: (Exod. 1,10; Hos. 2,2): "Sich des Landes bemachtigen"?, ZAW 82 (1970) 442-46, esp. 445. 2 N. Lohfink, op. cit., pp. 17-18 with n. 30. 3 J. Ploger, op. cit., p. 67.
100
presupposes therefore the present text more or less in the form in which it lies before us.
Chapter 3 CRITICISM OF PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM The question now arises whether, apart from this reworking with its deuteronomic stamp, the individual, larger units of the tradition had already been brought together as a whole in an earlier stage in the process of the formation of the tradition. At the same time, recent pentateuchal research puts the question of the 'sources' in the sense of the documentary hypothesis. Do the pentateuchal 'sources' stand as complete representations of the pentateuchal material between the arrangement of the individual larger units and the synthesizing reworking in the deuteronomic style? Following the methodological criteria established earlier, such 'sources' would have to find their justification in the course of the study of the process of the development of the text from the smallest units, across the larger literary complexes, right up to its present and final stage.1 Hence, this is the place to ask if this assumption is justified. Current international study of the Pentateuch presents at first glance a picture of complete unanimity. The overwhelming majority of scholars in almost all countries where scholarly study of the Old Testament is pursued, take the documentary hypothesis as the virtually uncontested point of departure for their work; and their interest in the most precise understanding of the nature and theological purposes of the individual written sources seems undisturbed. And so it commends itself to take a closer look at the present state of pentateuchal study so as to establish the actual extent of the agreement and to examine the persuasive force of the arguments.
1 See above under 1.3.
102
The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 3.1 The present state of pentateuchal criticism
One reads in the latest German 'Introduction to the Old Testament' by Otto Kaiser: 'The sources are... on the whole definitively separated.'1 This sounds like the final result of a long development, and the author obviously wants it to be understood as such. The sentence, however, contains a parenthesis. The sources are, prescinding from the problem, not yet finally explained, of a first and second Yahwist, on the whole definitively separated'.2 The reader must pause here: Is the question, does the chief source of the Pentateuch, the Yahwist, accepted by Kaiser and many others, actually exist or must two sources in fact be accepted in its place, so unimportant that one can 'prescind' from it without calling into question the judgment that the sources have been 'definitively' separated? Must not rather the whole question, discussed earlier, of the theological significance of the Yahwist depend on it? There is, after all, circulating in German and contemporaneous with Kaiser's book an 'Introduction' by Georg Fohrer;3 Fohrer represents the view noted in the parenthesis, namely that the texts which Kaiser and others claim for the Yahwist are to be divided into two sources, and calls the second of them the 'nomad source'. There is also the standard, comprehensive 'Introduction' by Otto Eissfeldt, the 3rd edition of which is not much older than the two mentioned;4 he likewise divides the Tahwist', but calls the second source the 'lay course'. One can certainly object that the impression aroused by this chance situation on the German book market does not correspond with the actual state of Old Testament scholarship; i.e. the number of scholars who reckon with only 'one' Yahwist seems to be considerably greater than those who support a
1 Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1969, 1970 (2nd edn), p. 48. 5th edn, completely revised and rewritten, 1984. English version of Introduction to the Old Testament, 1970 edn (and incorporating further revisions by the author to 1973 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1975), p. 44. 2 Emphasis added; see below p. 107 n. 5. 3 E. Sellin-G. Fohrer, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1969 (llth edn). English, Introduction to the Old Testament (London: SPCK, 1970) trans. David Green. 4 Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1964 (3rd edn) English.
3. Criticism of Pentaieuchal Criticism
103
division. But one cannot thereby get rid of the fact that, from the time that Wellhausen formulated the now widely accepted documentary hypothesis, there have been distinguished scholars who have constantly supported the division of this oldest pentateuchal source. This situation carries all the more weight as the representatives of this view have throughout been constant and convinced advocates of the principles of some division in the sense of the 'later documentary hypothesis'1 or, as Eissfeldt puts it: the latest documentary hypothesis'.2 One must say then that in one decisive and basic question, source criticism has not led to a definitive conclusion, The reason for this is obviously that the methods acknowledged by and large by all scholars are simply not suited to answer conclusively the questions thrown up by the texts of the Pentateuch. The same holds, with the appropriate adaptations, for the 'Elohist'. The situation is still more complex here inasmuch as not a few scholars contest the existence of an independent 'elohistic' source, while others on the contrary maintain that it once existed as an independent work, but is preserved only in fragments (so that it is better to speak of 'elohistic fragments'); 3 still others think that one should consider the 'Elohist' 'as an originally independent and for the most part preserved source layer'.4 Here too the methodology used is inadequate to arrive at a final explanation.
As a consequence, great uncertainty dominates the separation of these two or three sources. As an example, one may cite the most recent commentary on the book of Exodus by W.H. Schmidt, the first fascicule of which appeared in 1974.5 When considering the first part of the book, Schmidt cites C. Steuer1 Fohrer is one of these, though he prefers to speak of 'source-layers' rather than of 'sources', German edn, pp. 124-25. 2 German edn, par. 23.9, pp. 223-24. 3 So H.W. Wolff, 'The Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch' in Interpretation 26 (1972) 158-73. Von Rad also speaks of 'elohistic fragments' and states: 'what presents itself as elohistic material cannot be described as a work which really runs parallel to the Yahwist'. See op. cit., p. 190 = p. 580. 4 Fohrsr, Introduction, p. 152; Kaiser, Introduction, pp. 91ff. 5 Exodus, 1974.
104
nagel who wrote: 'Complete certainty has been reached in separating out P. On the contrary, there is often great uncertainty in separating J from E. The survey that follows therefore claims only a limited degree of probability, and many a time one has to renounce completely any separation of J and E as too uncertain'.1 Schmidt observes that this characterizes 'the state of research into the book of Exodus which remains basically unaltered up to the present da/.2 Nothing essential then has changed in this uncertainty for half a century, so that what is said 'claims only a limited degree of probability' or that 'one has to renounce completely any separation of J and E as too uncertain!' Can one really say that the sources 'are definitively separated?' In face of the actual situation, one can only describe such a statement as wishful thinking.3 But further; the statement of Steuernagel cited by Schmidt about the 'complete certainty' that has been reached in separating out the 'priestly writing' holds only with considerable limitations. It is certainly true that there is broad agreement in working out a layer of tradition within the Pentateuch which, in style and content, can be described as 'priestly'. Even so passionate an opponent of classical source criticism as Engnell acknowledges this.4 But there are basic differences of opinion when it comes to determining further the nature of this layer and establishing its intent. Fohrer gathers together almost all the material in the Pentateuch described as priestly and understands it as one coherent source layer which he describes as a literary composition'.5 He writes: 'A characteristic of the content of P is the tight link between historical narrative and law. The two are bound together inseparably'.6 Noth represents an opinion which is the complete opposite of
1 Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1912, pp. 146. 2 Op. cit., p. 8. 3 I. Engnell has expressed in withering words how this situation is to be judged: 'In reality, the development of the literary-critical approach in the period following Wellhausen's classical formulation ... amounts to a complete dissolution of the entire system by the very scholars who defend it' (Critical Essays on the Old Testament, trans. J.T. Willis from Swedish, 1970, p. 53). 4 Op. cit., p. 59. 5 Fohrer, op. cit., p. 183 6 Op. cit., p. 183
3. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism
105
this. He wants to separate the legal components completely from the narrative. He even goes so far as to reject utterly the designation *F for the legal parts, though with some further precision, because in his opinion it 'signifies at the least a misrepresentation leading to error when one includes them in the concept of P and labels them with something like P8. They should be given some sort of neutral sign. One must prescind entirely from these passages when dealing with the P narrative'.1 This can only mean that Noth contests that a notable amount of material which, in Fohrer's opinion, can be assigned to P 'with broad unanimity',2 belongs to this source or layer. This means at the same time that there are fundamentally different opinions in the question of the relationship to each other of the historical narrative and the legal sections of P. Faced with this, one can scarcely maintain that the symbol T' really means the same in both cases. Between these two extreme positions there is an abundance of attempts to make distinctions within the P material. The most popular view distinguishes a *basic narrative' or the like (Pg) from parts added later (P8; s = secondary). However, very different answers are given to the question, what is to be understood under T8>. Noth will have the symbol used only for additions to the P-narrative,3 while Kaiser wants to use it for the legislative material' which has been attached secondarily to the basic narrative.4 For the rest, the literature offers a veritable host of designations for these legal parts, each provided with yet another letter qualifying P. There is a variety of views on the question, which legal texts are to be regarded as original constituent parts of the 'priestly writing* and, of course, by necessity also a variety of views on the nature and intent of this source or layer. Hence, there can be no talk at all of unanimity here. A survey of the present state of pentateuchal study leads to the conclusion that adherents to the documentary hypothesis generally acknowledge only two things.
1 A History, p. 10. 2 Op. cit., p. 10
3 Op. cit., p. 10, n. 15.

4 Op. cit., p. 103.
106
1. there is a priestly layer in the Pentateuch; there is, however, no agreement as to its more precise purpose nor as to which texts are to be assigned to its basic content; 2. there is, besides, one or several more sources or layers, but nogreement as to their number, their delimitation, and their relationship to each other. There has been no essential change in the arguments and counter-arguments for the delimitation of the sources not O0nly since 1912, as W.H. Schmidt has noted, but since the end of the previous century. Most of the positions assembled by H. Holzinger1 in 1893 are still represented today by individual exegetes. There have certainly been new positions in addition, and certain scholars or groups of scholars have shifted the emphasis in their statement of the question; but looking across the broad spectrum of current OT scholarship, there still remains a variety of different opinions. Pentateuchal research, therefore, is far less unanimous than is often maintained, and a glance over its history shows that it was ever so. What is often presented as the 'triumph' of the documentary hypothesis since Wellhausen is basically but two things: (1) since then, the 'documentary hypothesis' has been supported almost exclusively, i.e. it is accepted that the Pentateuch is assembled from several continuous 'documents' or 'sources'. In face of this, the other hypotheses proposed in the course of the 19th century have receded into the background: the 'fragmentary hypothesis', which reckons not with sources extending from the beginning to the end of the Pentateuch, but only with individual, more or less extensive, fragments; and the 'complementary hypothesis', according to which there was one basic document which was complemented by all sorts of other material. One must add, however, that these two hypotheses have had virtually no support since the middle of the 19th century, i.e. long before Wellhausen. (2) Since Wellhausen, the 'priestly document' has normally been regarded as the latest of the pentateuchal sources; in fact, the
1 Einleitung in das Hexateuch, 1893; see also the statement of von Hiigfi from the year 1897 on 'the unanimity in general and in deta T in the separation of sources, quoted by H. Gazelles, Tentateuque', DBS, VII, 1966, col. 791.

s
107
Eeuss-Graf-Kuenen~Wellhausen-hypothesis' has prevailed to such an extent that, since then, it has only been contested by outsiderthough still with the limitations already mentioned with regard to the extent and purpose of the priestly document, There is an increasing number of voices today which question the apparent consensus or doubt whether it exists at all. Many critics have expressed the view that Moth's conception amounts to a new complementary hypothesis: he does not reckon with a redactor who accepts more or less on an equal footing the original independent sources, but assumes that the redactor has used the priestly document as a frame, has taken the narrative material in essence from the Yahwist, and has added the Elohist by way of complement only to a limited extent; thus, Moth has in fact renounced to a very large extent complete reconstruction of the original sources which as a whole exist only in the theory of his system. Others go farther. Let us cite only such a brilliant interpreter of pentateuchal research as H, Gazelles^ who wrote not so long ago: 'The present state would justify the title under which N.E, Wagner presented his views: "Pentateuchal Criticism: No Clear Future"', 3 Caselles then speaks of the 'present malaise in pentateuehal criticism.,, which necessarily has repercussions on the theological analysis',4 O. Kaiser maintains that pentateuchal research is really on the move again, This is because lie sees that the very question which he himself felt to be central,, namely concerning the Yahwist,. is still open: The works produced in the last ten years cm (the sources of the Pentateuch) have at the very least shown clearly that the problem of the unity and specific nature of the Yahwist cannot be regarded as solved'.5 As an example of the younger German
1 E.g., Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel from the Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile, trans, and abr. M. Creenberg from Hebrew, 1960, pp. 153ff.; I. Engnell, op, dt.t pp.SOff.; U. Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch, 1981. 2 See above p. 106 a. 1, esp. sections III, IV, and Conclusion. 3 BibThB 2 (1972) 3-24, esp. p. 9.
4 Ibid.
5 'Die alttestamentliche Wissensehaft', in Wissenschaftlicht Theologie im Uberblick, ed. W. LohfET. Haha, 1974, pp. 13-19(15).
108
OT scholars, one may cite F. Stolz whose writings reflect a widespread view. After assessing the difficulties under which the hypothesis of a *Yahwist' labour today, he writes: With a conception such as this one must, to be sure, reckon with a Yahwist whose character is as complex as can be imagined... In any case, it is in no wise a rounded picture'.1 3.2 The problem of the Yahwist It is certainly no chance that in the citations given so far the talk concerns mainly the Yahwist and that the lack of clarity in regard to this source has been felt to be particularly disturbing. In fact, judgment about the Yahwist constitutes as it were the key to the whole problem of the documentary hypothesis, and that for two reasons: (1) the Yahwist is the only older source accepted by all supporters of the documentary hypothesis; essential parts of the narrative material derive from it. If one does not succeed in demonstrating this chief source convincingly, then the hypothesis as a whole can scarcely be maintained. (2) More recently, the theological meaning of the Pentateuch has to a large extent been built on the interpretation of the Yahwist; the other sources are dealt with and characterized in comparison with him. If this source is no longer clearly discernible, then the current, widespread method of explaining the Pentateuch theologically is in danger.2 3.2.1 Literary analysis of the Yahwist Has the current Pentateuch research a clear picture of the Yahwist? First, let us put the question of the literary analysis. To what extent does it see itself in the position to delimit clearly the texts to be ascribed to the Yahwist. Certain demands must at least be put to the Yahwist which, according to the basic principles of the documentary hypothesis, hold in fact for all sources: namely, that it can be demonstrated that it is complete from beginning to end, i.e. from the creation right down
1 Das Alte Testament, 1974, p. 36. 2 See above under 1.3 (von Rad's view of the Yahwist); also the citation above from Gazelles (3.1 above).
109
to the occupation of the land, and that the texts attributed to it constitute a clearly recognizable coherent whole. Only then can the Yahwist stand as a 'source' in the sense of the documentary hypothesis. Let us call to mind once more a basic methodological principle mentioned earlier: the documentary hypothesis arose as an answer to the question about the literary unity of the text of the Pentateuch as it now stands, and it only makes sense as an answer to this question. But it is not enough to demonstrate the lack of unity in the text, inasmuch as there could be the most diverse explanations of this. Rather, the documentary hypothesis claims to be the best and most convincing (and so, in the opinion of its subsequent supporters, the correct) explanation of the origin of the present form of the text, in that it has worked out the earlier constituent parts, namely the 'sources', and has also traced the path from them to the present final form, namely the 'redaction' What then is the case with the Yahwist as a source running through the whole Pentateuch (or Hexateuch) in the sense of the documentary hypothesis? Let us begin with the book of Genesis. At first glance no particular problems appear to arise in the analysis. The majority of exegetes reckon with only two sources for the primeval story, J and P (or three: L/N, J and P), i.e. the Elohist has no part in the primeval story according to the prevailing view. The rest of Genesis is shared out, according to the respective views, among two, three, or four sources. Recently, voices have increased which doubt if the source theory is applicable to the Joseph story (Gen. 3750). Von Rad, in the last edition of his Genesis commentary, added an appendix in which he took account of these doubts.1 Some exegetes doubt only that several of the narrative sources can be found in this complex and advance arguments that only the Tahwist' is at work here.2 This at least puts a large question mark over the documentary hypothesis as the method which is to explain the whole Pentateuch if, in an extensive block of
1 See above under 1.2. 2 Genesis (German 9th edn 1972; Eng. 2nd edn 1972) p. 440. Cf. also D.B. Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 3750), VTSupp. 20 (1970); O. Steck, Die Landnahme der israelitischen Stamme in der neuren wissenschaftlichen Diskussion. Ein kritischer Bericht, 1967, p. 92, n. 3.
110
the tradition, the tensions and unevennesses which are present in the text have to be explained in another way.1 Other exegetes want to go further and contest the presence in the Joseph story of any sources at all in the sense of the documentary hypothesis.2 This means yet a deeper breach in the validity of the documentary hypothesis, because this large passage of text drops completely out of the conventional framework of explanation.3 The difficulties of delimiting the sources in the first half of the m:ck of Exodus have already been mentioned.4 Let us cite furl.her from the commentary of W.H. Schmidt in this matter: There is often agreement in registering the tensions, breaks, and gaps in the text; but in explaining these unevennesses, axcgetes are more or less divided. It is relatively easy to perform the task of sorting out roughly the passages whose r or;? co live contents cohere. There is often a twofold problem: (1) the assigning of these pieces to each other, i.e. inserting them into their original context, and (2) the precise delimitation of the units. Where does a source really begin, where does it end? Are the transition verses which clamp different units to each other to be assigned to a written source or to the redaction? And so it is often difficult to corne to terms with secondary additions with any certainty.5 This citation shows that one can establish that a text is not a unity,/' but that a generation of work has not succeeded in determining which individual passages belong to the different sources. Accordingly, the assignment of texts remains an extremely doubtful matter. After weighing thoroughly all
1 Sfcesk, op. cit. 2 Redford and /eippert. Also, R.N. Whybray, 'The Joseph- Story and Pentateuchal Criticism', VT 18 (1988) 522-28. 3 Wellhausen had already noted perceptively what the detachment of the Joseph story would mean for the source theory as a whole: The main source for the last section of Genesis is also JE. One surmises that this work, here as elsewhere, is assembled out of J and E; our earlier results force us to this and would be shattered were it not demonstrable3 (Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Biicher des Alien, Testaments, 1899 [3rd edn], p. 52). 4 See above under 3.1. 5 Exodus, 1974, pp. 82-83. 6 Cf. Noth, A History, p. 20,
3. Criticism of Pentafouchai Criticism,
111
arguments, Schmidt assigns Exod. 2.1-10 as follows: Though, there are few concrete clues for assigning the text to any literary source, nevertheless they speak more in favour of the Elohist;, to whom one earlier and without exception assigned the main part. Recently, the preference is for the Yahwist because of general considerations... Nevertheless, assigning it to J remains questionable; J. Wellhausen was rightly reserved in the judgment that he pronounced on Exodus 2: "the separation cannot be carried through"'.1 There is therefore great uncertainty of method in delimiting the sources. Decisive in this is that there are no solid criteria capable of indicating which passages are to be assigned to which sources. The available clues 'speak in favour" of one source, though there 'is a preference for the other'. Such statements show clearly that the exegete, on the basis of the available source hypothesis, sees himself compelled to assign the texts to one of the accepted sources, even though he has no criteria for doing so. Despite intensive efforts, there has been no success in providing precise data for the continuous course of the Yahwistic narrative thread. Fohrer solves the problems differently. He is of the opinion that he has at his disposal criteria by which he can assign texts or parts of texts to the individual sources; by means of them he can often discern elements of the sources, even if the redaction has almost completely altered the original text. So for Fohrer, for example, Exod. 2.11-22 'presents a narrative which has been moulded almost to a perfect unity from elements of the source layers J, E, and N'.2 Therefore, unified passages of texts also, which in themselves offer no cause for literary-critical operations, can be assigned to several sources, and indeed to several sources at the same time! It is clear that in this way it is very much easier to point out the continuity of the presentation in the different sources.3
1 Exodus, p. 64. 2 Uberlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus. Eine Analyse von Ex 1~ 15,1964, p. 26. 3 It is at the same time clear that, in such a procedure, one has abandoned the point of departure of classical pentateuchal criticism, namely the question of an explanation of the breaks and repetitions ascertainable in the present text, and by means of an in-built system
112
If Schmidt and other exegetes find it difficult to point to a Yahwistic narrative in the first two chapters of the book of Exodus, Noth finds problems in Exodus 34. He considers that the whole passage which deals with Moses' meeting with God and the commission given him to lead the Israelites out of Egypt (Exod. 3.1-4.17) as a 'secondary element',1 in so far as he does not hold it to be elohistic, which seems 'to have been interpolated only secondarily into the work of the Yahwist'.2 And so the Yahwist would have reported nothing of all this! In the further course of the narrative there are even more and greater difficulties. Noth maintains that the narrative of the Sinai event, already within the old pentateuchal material (Exod. 19-24; 32-34), has, by expansions and interpolations, been given such a complicated literary arrangement that a plausible analysis is now no longer possible'.3 One could also describe this situation in another way, namely by concluding that the criteria for source criticism have proved unsuitable to explain the literary problems of the Sinai pericope! Going into detail, Noth carries out some negative delimitations: the story of the golden calf is 'a secondary element within J, not only in the process of the formation of the tradition, but also from the literary standpoint'.4 'One must renounce any literary critical analysis of Exodus 33. It seems here to be a matter of a conglomeration of seconda/y growths'.5 And the passage Exod. 24.3-8, which deals with the ceremony of the *blood of the covenant', has not been included in the list, because it seems to Noth Very doubtful whether this piece belongs to any source at all and is not rather some sort of secondary appendix to the book of the covenant'.6 And so there is less and less left over for the Yahwistand more and more texts disappear from the record by the methods of source divisions! As one proceeds, the problems do not become easier, but
only verified the hypothetical solution given earlier. 1 A History, p. 30, n. 103. 2 Op. cit.,p.2Q3, n.549. 3 Op. cit., p. 31, n. 115; cf. L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alien Testament, 1969, pp. 156ff. 4 Noth, ibid. 5 Op. eft., p. 31, n. 114. 6 Op. eft., p. 31, n. 115.
113
more difficult. Immediately after dealing with the Sinai pericope where, according to the prevailing view, the old pentateuchal sources begin again, Noth writes: The very fragile ch. 12 of Numbers is one of the most despairing cases in pentateuchal analysis; I simply give up any attempt to dismember it'.1 And a little later: In the second half of the book of Numbers, all sorts of supplements have been inserted towards the end of the Moses tradition in the different literary stages; there has also been a literary working together of the Pentateuch and the deuteronomistic history; the far reaching consequence of all this has produced a final text so complicated that it is only with the greatest difficulty that one can make out anything certain about the original form of the pentateuchal material in this area'.2 In Noth's view then it appears that no information about the death of Moses has been preserved from the old sources!3 Kaiser's judgment is similar. In his rehearsing of the Yahwistic work he writes: *We feel our way through the fragments of the Yahwistic narrative. In the last available pieces in Numbers 32, Moses appears no more'.4 And Noth himself later sharpened his judgment still further on the possibilities of source division in the book of Numbers: 'If one takes the 4th book of Moses in itself, then one would not easily come to the idea of 'continuous sources', but rather to that of an unsystematic arrangement of numerous pieces of tradition of very different content, age, and character ('fragment hypothesis')'.5 Nevertheless, Noth is of the opinion that one should not isolate the book of Numbers, and considers it 'justified to approach the 4th book of Moses with the results of pentateuchal analysis gained elsewhere and to expect continuous pentateuchal 'sources' in this book as well even if, as already said, the situation in the 4th book of Moses does not of itself lead at once to these conclusions'.6 As for the 'results of pentateuchal analysis gained elsewhere', one should call to mind
1 2 3 4 5 6 Op. cit.,p.32, n. 120. Op. cit., pp. 32f., n. 126. Ibid. Introduction, p. 89. Numbers, p. 4. Ibid., p.5.
114
once more that already, from Steuernagel to Schmidt, 'great uncertainty' reigns in the source division in the first part of the book of Exodus, and the results have 'often only a limited degree of probability*, even if one does not 'renounce completely as too uncertain5 the assignment of texts to particular sources.1 It must remain doubtful if this is a basis from which one can expect 'sources' in the book of Numbers, even though one cannot discern them there. One must not pass over the fact that there are also exegetes who place more confidence in the trustworthiness of source analysis. But the citations given here indicate that there is in any case widespread uncertainty, and in addition, the analyses of Noth must be counted as truly representative of the present day. Hence, it cannot in any way be said that there is a broad and well founded consensus today among supporters of the documentary hypothesis about the precise course of the Yahwistic work. The problem area for the understanding of the whole work that arises out of all this may be clarified under two points: (1) the question of the conclusion of the Yahwistic work: von Rad reckons with a Hexateuch because he understands the whole as directed to the occupation of the land. Noth is in basic agreement, but thinks that the conclusion *has been lost' in the course of the redaction.2 Wolff on the other hand does not have these difficulties because for him the once so important theme of the promise of the land has, with the Yahwist, been 'contracted to a secondary narrative trait'.3 'Hence there should be no cause for surprise when at the end of the Yahwistic work the theme of the occupation of the land does not appear with its special significance and to the extent expected'.4 Wolff then is satisfied to conclude the Yahwistic work with the Balaam narrative (Num. 22-24).5 There is no more talk of the death of Moses. Other exegetes manage by passing over the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua and taking the traditions of the occupation of the land in the first
1 See above under 3.1. 2 See above under 1.4. 3 'The Kerygma of the Yahwist', Interpretation 20 (1966) 131-58. 4 Ibid., n. 37. 5 Op. cit.
115
chapter of the book of Judges as the conclusion of the Yahwistic work. They acknowledge thereby Noth's separation of the book of Joshua from the Pentateuch, but do not draw the consequences from it; rather, they want to retain a small bit of 'Hexateuch'.1 But for these also the difficulty remains that in the Yahwistic work there is no information about the death of Moses. Many would like to find it in Deuteronomy 34; but here too, great uncertainty reigns.2 But all in all the question of the end of the Yahwistic work remains undecided and many exegetes leave it aa open question both in itself and for themselves. Can one then really say anything reliable about the purpose and goal of this work? (2) A further controversial point which ought be mentioned fis yet another exuniDle is the part "olayed bv the Yahwist in the Sinai periecpe ar-d the question, what is the significance of the Sinai periocope for him. Noth has maintained that the account cf the events at Sinai 'have been given such a complicated literary arrangement that a plausible analysis is no longer passible5.3 He is of the opinion that this is 'thoroughly comprehensible in view of what is narrated here'.,4 He explains the situation thus: the insertion of different codes of law' have 'disturbed the tight structure of the three narrative sources not inconsiderably' and 'so central an event as the divine manifestation, the making of the covenant, and the 'law'-giving has obviously given occasion for all sorts of subsequent expansions and statements'.5 Noth is clearly of the opinion that the Yahwist too originally had a considerable and discernible share in this central passage, Wolff thinks otherwise: He maintains that the Yahwist is 'taciturn' on the Sinai theme. But this is not due to redactional alteration of the text; rather: 'How can it be otherwise, given as starting point the kerygma (of the Yahwist}? The nations which
1 E.g. Kaiser, Introduction, pp. 78ff,; also S. Smend, Biblische Zeug"Jsse.Literatur des alien Israel, 1967, pp. 86-87. Noth has already spoken against this view (A History, p. 33, n. 127), 2 Gazelles finds the opinion which ascribes Deut. 34.1b-6 to the Yahwist as 'tenant' (DBS VII, 1966, col. 791). 3 A History, p. 31, n, 115. 4 Ibid. 6 Exodus, p. 13.
116
preoccupied him in the primeval story, on whose account the patriarchal theme was so fruitful for him, and whom he saw both in the Joseph story and then in the exodus tradition in the form of the shackling might of Egypt, have no place at all in the Sinai theme. He could not of course by-pass it, because it was already there before him, having grown up together with the other themes'.1 And so Wolffs conception of the Yahwistic work allows no significance worth mentioning to the Sinai theme. Over against this there should be set other opinions, the selection of which can only be more or less random. Von Rad has emphasized that the 'inset of the Sinai tradition' was one of the decisive theological accomplishments of the Yahwist. It was 'a free and daring act of the Yahwist' and signifies theologically 'a considerable enrichment'.2 The tradition of the occupation of the land attests Yahweh's merciful will; in the centre of the Sinai tradition stands Yahweh's will that demands justice. By taking to itself the Sinai tradition, the simple and basic soteriological idea of the tradition of the occupation of the land acquired a powerful and beneficial substructure'.3 For von Rad, both themes are at the very centre of the theological conception of the Yahwist, themes which for Wolff have no further independent significance. Gazelles says of the Sinai theme: the Yahwist 'knows the Sinai [theme] and is more interested in it than one thinks'.4 There are still further opinions in the different monographs on the theology of the Yahwist. According to MarieLouise Henry 'the Yahwist makes the event at Sinai the climax of his presentation'.5 P.F. Ellis writes: The Sinai covenant may rightly be termed the climax of the Yahwist's saga'.6 These examples are cited merely to show how broad are the differences of opinion as to which themes in the tradition are
1 2 3 4 'The Kerygma of the Yahwist'. The Form-critical Problem', pp. 53-54. Op. cit., pp. 53-54. 'Positions actuelles dans l'exgese du Pentateuque', in De Mart a Qumr&n, Festschrift J. Coppens, 1, 1969, pp. 34-57 (50). 5 Jahwist und Priesterschrift. Zwei Glaubenszeugnisse des Alien Testaments, 1969, p. 19. 6 The Yahwist. The Bible's First Theologian, 1969, p. 181.
117
to be regarded as specifically and characteristically Yahwistic. The uncertainty becomes still greater when it is a question of the marks that characterize the Yahwist's way of presentation and style. Older generations applied much ingenuity to working out the linguistic peculiarities of the penta-(hexa-) teuchal sources. A classical example of this are the tables of 'linguistic characteristics' of the sources in Holzinger's Introduction. One reads: 'One can speak of a characteristic Lexikon oftT.1 1 There follow no less than fourteen pages of Yahwistic vocabulary, then some more on grammar and style. There is a corresponding 'Lexikon' of E (9 pages),2 again with further details on grammar and style; likewise for (T)' and) P.3 Since then, argument by means of differences in linguistic usage has receded completely into the background. It is generally emphasized that the language of the priestly document is clearly recognizable. Eissfeldt writes: *Even for J and E a whole list of statements have been made which are of permanent value. But as soon as one comes to refinements, confusion begins. The same narrative is not infrequently assigned by one author to J, by another to E, each time on the basis of language'.4 He therefore gives place to the argument of the frequent occurrence of narratives, narrative motifs, and notes, and tries, 'in the current abandonment of other arguments to make use of this one alone to solve the problems of the Hexateuch'.5 But in his Introduction he again advanced the argument from linguistic usage; but little has remained from Holzinger's comprehensive lists; apart from the distinction 'Canaanites/Amorites' and 'Sinai/Horeb', all that is left is that the slave woman is called in the J-layer and in the Elayer; but the probative value of this is reduced when the slave woman serving the man' (and only she is in question in the alleged proofs!) is described as well in the J-layer as 'concubine' ,6 Here the argument from different linguistic
1 2 3 4 Einleitung in den Hexateuch, 1893, p. 93 (emphasis in original). Op. cit., pp. 181-89. Op. cit., pp. 283-90,339-48. Hexateuch. Synopse, 1922 = 1962 (2nd edn), p. 5. 5 Op. cit., p. 5. 6 Introduction, p. 183; also A. Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament, 11, 1959 (5th edn), pp. 29,45.
118
usage is reduced to a tiny crumb. Fohrer speaks confidently: The linguistic usage is different in the individual source layers. Further examination shows that the change in the designation of places, persons, objects etc. is not due to chance but coheres with other distinguishing marks'.1 However, he does not produce any examples but refers merely to the tables in Driver (1891, 1913) and Steuernagel (1912),2 Kaiser refers to Holzinger (1912) and mentions a few examples, something like Eissfeldt.3 Noth, however, doubts whether these arguments carry any weight at all: The study of language and style in itself is of scarcely any decisive help in the analysis of the Pentateuch material... closer attention shov/s only faint traces of synonyms and synonymous phrases whose variable use can with any probability be traced back to a difference in writers who have given the material its formulation as handed down; and these words and phrases occur too seldom to be of any real service in classifying the material as a whole'.4 One thing becomes very clear from this example: in the present state of pentateuchal study, arguments are often taken over and repeated on the basis of a general, however illdefined,5 consensus about the acknowledgment of the documentary hypothesis; these arguments scarcely carry conviction and the individual exegete has scarcely been able to substantiate them with concrete content. When the claim that the sources J and E differ from each other in their use of language, is reduced after all to the statement that there are two (or three!) different designations for the slave woman,6 it can only be due to the principle of inertia that this argument is still used at all.7 Reference to tables in older literature without con1 Introduction, p. 115. 2 Whether the summary details given by Steuernagel in his Lehrbuch4see above under p. 104 n. 1) pp. 203, 214-15, 233-34, can be described as 'detailed' (so Fohrer), must be questionable. 3 Introduction, p. 93. 4 A History, p. 21. 5 The German word used is 'diffus'; it is not used in any polemical sense, but only to state that the consensus consists only in a basic conviction, but in detail cannot be more sharply defined. 6 Cf. also F. Stolz, Das alte Testament, 1974, p. 31. 7 And this all the more so in view of A. Jepsen's discussion, 'Amah
119
crete details about what is considered still valid in them, serves scarcely more than to function as an alibi. 3.2.2 Characteristics of the work of the Yahwist But the real problem goes much deeper: in what way is it possible at all to ask about the distinguishing marks of the Tahwistic style' or the Yahwistic language'? This question is closely linked with the other: in what way is the Yahwist to be regarded as 'narrator* or 'writer'? If one looks for information on this question in recent literature, one finds a very divided answer. One generally insists today that the Yahwist's work had a long pre-history. It has been accepted since Gunkel that the individual narratives often existed independently at first before they became parts of larger compositionsand then at some time or other of the Yahwistic work as well. Since then further intermediary steps have been introduced into the discussion. Noth in particular has found a large following with his thesis that before the Yahwist and the Elohist there already existed a 'common basis' (G = Grundlage}.1 Fohrer extended the thesis, 'G has been worked over in different ways 2 ... so that one must reckon with two basic narratives, first an older (G1) and then a later (G2)'.3 But this only makes the question more urgent, what part did the Yahwist and the other older authors of the sources play in the shaping of the texts ascribed to them. There are various aspects to this question. First, it has something to do with the question of oral and written tradition.4 The matter was rather clear for Gunkel: the origin of the written sources marks at the same time the transition from oral to written tradition. The collection of stories had already begun in the oral tradition'. Their committment to
and Schiphchah', VT 8 (1958) 293-97: 'It would be far better to exclude the two words and from the arguments for source division', p. 297. A History, p. 39. Introduction, p.IS. Op. cif.,p.!29. It is not a matter of alternatives as opponents of the documentary hypothesis have developed it under the catch cry 'oral tradition'.
1 2 3 4
120
writing 'will have followed at a time which lent itself rather to writers'. The written collection of stories... took place in a long process in which one can distinguish "two periods", to the older of which we owe "the collections of the Yahwist (J) and the Elohist (E)"'.1 This was at the same time the end of the oral tradition ^because the fixation in writing will then for its part have contributed to the death of the remains of the oral tradition still existing'.2 Fohrer's judgment is similar: 'In accordance with the literary promises available to Israel, the oral tradition was concerned for the most part with individual pieces whereas the written sources of the Pentateuch were without doubt recorded in writing'.3 Koch, in his discussion of this whole group of questions,4 insists that the question of the transition from the oral to the written stage 'must be put anew for each type of literature, and indeed for each literary unit', and answered differently.5 He surmises that 'the popular narratives, as they are found from Genesis to Samuel, were written down only relatively late, and with their committment to writing the living oral transmission by no means came to an end'.6 Unfortunately he does not say what he means by 'relatively late' and what consequences are to be drawn from this for the sources of the Pentateuch. In another place he describes the Yahwist repeatedly as a 'writer' (likewise the Elohist)7 and speaks for example of literary clamps' of which the Yahwist makes use.8 There is then only an apparent contradiction to the opinions of Gunkel and Fohrer already cited. The written sources/layers therefore are in essence unanimously considered to be written works. What preceded them? For Gunkel, as we have seen, the formation of the written sources meant the transition from oral to written tradition. But what about the entity 'G'? Noth leaves the question open
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Genesis, p. Ixxx. Ibid. Op. cit. See above under 1. Op. cit., p. 85. Op. cit., p. 85. Op. cit., pp. 128-32. Op. cit., p. 131.
121
and maintains that it cannot be decided. He insists 'that this common basis for J and E must already have had a fixed form', but continues: *Whether it be that it was fixed in writing or whether it was that in its oral transmission it had acquired a distinct form both in structure and content'.1 Kaiser speaks similarly of a 'moulded tradition (G), be it oral or written', from which 'the Yah wist took over... the basic outline for his narrative'.2 Fohrer is of a different opinion here: 'It is to be presumed that G1 circulated only in oral tradition, whereas G2, at the division of the kingdom after the death of Solomon, was probably available in a written version'.3 Kaiser refers to the suggestions of Kilian and Fritz that the Yahwist may well have had available to him and used a written model for particular complexes of tradition.4 There is no unanimity therefore on the question whether the Yahwist used written sources which were available to him; however, there is a recognizable tendency to give an affirmative answer.5 For the rest, it is emphasized that the material available, be it oral or written, had a distinct form. It is frequently noted6 that one should not imagine that an ancient writer like the Yahwist was in any way near as free as a modern writer; he was much more strongly bound to what lay before him. Gunkel had already insisted that the stories were taken over by the collectors essentially as they found them,7 meaning here by 'collectors' expressly J and E. Noth writes: 'the ancient sources clearly kept substantially to the narrative tradition given to them both as a whole and in detail'.8 And Fohrer very similarly: 'Apart from their individual characteristic, the authors of the ancient source layers kept in general and in detail to the tradition that they
1 A History, pp. 39, 229. 2 Introduction, p.8L 3 Introduction, p.lSOt 4 Kaiser, Introduction, pp. 84f. 5 Differently, H. Schulte, Die Entstehung der Geschichtsschreibung im Alien Israel, 1972, p. 74. 6 For von Rad's view, see above under 1.1. 7 Genesis, pp. Ixxx, Ixxxiii. 8 A History, p. 229. Despite this agreement with Gunkel, Noth rejects G's opinion of the sources as 'schools of narrators'.
122
used'.1 Is there anything then such as a Tahwistic style' or a Tahwistic language'? Gunkel replies affirmatively: 'On the other hand, there are collectors who are far removed from passing on material transmitted without any alteration. They have allowed the stories to penetrate their being; their uniform use of language is a clear sign that the stuff of the stories has passed through the mould'.2 Likewise Fohrer: 'In any case, the source layers rest on the activity of individual writers who show differences in both language and style'.3 The shape that the material had taken had already reached such a point 'that the definitive literary version was for the most part subject only to linguistic and stylistic reworking5.4 Noth's judgment is more reserved: 'The work of J and E consisted largely in simply giving formulation to the narratives transmitted, which gives one readily to reflect that all sorts of modes of expression and stylistic characteristics had already been given with the old tradition, so that the ancient sources could not have yet become formal, tightly selfcontained, units'.5 Noth makes the explicit point that 'the brief/detailed narrative style, without any attempt to balance the individual narratives, has been preserved, each in the style transmitted, in the final written form'.6 Thus he has basically denied the existence of a peculiar Yahwistic style; for one cannot seriously bring together under the common term 'Yahwistic style' texts in the "brief narrative style of Gen. 12.10-20 and texts in the 'detailed' style of Genesis 24not to speak of the 'novellistic style' of the Joseph story! In any other area of the OT one would regard it as a serious methodological error were an exegete to ascribe such fundamentally different texts to a common author; rather the very difference in style would be judged as evidence against common authorship. Ought other standards hold for the Pentateuch? Or can other common and convincing stylistic marks be found which, 1 Introduction, p. 2 Genesis, p. Ixxxv.
3 Introduction, p. 143. 4 Op. cit.,p. 144 5 A History, p. 229.
6 Ibid., n. 603.
123
despite these fundamental differences, suggest that one accept a common author? Von Rad has given another answer to this question: 'In the shaping of the individual narratives the Yahwist has perhaps not been beyond a certain hewing of the archaic profile and the chipping of quite distinct and subtle traits'.1 Wolff too insists that the Yahwist is by and large a trustworthy collector who has himself done little by way of redaction to the material transmitted'.2 Smend writes on the question: We must think of the Yahwist as first and foremost a loyal collector of popular tradition... (He) has for the most part been content to pass on what was available to him'.3 And after a short survey of the course of presentation in the Yahwistic narrative he continues: The Yahwist presents all this while allowing his sources to speak in as trustworthy a manner as possible'.4 And so in this question as well, there is no unanimity: did the Yahwist not even so much as formulate or remodel the texts passed on, or did he 'mould' them into another form, or did he rework their language and style so that they now bear his own characteristic stamp? If yes, then in what does this stamp consist, given the fundamental differences in form and style between the individual narratives? If no, how can we know which texts come from the Yahwist or are to be ascribed to him? It is clear that this question only becomes a problem if one does not take as the point of departure the assumption, considered as certain, that the documentary hypothesis holds and that consequently everything that is not ascribed to the priestly writing or, if need be, to the Elohist, must be considered Yahwistic.5 We have already spoken of a sort of method of subtraction which is used today whereby everything, which is not on firm grounds reckoned to another source or layer of reworking, is ascribed to the Yahwist.6 If one
1 2 3 4 5 Genesis (9th edn German; Eng 2nd edn) p. 37. The Kerygma', p. 136. Biblische Zeugnisse. Literatur des alien Israel, 1967, p. 26. Op. cit.,p.27. I prescind here from the question of the separation of the Yahwist into two sources and from the question of the part of the 'redactors'. 6 See above under 1.3; also W. Schmidt, Exodus, p. 64.
124
accepts this assumption as certain, then one can quite well argue, on the basis of the variety of forms in the traditions used by him, that the Yahwist likewise disposed of a variety of stylistic forms. One asks then not, how does one recognize the work of the Yahwist?but, what does all this mean for the stylistic forms found in the Yahwistwhose literary stock has been fixed beforehand and independently of them? But whoever wants to put the first question, inasmuch as he holds the assumptions described above to be not all that certain, is left without a concrete answer. And what is offered to him, now here now there, as representations of the variety of styles in the Yahwist, is really nothing else than a description of the 'art form of the stories (Sagen)' as Gunkel had already provided for Genesis. The presentations by Gazelles1 and Ellis2 can serve as recent examples of this. However, there does seem to be basic agreement that a quite decisive characteristic of the Yahwist is the way in which he has arranged the material that came to him and that he took over. This was the fundamental idea in von Rad's plan. But we have already seen, with Noth's qualifications, that the actual work of the Yahwist as a composer has been reduced quite notably. Hence, one can understand why the statements on this point in the literature are mostly very vague. And so Wolff writes: *What the Yahwist himself has to say becomes clearer in his arranging of the material handed on, in his outline, in which he allows the large blocks of tradition belonging to the preliterary stage to give expression to themselves, sometimes extensively, as with the patriarchal tradition, sometimes sparsely, as with the Sinai tradition. However, there is no reliable evidence here, because we cannot see clearly what was sacrificed when the material was worked together with the Elohist and later with the priestly writing. But the outline is as a whole independent of this, and so above all are the contents of the great forecourt known as the primeval story which is generally regarded as his literary accomplishment'.3 It is quite clear here, in my opinion, how an argument is maintained,
1 Tentateuque', DBS, VII, 1966, cols. 792-93. 2 The Yahwist. The Bible's First Theologian, 1969, pp. 113ff. 3 The Kerygma', p. 136.
125
although it has lost its essential basis and thereby its power of conviction: for von Had, the arrangement of the larger blocks was the decisive accomplishment of the Yahwist; Wolff holds to this idea and underscores it heavily, while in this 'arranging the material passed on', the 'self-expression' of the Yahwist becomes very clear. But Wolff has to qualify this immediately and say in the very next sentence that there is 'no reliable evidence here', and that of the arrangement of the great blocks of tradition there remains peculiar to him what 'is generally regarded as his (the Yahwist's) literary accomplishment', namely 'the contents of the great forecourt known as the primeval story*. According to Wolffs opinion therefore and in face of the present textand we have no other!one can not give concrete details of what this compositorial accomplishment comprises. The picture is similar with Fohrer. In his view 'it is to be noted to what extent the single event is brought into large complexes and set under over-arching view points, and how 'history' (Geschichte) is shaped out of individual stories (Geschichten). This is shown both by the structure of the whole which is expanded around the primeval story and by the special emphasis given by J'.1 He continues further: 'Striking here is the mingling of national (already noted) and universal concepts'.2 As proofs are alleged Gen. 8.21 and (without explicit citation) Gen. 12.3 (The other nations can and so ought to share in its blessing?3). Another characteristic mark of the present discussion is in evidence here: the arguments for identifying the Yahwist (for his theology, see below under 3.2.3) are taken predominantly, often almost exclusively, from Genesis! It is not mentioned if the 'special emphasis' of J is demonstrable in other places as well. According to Kaiser the Yahwist has 'in the traditions available to him undoubtedly moved the action of Yahweh firmly into the foreground'.4 It is not said how this is done and to what extent the action of Yahweh was originally expressed less
1 2 3 4 Introduction, p. 150 (with reference to Weiser). Ibid. Op. ci*.,p.!50. Introduction, p. 84.
126
clearly in the versions taken over by the Yahwist. T3y giving shape to the promise motifs handed on and by linking together the ancient traditions he achieved furthermore a theologizing*.1 Here too there is the undemonstrated claim about the 'linking together of the ancient traditions' and the intention inherent in it.2 And moretwo sentences before we read 'that besides the basic plan linking together the different cycles of themes, larger complexes of traditions were already available (to the Yahwist)'. What then could he still link together? There is present here once more that general yet ill-defined consensus which we noted earlier.3 The peculiar accomplishment of the Yahwist consists not in the linguistic and stylistic shaping of the traditions handed on (although there was possibly something like this, even though one cannot exactly prove it), but in the arrangement of the traditions (although the complexes of tradition were to a large extent available to him) and in putting certain emphases (which one can recognize clearly only in a very few places)4 Here, in my opinion, one can discern clearly yet again how the overall conception has been maintained, although more and more some of the individual parts of which the structure once consisted have become questionable or have had to be abandoned entirely. Critical reflection shows that the structure is really held together only by the common conviction of those for whom the documentary hypothesis is a fixed piece of data in the tradition of scholarship in which they stand; it does not occur to them to doubt it, even though so many individual supporting arguments have been shown to be no longer tenable.5 3.2.3 The theology of the Yahwist But we have not yet mentioned a crucial matter of discussion
1 Ibid. 2 As shown above (2.3-2.4), there can be no talk of a promise motif or motifs being passed on to the Yahwist. 3 See above under 3.2.1 (towards the end). 4 Wolff (op. cit., pp.!36ff.) talks of five much discussed bridge passages, exclusively from the book of Genesis, 6.5-8; 8.21-22; 12.1-4a; 18.17-18,23b-33. 5 See further R. Rendtorff, 'Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte', EvTh 27 (1967) 138-53.
3. Criticism of Peniateuchal Criticism
127
which dominates to a large extent the current literature: the theology of the Yahwist. In their presentation of the Yahwist, most of the contributions just cited pass quickly from a few general and often quite summary statements about the composition to a treatment of the theology of the Yahwist. It has already been noted that von Rad saw the theological achievement of the Yahwist above all in the theological composition, i.e. in the arrangement of the hitherto independent large complexes of tr&dition of the Pentateuch/Hexateuch. We have already referred to the basic shift of emphasis which judgment about the Yahwist as a theologian has undergone through Noth, inasmuch as his share in the composition is given a considerably lower rating and his theological contribution finds expression mainly in a few programmatic sentences. Moth's opinion has prevailed by and large. A great number of authors have repeated mechanically that one can best recognize the Yahwist where he himself formulates and this he does in those same programmatic sentences. The selection of texts has generally remained the same. Besides a few sentences in the primeval story (especially 6.5 and 8.21-22), there are mainly two places: Gen. 12.1-3 and 18.22b-33. Von Rad had already elaborated in detail the significance of the first: it is a link which binds the story of the human race described in the primeval story with the story of Israel which begins with Abraham; it is 'the clamp between the primeval story and the story of salvation' and 'the etiology of all etiologies of Israel'.1 This text has been explained often and in detail; Wolff, with the heaviest emphasis, has put it at the centre of the theology of the Yahwist.2 The second text, Gen. 18.22b-33, on the contrary plays no role at all in von Rad's presentation of the Yahwist's theology. He did not mention in it his The Formcritical Problem...'; in his commentary on Genesis he writes of both passages: If they do not stem precisely from his (the Yahwist's) pen, they are in their whole pattern of thought incomparably closer to him
1 The Form Critical Problem', p. 66. 2 The Kerygma', pp.!37ff. It is striking that this text is missing from the presentation of the Yahwist's theology in the Introduction of Fohrer and Kaiser.
128
than the really ancient narratives'.1 However, in his Theology of the Old Testament he has this to say about the second piece (18.20-33): The passage stands quite isolated and it is scarcely possible for us to classify it in the historical-theological process'.2 Hence, for von Rad, it has never had a constitutive function for the understanding of the Yahwist, but stands in solitary isolation. Noth sees it differently. For him this piece is 'an independent contribution of J'3 and 'in the analysis of the theology of J deserves especially careful attention'.4 According to Kaiser 'we ought to regard (this piece) as something peculiarly his own' so that 'it is in this passage perhaps that we come to recognize the Yahwist most clearly as a theologian'.5 Smend writes: 'Only once, it seems, can we latch on to a lengthy piece in all these passages which he himself has written: Abraham's dialogue with Yahweh before the destruction of Sodom'.6 And this is the only passage outside the primeval story that Fohrer expressly cites in his presentation of the theology of the Yahwist.7 What is the reason for saying that we must be dealing here with a particularly characteristic and important piece of the theology? A first reason is easy to see. It is obviously a matter here not of a piece of ancient story tradition, but of a theological reflection which, without any doubt, is to be reckoned only to a stage in the process of tradition when reworking and reflection were at work. As this is beyond dispute, it immediately suggests itself to many exegetes that the piece is to be ascribed to the Yahwist. Nothing, apparently, speaks in favour of one of the other sources; only the 'addition' in 18.19 is deuteronomistic;8 such refined theological reflection ought not be confided to a 'redactor*; and so only the Yahwist remains; in any case one would like very much to ascribe so lapidary a piece of theology to this great theologian.
1 Genesis (German, 1972, 9th edn; Eng. 1972, 2nd edn), pp. 214-15. 2 Theology of the Old Testament, I, p. 395. 3 A History, p. 238. 4 Op. cit.,p.239. 5 Introduction, pp. 84-85. 6 See above under 3.2.1. 7 Introduction, p. 151 8 Cf. Noth, op. cit., p. 239, n. 627.
129
But in what does the characteristically Yahwistic quality of this piece consist? Kaiser cites with approval a sentence from Noth which he would like to extend 'across the whole of the Yahwist's narrative story': '... it becomes clear that people in this world can only be rescued through the free action of God himself, not through some sort of righteousness of their own by which they might be able to protect themselves and others before the divine judgment'.1 Noth points out that in Sodom... there were not even the 'ten just' of v.32; probably there would not even be one', and he is of the opinion that thus 'the human being of the Yahwistic primeval story stands before us, described as unambiguously and consistently as anywhere else in the Old Testament'.2 Similarly Smend: The problem of the primeval story is also the problem of the other parts of the Yahwistic work: it is the action of Yahweh, the "judge of all the world", towards a world where righteousness is missing or hopelessness seems to lie at its base'.3 But does this do justice to the text? Is the text really dealing with the general problem described? And is it really justified to set Sodom and all the 'people of the world' in parallelism?4 Noth has already described the problem quite differently: it is 'to be noted in this discussion... that the 'righteous action' of the 'judge of the whole earth' (v. 25) would, according to Abraham's view implicitly confirmed by Yahweh, consist in this, that he would not as it were number off the 'just' over against the 'godless'; rather for him the very few 'just' carry such weight that because of them the great crowd of the 'godless' would go unpunished instead of the opposite, namely that the individual 'just' would be taken up into the judgment that befalls the 'godless".5 But this is not at all the problem of the primeval story! The idea that the righteousness of Noah could have any influence on YHWH's decision to destroy appears nowhere there. And further, such reflections do not appear 'in other parts of the Yahwistic work' (Smend). The statement of Noth (and Kaiser) that the human person
1 2 3 4 5 Cf. Noth, op. cit., p. 239; Kaiser, Introduction. Ibid. Cf. p. 23 n. 2. Noth, op. ci*.,p.239. Op. cit., p. 239.
130
cannot be rescued 'through any personal righteousness' would find its parallel in the Pentateuch at best in Deut. 9.4-6 where it is said expressly 'not because of your own righteousness'. Wolff wants to see in this passage an initial development of the Yahwistic theme of Gen. 12.3, how blessing can come to those threatened with death in Abraham-Israel. The answer is: in the tireless intervention of Abraham-Israel on behalf of those who are destined to death'.1 But the closest parallel to Abraham as intercessor would be the 'elohistic' passage in Gen. 20.7, 17!2 The intercession of the Tahwistic' Moses for the Egyptians is, on the contrary, that Pharaoh acknowledge that YHWH alone is God and has the power (Exod. 8.6; 9.29); the plagues also serve the same goal (8.18; 9.14; 11.7); and finally, when the firstborn of Egypt are destined to death, there is no intercession. And so it is difficult to find in Gen. 18.22b-33 evidence of a theology that is characteristic of the work of the Yahwist. On the contrary, it is clear that the passage must be seen in the context of the discussions about the relationship between collective (or corporate) to individual righteousness as found particularly in Ezekiel. One may leave it an open question whether the view in the text is 'still far from the later, in many ways doctrinaire, individualistic solution* of the question,3 or is already 'on the way from corporate to individual responsibility and liability as formulated in Ezekiel'.4 For von Rad it is 'a unique breakthrough which, in place of the old notion of collectivity, laid down a new way of thinking which took its point of departure from the protective and representative function of the He sees it 'in the perspective of many future generations' in line with the statements about 'the suffering servant who brings salvation "for the many" (Isa. 53.3,10)'.5 But is this passage really so 'unique*? It seems to me that the important point of reference is less the discussion about individual responsibility as such in Ezekiel 18, but rather Ezek.
1 'The Kerygma'. 2 For the claim that 20.7 belongs to the 'Elohist', see Wolff, op. cit., pp. 147f. 3 Noth, op. cit., p. 238. 4 Fohrer, Introduction, p. 151 5 Theology of the Old Testament, I, p. 395.
3. Criticism of Pentate uchal Criticism
131
14.12-20 which, in my opinion, von Rad passes over too quickly. The question in the background there is clearly: can a few just effectively protect the whole community from the judgment of God? The negative answer given in Ezekiel 14 is only comprehensible if those listening to the prophet reckon with this possibility. One could say somewhat subtly: Ezekiel's contemporaries also know the problem dealt with in Genesis 18, whether a few just can save a whole community. But Ezekiel denies this: men so exemplary and just as Noah, Daniel, and Job could not effect that; they alone would be saved (Ezek. 14.14, 16, 18, 20). It must remain open here whether Ezekiel holds this thesis to be utterly false theologically, or is simply of the opinion that the time is now come when the intercession of such exemplary and just people can no longer ward off judgment;1 in any case it is clear that the theological reflections in Gen. 18.22b-33 and Ezek. 14.12-20 belong to a common context in the process of the history of tradition.2 What remains of the 'theology of the Yahwist'? First, a further remark must be inserted here: one often finds paraphrase-like descriptions of the overall theological conception of the Pentateuch/Hexateuch which are given out as the theology of the Yahwist. It is evident here that for many authorsoften enough when writing for a rather broad circle of readersthe idea of the Yahwist as the great theologian who has given the Pentateuch its decisive stamp, has broken away from the literary critical problems of the documentary hypothesis and become independent. However, let it be said expressly here that this is in no way to contest the possibility of making synthetic theological statements about the Pentateuch as a whole. Rather, in the question of the 'theology*, the talk here is first, in the methodologically strictest sense, of the Yahwist as a 'source' or 'source layer' as understood by the documentary hypothesis. What, if need be, might take its
1 Verses 22-23! 2 On this, cf. Wellhausen, Die Composition, 1899 (3rd edn), p. 25. He holds Gen. 18.22b-33 to be an 'insertion', and the 'motive' for it was a 'mood' that '(dominated) the Jewish people at the time when Jeremiah and Ezekiel prophesied and the book of Job took form'. Von Rad, Theology, I, p. 395, underscores the closeness to Isa. 53.3, 10.
132
place, is a later question. What remains then of the 'theology of the Yahwist*? The great achievement of arrangement in which von Rad thought he could discern his theological intentions, can no longer be claimed for him. Individual passages had for the most part already been formed. Language and style he took for the most part from what was available to him. And the individual programmatic statements can be claimed for him only to a very limited extentand that only at the very beginning of his work. It is entirely in accord with the present state of scholarship when the theology of the Yahwist is developed out of one programmatic passage, Gen. 12.1-3,* or limited almost entirely to the primeval story.2 It is clearly not possible to present a theological conception which embraces the whole Pentateuch and can be shown convincingly to belong to the Yahwist. Here again, attention must be drawn to a peculiar situation: although attempts to present a theology of the Yahwist proceed almost entirely from Genesis, the element of the divine promise addressed to the patriarchs plays an astonishingly small role. Yet it is clearly evident that there is in them a very concentrated form of theological reflection and speech. But they are not of the kind out of which one can develop a theology of the Yahwist. On the contrary: they present almost an embarrassment. And so even Wolff in his approach to Gen. 12.1-3 has to explain that the promise of the land, which so clearly runs through the whole patriarchal tradition, is 'contracted to a secondary narrative feature' and 'is not in the area of his particular interest'.3 And as for the Abraham-Lot narrative in Genesis 13, in which, in its present narrative con1 Wolff, The Kerygma'. 2 Thus Zimmerli, Old Testament Theology in Outline, pp. 167-72; O.H. Steck, 'Genesis 12.1-3 und die Urgeschichte des Jahwisten', in Probleme biblischer Theologie, Festschrift G. von Rad, 1971, pp. 52554; L. Rost, 'Zum geschichtlichen Ort der Pentateuchquellen', ZThK 53 (1956) 1-10 = Das kleine Credo und andere Studien zum Alien Testament, 1965, pp. 25-35. 3 Op. cit., p. 140. When he describes 12.7 as 'tradition' (ibid.), he is in agreement with Noth, A History, p. 233, but not with von Rad, The Form Critical', p. 60.
133
tent, the assurance of the land to Abraham plays a central role, Wolff writes: The one blessed becomes a source of blessing inasmuch as he freely leaves to the other fertile land'.1 And so he exchanges the theme expressly mentioned in the text, the promise of the land, for that not contained in it, taking out of 12.1-3 the *Yahwistic' theme of blessing, so as to be able to interpret the text within the frame of the Yahwistic theology, as he sees it. But other authors as well scarcely mention the promises in this context. And when these themselves are the subject of a theme, as is the case with Westermann, the 'sources' on the contrary play no role; this question is *but touched on in passing'.2 There is obviously in Genesis a large area of quite expressly theological statements which cannot, or can scarcely, be taken into consideration when one inquires about the 'theology' of the 'sources', whereas, in reverse, this theology often has to be tapped from very indirect hints.3 3.2.4 Reasons against the acceptance of a Yahwistic work We return then to the place where the reflections of this chapter began. We had put the question, can one discern indications of a pre-deuteronomic reworking or shaping of the Pentateuch as a whole? In the present state of pentateuchal research this function is generally ascribed to the Pentateuch 'sources'; so the question must now be put, how do our reflections so far stand in relationship to the 'documentary hypothesis'? We gave precedence over this to the general question about the present state of pentateuchal research in the matter of sources; we came to the conclusion that the agreement in essential basic questions was very much less than is generally maintained; that the uncertainties coming to light show a very obvious weakness in the whole theory which, in many cases, the weight of tradition has not yet allowed to penetrate consciousness. This is true in a special way for the Yahwist. In his case, 1 Op. ci*.,p.l4a
2 See above under 2.1. 3 Cf. Wolff, op. cit., p. 133 on Gen. 22.16-17: This is a guide to understanding passages, in which the theme (namely, blessing) is not directly sounded, in the intent of the Yahwist'.
134
there are certain general basic presuppositions which, without exception, are acknowledged as valid; but in the concrete application of the general framework, incompatible contradictions arise, which make it clear that the fundamental unanimity claimed does not in fact exist to any extent. And attempts to work out the 'theology of the Yahwist' are not in the end touched by this. The question is of particular importance for our theme inasmuch as the question of the 'theology* of the Yahwist is as a general rule understood as the question of his overall conception, of the guiding theological ideas that compass the Pentateuch as a whole. And so it is precisely here that the crucial point must lie on which rests our statement of the question to the theses of pentateuchal research up to the present. Now we have already seen that in the different attempts to set out the theology of the Yahwist, the promise addresses of the patriarchal stories play a remarkably minor role. If our reflections are correct, namely that one can discern in them a very intensive theological reworking and interpretation which did not take place at one stroke, but that they show different stages and layers, then the question must be put, how does any sort of Yahwistic theological work relate to this? It is remarkable that none of the independent themes of the promise addresses to the patriarchs is found in the passage Gen. 12.1-3, which is generally held to be the central statement of the Yahwist; for, as Westermann has shown, the element of blessing is not an independent promise theme. Verse 3, as we have seen, belongs to a stage in the process of tradition which links the stories of the three individual patriarchs with each other: Abraham (12.3) and Jacob (28.14) are to be a blessing for all the clans of the earth. But this is not the final stage of the process of formation of the tradition; when the Abraham and Isaac stories are joined together, this promise appears in a further developed form in which it is not the patriarch himself, but his 'seed' that is to be the mediator of the blessing to the 'nations' (Gen. 22.18; 26.4). Gen. 12.3, therefore, represents one stage within the history of the theological reworking and interpretation of the patriarchal story, but not the last.
135
Other texts which are ascribed to the Yahwist belong to other stages in the process. Gen. 12.7, for example, displays the later form of the promise of the land in which the 'seed' is the bearer of the promise; the same wording of the formulation is found in Gen. 15.18, a verse which is judged entirely differently in the allocation to sources. Other promise addresses have several layers, for example, Gen. 13.14-17 and 28.13-15, so that it is not very plausible when these texts, which have so much in common,1 are assigned to different sources.2 This is true also in other places: for example, the assurances of guidance to Jacob in Gen. 28.15; 31.3; 46.2-4, which obviously belong together,3 are assigned to different sources.45 These examples are only meant to show that our reflections on the theological reworking of the patriarchal stories can scarcely be brought into harmony with the acceptance of a 'theology of the Yahwist' as it is often represented today. The incompatibility becomes all the more clear when we take up once more the question, what contribution to the understanding of the comprehensive reworking and interpretation of the Pentateuch as a whole can the assumption of a Yahwistic theology provide? We have drawn attention earlier to the remarkable fact that there are no discernible links between the patriarchal stories and the complexes of tradition that follow in the Pentateuch; also, that it is only with a layer of reworking that bears the deuteronomic stamp that explicit cross references have been inset. Particularly remarkable is the fact that in Exod. 3.8 the land, into which YHWH will bring the Israelites after leading them out of Egypt, is described as an unknown land, inhabited by foreign nations; and there is no mention at all that the patriarchs had already lived there for a
1 See above under 2.3.5. 2 Eissfeldt and Fohrer assign Gen. 13.14-17 to L/N and Gen. 28.13-15 to J; Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-Synopse, 1922 = 1962 (2nd edn), pp. 21,52-53; Fohrer, Introduction, pp. 161,147. Noth, A History, p. 28, attributes Gen. 13.14-17 to the Yahwist, but in brackets. 3 See above under 2.4; 31.11,13 also belong here. 4 See the respective passages in Eissfeldt, Fohrer, and Noth, where all three assign 28.15 to J; Eissfeldt and Fohrer assign 31.3 to L/N, Noth to J; Eissfeldt assigns 46.2-4 to E/J, Noth to J, Fohrer to E. 5 Op. cit.,p.30, n. 103.
136
long time and that continually repeated promises had assured them and their descendants that they would possess it. Even when one makes way for sources to which one may assign passages in this synthesis of texts, as does Noth, the fact nevertheless remains: in the rest of the Pentateuch there is not a single text that mentions the patriarchs and the promises made to them which is assigned to the Yahwist (or to any one of the 'old' sources!) by the ruling pentateuchal criticism. It is utterly inconceivable that the Yahwist has now suddenly forgotten, or has consciously chosen to remain silent about, all the theological concerns that preoccupied him with the divine promises to the patriarchs in their various forms. These facts, in my opinion, have but one explanation: a *Yahwist', who shaped and handed on the patriarchal stories and the complexes of tradition that follow them, does not exist. This conclusion best supplements the uncertainties and incompatibilities in the current discussions described in detail above. It is clear that today it is not only difficult or almost impossible to agree about which details are to be assigned to the Yahwist, how one delimits his work and determines his method and intention; but it is clear also that there are weighty, and in my opinion compelling, reasons against the acceptance of a Yahwistic work in the sense of the documentary hypothesis, i.e. of a coherent narrative work covering the whole Pentateuch. 3.3 The problem of a priestly narrative in the patriarchal story Before we draw the final conclusions from the reflections on the Tahwist', we want to turn our attention first to the question of the status of the other chief source of the Pentateuch, the 'priestly document', about whose delimitation there is apparent agreement. We have already mentioned that there are diametrically opposed views among the exegetes whether and to what extent the sections dealing with cultic laws are to be combined with the narrative sections. Noth represents the most extreme position inasmuch as he will include under the symbol P only the narrative sections. He requires that one 'prescind completely' from all non-narrative passages with a
137
cultic-ritual interest 'when dealing with the P narrative'.1 He continues: This last-mentioned thus stands out more clearly and clear-cut as a narrative than it would with the conventional application of the symbol P.2 An astounding closed circle! When one excludes all the non-narrative material, the rest 'stands out more clearly and clear-cut as narrative. What 'stands out' here? Only this, that Noth carries through his opinion consistently by excluding all the material that is opposed to it. But, however that may be, the opinion that the priestly document is a narrative work is today almost universally shared. This includes the opinion that P provides an originally independent, coherent account of events from the creation on; only the question of its ending is in dispute: whether the work ends with the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34, or whether parts of the traditions of the occupation of the land in the book of Joshua belong to it. For our statement of the question it is important that the document being discussed is a coherent P narrative with but few gaps. There is another of Noth's theses that has found wide agreement. Noth accepts that the redactor who put the pentateuchal sources together used P as a basis and framework and inserted the narrative material of the older sources into this framework. This is all the more important inasmuch as it follows therefrom 'that only in this (i.e. the P-narrative)... is there to be expected the complete preservation of the original content and so a coherent (story) without gaps when the [other] elements are excluded'.3 What, then, about this 'coherent (story) without gaps' in the P-narrative? Let us examine the question in the patriarchal stories! Here, Noth himself must be content with a 'very meagre P-content'.4 And he sees himself compelled at once to call in question his own basic principles.
1 2 3 4
A History, p. 10. Ibid. Op. cit.,p.l7. Op. cit.,p.l2.
138
3.3.1 The stories of Joseph and Jacob
Let us begin with the Joseph story. Obviously it has not been preserved 'without gaps'. We have rather, *besides the introduction in Gen. 37.1, 2, only the brief note in Gen. 41.46a of the summary synthesis of the presupposed P-narrative of the Joseph story'.1 K Elliger has largely disregarded the fragmentary character of this tradition. According to him 'it is (here) no more than the notification of what is absolutely necessary. Joseph makes himself the object of his brothers' hatred, is sold into Egypt, and is elevated by Pharaoh'.2 When one looks for proof of the 'sold into Egypt' in the table provided by Elliger himself,3 one finds only a gap! P. Weimar has dealt with this text recently. He discovered the gap, even though in his view 'it was not all that extensive'.4 So he provides his own proposed reconstruction of 'the text struck out by Rp' and concludes contentedly that his own constructed text fits into the gap 'without interruption'.5 Weimar in any case is of the opinion that one cannot speak of an independent P-Joseph story: The information about Joseph carries no weight of its own; it only wants to explain why Jacob went down into Egypt'.6 We are faced therefore with the situation that there are only a very few remarks on the 'Joseph' theme which the exegetes are able to assign to P, but that nevertheless they postulate the existence of an originally independent coherent narrative, however sparse it may be. There must be such because P has presented a coherent account without gaps. This once more is a clear case of a circular argument. The possibility that perhaps there might not be such a coherent
1 Noth, op. cit., p. 14. 41.46a is not included in Fohrer's synthesis of the P source layer, Introduction, p.lflOl 2 'Sinn und Ursprung der priestlichen Geschichtserzahlung', ZThK 49 (1952) 121-43 (esp. p. 124) = Kleine Schriften zum Alien Testament, 1966, pp. 174-98 (p. 177). 3 Op. cit., pp. 121-22 = pp. 174-75. 4 'Aufbau und Struktur der priesterschriftlichen Jakobsgeschichte', ZAW86 (1974) 174-203 (p. 195). 5 Op. cit., p. 195, n. 86. 6 Op. cit., p. 195. Cf. H. Gazelles, 'Pentateuque', DBS VII, 1966, col. 831; E.A. Speiser, Genesis, 1964, p. 292. According to Fohrer, in P 'the primeval and patriarchal stories... are reduced to an introduction to the revelation on Sinai' (Introduction, p. 181).
139
narrative is not considered, though it would explain the situation without trouble. What are the reasons for ascribing Gen. 37.2 and 41.46a to P? First the details about his age: on each occasion the age of Joseph at the time is given, and the prevailing opinion is that details of this kind are characteristic of P. But there are still further reasons. Holzinger, followed by Gunkel, sees in the attachment of the words 'king of Egypt' to 'Pharaoh' in Gen. 41.46a an 'unnecessary and pedantic addition' that is 'characteristic' of P.1 Such valuationsor better, devaluationsof the writer P are common, without any criteria for them ever being given; nevertheless they serve as generally accepted signs of P-passages.2 It is maintained that in 37.2, in the motivation of the enmity of the brothers towards Joseph there is a difference from or a contradiction to the narrative beginning in v. 3. According to w. 3ff., the reason for the enmity is Jacob's preference for Joseph; according to v. 2, Joseph himself has given cause for it. But that the verse for that reason belongs to P, is difficult to prove. Holzinger, after discovering the tension, comes to the conclusion: 'then only P is left to take 26'; and the whole of v. 2, after the exclusion of secondary elements, is a unity and a possibility for P.3 Gunkel has less scruple: '37.2 belongs entirely to P.4 He discovers, and this is entirely the work of imagination, a whole narrative, whose beginning is allegedly here; he knows too the reasons why P introduced changes in face of the older source.5 Unfortunately, this narrative no longer exists. One must then in all sobriety conclude that for the exegete who is not convinced beforehand that there must be a P-Joseph story, such does not exist. For the Isaac story, things seem clear: There is no separate Isaac story in the priestly history'.6 But this is very surprising.
1 2 3 4 5 6 Genesis erkl&rt, 1898, p. 219; Gunkel, Genesis, p. 492. See below under 3.3.3. Op. cit.,p.224. Genesis, p. 492. Ibid. See W. Gross, 'Jakob der Mann des Segens. Zur Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie der priesterschriftlichen Jakobsuberlieferungen', Bib 49 (1968) 321-44 (spec. pp. 321-22).
140
One must assume as certain that the patriarchal genealogy AbrahamIsaac-Jacob was long established at the time when P was supposedly written. How could P have simply waived an Isaac story? Gunkel sensed this problem: 'It is strange that P under the heading 'genealogy of Isaac' narrates in essence the stories of Jacob and then under the heading 'genealogy of Jacob' those (Sagen) of Joseph. This surprising shift has come about because P had nothing appropriate to say about Isaac, but felt himself obliged to preserve due order, and so to put in a column for Isaac and fill it out'.1 It is curious enough that P who, according to the prevailing opinion, knew the older sources, 'had nothing appropriate to say about Isaac'! He is given credit, rather condescendingly, for at least 'feeling himself obliged to preserve due order'; this accords with the image of P as a second rate writer, obliged to talk, which has made its home in much exegesis. But nevertheless, there is no Isaac story.2 3.3.2 The Jacob Story What is the situation with the Jacob story? Weimar writes: 'The Jacob story begins with the Toledot of Ishmael Gen. 25.12-17'.3 A sentence difficult to understand! How can a heading which names Ishmael be the introduction to the Jacob story? Apart from the fact that Weimar himself a little later describes the passage Gen. 25.12-17 explicitly as the 'Ishmael story' without solving the contradiction, the sentence only raises again the dilemma described by Gunkel.4 When one wants to understand the Toledot' headings attributed to P as structural signs in a coherent and continuous P-narrative, then one gets into insoluble difficulties. In other words: there is no discernible beginning to the P-Jacob narrative. And what next? Earlier, one attributed many fragments of
1 Genesis, p. 385. 2 I cannot understand how Weimar (op. cit., p. 185) can speak of the Toledot-formula in Gen. 25.19 as 'having been prefaced by Pg to the whole Isaac story as heading and structure-signal (?), although he had already on p. 175 established the absence of the Isaac story in P. 3 See above under 3.3.1. 4 Genesis, p. 385.
141
texts in the story of Jacob and Esau to P;1 but now, one invokes Elliger among others: 'Omitting Jacob's stay in Paddan-aram, Pg only takes up again with Jacob's departure from there (31.18ap,b).2 Now this is a remarkable and unreasonable demand on the reader. According to P Isaac, in an unusually detailed speech and with the most pressing of reasons, would have required Jacob not to take a wife from 'the daughters of Canaan', but to find one to go to Paddan-aram, the land of his mother's family to find one, and would have sent him on his way with a blessing extending far afield (Gen. 27.4628.5). But P would not have considered it necessary so much as to register Jacob's arrival in Paddan-aram, not to mention a report on the successful outcome of the commission to marry; he would have been satisfied with a note about his departure from there. Elliger plays down this dilemma when he writes: 'Jacob obeys by looking around for a wife among his mother's relations'.3 He thus hushes up the fact that nothing at all is reported of the execution of the commission. But what of the quite isolated verse Gen. 31.18ap,b which must now bear the whole burden of the thesis of a continuous Jacob story from P? The exegete is obviously not at ease with it. According to Noth we have here 'the rare appearance of a Pfragment which must have been preceded by the now missing P-information about Jacob's marriages.4 One recalls that for Noth only for the P-narrative 'is there to be expected the complete preservation of the original content'.5 All the more inconvenient then is the appearance of such a 'fragment'! Weimar too must concede after all that 'the beginning of the unit has been broken off by Rp'.6 But why is the piece ascribed to P? Here the arguments are taken almost exclusively from language. First, the word is generally regarded as characteristic of P.7 However, if one
1 See the divisions of P in Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-Synopse, pp. 43ff.; Fohrer's table, Introduction, p. 182 2 Weimar, see above under 3.3.1, n. 4, p. 183. 3 See above under 3.3.1. 4 Op. cit., p. 14. 5 See above under 3.3. 6 See above under 3.3.1. 7 Cf. Eissfeldt, Introduction, p. 183.
142
opens the concordance, one finds surprisingly that in the book of Genesis more than a half of occurrences are in texts which are not ascribed to P: the word occurs five times in Genesis 14 (w. 11, 12,16 [2x], 21), which among recent exegetes, as far as I know, is attributed to P only by Procksch, and that with reservation.1 There is a further attestation in Gen. 15.14, within the reflection on the theology of history (w. 13-16), which likewise is not ascribed to P. In the attestations that remain, the closed circle of argumentation appears once more; they are attributed once again to P because of this linguistic usage! And almost all of them are in a context which is ascribed to one of the other sources and from which they are taken out because of their linguistic usage. The places in question in the book of Genesis are 12.5; 13.6; 36.7; 46.6; add Num. 16.32b (a piece almost universally not ascribed to P!) and 35.3. The verb need not be dealt with here as it occurs in more or less immediate context with the noun. The word 2 serves as the next 'proof (Gunkel) for P. It occurs three times in the book of Genesis, once in a text (34.23) which no one ascribes to P. It is found later in the Pentateuch within the "Holiness Code' (Lev. 22.11), which is closer to the priestly pentateuchal layer; however its usage is quite different. And so one can scarcely say that this word can make a contribution to source criticism. Finally, there is the designation of the land from which Jacob departs, Taddan-aram'. It too is held to be characteristic of P. First it must be stated that the only attestation which uses simply the designation Taddan' (Gen. 48.7) is not generally reckoned to P, although immediately beforehand there is a text so reckoned. In 46.15, Paddan-aram is found in a list of the sons of Jacob and their descendants which today is not predominantly ascribed to P or is, at any rate, regarded as an addition to P. The list of Jacob's sons in Gen. 35.22b-36, in which Paddan-aram occurs, is, on the contrary, ascribed to P, even though this involves difficulties. Weimar tries to explain why P does not report the birth of the sons there, where one would expect it, but only 'makes up for it... in the form of a
1 Die Genesis Ubersetzt und erkldrt, 1924, p. 501. 2 Genesis, p. 388.
143
list'.1 Others have experienced greater difficulties here; it has been common since Gunkel to re-arrange the P-text fragments in the Joseph story arbitrarily so as to create a tolerably coherent text. Hence, the list is either given preference so as to substitute for the missing account of the birth of the sons of Jacob,2 or ends up after the Toledot of Jacob in Genesis 37.3 And so, even though all assertions about the completeness and integrity of the P-narrative are clearly contradictory, this thesis is maintained, nevertheless acquiring thereby and at the same time criteria for determining other texts, inasmuch as the argument from linguistic usage enables the texts ascribed to P to give each other mutual support. So too the text fragment Gen. 33.18a is assigned to P because of the expression Paddan-aram.4 The classical solution is to take out v. 18a so that Jacob's arrival in Shechem is assigned to one of the older sources and only the words 'in the land of Canaan, when he came from Paddan-aram' are ascribed to P.5 This solution is classical in that it proceeds exclusively from the argument of linguistic usage and cuts several words out of their context as it were with a scissors, although they are in no way a bother or offensive. But the P-context must be established! Finally, the expression Paddan-aram is found in the chronological note on the marriage of Isaac in Gen. 25.20, in the introductory piece to the divine address to Jacob in Gen. 35.9, and four times in the narrative of Isaac's sending of Jacob (28.2, 5,6, 7). It should be further noted that, with the expression Paddanaram, no accompanying description is given of the land which one could set over against it as in some way characteristic of the linguistic usage of the other sources. There is often talk merely of the city of Harangenerally too in texts that are usually ascribed to P, e.g. Gen. 11.31; 12.5! The last mentioned
1 2 3 4 5 See above under 3.3.1. Gunkel, op. cit., p. 384. Procksch, op. cit., p. 553. But not by Wellhausen, Composition, p. 45. Eissfeldt, Hexateuch-Synopse, p. 69. Gunkel is not entirely consistent when he claims for P on one occasion the words cited, and on another the preceding words as well, 'to the city of Shechem', op. cit., pp. 368, 388; cf. Fohrer, Introduction, p.lTft
144
has also the word , though not Paddan-aram, but Haran; nevertheless, this is ascribed to P together with the other attestations with reference to 'characteristic' linguistic usage. The expression Paddan-aram then occurs only in the context of Jacob (with the exception of the note in Gen. 25.20 relating to Isaac). This is without doubt a pointer to a particular layer in the tradition, but scarcely has anything to do with 'sources' in the sense of the documentary hypothesis. The next piece ascribed to P is again a fragmentary sentence, namely Gen. 35. Ga.1 One accepts that the second half of the sentence, 'he and all the people with him' stands unrelated. Holzinger's reason is: T naturally narrated as well the arrival in Bethel, or rather in Luz, which now bears the name of Bethel; this is now lodged in v. 6a where is a certain sign of P'.2 Gunkel says more exactly why this is a sign of P: 'the superfluous and precise determination of the place'.3 We have already noted earlier these typical judgments about P. But what is meant by this 'certain sign of P'? The concordance provides the following information: about half of the attestations of in the book of Genesis are in the Joseph story, and nobody ascribes them to P. Within the story this designation is used in all 'sources' and layers, e.g. in Gen. 42.5, 7, 13 which exegetes divide variously between J and E, like so many other examples; by P again (48.3), by secondary pieces (48.7, according to Eissfeldt;4 Noth, E;5 46.12), and in Genesis 50 in passages quite close to each other by J (v. 5) and P (v. 13). A 'certain sign of P? Further, the concordance shows that there is no other so to speak 'geographical' designation of the land in the patriarchal stories; the only other descriptions used of it are 'the land of sojournings' (generally to *P'!), 'the land of the fathers', or the like. The opinion that the land of Canaan' is a characteristic of P would therefore include the thesis that the other sources renounce an exact designation of the land. But the opinion is
1 Once again it is to be noted that Wellhausen does not ascribe this fragment to P. 2 Holzinger, Genesis erklart, p. 184. 3 Op. cit.,p.387. 4 Cf. op. cit., pp. 99-100 n. 19. 5 A History, p. 36.
145
clearly laid to rest by the concordance material without more ado.1 After the divine address in Gen. 35.9-13, v. 15 is also to be accounted to P; the change of name from Luz to Bethel had already taken place earlier in the other sources, namely in 28.19. It is curious that 35.14 is ascribed to E although/because it reports again the erection and anointing of the massebah which E has described already in 28.18. The repetition is apparently a sign of the same source and not of another. But that is obviously using a double standard. There has already been talk of the problem of the list of Jacob's sons in Gen. 35.22b-26. The account of Jacob's return home to Isaac and of the latter^ death in 35.27-29 is reckoned as P's. For Gunkel, 'the names Mamre and Kiriath-arba' are, among other things, characteristic of P.2 This is a bold statement as the two names occur together only here! The association of Kiriath-arba and Hebron, which is found in Gen. 35.27, occurs in 23.2 (but without mention of Mamre), while Mamre for its part is associated with Hebron in 23.19. In Gen. 13.18 it is said of Abraham that Tie settled by the terebinths of Mamre which are in (near) Hebron'. Further, it is said several times of the field in which the cave was situated that Abraham bought, that it lay > (Gen. 23.17) or (23.19; 25.9; 49.30; 50.13) (translated each time by 'east of Mamre' in NEB, trans.). There can be no question at all here of a standardized linguistic usage characteristic of a single source. It is remarkable that Gen. 35.27-29 does not say that Isaac was buried in the cave, though this is presupposed in 49.30-31 and though it is said of Abraham (25.9) and Jacob (50.13); 'why not, is not clear'.3 But in any case, this is scarcely evidence of the studied and 'pedantic' style alleged against the source P. When we survey the texts in the Jacob story which are supposed to belong to P, we find very fragmentary and incoherent
1 Holzinger in Einleitung in den Hexateuch, 1893, p. 340, had taken into account the findings in the concordance. He maintains there that the 'occurrence of (is) an almost certain mark of P', but with the limitation that it 'however occurs also in JE'. 2 Op. cit.,p.389. 3 Ibid.
146
pieces which can be attributed to this source for the most part only on very dubious grounds. In addition, many exegetes have felt themselves compelled to rearrange the texts freely at their discretion so as to construct some sort of reasonably continuous text. This is all in such utter contradiction to the picture that the advocates of the documentary hypothesis are accustomed to paint of the P-narrative that, starting from their own assumptions, it must be said that there is no coherent Jacob story from P.1 3.3.3 The Abraham story Let us now turn to the Abraham story \ It seems to offer the clearest and most convincing narrative complex. First, Genesis 17 stands out as an entity that is sui generis. It is the freest composition' within the whole P-narrative.2 Nowhere in the patriarchal stories is there a passage so extensively laid out, so self-contained, and as a whole bearing the marks of the priestly layer of the Pentateuch. Such comprehensive and self-contained passages of a priestly character occur only rarely in the rest of the Pentateuch. The few examples, such as Gen. 1.12.4a or Gen. 9.1-17, are not as free compositions as seems to be the case here. These reflections are important because they are an advance warning against considering Genesis 17 without more ado as a constituent part of a coherent narrative; and more, the special nature of the passage must be considered carefully. The passages ascribed to P in the Abraham story, apart from ch. 23 which is to be dealt with later, are for the most part small or very small textual units. First, following on the genealogy of Shem (Gen. 11.10-17), there are the pieces of information about itineraries: the migration of Terah with his family from Ur of the Chaldees to Haran with the chronological note about his age at his death (11.31-32), then the migration of Abraham from Haran to the land of Canaan (12.4-5). Questions begin again with the latter text. Noth has concluded
1 This makes no difference to Weimar's construction; see under 3.3.1, 3.4.2. 2 S.E. McEvenue, The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer, 1971, p. 145.
147
that 'a corresponding passage with the same content from the old sources has had to give way to the P-passage, 12.4b-5, here'. This is 'in the interest of retaining as fully as possible' the content of P. We have already experienced the whole area of problems that this last argument raises; Noth himself mentions them expressly a few sentences later. But whereas in the Jacob and Joseph stories P-passages are supposed to have been suppressed by the older sources, here the opposite is assumed. Why? First, it is the chronological note about Abraham's age at the time of his migration in v. 4b, which is ascribed to P; this, however, is not in the problem area inasmuch as it would hardly have suppressed a corresponding statement in another source. In v. 5 we meet again an argument already well known: linguistic usage 'proves' that it belongs to P (Holzinger, Gunkel): and i and according to Holzinger, i as well;1 further, the verb-form as in Gen. 11.31, and elsewhere, would be a mark of P.2 There is no need to 3 repeat here the observations on and the view that these are marks of P does not gain in probative strength by repetition. The balance of tfsu meaning 'persons' and i referring to the rest of one's possessions occurs again in Gen. 14.21, hence outside of the passages ascribed to P. It is meaningless to claim as a mark of P; it is the most natural and obvious way to state that somebody is departing and that he is taking others with him, cf. Gen. 22.3; 24.10, 61; 31.23; 32.23 (Eng. 22). But such assertions are not untypical of the method, because in this way different P-passages give each other mutual support. The consequence of this is that the refutation of such an argument unleashes a sort of chain reaction and brings a whole series of texts into question. As for Gen. 12.4b, 5, it need only be said that the chronological note in v. 4b is to be seen in conjunction with other like notes, while there is no occasion at all to take it out of its context, not to mention the assumption that because the piece allegedly belongs to P 'a corresponding passage with the same content from the old sources has had to give way'. The passage Gen.
1 Genesis, p. Ixxxv. 2 See above under 3.3.1. 3 See above tinder 3.3.2.
148
12.1-9 shows every sign of being very composite indeed.1 In what follows, Gen. 13.6, lib, 12ab should belong to P. The arguments are again: (v. 6), (v. 12); further, a conflict is seen between the expressions the 'Jordan valley* (w. 10-11) and the 'cities of the valley*. This is a remarkable statement; each of the expressions has a different function; the 'Jordan valley' describes the fertile area that Lot chooses, while the 'cities of the valley' are mentioned as the place where Lot is to establish his future home. It is incomprehensible how there could be any competition or contradiction here. But there are a number of other arguments in addition. Gunkel writes: 'v. 6 is superfluous in the context of the story; that a lack of space is the cause of the quarrel is to be read out of 2, 5, 7 and becomes entirely clear from 8, 9; good narrative does not say everything explicitly'.2 Criticisms are made here about the quality of the writing; it will have done little to put the writers on the track of striking out something 'superfluous' so as to get a 'good narrative'. But Holzinger sees things differently. The absence of an explicit basis for the conflict between the herdsmen of Abraham and Lot disturbs him; so he disects a little more and assigns only v. Gab to P, while reckoning v. 6b to 'the other source'.3 But in another place he says: 'A part of 6 is indispensable for the context'.4 This type of argument is characteristic; it makes clear that the necessity of source division is not based on contradictions or tensions in the text. Rather it is based on the presupposition that there are several sources and attributes what is 'dispensable' in the main narrative to the other source. This becomes even clearer in v. 12. Gunkel writes: '12a also, which can be dispensed with more easily in J than in P, and 12a come from F.5 When one does not want to engage in this sort of argument, which assumes the presence of several sources already, and then looks for proofs for them, one can hardly find reasons for attributing anything in Genesis 13 to the P-narrative. It is of further interest to see how the resulting P-narrative
1 2 3 4 5 See above under 2.2.1. Genesis, p. 174. Genesis erkl&rt, p. 124; less clearly, p. 140. Op. cit.,p. 140. Genesis, p. 263.
149
is judged and evaluated. Gunkel has on the whole a poor opinion of P. He writes: *Here too P has taken merely the bare facts from the story; everything concrete, especially the dispute between the herdsmen and Lot's self-interest, as well as Abraham's readiness for a peaceful settlement, is missing; and of the mood of malicious joy ringing in the story, there is not a sign'.1 Holzinger's judgment is milder: 'What is remarkable for P is the easiness with which the separation of Abraham and Lot takes place without conflict. Characteristic also is the general nature of the statement that Lot settles in the area round about; nothing is said of his living in Sodom (N.B.: because v. 12bp is attributed to another source! [author]); thus it would appear that Lot, as Abraham's nephew and erstwhile companion in the caravan, is a half saint who must remain free from any suspicion that he went to live among the people of Sodom out of sympathy'.2 Elliger exalts still further the literary intentions of P: The main facts are communicated soberly, always with precise dating; it is a matter here of real and reliable history'.3 Does this mean the other narrators who report vividly, but without precise dating, are less concerned with 'real and reliable history'? Or ought one not ask this question? Further, Gen. 16.1(a),4 3, 15-16 are assigned to the P-narrative. Noth has to establish that 'the old Hagar story has been pruned at the beginning and the end in favour of the P-details in Gen. 16.la, 3, 15, 16'.5 This means therefore that what remains of the 'old Hagar story' is incomplete without these pieces. According to the basic principles of source division, there must be tensions and contradictions in the text and/or clear indications in the language or content which lead to the exclusion of P-parts. What are the arguments? According to Holzinger and Gunkel, a mark of P is to be found in v. la, the 'pedantic addition' of 'Abraham's wife'.6 A glance at 1 Ibid.
2 Op. cit.,p. 124. 3 See above under 3.3.1. 4 See n. 12, p. 121 (= p. 174). Wellhausen, Die Composition, p. 14, does not include 16.1 under Q (= P). 5 A History, p. 13. 6 Genesis, p. 124; Gunkel, Genesis, p. 264.
150
the concordance shows that this pedantic addition appears as well in Gen. 12.17, a classical 'J-'piece, and in 20.18, a piece regularly attributed to *E'. One could use this material better as a certain proof that this part of the verse does not belong to P. And as it is indispensable in the context of the narrative, the very basic principles of source division forbid that it be assigned to P. Verse 3, again, is a chronological note which must be seen in the context of other chronological notes; it is not in competition with the expected statements of other 'sources'. The same holds for v. 16. Only v. 15 remains! According to Noth, the 'old Hagar story' has been 'pruned at the end' in favour of P.1 But this is a very unsatisfactory piece of information; if there is anything missing, it is a note that Hagar went back to Abraham. But there is nothing about this in v. 15, which is ascribed to P. Could a redactor be so purblind as to have pruned the indispensable conclusion of the narrative simply so as to substitute for it an inadequate sentence from P? The problems of this chapter, as is well known, are more complex, as Wellhausen has already shown in detail.2 The words of the mal'ak YHWH in v. 9 require Hagar's return to Abraham; but this verse certainly does not belong to the same layer of tradition or reworking as the two other addresses of the mal'ak in w. 10 11-12. The second address in particular presupposes that Ishmael grew up in the desert, i.e. that Hagar did not go back to Abraham. Many exegetes have followed this view. For Noth also v. 9 is a 'redactional addition', but 'with attention to Gen. 21.8ff.',3 where it is presupposed that Ishmael is present as a member of Abraham's family. But it remains an open question for Noth how the original conclusion of the 'old Hagar story' may have looked. Perhaps there was originally nothing more than the tribal saying about Ishmael and the place etiology in v. 14? Verse 15 could also be a 'redactional addition with attention to Gen. 21.8ff.' What shows that it is part of a P-narrative? According to Holzinger, prescinding from the sweeping judgment, 'the utterly pedantic
1 A History, p. 13. 2 Die Composition, pp. 19-20. 3 A History, p. 28, n. 86.
151
awkwardness of the verse', it is 'the giving of the name by the father*.1 Now everyone who has ever been concerned with the matter knows how difficult it is to answer the question, who usually named the new born child in ancient Israel, and how un-unified are the texts in this regard. One need only look at the tensions and lack of clarity in the single chapter, Genesis 38,2 or in Gen. 25.25-26, not to speak of the conjectures of the exegetes! That it is only in P that the father gives the name is untenable; Holzinger himself confirms this for Gen. 4.26: This is one of the exceptional cases in which in J it is not the mother who names the new born child: cf. (5.29); 25.25f.; Ex 2.22'.3 The list of exceptions is far too long for one to draw a definite criterion from it for source division. It is beyond dispute that the conclusion of Genesis 16 is not a unity and leaves questions open; it is clear also that v. 15 is in tension with the obvious intention of the older layer of the narrative according to which Ishmael grows up in the desert and hence was also born there. But this holds as well for v. 9 which nobody attributes to P. And there is no tenable argument that v. 15 belongs to a continuous P-narrative. One usually reckons Gen. 19.29 to the P-narrative. But this is a sign of embarrassment, because this verse should have followed immediately on Gen. 13.6, lib, 12ab , according to the prevailing opinion; but in the final redaction it could 'only be accommodated to the continuation of the narrative Gen. 18.119.28'.4 The verse is undoubtedly a *brief summary note about the rescue of Lot',5 the function of which is not immediately discernible. But, what argues for P? The arguments which are advanced by the commentators, following Dillmann, are exclusively from linguistic usage. According to Dillmann, Holzinger, Gunkel, and others, the use of the verb in the pi'el, 'destroy', is a mark of P.6 Reference is made to Gen. 6.17; 9.11, 15. One has the impression that none of these
1 Genesis, p. 124; Gunkel, Genesis, p. 264: T records the whole act like a registry clerk'. 2 Verses 3, 4, 5 and 29, 30. 3 Genesis, p. 57. 4 Noth, A History, p. 13. 5 Holzinger, Genesis, p. 132. 6 Holzinger, ibid.; Gunkel, p. 263.
152
commentators has taken the trouble to consult the concordance. The verb is used immediately beforehand in Gen. 19.13 in the J-narrative as well as in the 'J'-text of Gen. 13.10 in anticipation of the destruction of Sodom! One is continually surprised at the thoughtless way in which such inept assertions are passed on without control from generation to generation. This sort of argument becomes all the more contradictory when the *Yahwistic' verse, Gen. 13.10, is ignored, and the expression 'cities of the plain' in the allegedly priestly verse, Gen. 13.12, must be brought in to support the priestly character of Gen. 19.29. A further argument is the use of the divine name elohim. One text only will be referred to: in Amos 4.11, mention is made of clearly a stereotyped phrase, in the middle of an address by YHWH about the destruction of Sodom in which the divine name YHWH is used four times. This, however, is not all that is to be said on the question; but it is necessary to study somewhat more closely the stereotyped use of such expressions instead of short-circuiting the matter by looking for arguments for source divisions! Finally, a further note: the phrase 'then God thought of Abraham' ("ori) in Gen. 19.29 is to be compared with the apparently corresponding expression in Gen. 8.1, which is attributed to P. But there are problems here. First, according to Gen. 8.1, God 'remembers' immediately the one he will rescue; in Gen. 19.29, on the other hand, he remembers Abraham and rescues Lot because of him. It would be more appropriate to make a comparison with the sentence in the prayer of Moses in Exod. 32.13, which bears the deuteronomistic stamp: 'Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants', cf. also Deut. 9.27. For the rest, the expression is used with reference to Rachel whose prayer for fertility God hears. One can hardly draw an argument out of all this for assigning a passage to a particular 'source'. The account of the birth of Isaac in Gen. 21.1-5 has provided the exegetes with a headache because the sources do not readily allow separation. Holzinger gives voice to the dilemma: 'Something in 21.1,2 must belong to F.1 It must belong, there1 Op. cit., p. 132.
3. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism.
153
fore arguments must be found for it! For example: 'the colourless in v. la looks like P, but R, under the influence of in v. la, has inserted this divine name into P.1 The word , 'do, make' occurs 2600 times in the Old Testament;2 because it is 'colourless', it becomes a mark of P, even when the consequence is that one of the most certain signs of P, the use of the divine name elohim, no longer holds! But it is almost too easy to criticise manipulations of this sort by which many exegetes discredit their own methodology. And in w. 2b and 4 elohim is of course once more a mark of P. Further, the astonished reader learns that in v. 2b is a sign of P; reference is made to Gen. 17.21but is it to be insinuated that the reader has passed over or already forgotten the same expression in Gen. 18.14 in VF? Holzinger's overall judgment is: '21.1-5 is one of those cases where R has not simply juxtaposed the elements from his sources, but has mixed them; thus, and this is seldom enough the case, P has not had a chance to speak fully and his wording has even been altered'.3 Noth's judgment is different: in his opinion 'the mention of the birth of Isaac, so important for the context, comes about exclusively through Gen. 21.1b-5 by leaving out the corresponding statement of the old sources'.4 What reasons he has for disregarding the reflections of Holzinger and others, the reader does not learn. It is clear once again that, by and large, the search for elements of an assumed, continuous P-narrative has occasioned exegetes to assign elements to P even when there are serious reasons against. It is the common and prevailing opinion that the Abraham story concludes with the account of Abraham's death and burial in Gen. 25.7-10. Again, the chronological data, the 'pedantic detail' (Holzinger), 'and especially the rambling nature of the whole piece' (Gunkel), are to the fore (N.B.: but was not brevity, even paucity of presentation, a special mark of P?). We will come back to this later.
1 Op. cit.,p. 133.
2 KBL, s.v. 3 Op. cit.,p. 133. 4 A History, p. 13.
154
3.3.4 Genesis 23 One of the strangest phenomena in this area is that exegetes almost unanimously attribute Genesis 23 to P. The arguments have been passed on, unaltered in essence, since Dillmann who based himself on Knobel (1852/1860!). The first argument is the chronological data in v. 1. In many other cases, verses of this kind are freed from any control by their context precisely because of their assumed P-character; here, on the contraryand only herea chronological note of introduction is used at the same time to assign the whole narrative to a particular source. A further argument is 'the juridical exactness' (cf. esp. w. 17-18)';1 but this holds only from v. 17 onwards, not for the body proper of the narrative. Gunkel mentions further 'the many repetitions in the narrative'.2 For the same reason he should also reckon the extensive narrative of Genesis 24 to P. When Dillmann speaks further of the 'artistic detail of the presentation',3 he makes it difficult for the reader to harmonize this with the image of P which the representatives of the documentary hypothesis otherwise draw.4 Even today the special character of Genesis 23 within the Pnarrative is underscored. Procksch writes: This narrative... is relatively quite fresh, though rather ancient in origin... a new example that P has used older material available'.5 According to Fohrer the narrative 'is of material of Palestinian origin'.6 Speiser sees in it a passage from J going back to an older tradition in which only the introductory note belongs to P.7 McEvenue does not follow this entirely,8 but notes: 'the chatty, colloquial, style of Genesis 23 seems untypical of F, and concludes from this that one must assume older material available.9 According to von Rad, it has 'the appearance as if P,
1 Genesis, p. 273. 2 Ibid. 3 Die Genesis, 1875 (3rd edn), p. 309. 4 G. Ch. Macholz has written appositely of the style of Gen. 23: 'the alleged "P-characteristics" have their basis in the subject-matter of the text rather than in its "author"'. See above under 2.5. 5 Die Genesis, p. 526 (see above under 3.3.2). 6 Introduction. 7 Genesis, 1964, p. 173. 8 See above under 3.3.3. 9 Op. c#.,p.22.
155
against customary practice, has built in an older narrative almost unaltered, because the freshness and liveliness of thrust and counter-thrust is unique within this source'.1 The narrative 'is thus rather a puzzle for us from the traditio-historical standpoint'.2 In any case it has become clear that Holzinger's decision: 'there is no possible doubt that this passage belongs to P*,3 can hardly be maintained today in this form. What then has given occasion, nevertheless, to reckon this chapter to P? Once again, one must bear clearly in mind the methodological procedure: the general opinion is that one recognizes P first and foremost by the style. From this standpoint Genesis 23 cannot belong to P. A second characteristic mark of the P-passages is the strong, often very heavy, theological statement; there is not a trace of this in Genesis 23. So why then is it reckoned to P? Without doubt, it is due to the pressure of traditional opinion; it is because of the chronological note in the introduction, and 'precise chronology* is the real mark of P, as von Rad alleges.4 Fohrer says: *But everything is entirely ordered to and subordinated to the personal leanings of P;5 but what this in fact means for Genesis 23, he does not say. The question for von Rad is: *What theological interest and it is this alone that is of concernhas given it (i.e. the narrative) such a prominent place in the priestly document?' His answer: 'the typical broken relationship to the material of the promise of course, the land'; that the possession of the land was promised to the patriarchs, but that this promise was not yet fulfilled, all this 'could not remain unformulated by such a precise and conceptual theologian as P. He says several times: the patriarchs live "in the land of their sojournings" chs. 17.8; 28.4; 36.7; 37.1; 47.9). But a question arises here: did the patriarchs, who had left everything behind them for the sake of the promise, remain without any share at all? No, replies our narrative: in death they were already "heirs" and
1 2 3 4 5 Genesis, 1972 (2nd edn Eng.), p. 249. Op. cit., p. 246. For the whole of ch. 23, cf. Macholz. Genesis, p. 133. Genesis 1972 (2nd edn Eng.). Introduction, p. 182.
156
no longer "sojourners".'1 This very impressive interpretation has, in my opinion but one basic error: from what we know elsewhere of this 'precise theologian', he would certainly have expressed this in such a way that the reader could not but understand it. There is not a word, not even a hint, about these theological connections. And there is a further, complementary, point of view: all the more detailed texts that are elsewhere ascribed to P consist, more or less entirely, of accounts of an action or an address of God. But God is not even mentioned in the whole of Genesis 23! It is, in my opinion, inconceivable that the author of texts like Genesis 17 and Exod. 6.28 should have departed so far from his own style as to have taken over this purely 'profane' story, unaltered (there can be no question at all, in my opinion, of P being the real author), without throwing even the slightest theological light on it; and further, that he should leave it entirely to the reader to discern that the theological concept of the land of sojournings' used by P had been overcome and annulled at one decisive point. When all is said and done, I see no valid reasons for accepting that Genesis 23 is a part of a P-narrative, but numerous reasons against. 3.4 The priestly layer in the patriarchal story It is clear that a coherent P-narrative in the patriarchal story cannot be demonstrated. A large part of the texts or text fragments, which are claimed to establish an even tenuous, continuous, coherent narrative, cannot withstand critical examination. In particular, there is a series of cases in which the material in the concordance contradicts the alleged linguistic criteria. And so the opinion that there is a P-narrative running through the Pentateuch is, in my opinion, effectively contradicted. It would be beyond the limits of this book to advance in like detail the corresponding proofs for the remainder of the Pentateuch. We will add just a few remarks about the fragmentary nature of the narrative and about the arguments with which one usually disregards them. It is obvious that no
1 Op. cit.,p.250.
157
coherent narrative can be constructed out of the pieces usually attributed to P in the first chapters of the book of Exodus. First, there is no introduction of Moses: he is suddenly there and receives assurance that the Israelites will be led out of Egypt (Exod. 6.2-8). Wellhausen writes on this: To expect that Moses be first introduced before he appears as a well known person, as in 6.2, is not justified in Q'.1 But this only means: in the case of so poor a writer as P, one ought not expect such banalities as that a leading person be first introduced. And so once more, the well known pre-emptive judgment about P serves to hush up the fact that the story lacks continuity. A further example: an account of the departure from Egypt is obviously missing in the assumed Pnarrative. Elliger writes: *NB: the departure itself is simply recorded with a single sentence Ex 12.41, so trouble-free and with such nightly stealth and security does it take place!'2 And so here, the absence of an indispensable piece of narrative is exalted to a particularly profound theological interpretation. A simple chronological note is encumbered with a narrative function. Some further reflections may be added to these. They are not meant as a polemic against particular authors; rather, they serve to show how widespread is the assumption that there must be a coherent P-narrative, and how from this assumption obvious facts which speak against it are ignored or overlooked. But this is typical of wide areas of current pentateuchal research. A new critical scrutiny of the arguments will only be possible when this assumption is brought into the discussion. Let us turn now to those passages in the patriarchal story which one can maintain with better reasons belong to the priestly layer of the Pentateuch. They do not form a continuous, coherent narrative, as has become clear; at the same time, they are obviously linked with each other. 3.4.1 Chronological notes First, there is a group of chronological texts which stands out
1 Die Composition, p. 62 (for Wellhausen, Q = P). 2 See above under 3.3.1.
158
clearly and which is generally held to be characteristic of P. However, on closer study they are less unified than assumed by most. There is a remarkable lack of unity in the linguistic form in which the numbers are put together. In the numbers of the years which comprise two groups of digits, the word nxJ, 'year', occurs two/three times and usually in this form: the single digit is in the plural, and the tens and hundreds are in the singular.1 But there are deviations from this where the word 'year' is not repeated: Gen. 17.24;2 47.9, 28 (repeated once only)i 50.11, 26.3 Further, the order is different: sometimes the single digit stands in front (Gen. 11.32; 12.4; 47.28), in the remaining cases, however, at the end. In numbers over a hundred, the hundred group is generally at the front, though not always (47.9, 28). The word for the number 100 is for the most part used in the construct state, though there are variations (Gen. 23.1; 50.22, 26). Apart from this lack of unity in form, different groups of chronological details stand out clearly. A first group gives the age of a person at the time of a particular event. The structure is quite well balanced: at the beginning is the name of the person concerned preceded by the particle wow, i; then follows the age preceded by' i (son of); then come the details of the event, always in the infinitive prefixed by 3 and, where required, with a suffix.
12.4 16.16 17.24 17.25 21.5 25.26 41.46
12.4 16.16 17.24 Abram was 75 years old when he left Haran Abram was 86 years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram Abraham was 99 years old when he had himself cir-
1 W. GeseniusE. Kautzsch (trans. A.E. Cowley), Hebrew Grammar, #134 e-h. 2 In 17.25 is to be understood as one number; hence, after 1 is to be expected. 3 50.22, 26 are not generally ascribed to P.

17.25 21.5 25.15 41.46 cumcised Ishmael, his son, was 13 years old when he was circumcised Abraham was 100 years old when his son Isaac was born to him Isaac was 60 years old when they (Esau and Jacob) were born Joseph was 30 years old when he entered the service of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.
159
A variation of this scheme occurs in Gen. 25.20 with the initial
When Isaac was 40 years old he married Rebekah.
A more notable variation of the scheme is 26.34; there is the initial .. ., and the event is given in the imperfect consecutive.
When Esau was 40 years old, he took as his wife... The same variation of the scheme is found in 17.1.
When Abram was 99 years old, YHWH appeared to Abram
It is noteworthy that here the name of Abraham is repeated in the subordinate sentence. This is of significance primarily because in all other cases in the patriarchal stories when a divine appearance is introduced by this verb stands at the beginning of the sentence (Gen. 12.7; 18.1; 26.2, 24; 35.9); only here does it appear in the subordinate sentence. This suggests that the detail of the age in Gen. 17.la has been added subsequently; in favour of this is that the same information about the age appears again in v. 24. The information about the age in Gen. 37.2 deviates from the scheme in many respects: it begins with the name, without however the preceding waw, 1. Then follows a circumstantial sentence with and a participle, and there is no parallel to this in the remaining chronological notes; finally, it is noteworthy that yet another circumstantial sentence follows immediately with and a following noun. The sentence,
160
without the information about the age, i.e. without the words would present no syntactical difficulties at all, whereas in the present form, there are syntactical problems, as well as its being singular, in comparison with the remaining chronological information in the patriarchal stories. This suggests that here also one may assume the later insertion of the note about the age. It should be noted further that the ages are given for the most part in round numbers: Abraham 75 (Gen. 12.4) and 100 (21.5), Isaac 40 (25.20) and 60 (25.26), Esau 40 (26.34), Joseph 30 (41.46).1 The 99 years of Abraham at his circumcision 17.24 are as it were a prelude to the birth of Isaac. Only the chronology of Ishmael is not given in round numbers; but it is clearly set in relationship to the circumcision and so to the birth of Isaac. It is likely that circumcision at the age of 13 has a special signification. It is without doubt a question of a definite chronological system here. Now that it has become clear that the chronologica notes are not linked by connecting passages to a coherent narrative, one will have to reckon this system, not to a particular narrative 'source', but rather to a layer of reworking or redaction. Something similar holds also for the other chronological data. First there are some texts to be mentioned which do not allow themselves to be classified readily under the patterns so far established. Gen. 16.3, in a circumstantial sentence which seems to interrupt the narrative context, gives the information that Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham so as to have descendants through her. The note about the date is in the middle of the sentence and runs in translation more or less: 'after Abraham had been living 10 years in the land of Canaan'. This agrees exactly with the rest of the chronology. Abraham is 86 at Ishmael's birth (16.16), i.e. 11 years older than at the time of his departure from Haran (12.4). But it is remarkable that this information is not given in the usual form, but within a separate sentence. Obviously the author's concern was not
1 Cf. also Exod. 7.7 where, following the same principle, Moses is reckoned as being 80 at the time of his dealings with Pharaoh; Aaron's 83 derives from this.
161
this chronological information, but the main matter of the sentence: Sarah's giving over of Hagar. The formalized sounding phrase occurs often in corresponding phrases, e.g. Gen. 24.67; 25.20; 28.9; 34.8; 38.14; further 12.19; 20.12. Gen. 34.8, together with w.2 and 4, shows that it is the legal aspect that is meant. In the Jacob story also, the giving over of the servant maids to Jacob by his two wives (Gen. 30.3-4, 9) is reported almost word for word as in Gen. 16.3; it is not at all a question of something peculiar to T'. Two chronological details from the life-story of Jacob must be mentioned here. In Gen. 47.9 Jacob replies to Pharaoh's question about his age: The days of the years of my sojourning are 130 years'. The formulation with is closer to the age given at death (to be dealt with shortly) than to those already considered. In the chronological system, this information coheres with that in Gen. 47.28a, according to which Jacob lived 17 years in Egypt, so that his total age is given as 147 years (47.28b; below). For the rest, it is striking that the at the beginning of the sentence corresponds to the stereotyped details in the primeval story,12 whereas it occurs only here and in Gen. 50.22 in the patriarchal story. The next rather large group mentions the total age together with the death of the one in question. Here too a definite scheme is evident which, however, allows several variations. The simplest form is found in Gen. 11.32: first, the age introduced by then the death expressed by repeating the name and mention of the place. The information about Sarah's death in Gen. 23.1 is structured according to a similar pattern; only here, is in place of 1 One might consider if this latter phrase has the function of bringing to a conclusion the self-contained information of Sarah's life-span; would the original narrative then have begun with the words ?3 The information about the death of Isaac in Gen. 35.28 also
1 Gunkel (Genesis, p. 272), assumes that the age for circumcision 'was common among the Ishmaelite nations'. 2 Cf. Gen. 5.3-30 (passim) and 9.28; 11.11-26 (passim). 3 Cf. Gen. 11.28; Exod. 1.6; 1 Sam. 25.1.
162
begins with the words followed by the age; the subordinate sentence is formulated in greater detail: 'then Isaac expired and died and was gathered to his kin, old and fulfilled in life; and his sons Jacob and Esau buried him'. The same detailed formulation occurs several times. With Jacob, it begins in the same way in Gen. 47.28b,1 but concludes only in 49.33b; but these two pieces, following the parallels, belong together, i.e. the reworking has separated them from each other so as to insert between them the last words and instructions of Jacob. Two further texts belong immediately in this context: Gen. 25.7 (Abraham's death) and 25.17 (Ishmael's death) differ from the two texts just mentioned in that they begin with the words I2 the subordinate sentence is somewhat more detailed in the case of Abraham, somewhat shorter in the case of Isaac (35.28). The formula is expanded in Abraham's case by mention of the burial place in the 'cave at Machpelah' which is awkwardly formulated, like the closing verse of Genesis 23. This suggests that one consider a subsequent expansion; otherwise it would remain incomprehensible why the reference is missing in the case of Isaac, although Gen. 49.30f. presupposes that he was buried there. This is more easily explained if, after the insertion of Genesis 23 in the Abraham story, a corresponding assimilation took place, whereas it did not in the Isaac story. Gen. 49.29-32 presents a further stage in the formation of the tradition; here, not only is the burial of Isaac in the cave reported by way of supplement, but also the burial of Rebekah and Leah, who are nowhere else mentioned. The execution of Jacob's instructions in Gen. 50.12-14 also belongs to this layer of reworking. It is clear then that the information about the deaths of Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, and Jacob come from the same layer of reworking. The remaining texts show other marks. This is true too of Gen. 50.22, 26. The introductory (v. 22) which we have already met in Gen. 47.28a and which occurs often in the primeval story, occurs again here. The subordinate sentence too in v. 26 diverges from the other texts in that
1 Here only with instead of 2 In 25.7 expanded with
163
it repeats again the age with the information about the death, and with the prefixed . Here again another layer of reworking is discernible.1 Looked at as a whole, the chronological data in the patriarchal story shows a variety of marks. Most of it can be divided clearly into two groups: (1) information about the age of a person at the time of a particular event, (2) information about the entire lifespan in the context of the report of the death. There are no discernible links between the two groups. It is remarkable that there is nothing about Jacob in the first group, but there is something about Esau; on the other hand, there is no mention of Esau's death. All in all, it is clear that there has been no uniform and consistent reworking.2
3.4.2 Theological' passages
A second group of coherent texts in the patriarchal story which are generally attributed to P are the 'theological' pas1 Despite these deviations, it is surprising that this verse is without exception reckoned to E, or divided between J and E (Procksch, Fohrer). This then would be the only place where the older sources would have given such information about the life-span. No reasons at all are given why this is considered to be the case here. 2 The problem of the toledot-formulas still remains opaque. Weimar (see above under 3.3.2) has erected an imposing structure on these formulas. The main difficulty which I see in his work is the fact that he works with notions of 'history' (Geschichte, story, trans.), 'narrative', 'report', etc., which I cannot comprehend. Let me pick out a sentence at random: 'And thus the list of Ishmaelites formed... the first main part of the history of Ishmael' (p. 179). But this is form-critically quite incomprehensible. How can a list be a main part of a 'history' (Geschichte, story, trans.). A little later he writes that the list of Ishmaelites 'presents only a phase in the life of Ishmael'. I do not understand how a list can be a 'phase in the life'. Weimar often puts 'narrative' for 'history*, e.g. in the synthesis on p. 183, n.2. His understanding of 'narrative' is displayed, for example, in the table on p. 182, where the two chronological notes, Gen. 25.17 and 26.34 are classified respectively as 'heading' and 'narrative'. But perhaps these notions are not to be understood as form-critical precisions? But how else could they be understood? Weimar's constructions, though they contain some correct observations, seem to me to point much more to a particular system of reworking an available narrative than to an independent 'history' (Geschichte).
164
sages. They are Gen. 17; 27.46-28.5;1 35.9-13; 48.3-4 (5-6).2 One can discern readily that these texts are related to each other. First, one notes that they all use the divine name, *E1 sadday*; in 17.1 and 35.11 it occurs in the form of the formula of self-presentation 'I am El sadday' as introduction to a divine address; in 28.3 and 48.3, with reference back to it. The texts stand in pairs: 28.1-4 refers back to ch. 17, 48.3-4 to 35.11-12. A further link is that the talk in these texts is of blessing.3 28.1 is introduced as Isaac's blessing of Jacob; in v.3 there is the actual blessing formula and in v. 4 a reference back to the 'blessing of Abraham'. The objects of the blessing are fertility and increase in v.3, the possession of the land in v.4. In 35.9 the two-fold divine address is again introduced as blessing; the content of the blessing however follows only in the second address, w. 11-12, and is again fertility and increase (v. 11) and possession of the land (v. 12). In 48.3-4, with reference back to the latter, it is said that El sadday appeared to Jacob and blessed him; the content is again fertility and increase as well as possession of the land (v. 4). It is noticeable that the cross reference does not cite literally, but that the passages run in parallel lines, though with numerous variations in the choice of words; there is further a link between 48.4 and 17.8 in the phrase (an eternal possession), which occurs in these two places only in conection with the promise of the land. In Genesis 17 the promise address is not introduced as blessing. This is very remarkable in view of the fact that the content of the promise in 17.6-7 (cf. also v. 2) corresponds exactly to what is described as blessing in the texts just mentioned; and further, the promise of fertility and increase for Sarah (v. 16) and for Ishmael (v. 20) is described expressly as blessing. A number of different explanations present themselves: first, it would be conceivable that the author of Genesis 17 wanted to have the promises that he mentioned, which correspond to the other texts, understood as blessing without
1 26.34-35 and 28.6-9 belong here as well; one should note the repetition in 28.6-9! 2 There is scarcely any argument in the literature for assigning 48.5-6 to P. 3 See above under 2.3.3.
165
saying so explicitly; one could argue that the assurance 'I will make you very, very fruitful...' in v. 6 is nothing other than a pronouncement of blessing. But then one might also suppose the idea of 'blessing' belongs only to a later layer of reworking and for that reason was first missing from Genesis 17, which obviously forms the point of departure for the whole group of texts, and would only have been supplied later (in 17.16, 20, as well as in the cross references); and one could also argue that in Gen. 35.9 the word ^bless' has been put in front of the whole complex of divine addresses, but that it is missing in the actual promise address in w. 11-12. Finally, there could be a third possibility: that originally there was talk of blessing at the beginning of ch. 17, but that this idea has been eclipsed and suppressed (w.2, 4, 7,...) by the idea of 'covenant' in any case a clear distinction is made between the blessing for Sarah and Ishmael (vv. 16, 20) and the covenant with Abraham and Isaac (w. 19b, 21!). Whatever the case may be, the connections between these four texts are clear, despite the notable differences. A further point common to this group of texts is that in all of them the promise of the land comes after the promise of increase. It was shown earlier that therein lies the peculiarity of these texts against others in which the sequence is reversed;1 the land promise in second place testifies to a later stage of the tradition. Some further observations may be made on the position of this group of texts with the remaining promise addresses in the patriarchal story. The formulation 'to you... and your seed' is found in three texts promising the land; both expressions follow immediately on each other twice (Gen. 17.8; 28.4; the latter is not formulated as a divine address and shows some peculiarities); once the verb stands between them, and once it is repeated after them (35.12); once, there is only 'to your seed' (48.4). And so these text do not stand out from the other promises of the land as a self-contained group (see above under 2.3.1, table of beginning). In three cases 'after you' 17.8; 35.12; 48.4) is added to 'seed'; this is a peculiarity of this text group, as well as already mentioned (17.8;
1 See above under 2.3.5 and 2.4.
166
48.4). As for the promise of increase, these texts belong to the group which does not use 'seed' in this context (see above under 2.3.2, tables). It is notable that the plural form 'nations' and 'peoples' occur only in this group. The special place of the texts then is apparent, but the group is not to be detached entirely from the historical process of tradition of the promise addresses. Finally, yet another link is that the two divine addresses in Genesis 17 and 35.9-12 involve a change of name of the patriarch concerned, Abraham (17.5) and Jacob (35.10). And this parallel is clearly intended. There can scarcely be any doubt, therefore, that these four texts are related to each other. Their intention is obviously to point in a definite theological direction. On the one side, the different promise elements, which are found in various forms in the patriarchal story, are synthesized in a characteristic way,1 while on the other new elements have taken their place, in particular the notion of God's 'covenant' with Abraham, and circumcision as the visible expression of the covenant relationship. It is remarkable, however, that circumcision as sign has not been carried further; after the account of the actual circumcision of Abraham, Ishmael, and the males who belonged to the *house' of Abraham in Gen. 17.23-26, the only other note about circumcision concerns Isaac in Gen. 21.4, where there is reference back to Gen. 17, in particular to v. 12 There is no account of any other circumcisions in the patriarchal story. The purpose of the author of Genesis 17perhaps more accurately of these parts of Genesis 17was obviously not to report a continuous passage of the patriarchal story, but rather to anchor the prescription about circumcision in God's covenant with Abraham. The remaining passages are all concerned with Jacob. They show how the blessing of God (more accurately, of El sadday) accompanies him on his way. There are the same main stages which in another layer of theological reworking are characterized by the theme 'guidance'.2 his departure for Haran (Gen. 27.46-28.5), his return from there (35.9-13), and the
1 See above under 2.3.5 for more on Gen. 17. 2 See above under 2.4.
167
end of the journey in Egypt (48.3-4). The emphases in detail lie in a different direction from those in the 'guidance' layer. The departure for Haran is already under the blessing; the second blessing is given only after the return to the ground of the promised land; and the last mention of blessing looks back, presupposing the journey down to Egypt. The impression that arises from this is that of a complement and a new emphasis of an already existing narrative. It has already been shown that these texts cannot be part of a continuous priestly Jacob story.1 At the same time it is evident this layer of reworking has a quite characteristic interest in the figure and journey of Jacob. One question further may be raised: is there a connection between this 'priestly' layer of redaction and the divine addresses in the Isaac story? The latter, generally, are not reckoned to P. But it is notable even so that, like the divine addresses to Abraham (Gen. 17.1) and Jacob (35.9), they are introduced with , And further, there are many details in Gen. 26.2-5 which point at least to an advanced stage in the process of the formation of the tradition which is close to the priestly texts. But these questions require farther study. 3.4.3 The function of the priestly layer This last conclusion touches the question of the function which this group of texts has within the patriarchal story as a whole. An important direction is given in the Abraham story in Genesis 17. But this does not touch the many promise addresses to Abraham which belong to other layers of tradition and reworking. These texts give the Jacob story a separate, new interpretation which takes its place by the earlier one. But this exhausts their contribution to the shaping and interpretation of the patriarchal story as a whole. In particular it is striking that this group of texts has no part in the framing and shaping of the patriarchal story as a self-contained larger unit. Neither the assurance of guidance, which runs through all three patriarchal stories,2 nor the assurance of mediatorship of the
1 See above under 3.3.2. 2 See above under 2.4.
168
blessing for others,1 which has proved itself in a special way to be an element binding the arrangement together, are found in these texts. The 'priestly' texts then stand out in relief within the patriarchal story as an independent group with a number of peculiarities. At the same time one can discern a definite line of interpretation in this group as a whole. But it is by no means the dominant interpretation within the patriarchal story, because it embraces only a partial aspect (primarily the Jacob stories), and in addition it does not share in the overall arrangement of the story. A few further remarks may be added here about the combination of the patriarchal story with the traditions that follow. We had concluded earlier that on the one hand the lack of connection between the individual complexes of tradition is striking, but that on the other hand there are isolated references back to the patriarchal story in the exodus tradition.2 Beside the texts formulated in the deuteronomic style, there are again those which are generally reckoned to the priestly document: In Exod. 2.23-25, in a link piece, which in the present context indicates the change of fortune pointing toward the imminent rescue of the Israelites,3 there is reference back to God's 'covenant' with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (v. 24) We had earlier expressed the conjecture that one might see here a link with Gen. 17.7. Also, in the divine address in Exod. 6.2-9,4 one can recognize clear echoes of Gen. 17.7-8.5 For the rest, however, with the broad expansion of the formula 'I am YHWH' and with the 'recognition statement'6 in v. 7, a quite unique type of theme is evident. With these two texts then a deliberate tie of the patriarchal and exodus traditions is achieved. However, it strikes one immediately that in the further course of the narrative there is no cross-reference of this sort to be found. The exodus event
1 2 3 4 5 6 See above under 2.4. See above under 2.5 and 2.7. See above under 2.5. See above under 2.5. Ibid. Cf. W. Zimmerli, Erkenntnis Gottes nach dem Buche Ezechiel, 1954 = Gottes Offenbarung. Gesammelte Aufs&tze, 1963, pp. 41-119.
169
itself, the wandering in the desert, and the occupation of the land, give no indication that it is the land, the goal of the journey, that YHWH had assured to the patriarchs. We find in these priestly texts therefore no reworking covering the whole of the Pentateuch, but only, beside the episodic, new interpretation of the patriarchal story, a single tie of the patriarchal and exodus traditions under the aspect of YHWH's covenant with the fathers. 3.4.4 No priestly narrative but a layer of priestly reworking Let us draw together our reflections on the 'priestly document' in the patriarchal story: a continuous P-narrative cannot be demonstrated. The texts generally claimed for this narrative thread are to be judged very differently. First, a small group of'theological' texts stand out, one of which synthesizes the divine promises to Abraham in a new way and puts them under the key word 'covenant' (Gen. 17), while the others all have to do with Jacob (Gen. 27.46-28.5; 35.9-13; 48.3-4); they are linked with Genesis 17 in a particular way, though they do not use the idea 'covenant'. Further, there are several groups of chronological notes. They mention partly the age of a person at the time of a particular event, partly the total life-span with the information about the death of the person concerned. There are no discernible connections between these groups, either stylistic or in content or in their particular setting in the present text. Nor are there connections between the chronological notes and the theological texts; only that in Genesis 17 the age of Abraham (w. 1, 24) and Ishmael (v. 25) at the time of their circumcision is mentioned. The thesis of a coherent P-narrative in the current research depends for the most part on the assumption that certain small pieces of text are to be reckoned to P which establish the connection between the texts just mentioned, so that the result is a continuous, coherent narrative. Study of these texts demonstrates that the arguments for assigning them to P (arguments which are almost entirely absent in more recent literature) cannot, in the majority of cases, withstand critical examination; indeed, there is a considerable number of assertions which a simple glance at the
170
concordance proves to be false. I underscore once again as typical examples: the appendage 'Abraham's wife' in Gen. 16.1 which is held to belong to P, but which occurs also in the 'J-passage' 12.17 and in the 'E-passage' 20.18; the alleged P use of the verb in the pi'el, 'destroy* in Gen. 19.29 which is used in the immediately preceding J-narrative in 19.13 as well as in the J-text in 13.10; the claim for P of the expression 'at the particular time' in Gen. 21.2b, which is found also in the immediately related 'J' piece in 18.14. Examples could be multiplied at will. The refutation of arguments such as these sets up a sort of chain reaction, because the texts, which are claimed for P, to a large extent support each other, and that on the grounds of 'proofs' from linguistic usage. In my opinion, critical examination shows cogently that these connecting pieces are not to be claimed for P. This pulls the mat from under any assumption of a coherent P-narrative. Even when one assumes that the remaining groups of texts mentioned are all to be reckoned to one 'source', despite the lack of any discernible relationship to each other, they still do not produce a coherent narrative. At most, one could attribute them all to the same layer of reworking which has complemented and interpreted in a particular way a text already available. But no proof is forthcoming that they are constituent parts of a 'source' within the meaning of the documentary hypothesis, i.e. of a continuous narrative which once existed independently on its own. 3.5 Synthesis It has been demonstrated that, on the one hand, there have been different reworkings of the patriarchal story which are consistent and of theological significance, and of the Moses and exodus traditions on the other; and further, there is the fact that traces of a comprehensive reworking of the Pentateuch as a whole appear only in a relatively late stage of the process of the formation of the tradition; hence, we are faced with the question, how do the reflections made here stand in relationship to the prevailing assumption of continuous 'sources' or layers of 'sources' in the Pentateuch? The traditio-historical approach requires that 'sources' of
171
this sort appear as the next logical stage in the formation of the tradition; it is on this that the larger units', themselves collections of very different kinds of material, build and are brought together into larger outlines which cover the whole theme of the Pentateuch. It is because our studies hitherto have not led to such outlines that we have undertaken the 'crosscheck', i.e. we have subjected current pentateuchal study to critical questioning directed to the tenability of its arguments, its *built-in system', its unity, and the persuasive power of its arguments. The attempt to carry through this 'crosscheck' ran into a serious difficulty very soon. It proved almost impossible to acquire from current study any sort of clear picture of that source, generally regarded as the most important, namely the Tahwist'. Though the thesis is almost universally maintained that there is basically general agreement about the delimitation of his work, the determination of his character and his intention, closer attention reveals very soon that there is no such basic agreement among the majority of exegetes in any single essential question. The examination of the reasons for these divergences and differences of opinions shows that they arise out of a profound methodological uncertainty. The deci sive causes of this uncertainty are the fact that certain basic theses are maintained, even though their presuppositions are no longer correct, and the arguments by which they were supported in the first place have lost their tenability. Let us focus once more on this problem area: the documentary hypothesis first appeared as a convincing answer to the question of the literary unity of the Pentateuch. The assumption of several parallel and originally independent sources, and of a redaction that fitted them together, seemed to answer plausibly the greater part of the literary questions. In particular, it seemed convincing that, side by side with a later priestly source, there were several older sources; hence, one could divide among these different sources individual narratives which occurred several times, differences in the use of the divine name and other linguistic usage, different religious and moral concepts, different historical presuppositions, and so on. The endeavour to establish these sources as accurately as possible and to work out what was peculiar to each, revealed
172
very quickly the difficulties and the problem area of this undertaking. A survey of the history of modern pentateuchal study shows that it has always been faced with the dilemma: to lay down the strictest criteria for the unity of the individual sources, but never to be able to distribute the entire material of the Pentateuch among them. This has led time and again to the questions whether one should postulate new sources or sub-sources, or ascribe relatively large sections of texts to redactors, or to explain them as not belonging to sources and so as 'additions', 'glosses', 'growths' or whatever, or to reduce by virtue of necessity the demands of the criteria for source division. The discussion about the delimitation of the sources very soon became a highly esoteric game in which the theory as such was never called into questionand so the situation has remained up to the present. The question whether the individual sources have been fully preserved has played a special role in these discussions. The changing fate of the TDlohist' is a clear example of the problem. It is evident at the same time how decisions already made have largely prevented an evaluation of considerations about the text in any other way than that which the documentary hypothesis has prescribed. When it is recognized that individual texts belong together, then they must also belong to a 'source', because since Wellhausen the 'fragmentary* hypothesis has been superceded. And even when today one has largely renounced any wish to reconstruct the Elohist completely, nevertheless the 'elohistic fragments' are expressly understood as parts of an 'originally independent written source with its own composition technique and independent line of proclamation'.1 That the doublets or complements at various places in the Pentateuch could be independent of each other is thus not given serious consideration.2 The problems of source division have intensified notably with the rise of form-criticism and the discipline arising out of it, namely the study of the process of formation of the tradition. Even though many exegetes have clearly not
1 H.W. Wolff, op. cit., p. 136.
2 Those who contest the Elohist are the exceptions here, see above under 3.1.
173
become conscious of this, there has, nevertheless, been many an alteration in the presuppositions. The first basic alteration is that the Pentateuch is no longer regarded primarily as a literary product. The question of the literary unity of the text which now lies before us has long since ceased to be the point of departure from which one approaches the Pentateuch. First, a much greater self-sufficiency is attached to the individual narrative or tradition. One usually reckons with a stage of oral tradition in which the texts to a large degree more or less acquired their form. But because one can speak of 'sources' only from the earliest time when the text was fixed in writing, this means that the authors of the individual written sources made use by and large of material already given shape. Thus, quite new questions arise of which classical pentateuchal criticism was not aware in this form: what part did the authors of the sources play in the shaping of these texts? did they simply take them over? work them over? reshape them? formulate them anew in their own language? are they really writers at all? or only collectors? It is evident that the understanding of the authors of the sources has run into a severe crisis. Many exegetes are not aware of this and it has not left any discernible trace in the literature; the only explanation is that, at least for Old Testament scholarship in the German-speaking area, pentateuchal study and documentary hypothesis have become so inseparable, that alterations in the statement of the question are felt to be merely problems within this theory, but not a question addressed to it.1 But when the question is put in the context of the process of the formation of the tradition, further problems come into the perspective. After von Rad had demonstrated the independence of the individual complexes of tradition within the Pentateuch and their general independence of each other, the question arose, what part did the authors of the sources play in the composition of the present whole. Von Rad
1 So Fohrer, Introduction, p.lll. 'None of the views mentioned [i.e. the recent attempts to contest or modify the documentary hypothe sis] are really any more than a warning to make sure once more of the strength and reliability of the foundations which the more recent documentary hypothesis has laid for the separation of the pentateuchal sources'.
174
himself assumed that all complexes of tradition had been fixed in essence before they were taken over by the Yahwist;1 and many exegetes have more or less followed him expressly.2 But that would mean that the question of the characteristic marks of the Yahwist would have to be directed in essence to the final form of the Pentateuch as a whole. But Noth, Fohrer, Kaiser and others had already assigned these not to the Yahwist, but to 'G'. And so once again other criteria must be sought for discerning and characterizing the Yahwist. In the face of this situation then it is no wonder that statements in this area remain as imprecise and vague as they are today. There is evident here, even with von Rad, a remarkable imbalance in evaluating the Yahwist. On the one hand he ascribed to the Yahwist the final arrangement of the complexes of tradition, essentially self-contained, which were available to him. On the other hand he writes: The Yahwist took up the material which had broken free from the cult and preserved it in the firm grip of his literary composition'. This process of the transition of the material at one time stamped by the cult into new literary' arrangements is then described in detail; and there is very often talk there of the Yahwist without his part in the development becoming readily discernible. He writes of the two cultic stories of Bethel (Gen. 28) and Penuel (Gen. 32) that 'the part of the Yahwist in [their] composition... is very probably...' still discernible; of other cult stories it is said expressly that 'we can regard the blending of [the] sacral traditions with the Yahweh faith', and consequently the 'fulfillment and penetration of that ancient story material by the Yahweh faith, only as the work of the Yahwist'; as for the literary arrangement, in the exegesis of 18.2233, for example, he speaks of'connecting pieces... which the Yahwist has inserted between the old narrative passages', clearly standing out from the narrative context; yet in the summarizing 'epilogue' to the preceding cult story of Mamre, the Yahwist is not mentioned. On the contrary, he is occasionally claimed for narrative details: e.g., Gen. 18.1: Thus, in one most vivid sentence about place and time, the Yahwist has
1 Von Rad, "The Form Critical Problem', pp. 18ff., 53ff., 67f. 2 See above under 1.1.
175
brought us right into the picture.. ,Jl It becomes quite clear from all this, I think, that modern pentateuchal study has accepted more and more the statements of the question and insights of form-criticism and the traditio-historical method without, however, examining seriously and reflecting methodically on their compatibility with the assumptions and statements of the question of the 'classical' documentary hypothesis.2 The interpreter who tries to approach the texts of the Pentateuch with a consistent statement of the question from the point of view of traditiohistorical criticism finds now that the documentary hypothe sis opens up many more questions than it is able to answer. I cannot at present discern what contribution the documentary hypothesis makes to the question of the formation of the Pentateuch from the smallest units (and their pre-history), across the larger units or the complexes of tradition, to the present synthetic whole. On the contrary, I see numerous important reasons which, from such a statement of the question, speak against the currently reigning view of pentateuchal sources within the meaning of the documentary hypothesis.
1 See above under 1.1 and 3.2. 2 See also Westermann's critical survey, Genesis 1-11, pp. 569ff.
This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 4 CONCLUSIONS AND CONSEQUENCES The purpose of the present study is to clarify a little more the problem of the process of transmission in the Pentateuch by directing attention to the hitherto neglected stage of the formation of the tradition between the 'smallest units' on the one hand and the overall picture of the Pentateuch on the other. For as long as one does not study this intermediary stage thoroughly and does not take appropriate account of it in the question of the formation of the Pentateuch, then one cannot acquire a coherent view of the history of its growth. It is precisely this that is the express goal of the traditio-historical method since it appeared.1 We might take then some observations of von Rad as our point of departure. He has shown that the Pentateuch consists of a number of complexes of tradition which are clearly separate from each other, each of which has obviously had its own pre-history. A result of our study is that the mutual independence of these complexes is considerably greater than has been generally accepted to date. Above all, there is a notable absence of cross-references between these larger units'. This is particularly remarkable at the level of the generally accepted 'older sources' of current pentateuchal study, to which the essential arrangement of the Pentateuch is ascribed. These 'sources' are for the most part regarded as theological works. Hence, it must appear very remarkable that a very intensive and varied theological reworking can be discerned in the patriarchal stories which we have chosen as examples of such a larger unit, but that this is not continued in the following larger units which deal with the stay in Egypt,
178
the exodus, Sinai, and the wandering in the desert. On the contrary, there is a characteristic lack of continuity, and especially of over-arching interpretative evidence. These remarks must of necessity be understood as critical questions addressed to the currently reigning 'documentary hypothesis', according to which the Pentateuch is assembled out of several parallel, continuous, 'sources', each with its own profile and own thought pattern. Our observations are scarcely in harmony with this. We tried to establish by means of a 'crosscheck' of the documentary hypothesis whether, directing the question in this way, we might perhaps gain better insights into the connections between the individual larger units within the Pentateuch. But this check was rendered extraordinarily difficult, because it is scarcely possible in the present state of pentateuchal study to find any sort of agreement about the 'sources' that would enable us to answer our question. On the contrary, the documentary hypothesis proves itself to be extremely contradictory, especially in wha concerns its chief source, the *Yahwist'. There is today scarcely anything more than a general, ill-defined consensus about him, a consensus, however, to which there is no agreement among the exegetes in any single, important, concrete detail. In particular, there have been alterations in the state of the question which have quietly taken place since the advent of the form-critical and traditio-historical methods, and which have scarcely been reflected at all; the result is that for the critical observer, the documentary hypothesis, and especially the picture which it presently presents of the *Yahwist', must be regarded as, methodologically, a highly problematic, and in many respects, a quite anachronistic, undertaking. That the continuity of the 'priestly document' is greatly overestimated and often supported by arguments which cannot withstand critical scrutiny, is another aspect of the same problem. 4.1 Dissent from the documentary hypothesis Hence, a first answer is given to the question raised in the introduction to this study, namely, how do the literary-critical method in the form of the documentary hypothesis as it reigns
4. Conclusions and Consequences
179
today, and the traditio-historical method, stand in relationship to each other? When one tries to follow the gradual formation of the Pentateuch starting from the 'smallest units' right up to its present final stage, one does not encounter the 'sources' in the sense of the documentary hypothesis; and when one tries to allege the currently reigning notion of 'sources' to answer the questions raised by traditio-historical study, then there is no answer. The assumption of 'sources' within the meaning of the documentary hypothesis can no longer make any contribution today to the understanding of the formation of the Pentateuch. This conclusion must be protected from possible misunderstanding. It has already been underscored, and it must be repeated again here, that it is not at all a question of contesting in any way the legitimacy of literary-critical statements of the question. Many of the observations made about the texts since the rise of the literary-critical method retain their validity and still require an answer. What is to be questioned rather is a particular conclusion of the literary-critical work on the Pentateuch, a particular hypothesis, namely what is known as the 'documentary hypothesis'. However, in recent pentateuchal study, this hypothesis has almost been identified with the literary-critical method as such, so that the difference between the two must again be expressly brought to mind. Literary criticism of different passages of the Pentateuch has separated out individual units of text. It is by no means obvious that these units are now to be joined together and considered as constituent parts of 'sources' which run through the whole Pentateuch. On the contrary, one must say that in numerous cases plausible literary-critical observations become problematic only when one tries to ascribe the elements of the text to particular 'sources'.1 In any case, dissent from the documentary hypothesis, while maintaining the literary-critical position, means an alteration in the methodological approach. Fohrer expresses
1 The terminology of the discipline is significant: one assigns the text to a source, and quite obviously even when there are no clear criteria favouring one source or the other; cf. as an (unintentional) example, W.H. Schmidt, Exodus, pp. 63-64; see above under 3.2.1.
180
aptly the current situation: It is a non-negotiable basic principle of the anlaysis of the Hexateuch that, to start with, the literary-critical separation of the different strands... must stand'.1 But it is legitimate to contest even this basic principle. It too, in my opinion, has in fact long since lost its force because 'to start with', one must in many cases concentrate on individual narratives and other such 'smallest units', and put the question of belonging to one of the 'sources' only at a later stage of the exegesis. And so a variety of literary observations is made and divisions of the text undertaken without the exegete being sure to which 'source' the individual elements might belong. But, be it that the basic principle cited agrees with exegetical practice or not, from a form-critical or a traditio-historical point of view, it is to be flatly denied. The basic principle already mentioned earlier must be set against it, namely, that from the traditio-historical point of view, the assumption of continuous 'sources' in the Pentateuch is only justified when, at the end of the path of the traditio-historical inquiry, it presents itself as the most plausible answer to the questions which the final form of the text raises.2 But our inquiry, and especially the 'crosscheck' of the documentary hypothesis, has shown that this is not the case. This first part of the conclusion to our inquiry could contribute to freeing pentateuchal study from a realm of hypothesis which has turned out to be an increasingly heavy burden. A great amount of exegetical ingenuity is still being spent on the problem of source division, although it has long since become clear that a self-contained picture of the 'sources', as the documentary hypothesis demands, is no longer to be gained.3 And even if one might hope to come to convincing
1 Uberlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus, 1964, p. 4. 2 See above under 1.3. 3 Von Rad has seen this clearly, 'Beobachtungen an der Moseerz&hlung Ex 1-14', EvTh 31 (1971) 579-88 = Gesammelte Studien zum Alien Testament 2, 1973, pp. 189-98: 'So as things stand today, it does not in any way appear as if we are going to arrive at an analysis of the individual sources in which we might divide the whole of the material in some satisfactory way among the written sources' (580 = 190). Similarly Fohrer: 'Indeed, it is long since clear, that the Hexateuch contains more material that does not belong to a source and that the narrative threads contain more disconnected narrative
181
conclusions in Genesis or in the first half of the book of Exodus, this is no longer possible from the Sinai pericope on at the very latest, and that very obviously. This concern about source division presents exegetes from devoting proper attention to other questions of the exegesis of the text and of the understanding of its history. And the newly enkindled discussion about the dating of the sources of the Pentateuch, especially of the 'Yahwist',1 only shifts these concerns on to another plane; but in my opinion it is chasing after a phantom. 4.2 The 'larger units' in the Pentateuch The main purpose of this study, however, is not to refute the documentary hypothesis. Rather its aim is to achieve a methodological access to the understanding of the formation of the Pentateuch in the stage between the 'smallest units' and the overall presentation. The conclusions remain to be sketched briefly and the consequences to be pondered. 4.2.1 The patriarchal story The patriarchal story which, as an example of a 'larger unit' within the Pentateuch we have subjected to detailed analysis, proves to be a complex and at the same time a rounded unit. First, it is evident yet again that the Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob stories each has its own history of formation and its own independent profile. The work of arrangement and interpretation which makes use of the divine promise addresses in particular has allowed this relative independence to remain
stuff than the documentary hypothesis in its strictest form was willing to concede...' (see p. 6 n. 2). 1 J. Van Seters, 'Confessional Reformulation in the Exilic Period', VT 22 (1972) 448-59; N.E.Wagner, Tentateuchal Criticism: No Clear Future', CanJT 13 (1967) 225-32; B. Diebner/H. Schult, 'Die Ehen der Erzvater', DBAT 8 (1975) 2-10; 'Edom in alttestamentlichen Texten der Makkabaerzeit', DBAT 8 (1975) 11-17; 'Argumenta e Silentio. Das grosse Schweigen als Folge der "alten Pentateuchquellen"', in Festschrift fur R. Rendtorff zum 10.5.1975, DBAT Beiheft 1, 23-34. H.H. Schmid has also argued for a late dating of the Yahwist (May 1975: Fachgruppe Altes Testament in der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft fur Theologie).
182
intact. This is evident, for example, in the framework of the Isaac story with the two divine promise addresses in Gen. 26.2-5 and 26.241 and in the arrangement of the Jacob story as a 'guidance' narrative.2 In both cases the promise of the land is emphasized at the beginning, and the assurance of abundant descendants at the end. In the Jacob story, the assurance of blessing which accompanies him on his way has been added in another layer of tradition.3 In the Abraham story the divine promise addresses play a comparatively larger role than in the two other stories and have penetrated more deeply into the narrative context. But here too the function of a framework is clearly recognizable, especially in the closing promise address in Gen. 22.15-18.4 This belongs as well to the passages which bind the three patriarchal stories with one another and fit them together into a whole. The promise of the blessing for others dominates here. It is given to Abraham (12.3; 22.18), to Isaac (26.4) and to Jacob (28.14); the different formulations show that the Abraham and Jacob stories were first joined together (12.3; 28.14) and, only at a later stage of the reworking and arrangement, the Abraham and Isaac stories (22.18; 26.4). The traditio-historical problems of the patriarchal story are not thereby finally solved; rather a way has been opened to deal with them more intensively. But now that the independence and complexity of the patriarchal story has become so evident, study can apply itself to the numerous individual questions without having to reflect constantly on the supposed connections with the other complexes of tradition in the Pentateuch. Only a few problems will be indicated here which present themselves anew. First, the genre 'Sage' undoubtedly needs a renewed and more nuanced study. It must be more carefully taken into account that the stories (Sagen) in the patriarchal story are of an entirely different kind and have a different pre-history from the texts of the primeval story on
1 2 3 4
See above under 2.4. See above tinder 2.4. See above tinder 3.4.2. See above under 2.4.
183
the one hand and the complex of traditions with which the book of Exodus begins on the other.1 Thus study can free itself from the necessity of having to assign the individual narratives and stories (Sageri) each to a particular 'source'-author; and it can, to take up an example already mentioned,2 set into relief the profound differences between texts like Gen. 12.1020 and Genesis 24 without being forced to look for proofs which would assign them to sources. And texts which are difficult to classify, like Genesis 14 and 23, can be simply studied and evaluated in their own right. And further, study can turn itself to the questions of the structure of the patriarchal story under different presuppositions. In particular, there was the very awkward situation in the Abraham story whereby the exegete had to look for criteria under which the individual narratives had been collected and arranged, but in such a way that he was forced to span certain texts. In the case of the *Yahwistic' Abraham story, he had to carry on as if chs. 14; 15; 17 were not there, and likewise again chs. 20-22.3 They were added anyway by a redactor, and so did not merit any thorough consideration. A new beginning may be made here. In doing so, one would pursue more precisely the connections between the divine promise addresses and their context. The reflections presented above still leave many questions open in this regard. I have deliberately tried to avoid preliminary decisions about whether individual texts belong to particular 'sources',4 thereby leaving the way open for as unprejudiced analysis as possible; but I am very conscious that my own insights are only a beginning. Finally, one must investigate in more precise detail than has been possible within the limits of this study, the collection and arrangement of the patriarchal stories. In this area, the work of R. Kessler on the 'cross references' offers further pointers
1 Cf. Westermann, Genesis 1-11, pp. 18fF. 2 See above under 3.2.2. 3 Von Rad has included Gen. 22 among the narratives designated by him as 'Yahwistic' (Theology of the Old Testament, 1, pp. 170f). 4 And thus, in dealing with the promise addresses in ch. 2, particular groups of texts were not assigned to the priestly layer.
184
and suggestions;1 a question of course which is linked with those already mentioned. To give but two examples: how is one to understand the following: the narrative in Gen. 12.10-20 ('the ancestress in danger*) has no divine address and so no mention of the divine promises to Abraham; yet they are mentioned in an insertion into its context (13.1,3-4) with an emphasis to which there is no parallel in the patriarchal story? Can one, without more ado, put this side by side with other narratives in which, in their present form, the divine promise addresses carry such weight, but have not been tied to the context in any comparable way? And how does one evaluate this: the cult etiology of Bethel (Gen. 28.10-22) has undergone a very varied and multi-faceted interpretation by means of the divine promises, whereas the event at Pnuel (Gen. 32.23-33 [Eng. 22-32]) has remained quite untouched? Can one simply maintain the interpretation of von Rad, so plausible at first sight, about the function of these two cultic stories in the structure of the Jacob story?2 How do the composition of the patriarchal story and its interpretation by means of the divine promise addresses stand in relationship to each other? It is clear that the questions touched on here, to which others could be added, are concerned with specific problems in the patriarchal story, which do not arise in the same way for other larger units within the Pentateuch. Hence, answers to them would first promote a better understanding of the patriarchal story as an entity, throw light on the path, step by step, from the smallest units to this larger unit, and so allow one to discern the guiding principles and methods of reworking. 4.2.2 The other 'larger units' Something corresponding holds for the other larger units within the Pentateuch. A survey of recent literature shows that for a long time now there have been numerous publications which have been concerned with the particular problems of these larger units. This is especially the case with
1 See above under 2.1. 2 See above under 2.1.
185
the primeval story;1 it has always been the object of studies which have focussed entirely on the problems in these chapters. At the same time, however, yet another aspect becomes clear: many studies on the primeval story limit themselves entirely to it, underscore its internal coherence, and interpret it accordingly as a unit in itself;2 nevertheless, they take it for granted that the layers of tradition discernible there must be regarded as constituent parts of the pentateuchal sources. The express connection is made merely by a few remarks about Gen. 12.1-3,3 or not at all.4 The independence of the primeval story as a larger unit has long since been recognized and stressed; but further reflection is required about its connection with the other units. And a further remark: 'the universal perspective of the primeval story which the Abraham story achieves in (Gen. 12) v. 3'5 is often alleged as a reference back to the patriarchal story to the primeval story. If this is correct, then it means that, according to our reflections, the primeval story has indeed been tied to the patriarchal story, but only with it; because Gen. 12.3 is one of those passages which bring the patriarchal stories together as a whole, but which has no counterpart in the larger units that follow.6 This could be a clue to the simultaneous growth of
1 Cf. Westermann, Genesis 1-11, Ertrage der Forschung, 1972, p. 7. 2 E.g. O.K. Steck: 'Gen. 2-11 is, in the intent of the Yahwist, a whole, which is meant to encompass all that is typical of the human condition, with all the possibilities and depreciation of human existence...', in 'Genesis 12.1-3 und die Urgeschichte des Jahwisten', Probleme biblischer Theologie, Festschrift von Rad, 1971, pp. 525-54 (esp. p. 549); cf. also Westermann, Genesis 1-11, pp.64ff. 3 E.g. Steck, pp. 549-50. 4 So Westermann, Genesis 1-11, on the basis of Gen. 1-11 alone. 5 Steck, op. cit., p. 550. 6 I think that H.W. Wolff has unintentionally shown this in 'The Kerygma of the Yahwist'.
the only occurrence of the key-word 'blessing' in the whole of the book of Exodus in Exod. 12.32 shows no connection with Gen. 12.3b and is in fact not a continuation of the promise given there; rather the opposite. And the single occurrence in the book of Numbers within the Balaam oracles, Num. 24.9, can certainly be related to Gen. 12.3a (despite the notable change of the verbs) but not so to the words of 12.3b, about which Wolff insists 'the real message of the Yahwist is to be seen only in 12.3b'.
186
these two larger units independently of their connection with the following units. But this question needs further careful attention. With regard to the other larger units, we can for the most part latch on to what has already been said.1 Since Pedersen, the question of the special character of Exodus 1-14(15) has been there. Even if the supposition that the unit is in essence a liturgical text has receded into the background, nevertheless its peculiar literary character and relative internal coherence is continually underscored, though from the most divergent points of view.2 Once again we may take up the reflections on a deliberate, theologically interpretative, arrangement of the unit.3 Exod. 2.23-25 marks the turning point in the first section of the call of Moses. God takes heed of the Israelites. In 4.31 the Israelites 'believe' the message that Moses has received and bow before itjust as later, when the definitive rescue is announced to them (12.27b) and they finally see this rescue with their own eyes (14.31). There is obviously a mind at work here, planning, arranging, interpreting, which has given this passage its own stamp.4 And so it is evident once more that the reflections made here have no counterpart in other larger units. Pentateuchal study takes for granted that the Sinai pericope is an entity in itself. This notion, borrowed from the liturgical realm, expresses very clearlyeven if in partthat the section is an entity to be considered in itself and that it has in some way to do with divine worship. The analysis of the Sinai periocope usually begins with the speedy, and unanimous, exclusion of the parts belonging to the 'priestly document'. The remaining 'nucleus', cramped together into a few chapters, is then studied again, mainly in respect of assigning passages to their sources, and thereby further cut
1 See above under 1.4. 2 Cf. S. Herrmann, "Mose', EvTh 28 (1968) 301-28 (esp. 326); G. von Rad, 'Beobachtungen an der Moseerzghlung Exodus 114', EvTh 31 (1971) 579-88 = Gesammelte Studien zum Alien Testament 2, 1973, pp. 189-98. 3 See above under 3.2.1. 4 It is remarkable that the verb used in these passages, (hip'il), occurs only seldom elsewhere in the Pentateuch.
187
up.1 But this procedure is particularly unsatisfactory here because the results are always rather uncertain and at the same time scarcely give the interpreter access to fresh points of view. The discussion of the 'covenant theology* is certainly a step forward because it attempts to throw light on the traditiohistorical problems of the Sinai pericope under the aegis of a theme. The task that now lies before us is to put the question more concretely of the texts in the Sinai pericope, and to put the question, how does one explain the process by which these texts came together, what were the intentions and ideas at work, and what systems of arrangement are discernible. The advantage of this could well be that source division (prescinding from T') has thus exhausted itself, and that many exegetes would not find it all that difficult to renounce it in this area. The problems of the narratives of Israel's stay in the desert have already been outlined.2 Here too there are indications that this group of texts is to be understood as an independent larger unit.3 It must be emphasized, over against recent attempts, that it is necessary to free oneself from the hypothetical realm and the bonds of source division; the attempt to work out an isolated 'Yahwistic' desert tradition must of necessity cover over more problems than it can solve. This holds particularly for the still quite open question, whether and how far these texts belong together in one larger unit. Here, a further problem must be considered: the decision about where the texts which precede and follow the Sinai pericope belong cannot be separated from the question of the Sinai pericope in its present place. This brings up a partial aspect of the question, how the larger units have been brought together and finally assembled into the whole which is the present Pentateuch. But the notion of larger units' must not be overdrawn. It is not at all being said that all texts which deal with the events of Israel's stay in the desert must have at one time been joined together, and then when the different parts of the Pentateuch were assembled, been torn apart again. These
1 Cf. L. Perlitt, Bundestheologie im Alien Testament, 1969, pp. 157-58. 2 See above tinder 1.4 and 2.6. 3 E.g. V. Fritz, see above under 1.4.
188
questions then must be examined very carefully and without previous commitment. The narratives about the occupation of the land in east Jordan also contain a double problem. On the one hand there is the question whether they were at one time bound together as an independent larger unit, on the other hand there is the problem, requiring further discussion, whether they were conceived as part of a comprehensive presentation of the occupation of the land and where, if at all, the continuation is to be sought. But it is always very awkward when one has to reckon with pieces that have 'fallen out' or have been left out' by redactors so as to give a basis for a particular theory.1 The traditions of the occupation of the land in the book of Joshua do not in any case suggest that they must be understood as some sort of continuation of preceding texts. They are much more readily recognizable as an independent larger unit with its own particular profile. One must examine the corresponding texts in the book of Numbers independently of these to see if they belong together. But let it be said once again: it must not be the case that all texts of the Pentateuch have been constituent parts of a larger unit before the final arrangement of the whole. Reflections which suggest this for large parts of the Pentateuch should not be a temptation to look for such larger units at any price where nothing points in this direction. One must always be ready to grant that single pieces of material, which have not belonged to such larger contexts, have only been taken up at one of the stages of a synthesizing redaction, or at the final redaction of the Pentateuch. It is clear, however, that most of the texts of the Pentateuch were united into 'larger units' before these were brought together to form the present whole. The study of the patriarchal story has shown that it is not only a collection of texts that belong together thematically, but that this collection has undergone work of arrangement and interpretation, and that this work did not take place at one stroke, but shows several stages and layers. It is similar with other larger units: the
189
primeval story, the Sinai pericope, and, even though not with the same clarity, the Moses and exodus narratives of Exodus 1-15. What stands out above all in this is that clearly defined theological intentions were at work in the arrangement and interpretation of these larger units. The present study has expounded this in the case of the patriarchal story; it needs no further demonstration for the primeval story and the Sinai pericope; it is, in my opinion, sufficiently apparent for Exodus 1-15, so that one can maintain the same for this larger unit as well. But this means that the theological intentions of the preliminary stages of the Pentateuch as a whole are most clearly grasped in these larger units. One can then trace a 'theology of the primeval story', a 'theology of the patriarchal story', a 'theology of the Sinai pericope', and, I think, a 'theology of the Moses and exodus narratives'each of them with several layers. And so what is remarkable and characteristic is this, namely that each of these theological outlines, each with its own complexity, entirely self-contained, and at first with no connection with one or several of the others, is set out. It goes without saying that the attempt to present a 'theology' of the individual 'sources' of the Pentateuch is incompatible with this. Rather the concern, methodologically justified and necessary, to discover the theological plans which precede and underlie the present Pentateuch, must, in my opinion, find its appropriate expression in the description of a 'theology* of the individual larger units. Work on the Pentateuch has long since taken this path, and it would be consistent with this approach if it were to be freed from the hypothetical realm of the documentary hypothesis. 4.3 The problem of the synthesizing, final arrangement of the Pentateuch Finally, one must look again at the question of the synthesizing, final arrangement of the Pentateuch. In this regard too, our reflections and considerations mean a basic shift from the view hitherto taken. This concerns first the concept of 'redaction' or 'redactor'. The documentary hypothesis
190
assumes that the individual written sources were joined together by redactors. Here too, Eissfeldt carried through his view of the situation consistently and in detail to the end. He saw the chronological sequence of the constituent parts of the Pentateuch as follows: L(lay source), JCYahwist), E(Elohist), B([Bundesbuch] Book of the Covenant), D(Deuteronomy), H(Holiness Code), P(Priestly document). He assumed further that one must 'conceive the growth of the Pentateuch as a regular grafting of each of the later sources on to the older content'.1 Hence, when one designates each of the Redactors with an index letter indicating the source that was added, one has the sequence RJ RE RB RD RH Rp. Fohrer supports in essence this view of the growth of the Pentateuch to its final form but without any further precisions: 'In the interim, it is not possible to describe in detail the redaction history of the Pentateuch. Not even the question of the sequence in which the source layers were joined together can be answered with certainty'.2 Even when one can discern here a loss of confidence in the possibility of explaining the history of the redaction of the Pentateuch, there persists, however, the basic notion that the individual written sources were joined together by redactors. The presuppositions of this assumption have collapsed with the renunciation of the documentary hypothesis. But this does not at all mean that all the literary-critical observations made so far, and which have led to the assumption of redactors at work, have thereby become untenable. Rather, the earlier statement must be repeated here yet again, that to contest the documentary hypothesis is not to question the right and necessity of the work of literary criticism. There will have to be further reflection however on the extent of this work and on the legitimacy of literary-critical judgments in detail. The consequence of the change in viewpoint of the formation of the Pentateuch is that literary-critical reflections must be adapted to other contexts. These reflections must look in part for their answers within the history of the formation of the individual larger units. A new area of study is opened here
1 Introduction, pp. 239ff. 2 Introduction, p. 191.
191
because it is no longer a matter of assigning individual texts to different sources, but of outlining more exactly the process by which the single narratives came to form the larger units. Thus, there must be renewed discussion of the sign of this work of collecting and reworking and of those who were responsible for it. The notions of 'redaction' and 'redactor* are too closely bound with the putting together of 'sources' in pentateuchal study. For this reason Noth introduced other notions into the study of the book of Joshua, which he wanted to withdraw expressly from the prevailing realm of the documentary hypothesis, by speaking of the 'collector' of Joshua 1 12 and of the 'reworker' of Joshua 13-21 in the predeuteronomistic pre-history of the book.1 But the narratives of the occupation of the land in Joshua 1-12 are to be judged in a way very similar to the larger units within the Pentateuch.2 Hence the suggestion that similar terminology be used with them. However, one must make further distinctions here; and so more refined distinctions commend themselves, on the one hand for the independent process of growth of each of the stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and on the other hand for the process of gathering them into one larger unit. This should not result in imposing a fixed terminology, but should point primarily to the necessity of arriving at a further clarification, refinement, and, so far as is possible, standardization of ideas. New criteria must also be reclaimed for the process of putting together the larger units to form the Pentateuch as a whole. And to this end various reflections from earlier chapters of this work may be taken up. First, it must be emphasized that the only layer that can be discovered within the Pentateuch that is comparable to the 'sources', is a cohesive group of 'priestly' texts. However, it has become evident that the assumption of a continuous 'priestly' narrative cannot stand critical examination. Hence, it is better not to retain the expression 'priestly document' because it is
1 However, Noth uses these terms in the sub-title of A History of Pentateuchal Traditions: 'The historical work of collection and reworking in the Old Testament'. 2 See above under 1.4.
192
too heavily impressed with the stamp of a continuous narrative. In addition, there must be renewed examination of the question, disputed in current pentateuchal study, whether different types of priestly texts belong together. It commends itself to speak of *priestly texts'. It is evident that the priestly texts are not restricted to one of the larger units of the Pentateuch. We have seen that the 'theological' priestly texts in patriarchal story find their clear continuation in Exod. 2.23-25 and 6.2-9. Likewise the retrospective linking of these texts with the primeval story is obvious: the divine address in 9.8-17 has as its central point the 'covenant' of God with Noah and shows many a connection in content and language with Genesis 17 which speaks of the 'covenant' with Abraham. The first part of the divine address in Gen. 9.1-7 is introduced as blessing and thus corresponds to the other theological priestly texts in the patriarchal story,12 as well as to the terminology where there is talk of fertility and increase as consequences of the blessing.3 There are also obvious connections with the creation account in Genesis 1. These references are sufficient for our purposes to show that in this layer there is a connection between the primeval story and the patriarchal story.4 It should immediately be called to mind that these 'theological' priestly texts do not occur throughout the whole of the Pentateuch. We had discovered that with Exod. 6.2-9 the priestly cross-references to the patriarchs cease.5 From this point on there is not a text in the Pentateuch which develops theological statements in a way like that in the primeval story, the patriarchal story, and Exodus 6. These texts reach beyond the limits of the larger units, but do not cover the whole Pentateuch. The chronological details, which are generally reckoned to
1 Cf. R. Rendtorff, Studien zur Geschichte des Opfers im Alien Israel, 1967, pp. 6-7. 2 See above under 3.4.2. 3 The refinements necessary here within the priestly layer cannot be carried out in this study. 4 A corresponding connection with the flood story is less clearly demonstrable. 5 See above under 3.4.4.
193
the *F texts, manifest likewise some connections between the different larger units. There is a group of texts in the patriarchal story which stand out from the chronological notes by giving the age of a person at the time of a particular event; these texts are formulated according to a fixed pattern.12 There is only one sentence that corresponds to this pattern in the larger units that follow the patriarchal story; it is in Exod. 7.7 in the note on the age of Moses and Aaron 'when they spoke to Pharaoh'.3 Of the other chronological notes, one might put Exod. 16.1 and 19.1 in some sort of relationship to Gen. 16.3, a text which is quite outside the pattern.4 The remaining chronological remarks in Exod. 12.40; Num. 10.11; 20.1 show no linguistic relationship to the chronological texts of the patriarchal story. There is no text at all in the primeval story which corresponds exactly to the pattern of the group mentioned above. Some, however are close to it: the note on the age of Shem when he begot Arphacsad (Gen. 11.10), on the age of Noah when he begot Shem, Ham, and Japhet (5.32), and at the beginning of the flood (7.6). With the texts of the second main group, which give details of the entire life-span in connection with the notification about the death, it has already been pointed out that the note about the death of Terah in Gen. 11.32 corresponds to the basic pattern in the patriarchal story. This holds too for the corresponding data in Genesis 5 (w. 2,8, 11, 14,17, 20, 27, 31) and the notification of the death of Noah in 9.29, whereas in Gen. ll.lOff. data about the death is missing, except in the case of Terah. And so, in respect of the chronological notes, there are clear connections between the patriarchal story and the preceding
1 Ibid. 2 See above under 3.4. 3 The information about the death of Moses in Deut. 34.7 is formulated in a unique way, to which there is no parallel in the rest of the Pentateuch. 4 One could see a connection in that the specific time is on each occasion given in relation to another event, namely the beginning of residence in the land of Canaan, or departure from the land of Egypt, and that this other event is on each occasion in the infinitive with a preceding lamed,
194
and following larger units. The connections with the primeval story are also rather marked, though there is no complete agreement. The same picture is evident in the following units as in the theological' texts. The Moses story shows a further tie with the patriarchal story, but after it, no more. These observations make it clear that with the priestly texts it is a matter of a layer of reworking which put the emphasis on definite central points. This is expressed in the primeval story by certain very weighty texts which describe a unique conception of creation and a covenant struck with Noah. In the patriarchal story the main emphasis is on the divine covenant struck with Abraham. The pronouncements about Jacob form a further central point; they consist partly in rather short promise addresses; they show a clear connection with the pronouncements of the creation account, which is not present in the same way with Abraham.12 Finally, at the beginning of the Moses story, the link with the patriarchal story is once again underscored emphatically and the name of YHWH is introduced. After this, there is no further sign of the priestly layer in the Pentateuch.3 This means that we are dealing here with a layer of reworking which extends beyond the limits of the individual larger units, but does not cover the whole Pentateuch. The earlier surmise expressed from time to time that *P might be identical with the end redaction of the Pentateuch, has not held and so must be abandoned.4 It is different however with the layer of reworking which bears the deuteronomic stamp, to which we have already drawn attention.5 It is evident that there is a whole series of texts dealing with the events of the exodus from Egypt, Sinai, and the beginning of the occupation of the land which refer
1 See above tinder 4.3.1. 2 The characteristic formula, 'be fruitful and multiply* echoes clearly in Gen. 28.3; 35.11; 48.4; both verbs appear next to each other in Gen. 17, but only in the promise about Ishmael in v. 20. 3 A new and careful examination is necessary to see if reasons other than those given here speak in favour of reckoning other texts to this priestly layer. 4 Rendtorff, see above under 1.3. 5 See above under 2.7.
195
hack to the patriarchal story, and especially to the promise of the land to the patriarchs, and are stamped with deuteronomic language. First, there is Gen. 50.24 where, at the end of the patriarchal story, an anticipation of the leading out from Egypt has been inserted which gives the verse the character of a leading back to the land of the patriarchsan idea which is expressed neither in the patriarchal1 nor in the exodus story. In Exod. 13.5, 11, immediately before the departure from Egypt, there is reference back to the promise of the land to the patriarchs. It is the same immediately before the next departure, from Sinai, when the fulfillment of the promise to the patriarchs appears in danger: Moses begs YHWH to 'remember' the patriarchs to whom he has sworn that he would make their posterity numerous and give it the land (Exod. 32.13), and YHWH orders the departure for the land which he swore to the patriarchs that he would give to their descendants (Exod. 33.1-3a). In Numbers 11 there is yet another critical situation in which Israel's journey into the promised land appears in danger. Moses prays to YHWH, reminding him of his oath (v. 12). It is similar in Numbers 1314 where YHWH himself recalls his oath as he withdraws, partially, his decision to annihilate the people (14.23). This pronouncement of YHWH is taken up again when the occupation of the land appears in danger for the last time because the tribes of Reuben and Gad have expressed the wish to settle in east Jordan (Num. 32.11). It is clear that this series of texts extends over the whole Pentateuch and that they occur in every larger unit or complex of traditions from the patriarchal story on: in the patriarchal story, the exodus, Sinai, the desert, the occupation of the land in east Jordan. The connection between the promise of the land to the patriarchs and the leading out of Egypt is particularly underscored: in Gen. 50.24 and Exod. 33.12 both are set side by side in almost identical formulations. Thus, at the
1 Except in the isolated passage, Gen. 15.13-16; cf. Kessler, op. cit., p. 340. 2 In Exod. 33.1, to the formula 'the land which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob', is added: 'to your descendants (seed) will I give it'. The formulation is very close to that used in Gen. 12.7; 15.18; 24.7.
196
same time, the whole coherent pentateuchal narrative is presented: the promise of the land to the patriarchsthe leading out of Egyptthe leading (back) into the promised land; and this is pronounced at the departure from Sinai (Exod. 33.1). There can be no doubt therefore that these formulations are deliberately meant to span the whole Pentateuch complex (with the exception of the primeval story). This is significant because our inquiries hitherto have found no text or no layer of reworking about which this can be said. The advocates of the 'source' theory can no longer demonstrate this for the ancient pentateuchal 'sources', and the ^priestly document' has shown that it likewise can not establish itself as a coherent whole. And so this deuteronomically stamped layer of reworking is the first and, according to our examination so far, the only one which unambiguously views the Pentateuch as a whole and will have it understood as one great coherent complex. But this certainly does not solve the problem of the final redaction of the Pentateuch. It is not the purpose of this study to inquire in detail into the final stage of the history of its formation. But there should be a brief sketch of the consequences and the questions thus raised. First, a qualifying statement: the texts advanced show clearly that the layer of reworking to which they belong views the Pentateuch as one great complex. But nothing is thereby said of the part that this layer had in the final arrangement of the whole Pentateuch. The question remains open: is it a matter here of a layer of reworking which itself cooperated in putting the Pentateuch together out of the individual larger units and other parts, or which can definitively be made responsible for it; or is it a matter of a predominantly interpretative reworking, which found the Pentateuch already as a whole and provided it with particular interpretative emphases? It is for further study to explain if there is a discernible work of redaction which is demonstrably coherent with these texts. There is another question which is relative to the more precise designation of this layer and its pertinence to texts in other areas, I have described these texts as 'deuteronomically stamped' so as to avoid a premature conclusion as to what
197
their place might be within the concept 'deuteronomic'. I have already referred to the discussion whether one ought speak rather of 'early deuteronomic' or 'proto-deuteronomic'.1 But here too there would be a definite conclusion which it would be better to avoid at first. The texts do not contain just current deuteronomic or deuteronomistic statements. Rather, the characteristic link in the two central texts of this layer between the statements about the leading out from Egypt and the oath promising the land to the patriarchs is entirely unusual. It occurs in Deuteronomy only in the 'Credo' text (6.23),2 and in the deuteronomistic history only in Judg. 2.1. It would be methodologically inadmissible, therefore, to combine this group of texts with other 'deuteronomistic' texts in the first four books of the Pentateuch and attribute them to a 'deuteronomistic' redaction, without examining more closely and basing more firmly their connection. For example, the heavily 'deuteronomistically stamped' Genesis 153 contains nothing about YHWH's oath which is so frequent in Deuteronomy. In Gen. 18.19, to mention just one other example, a quite different sort of theme occurs; it belongs to the broad realm of deuteronomic-deuteronomistic language and theology; but this does not necessarily mean that this text belongs, with the group of texts already mentioned, to one layer of reworking and redaction. This, of course, is by no means excluded, but requires careful scrutiny. This is necessary because criteria for what is 'deuteronomic', or how 'deuteronomic' is to be discerned in this area, have not yet been adequately worked out. It would be cause for concern if premature, inadequately based, all-embracing, new theories were to replace hypotheses now outgrown.
1 See above under 2.7 (end). 2 In Deut. 6.23 the verb is used instead of; of Gen. 50.24 and Exod. 33.1. There exists here a fundamental difference between the 'Credo' formulations of Deut. 6.20-24 and Deut. 26.5-9. In Deut. 26, there is no mention of the promise of the land to the patriarchs, but the formula found elsewhere, e.g. in Exod. 3.8, a 'land flowing with milk and honey', is used. Neither is the promise of the land to the patriarchs mentioned in Josh. 24.11-14 (cf. w. 17-18). 3 See above under 2.3.1.
198
With this reservation, a few further observations and reflections may be added. Vriezen has drawn attention to the striking parallelism between the beginning of the exodus story and the beginning of the story of the judges.1 The texts of Exod. 1.6, 8 and Judg. 2.8, 10 show much in common both in structure and in formulation: 'Then Joseph/Joshua died... and all that generation... and there rose up a new king/another generation..., who I which did not know Joseph/YHWH...' Vriezen has shown, convincingly I think, that these two texts *belong to the same literary pattern'.2 He sees in them 'two clear examples ... of the same phraseology..., which is used in the historical literature at the transition from one epoch to another*.3 Vriezen reflects further and interestingly 'that the author (of Exod. 1.6, 8) was aware of something of a gap between the periods in the history of his people' and that he '(was) conscious that after the close of the Joseph story an entirely new direction in the history of his people was opened... however convinced he may have been of the continuity of the two periods and have arrived at his formulation in this conviction'.4 This fits very well into our picture of the history of the formation of the Pentateuch. Vriezen also reckons with a farreaching independence and detachment of the patriarchal complexes of tradition on the one hand and of the Israelites in Egypt on the other. It is of primary importance in our context that the same literary pattern is used within the Pentateuch in leading up to and linking two originally independent narrative complexes as within the 'deuteronomistic history*. It is hardly likely, in my opinion, that it is a matter of a literary form that would Ijave had its own life independently of the author or a particular circle of authors; rather we must assume that the reworkers, who used this pattern in Exodus 1 and Judges 2, belonged to the same circles. And so again we encounter the deuteronomic-deuteronomistic circle.
1 'Exodusstudien Exodus 1', VT 17 (1967) 334-53. 2 Op. crt.,p.339. 3 Ibid. Vriezen, under the influence of the source theory, is of the opinion that here there 'was an older and a later' example available for this pattern, and refers to 'the dtn. idiom' in Judg. 2. 4 Op. cit.,p.343.
199
This gives new weight to the fact that towards the end of the book of Numbers, especially in chs. 32-35, the deuteronomistic element appears clearly. In any case, it is clear that the book of Deuteronomy cannot be sharply separated from the remaining Tetrateuch'. The announcement of the death of Moses in Num. 27.12-23 and the account of it in Deuteronomy 34 show that the link between the two is intended. The book of Deuteronomy in its turn cannot, in its present form, be separated from the books that follow, because they show too many common features. Finally, it is also clear that the last sections of the book of Numbers are not comprehensible when detached from this overall complex. Noth dealt with this problem in detail1 and expressed the view that 'one... (could) consider here, that this link was made in the context of the great work of the redaction of the Pentateuch'.2 Noth, because of his presuppositions, came to reject this conjecture. His arguments rely in essence on the assumption that there existed a tightly outlined *F-narrative and that this work had been made the ground plan of the pentateuchal redaction. And so in Noth's view, the fact that it is not *P* but 'Dtr' who dominates in the account of Moses' death in Deuteronomy 34, favours the opinion that it must be a matter of later redaction here. But this argument is rendered irrelevant when one does not reckon with such a tightly outlined 'P'-narrative. This holds likewise for the other argument of Noth that the later existence of the Pentateuch 'as the basic sacred writing of the post-exilic community... only becomes really comprehensible if it already existed within the limits set by the P-narrative and enjoyed special esteem'.3 This manner of argument would in any case carry little conviction because of the assumption of an independent Pnarrative. The delimitation and canonization of the Pentateuch certainly presents a problem for our present view of the literary history of its formation. But it can hardly be explained by the conjecture of a 'special esteem' for a fictitious earlier
1 The Chronicler's History, p. 25. 2 Op. cit., p. 143. 3 Op. cit., p. 145.
200
written form; it is the understanding of the Pentateuch as Torah' that must come under consideration. This shows quite clearly how one-sided it must be to consider the whole Pentateuch as narrative. The legal sections are often treated merely as an interruption of the narrative or as insertions or the like. It is obvious that this does not do justice to the present picture of the Pentateuch. Methodological criteria must be developed whereby the connections between the narrative and the legal sections can be better understood. The whole question of 'redaction' would, in my opinion, have to be thought through anew under this aspect. It is not at all so certain that the Pentateuch' existed first as an independent entity without Deuteronomy before, in a later act of redaction, it was joined with Deuteronomy and possibly with the 'deuteronomistic history'. The problems that arise from the interrelations between the last chapters of the book of Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the 'deuteronomistic' tradition of the occupation of the land, show that the 'deuteronomistic' element clearly played an important role in this area when the different parts of the tradition were brought together. When we take these reflections together with the earlier considerations on the significance of a deuteronomically stamped layer of reworking for the overall conception of the Pentateuch, we see that, all things considered, the share of the deuteronomic-deuteronomistic circles in the arrangement of the Pentateuch as a whole appears to have been considerable. This conclusion gains strength from the fact that so far no other layer of reworking is discernible which could have had a comparable significance. At the same time, however, the methodological demand must be repeated, that careful distinctions must be made within these circles so as to gain a clear view of the layers of tradition in this area, and thereby also into the procedures of pentateuchal redaction. Finally, there is a further question to put: is it at all justified to use such completely different methods when dealing with the Pentateuch on the one hand and the 'deuteronomic history* on the other, as is generally done today? Now that earlier attempts to trace the 'sources' of the Pentateuch into the books of Kings have not prevalied, a quite different way of looking at the historical books from Joshua to Kings has taken the fore-
201
ground. Attention has turned to the larger complexes which were already available to the authors or redactors who established the final form of the text. It is a matter then of larger units which form the intermediary stage between the individual narratives and the final form of the text, such as we find in the Pentateuch. We drew attention earlier to Noth's study of the book of Joshua in which he encountered traditions of the occupation of the land as an independent larger unit.1 Something corresponding holds for the SamuelSaul complex, the story of the rise of David, of the succession, and so on. The obvious availability of such larger units in the Pentateuch should, in my opinion, have given cause for similar methodological treatment there. I hold that it is very likely that, by turning away from the traditional manner of treating the Pentateuch, important insights for a fresh methodological approach can be gained from what has been learnt when dealing with the historical books. If no pre-'deuteronomistic' Pentateuch redaction is discernible, and if the existence of 'older pentateuchal sources' is not demonstrable, then the questions of the dating of the Pentateuch and its individual constituent parts necessarily place themselves anew. There can be no question of dating the 'sources' at a later period, as is often attempted today.2 However, within the framework of such attempts, and however independent of them, important observations have been made which require these questions to be thoroughly examined. In particular, attention has been drawn repeatedly to the fact that essential themes and names in the Pentateuch tradition are scarcely, or not at all, mentioned in the predeuteronomistic or pre-exilic period. This observation must undoubtedly be taken more seriously than it has been hitherto. In fact, this 'silence' in the pre-exilic literature is a certain sign that the contents of the pentateuchal tradition cannot have played the central role at this time that is often attributed to them today. What methodological consequences does one draw from this? First, it must be conceded that we really do not possess
1 See above under 1.4; cf. 4.3. 2 See above under 4.1.
202
reliable criteria for dating the pentateuchal literature. Each dating of the pentateuchal 'sources' relies on purely hypothetical assumptions which in the long run have their continued existence because of the consensus of scholars.1 Hence, a study of the Pentateuch which is both critical and aware of method must be prepared to discuss thoroughly once more the accepted datings. Further, it must be granted that our traditio-historical reflections rely for a large part on hypotheses which on each occasion must undergo critical scrutiny. B. Diebner has formulated the 'discomfort' briefly and pointedly, namely 'to pursue tradition-history as the history of the aftereffects of old traditions whose origins one thinks one knows, thanks to the longstanding conclusions of scholarship. As a matter of fact, tradition-criticism seems to me to be 'reception-criticism'; it starts from the latest comprehensible form of a particular tradition, established with probability within the history of Old Testament literature, and traces it back carefully to the origins of what, on each occasion, has been received'.2 One must approve of this basic principle of methodology; tradition-history has often been carried out in this way. Under such criticism of opinions held to date, care must be taken that the pendulum does not swing too far to the other side. This holds especially when replacing current dating with new. There is a tendency among some scholars today to maintain an exilic or post-exilic date for the great mass of pentateuchal material. The methodological criteria for such dating, however, must still be carefully weighed. It is not enough to replace a common enough early dating by a late dating. In place of an all-embracing theory which ascribes the great mass of pentateuchal narrative material to the 'older sources', and so to a relatively earlier period in the history of
1 A particularly obvious example of this is the dating of the 'Yahwist' in the period of the kingdom under David and Solomon; there is not a single proof for this; yet it is accepted by a great number of Old Testament scholars. 2 ' "Isaak" und "Abraham" in der alttestamentlichen Literatur ausserhalb Gen. 1250. Eine Sammlung literaturgeschichtlicher Beobachtungen nebst uberlieferungsgeschichtlichen Spekulatationen', DBAT 7 (1974) 38-50 (p. 48).
203
Israel, it is more a question, I think, of an approach which makes distinctions; it reckons with a rather long period of formation of the Pentateuch, and above all with the joining together of the individual larger units so as to form a single whole; this would be the final stage, which is to be put relatively late. To describe this in concrete terms: an overall view of the Pentateuch reveals clearly the deuteronomically stamped layer of reworking; a rather long process of development involving a number of layers must have preceded this; and in this process the smallest units grew into rather small collections, these collections into the larger units, and finally came the end stage as the text now lies before us. It must be noted again that in the matter of dating, those texts from which one normally takes one's orientation, provide only relative and by no means certain clues to a fixed dating. This is true in many respects for the deuteronomicdeuteronomistic area. The formation of Deuteronomy itself cannot be dated with certainty. There are very sound reasons for setting the basic material of Deuteronomy in the eighth century BCE.1 One must certainly reckon with the fact that the authors of such a work were not in their time isolated individuals, but rather representatives of particular circles.2 This would mean that texts in the 'deuteronomic' style could occur already from this time on or even earlier, if one takes account of 'early deuteronomic' texts which are not dependent on Deuteronomy,3 but precede it and witness to 'early stages of deuteronomic thought and language'.4 This would shift the dating of the whole by more than two hundred years. What the notion 'deuteronomistic' means in regard to chronology, is in turn not clear. Further, to assume dependence on Deuteronomy is to say nothing about the temporal interval. Finally, it must also be said that the common dating of the 'priestly' sections, be they narrative or legal, to the exilic or the post-exilic period, likewise rests on conjecture and the consensus of scholars, but not on unambiguous criteria.
1 Cf. Fohrer, Introduction, pp. 167ff. 2 Cf. H.W. Wolff, 'Hoseas geistige Heimat', ThLZ 81 (1956) 83-94 = Gesammelte Studien zum Alien Testament, 1964, pp. 232-50. 3 Thus N. Lohfink, Die Landverheissung als Eid, pp. 17-18. 4 Kaiser, Introduction, pp. 124-29.
204
The question of an absolute chronology for the individual stages of the formation of the Pentateuch must remain open. It is not my intention to burden the present work with it because what concerns me primarily are the processes at work in the history of the formation of the Pentateuch, and so some sort of relative chronology. Thus, the period over which each of the individual processes extended must remain an open question. I am nevertheless aware that the question requires an answer. It will be necessary to make a renewed effort to determine the intentions and interests of the circles behind the individual phases of the formation of the tradition, the reworking and the interpretation, the collection and the arrangement, so far as is possible with our fragmentary knowledge of Israel's social, cultural, and intellectual-spiritual history. Finally, the problem must be taken up again of the 'silence' of a large area of pre-exilic literature on the themes and names in the pentateuchal traditions. The fact as such is indisputable. But the question arises, what is to be concluded from it? First, that the themes of the Pentateuch were not at the centre of Israelite belief and thought in the pre-exilic period; this certainly would have found expression in the literature of this period, especially in the prophets. Van Seters has rightly pointed out that in Jeremiah and Ezekiel (and in the older layers of Deuteronomy as well), YHWH's saving action toward the 'fathers' refers to the exodus generation and not to the 'patriarchs' of Genesis;1 the different traditions therefore were not yet joined together with each other at this time. However, it is worthy of attention that in another passage in Ezekiel, Abraham is mentioned as the one who 'took possession of the land' (Ezek. S3.24).2 It is very important that this appears as an argument on the lips of those who have remained back in the land. This shows clearly, I think, that this was a well-known, popular tradition at that time. This last observation makes it clear how reserved one must
1 'Confessional Reformulation in the Exilic Period', VT 22 (1972) 44859. 2 When Van Seters remarks on this text that the idea of promise is missing (p. 449), then this is no very effective argument.
205
be in drawing conclusions from 'silence'. The 'silence' of the pre-exilic literature on the themes of the Pentateuch shows, as we have said, that they were not, at this time, really central themes in Israel. However, it seems very questionable whether one can conclude without more ado that they were unknown. There must be a more accurate inquiry which asks, in what areas could these traditions have had their 'setting in life'. But this question can only be answered if it were expected that they should occur, for instance, in the prophets, had they been available at the time. We should not imagine that life in the pre-exilic Israel was uniform and selfcontained. Rather, we must reckon with the reverse, that in Old Testament literature much has been bound together in literary form which never existed together in the life of ancient Israel. So it is certainly possible that individual traditions were handed down in certain circles and over a long period of time, but remained unknown in other circles. One should not only think of the differences between north and south, which were undoubtedly considerable, but also of the differences between city (in particular, Jerusalem) and country, of local and regional, cultic and court traditions and of the peculiarities of what was passed on in priestly, levitical, and prophetic circles. Whoever wants to work with the 'argument from silence' must, I think, first demonstrate that what is found missing in a particular place ought to appear there if it were known at the time when the text was formed. This does not at all mean that observations on the widespread absence of pentateuchal themes in the pre-exilic literature should be pushed aside. Rather, they link up with our own observations in so far as they make clear that the pre-exilic literature nowhere indicates that at this time there existed in any form the Tentateuch' as a central witness to Israel's faith. In which form and in which circles the individual traditions were handed on, how they grew together into larger units, were reworked and interpreted, all this must be the object of further thorough and detailed studies. A first contribution to this may have been achieved here. It would be following a false trail methodologically, I think, if 'new* or 'late' sources were now to replace the 'old' pentateuchal sources, or if one wanted to try to repeat the global
206
interpretation of the Tahwist' or other 'sources' with another dating and on the background of other time-conditioned circumstances. That would be to pour new wine into old skins. The problem of the process of tradition in the Pentateuch lies deeper. One must tackle it, as von Rad demanded in one of his last statements: 'we urgently need a comprehensive new analysis of the narrative material of the Pentateuch'.1
1 Genesis (German 9th edn; Eng. 2nd edn), p. 440.
INDEXES
INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES
Genesis
1-11 1.12.4a 1 4.26 5.2 5.3- 30 5.8 5.11 5.14 5.17 5.20 5.27 5.29 5.31 5.32 6.5 6.17 7.6 8.1 8.21-22 8.21 9.1-17 9.1-7 9.11 9.15 9.29 11.10- 17 11.10 11.11-26 11.26 11.30 11.31-32 11.31
32, 34
11.32
146 192 151 193 161n2 193 193 193 193 193 193 151 193 193 127 151 193 152 127 125 146 192 151 161n2 193 146 193 161n2 33 51n4 146 147
158, 161, 193 34 12-50 83nl 12.1-9 49, 50, 52 12.1-8 12.1-3 15, 33, 55, 185 12.1 66, 67, 75n3, 76, 77 12.2-3 65 12.2 65, 73 12.3 59, 63, 68, 77, 78, 83, 84, 125, 130, 134, 150, 182, 185 12.3a 185n6 185n6 12.3b 12.4-5 146 12.4 158, 160 12.4b-5 147 142, 143 12.5 12.7 58, 59, 61, 74, 77, 82, 132n3, 135, 150, 159 195n2 12.9 51, 150 12.10-20 46, 51, 54, 122, 183, 184
12.10- 12 12.10 12.13 12.15 12.16 12.17 12.19 13
150 51n4 49 150 150 170 161 50, 70, 132, 148 51n4 13.1-2 51, 184 13.1 13.2 148 13.3-4 51, 184 13.5 148 13.6 142, 148, 151 13.6b 148 13.7 58, 148 13.8 148 148 13.9 13.10-11 148 13.10 152, 170 13.l1b 148, 151 13.12 148, 152 13.12a 148 13.12b 149 13.14-17 55, 72, 81, 135, 135n2 13.15-16 68, 71 13.15 57, 58, 60, 70, 71, 77 62, 77 13.16 13.17 57, 60, 71, 73, 77
208
13.18 14

71, 145 51, 54, 183 51n4 142 142 142 142, 147 52, 86, 183, 197 52, 53, 55, 80 51n4, 67 80 62 62 62, 68, 77 52, 53, 77, 81 57, 58, 60, 67, 74, 81, 82 54 55, 85, 142, 195nl 142 58, 59, 61, 68, 74, 77, 82, 86, 135, 195n2 51, 53, 54, 62, 151 54n4, 170 149 149, 160, 161, 193 151 62, 68, 77, 80 62 149 151 158, 160 51, 55, 70, 70nl, 76, 77, 86, 146, 156, 16467, 169, 183, 192 51n4, 67, 17.1 86, 159, 164, 167, 169 17.1a 159 17.2 63, 68, 70, 164, 165 17.4 63, 165 17.4-5 80 17.5-6 70 17.5 63, 166 17.6-7 164 17.6 63, 81, 165 17.7-8 168 17.7 70, 86, 165, 168 57, 59, 17.8 70, 77, 82, 155, 164, 165 17.12 166 17.16 62, 63, 65, 81, 81nl, 82, 164, 165 17.19 62, 75n5 17.19b 165 17.20 63, 65, 77, 80, 82, 164, 165, 149n2 17.21 165 17.22 54n3 17.23-27 55 17.23-26 166 158-60, 17.24 169
17
17.25
18
14.1 14.11 14.12 14.16 14.21 15

15.1-6
158, 158n2, 169 53, 54, 62, 78, 181
15.1 15.2-4 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.7-21 15.7 15.9 15.13-16

15.14 15.18
16
16.1 16.la 16.3 16.9 16.10

16.11-12 16.15-16 16.15 16.16
18.1-19, 28 151 18.116aa 49, 50 51n4, 18.1 159, 174 18.10 62 18.14 62, 170 18.16 50 18.17-33 50 18.18 59, 63, 65, 77, 80 18.19 128, 197 18.20-23 128 18.22 50 18.22b33 127, 130, 131, 131n2, 174 18.25 129 18.32 129 19 54 19.1-28 49, 509 19.13 152, 170 19.27-28 50 19.29 151, 152, 170 19.30-38 49, 50, 54 20-22 50, 183 20 50, 51, 55 20.1-18 46 20.1 51, 51n4 20.7 130, 130n 2 20.12 161 20.17 130 20.18 150, 170 21.1-7 50 152 21.1-5 21.la 153 21.2b 153, 170
Index of Biblical References

21.4 21.5f. 21.5 21.8ff. 21.8-21 21.8 21.12
21.13 21.18 21.22-34 21.22-32 21.22-23 21.22 21.25 22
209
78, 78nl, 82, 87, 95, 96 72 58, 59, 61, 62, 65, 72, 77, 78, 80, 83, 84, 134, 182 72 72 72 78 45 46 45 46 75n4 47, 48 47 47, 48 48 48 48 46,56n l, 62, 6567, 73, 75, 78n2, 82, 89, 159, 182 48 46 47 46 48 164nl 159, 160, 163n2
44
22.1 22.2 22.3 22.3b 22.4a 22.15-18

22.16-18 22.16-17 22.16
22.17-18 22.17
22.18
23
153, 166 158 160 150 50 51, 51n4 54, 52, 68, 77, 79 63, 68, 77, 80 63, 68, 77, 80 51, 54 46, 47 50, 51 51n4 47 51n3, 54, 57, 76, 83, 87 51n4 54, 66 147 96 96 55, 77, 80, 182 78 87, 98, 133n3 59, 78, 87, 95, 96, 96nl, 98n2 65 62, 63, 65, 78nl, 80, 82, 96 59, 77, 78, 83, 84, 134, 182 51, 54, 77nl, 146, 15456, 162, 183
23.1
23.2 23.17-18 23.17 23.19 24
24.1 24.4 24.7
24.10 24.61 24.67 25.7-10 25.7
25.9 25.12-17 25.17

25.19-34 25.19 25.20
25.23 25.25-26 25.26 26 26.2-5
26.2-4 26.2-3 26.2-3a 26.2 26.3-5 26.3
51n4, 154, 158, 161 145 154 145, 154 145 52, 54, 54nl, 55nl, 77nl, 82, 122, 183 51n4 75n3 58, 59, 61, 68, 74, 195n2 147 147 161 153 162, 162n2 145 140 162, 163n2 44 140n 2 143, 144, 159, 160, 161 56nl 151 158, 159 45, 46, 160 56nl, 72, 75, 77, 167, 182 46 83 72 66, 159 78 57, 59, 65, 66, 72, 75nl,
26.3b 26.4
26.4a 26.4ad 26.4b-5 26.5 26.6-11 26.7-11 26.12-33 26.12-14 26.12 26.15 26.16-17 26.18 26.19-20 26.21 26.22 26.24
26.25b 26.26-31 26.28 26.29 26.32-33 26.34-35 26.34 27.128.9 27.4628.5

28
28.1-4
141, 164, 166, 169 71, 72, 174 64, 164
210
28.1 28.3-4 28.2 28.3

31.5
31.10-11 31.11-13 31.13 31.18abp 31.23 31.24 31.29 31.42 32-36 32 32.10-11 32.10 32.12 32.13 32.23-33 (22-32) 32.23 (22) 32.27-30 33.18a 34.2 34.4 34.8 34.23 35.1 35.3 35.6a 35.9-13
66, 68, 73, 83, 89 73 56nl 66-68, 75 141 147 56nl 89 66, 68, 73, 83, 89 44 174 83 66, 68, 89 65 n 2 62, 66
44
164 69 143 63, 65, 81n1, 82, 164, 194n2 28.4 57, 59, 65, 82, 155, 164, 165 143 28.5 164nl 28.6-9 28.6 143 28.7 143 28.9 161 28.10-22 15, 44, 184 28.13-15 56, 56nl, 72, 73, 81, 135, 135n2 28.13-14 68 28.13 57, 58, 60, 61, 67, 70, 71, 76, 89 28.13b 73 28.14 59, 62, 65, 77, 78, 80, 83, 84, 134 28.15 66, 71, 73, 75, 83, 135, 135n4 28.18 145 28.19 145 28.20 66, 68, 83 30.3-4 161 30.9 161 31.2 75 56nl, 66, 31.3 68, 75, 75n3, 83, 135
35.14 35.15 35. 22b36 35.27-29 35.27 35.28 36.7 37-50 37 37.1-21 37.1 37.2 37. 3ff. 37.3 38 38.14 41.46 41.46a
145 145
147 56nl 143 161 161 161 142 56nl 66, 68 144 145, 164, 166, 169 35.9-12 56nl, 65, 70n2, 76, 81, 166 35.9 82, 59, 164, 165, 167 35.10 166 35.11-12 69, 164, 165 35.11 63, 67, 69, 81, 164, 194n2 35.12 57, 58, 61, 75n5, 82, 165
42.5 42.7 42.13 46.2-4

46.3
46.4 46.6 46.12 46.15 47.9 47.26 47.28 47.28a 47. 28b 48.3-4 48.3 48.4
48.5-6
142, 145 145 145 161, 162 155 43 143 38 155 139, 159 139 139 151 161 158,160 138, 138nl, 139 144 144 144 56nl, 75, 135 63, 67, 73, 76, 80, 82, 89 66 142 144 142 158, 161 162 158 161, 162 161, 162 56nl, 64, 69, 164, 167, 169 144, 164 58, 59, 61, 63, 81nl, 82, 164, 165, 194n2 164n2
Index of Biblical References

48.7 48.15-16 48.16 48.21 49.49-32 49. 30f. 49.30-31 49.30 49. 33b 50.5 50.11 50.12-14 50.13 50.20
50.24
211
87, 195 97 98 97 36 80, 186 89n3 38 193 92 92, 93nl 93 92 93nl 89n3 93n2 38 37, 111 91 112 112 91 91 92 91 91, 913n5 91 89nl, 98 98 91 91 87, 91, 98, 152, 195 91 112 91, 98 97, 99, 195 87, 195, 195n2, 196, 197n2 111 89
50.25 50.26
142, 144 64 63 66, 68 162 162 145 145 162 144 158 162 144, 145 158n3, 161, 162 66, 85, 87, 9597, 99, 99nl, 195, 197n2 97 158, 158n3, 162
35, 36, 36n7, 37, 37nl, 189 35 36, 90, 91, 186 36, 90, 91 90n5 198 161n3, 198 84, 84nl,
89
2.23-25
2.24 2.25 3ff. 34 3.14.17 3 3.6 3.8
86, 90, 168, 186, 192 86, 168 90 88 89, 112
Exodus 1-15
1.115.21 1-14
1-4 Iff. 1 1.6
1.7 1.8 1.10 2 2.1-10 2.11-22 2.21
198 99nl 111 111 111 151
112 85 88 85, 87nl, 89, 92, 97, 135, 197n2 3.15 88 88, 95nl 3.16 4.1 90 4.5 88, 90 4.8 90 4.9 90 4.31 90, 85nl, 186 192 6 6.2-9 86, 168, 192 156, 157 6.2-8 6.2 157 6.4 86 6.7 86 6.8 86 7.7 160nl, 193 8.6 130 130 8.18 192 9.8-17 9.14 130 9.29 130 11.7 130 12.27b 90, 186 12.32 185n6 12.40 193 12.41 157 12.51 97 87, 97 13 13.3-10 97 87, 97, 13.5 195
13.11 13.13 13.15 13.19 14 14.31 15.2 16-18 16.1 16.3 16.6 16.32 17.3 18 184 18.8 19-Num 10 19-24 19.4 24.3-8 32-34 32 32.1 32.3 32.4 32.7 32.8 32.10(9) 32.11-14 32.11 32.12 32.13
32.23 33 33.1-3 33.1-3a
33.1
37 46.3
212

24.9 26.4 27.12-23 32-35 32 32.8 32.11
32.14 33.1 35.3
185n6 94 199 199 113 94 94, 99, 195 94 94 142 1 Samuel 1.162.5 48 25.1 161n3 Isaiah 49.18 53.3 53.5 53.10 Jeremiah
22.5 22.24 96nl 96nl
Leviticus 22.11 142 Numbers 10.11 11.120.13 11-20 11.5 11.11-15 11.12 11.18 11.20 13-14 14.2-4 14.13 14.19 14.22-24 14.22 14.23
913
38 n 3 38 92 98 195 92 92 98, 195 92 93nl 93nl 98 93nl 98, 99, 195 96nl 14.28 92 16.13 16.32b 142 20.1 193 92 20.4-5 20.14-21 38n3 20.1436.13 38n3 93 20.15 20.16a 93 92 21.5 114 22-24
86nl 131n2 130 130, 131n2
Deuteronomy 6.20-24 197n2 197, 6.23 197n2 9.4-6 130 9.27 152 197n2 25.5-9 34 115, 137, 199 34.7 193n3 Joshua 1-12 13-21 24.11-14 24.17-18 Judges 2
191 191 197n2 197n2
Ezekiel 14 14.12-20 14.14 14.16 14.18 14.20 18 33.24 Hosea 2.2 Amos 4.11
130 131 131 131 131 131 130 204

99nl
2.1
198, 198n3 197
152
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Bentzen, A. 18n3, 117n6 Beyerlin, W. 39n3 Cassuto, U. 107nl Gazelles, H. 107, 115n2, 124, 138n6 Coppens, F.J. 116n4 Delitzsch, F. 46nl Diebner, B. 202 Diebner, B.-H. Schult.l81n2 Dillmann, A. 151, 154 Driver, S.R. 118 Eissfeldt, O. 17n3, 18n3, 31n3, 103, 117, 118, 135nn2,4, 141nnl,7, 143n5, 144, 190 Elliger, K 138, 141, 149, 157 Ellis, P.F. 116, 124 Engnell, I. 104, 104n3,107nl Fohrer, G. 102, 103n4, 105, 111, 112, 118n2, 120-22, 125, 128, 135nn2,4, 138nl, 141nl, 143n5, 154, 155, 163nl, 173nl, 174, 179, 181nl, 190, 203nl Fritz, V. 38n3, 39n4, 121 Gesenius, W.-E. Kautzsch 158nl Gressmann, H. 13, 18, 18nn2, 22, 24, 27, 35, 38, 39nl Gross, W. 91n3, 139n6 Gunkel, H. 11, 13, 15, 17, 17n3, 18nnl,3, 21, 22, 24, 25n2, 27, 33, 43, 44, 44n2, 45, 46n2, 47, 48n2, 49, 50,50nnl,2, 119-21, 121n8, 122, 124, 139, 139nl, 140, 142, 143, 143n5, 144, 145, 147-49, 151, 151nl, 153, 154, 161nl Henry, M.-L. 116 Hermann, S. 90n5, 186n2 Holzinger, H. 106, 117, 118, 139, 144, 145nl, 147-53, 155 Jepsen, A. 118n7 Kaiser, O. 60n2, 102, 103n4, 105, 107, 113, 115nl, 121, 121n4, 125, 128, 129, 174, 203n4 Kaufmann, Y. 107nl Kessler, R. 46, 46n4, 50, 50n3, 51nnl,3, 52nl, 75n2, 195nl Kilian, R. 121 Knobel, A.W. 154 Koch, K. llnnl,2, 120 Lohfink, N. 95n2, 99n2, 203n3 Macholz, G.C. 70nl, 86nl, 154n5, 155n2 Mowinckel, S. 36n7, 37 Noth, M. 11, 12n3, 14, 14n5, 16, 16n2, 17, 17n2, 18, 19, 19nl, 20, 20n3, 21, 22, 22nl, 24, 28-30, 30nl, 36, 38n3, 39, 40, 45n3, 46, 51n7, 105, 107, 110n6,112, 112n4, 113-15, 115nl, 119-21, 121n8, 122, 127, 128, 128n8, 129, 132n3, 135nn2,4, 136, 137, 138nl, 144, 147, 150, 151n4, 153, 174, 191, 199, 201 Pedersen, J. 14, 14n3, 35, 36, 186 Perlitt, L. 38n2, 52n2, 112n3, 187nl Ploger, J.G. 60, 99 Plger, O. 23n2 Preuss, H.D. 66nl Procksch, O. 142, 143n3, 154, 163nl
Rad, G. von 12, 12n2, 13, 13nl, 14, 14nn2,4,6, 15, 15n3, 16, 19, 20,
214

Steuernagel, C. 103, 114, 118, 118n2 Stolz, F. 108, 118n6 Vetter, D. 66nl Vriezen, T.C. 198, 198n3 Wagner, N.E. 107 Weimar, P. 138, 140, 142, 142n2, 146nl, 163 Weiser, A. 38nl Wellhausen, J. 11, 47, 103, 106, 111, 131n2, 143n4, 144nl, 149n4, 150, 157, 172 Westermann, C. 11, 12nl, 21n7, 33, 34, 45, 47nl, 53, 53nl, 56, 57, 60, 61n2, 64, 64nl, 65, 65n3, 73nl, 85nl, 133, 134, 175n2, 183nl, 185nl,2 Whybray, R.N. 110n2 Wolff, H.W. 103n3, 114-116, 123125,126n4,127,130,130n2,132, 133, 133n3, 172nl, 185n6, 203n2 Zimmerli, W. 132n2, 168n6
22, 25, 26, 26n7, 27-29, 32-34, 36, 37, 44, 45, 46n3, 47, 51n7, 90, 91nl, 103n3, 109, 114, 116, 121n6, 123, 125, 127, 128, 130, 131, 131n2, 132, 132n3, 154, 155, 173, 174,1 77, 181nl, 183n3,184 184n2, 186n2, 206 Redfern, D.B. 109n2, 110n2 Rendtorff, R. 16nl, 23n2, 25nl, 48nl, 61n2, 126n5, 182nl, 194n5 Ringgren, H. 16nl Rost, L. 132n2 Rupprecht, K. 99nl Schmid, H.H. 181n2 Schmidt, W.H. 103, 106, 110, 111, 112, 114, 123, 123n6, 179nl SeUin, E-G. Fohrer 31n3, 85n2, 102n3 Seters, J. van 181n2, 204n2 Smend, R. 23n2 Speiser, E.A. 138n6, 154 Steck, O,.H. 33n3, 109n2, 132n2, 185n2

The Problem of The Process of Transmission in The Pentateuch

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Problem of The Process of Transmission in The Pentateuch

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

JSOT Press Sheffield

This page intentionally left blank

The PROBLEM of the PROCESS of TRANSMISSION in the PENTATEUCH

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 89

CONTENTS Foreword Translator's Note 7 9

181 184 189 207 213

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

1. The Documentary Hypothesis 13

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

1. The Documentary Hypothesis

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

1. The Documentary Hypothesi

3 Op. cit., par. 15, 16.

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

1. The Documentary Hypothesis

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

1. The Documentary Hypothesis

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

1. The Documentary Hypothesis

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

1. The Documentary Hypothesis

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

1 A History, p. 228. 2 Op. cit.,p.236. 3 Op. cit., pp. 40-41.

1. The Documentary Hypothesis

Op. cit., p. 236. Ibid. Op. cit., p.236. Ibid.

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

1. The Documenatary Hypothesis

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

1. The Documentary Hypothesis

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

1. The Documentary Haypothesis

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

1. The Documentary Hypothesis 37

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

1. The Documentary Hypothesis

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

1. The Documentary Hypothesis 41

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

2. The Patriarchal Stories

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

2. The Patriarchal Stories

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

2. The Patriarchal Stories

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

2. The Patriarchal Stories

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

2. The Patriarchal Stories

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

2. The Patriarchal Stories

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

2. The Patriarchal Stories

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

12.7 24.7) 15.18 26.4 48.4)

12.7 (24.7 15.18 26.4 (48.4

2. The Patriarchal Stories

The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch

2. The Patriarchal Stories