People have long noticed that the first five books of the Bible, traditionally ascribed to Moses, are a bit more complex (textually) than it seems. F.i., in one story events are told in a particular order and a little later events happen in a different order (Creation: the animals are created before/after man is created). Some passages would repeat the same event two or three times (Abraham passing of his wife as his sister). The "Moabites" did something which a little later is done by "the Midianites". Moreover, the five books contain things Moses could not have known (lists of descendants of Edom going far beyond Exodus' time) or was not likely to have said/written at all, such as the report of his own death or the statement that he was "the humblest man on earth". The most obvious non-Mosaic phrase - next to the record of his own death - is the explicative note in the story of Abraham's arrival in Canaan: "At that time the Canaanites were in the land" (Gen 12:6). The words 'at that time' are an explicative phrase, which only makes sense when the writer/reader does not know of Canaanites that are 'in the land of Canaan'. i.e. in post-Moaic times.
In the history of biblical interpretation with regard to the Torah (the first five books of the Bible), we can distinguish several stages:
In a second stage of investigation, theologians (mainly christian) stated openly that Moses was not the author of the Torah in the traditional sense. Some scholars defended Moses' authorship (as a compilator, using older material, with some postmortem additions), others concluded outright that Moses did not write the Torah at all. Many of these scholars were persecuted for their beliefs. Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) may well have been the first to deny Mosaic authorship publicly. The repetition of the phrase "to this day" was a clear sign to him that the books came later than the time they described. Isaac de (la) Peyrère (1596–1676, famous for his hypothesis of the 'Prae-adamites') also singled out the phrase "across the Jordan" in the first verse of Deuteronomy, implying that it was written in Cis-Jordan, not Trans-Jordan as Moses would have done. The same texts 'to build the case' keep up appearing. Baruch (Benedict) Spinoza (1632–1677) f.i. said Moses could not have written the preface to Deuteronomy, since he never crossed the Jordan. He lists multiple inconsistencies and anomalies that led him to conclude "it was plain" the Pentateuch was not written by Moses himself. A similar approach characterizes the scholarly work of Richard Simon (1638–1712), a much underestimated scholar-priest (Hebraist and Orientalist). Although accepting Mosaic authorship for most of the Torah, he argued that there were additions, incorporated by prophets, and collected, arranged, and elaborated from old texts. His systematic critical commentary on the entire Bible contained lots of material for later generations to expand on. After having been printed with imprimatur, the Histoire critique du Vieux Testament (3 volumes) met with considerable opposition from the official Church (e.g., J.-B. Bossuet). But despite it, it became widespread and influenced later generations of scholars. He for instance recognized and listed many doublets in the most ancient texts:
two different stories of creation
two stories of the covenant between God and Abraham
two stories of the naming of Abraham's son Isaac
two stories of Abraham claiming Sarah is his sister
two stories of Jacob making a journey to Mesopotamia
two stories of a revelation to Jacob at Beth-El
two stories of God changing Jacob's name to Israel
two stories of Moses getting water from a rock at a place called Meribah
Also an interesting and influential figure is Jean Astruc (1684–1766), a French physician. He believed the critics to be wrong about the non-Mosaic authorship. He hypothesized that Moses must have used hereditary accounts of the Hebrew people to assemble the book of Genesis. As a matter of fact, Astruc simply took the methods of textual criticism already used to investigate classical Greek and Roman texts, and applied them to the biblical texts in search of those original accounts. He identified them as separate sources that were edited together into the book of Genesis, thus explaining Genesis' problems while still allowing for Mosaic authorship. Astruc's method was well received and adopted at many Protestant universities in Germany. See below. The influence of Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803) and his publication of the Reimarus' Fragmente created openness and willingness among biblical scholars to re-express Christian doctrine in terms of the scientific method and the historical understanding common during the German Enlightenment (circa 1750–1850). The towering figure of the Berlin theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher who at the same time redefined 'Faith' in a non-dogmatic way and tried to free 'God' from his 'metaphysical cage' created the proper climate to give this research an enormous boost in the 19th century.
There are a variety of methods and procedures employed in source criticism:
In the beginning there appears to have been a group of oral stories describing important events for the people of Israel: traditions of the ancestors, the sojourn into Egypt and Exodus, the covenant on Mount Sinai, wilderness stories, stories of conquest of Canaan. Date from 1200 - 1000 BCE. These stories were in poetic form, probably sung by bards much like Homer.
During the period of David and Solomon, a scribe in the royal court, referred to as J, drew upon many of these stories and produced a narrative account of the people of Israel beginning with creation and extending at least up to the time just prior to the conquest (Genesis - Numbers). It is possible that the work of J included the conquest and settlement of the land, which is now lost to us, or incorporated into another work, but this is uncertain.
After the division of the kingdom (beginning of the 9th century) another narrative of the people of Israel was written by a scribe referred to as E. We are not sure of the extent of E for much of it has not survived, but it does parallel J in its main narrative. It was probably written in response to J.
J and E were redacted into one work (8th century) in which J formed the main line of tradition and E supplemented it.
It is possible that a Priestly document was incorporated into this large narrative, adding a unique priestly perspective to the text, but this is uncertain.
2 Kings 22 records the discovery of a book of the law in the temple (621 BCE). Because of the religious reforms which were enacted by Josiah, scholars have identified this book with the core of the book of Deuteronomy.
This book then became the ideological program from which a whole new history of the people of Israel was written. But rather than focusing on the early period, this history began with the people entering the land of Canaan and stretched up to the present time of the author. This history is found in the books of Joshua - Kings.
This Deuteronomistic history is written in two phases. The first phase goes up to the time of King Josiah, the time when the book of Deuteronomy was discovered. When the people of Judah went into exile in Babylon, this history was revised and updated to reflect the new situation of the people.
During the exile, Priestly editors produced the final edition of the Torah by adding a new creation account to the beginning, filling in numerous geneologies, adding stories important to them, appending Deuteronomy to Genesis - Numbers, and adding the account of Moses' death at the end of Deuteronomy. The separation of these works into different books is probably the result of the size of a scroll.
Source criticism is also applied to other books of the Bible with less complicated, but similar results: namely, most books in the Bible exhibit some trace of composite authorship.
The formation of the Bible, then, proceeded by adding together and splicing smaller compositions to form larger entities. One should view the composition of the Bible through the metaphor of a large river system: our task is to paddle up river and explore the various tributaries.
Composed in the south, in the court of David or Solomon, during the 10th century. As a result, the central role of Judah among the tribes of Israel is stressed. For instance: The patriarchs dwell in the south, in the land of Judah; the patriarch Judah convinces his brothers to sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites rather than kill him; Judah also pleads to have Benjamin spared, and offers his own son instead.
The Yahwist epic can be viewed as a national epic for the Davidic empire. Yahweh promises Abraham land, descendents and blessings, and the land promised to Abraham is equivalent to the borders of the Davidic empire (Gen 15:18-21).
The epic is not a full or blind endorsement of the Davidic empire. There is a subtle warning that Yahweh's purposes and judgments transcend any particular institution. For example, the first born did not aways have the special blessing; Yahweh could choose another. There is a warning to beware of human and kingly pride!
Distinctive vocabulary:
Yahweh, Sinai (the mountain of God), Canaanites (inhabitants of Palestine), Hobab or Reuel (Moses' father-in-law), Israel (the patriarch)
"to know", euphemism for sexual intercourse
"to call upon the name of Yahweh"
"to bless" as the beneficient action of the deity
"my lord/ your servant" formal address
"to cut a covenant"
"breath of life"
earthly language: adam from adamah
husband and wife; the male and its mate: ish and ishshah
The Yahwist is fond of etiologies:
Eve: the mother of the living.
Cain: the woman has "created" a man like Yahweh.
Noah: he will bring "comfort" from the curse.
Israel: the one who stives with God (given to Jacob after wrestling with the God).
The Yahwist relates the deeds of Israel's ancestors with gusto, even when their behavior is questionable or reprehensible. He does not white-wash them. Yahweh is presented anthropomorphically: He strolls in the garden in the cool of the day; seals the door of the ark for Noah; visits and dines with Abraham; spies out Sodom and Gomorrah to see if they are as sinful as their reputation.
But Yahweh is also a high-god and not a minor spirit. The Yahwist presents both a personal and transcendent form of God, which influenced Jewish and Christian theology for centuries.
The Elohist epic was composed in the north, in Israel after the split of the empire, during the early part of the 9th century (900-850). The epic is characterized by the use of Elohim to refer to God prior to the revelation of the divine name to Moses on Mt. Sinai.
It is difficult to characterize the Elohist because of its fragmentary state, but it appears that the Elohist placed special emphasis on early Israel as a religiously and ethically obligated community in covenant with God. The Elohist was less awed by governmental authority than the Yahwist. E is fairly explicit in presenting criteria for defining Israel that transcended and criticized the current kingdoms of Judah and Israel. The Elohist epic was a conscious corrective to J.
The Elohist draws moral conclusions and admonishes readers, often with a preaching attitude: the danger of apostasy is exposed and a call to repentance and obedience is made. The Elohist glosses over the moral imperfections of the ancestors: Sarah was Abraham's half-sister, thus he did not lie; Jacob was blest by God, thus he did not really steal from Laban.
The Elohist epic probably originated in the prophetic circles of the north, such as those centering around Elijah and Elisha. It presents several of the ancestors as prophet-like figures, models for leadership: Abraham, Joseph, Moses, and Miriam. The patriarchs are described living in the north, in the territory of Ephraim. The major patriarchial cult centers are the northern shrines of Bethel and Shechem.
Distinct vocabulary:
Horeb (the mountain of God), Amorites (inhabitants of Palestine), Jethro (Moses' father-in-law), Jacob (the patriarch).
"the River" as a reference to the Euphrates.
"the fear of God"
The Elohist has a strong ritual interest. The numerous altars which the patriarchs erect are used for sacrifice. In J these altars serve only a memorial function.
Compared to the Yahwist, God is less immanent for the Elohist. God does not communicate with humans directly but rather through rituals, dreams, visions, and divine messengers.
In its present form, E is extremely fragmentary. The J epic, probably because it was from the south, served as the basis for the main narrative. E only supplemented the narrative. Some scholars (including myself) have questioned the existence of an independent E epic, suggesting instead that it is composed of unrelated supplements to J.
The priestly edition of the Tetrateuch (Genesis - Numbers) was composed during the exile or shortly after (550-450 BCE). There is a dispute among scholars as to whether P was an independent written source or simply the result of redactional activity.
The priestly writer was concerned to supplement the old traditions with materials which would underscore the institutional and ritual constitution of the people as the unique community of Yahweh. With loss of nationhood and temple cult with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, the priestly writer addressed the problem of what does it mean to be "Jewish", the people of Yahweh. The answer was present in the form of an institutional and ritual constitution. Circumcision and Sabbath observance were crucial aspects of Jewish identity. Also a whole host of ritual requirements, particularly with regard to cleanliness.
The priestly writer used Elohim to refer to Yahweh prior to the revelation of the divine name to Moses on Mt. Sinai. P also employs a host of archaic names for Yahweh: El-Shaddai, El-Olam, El-Berith, El-Bethel, El-Ro'i, El the god of the fathers, the kinsman of Isaac, the bull of Jacob.
God is quite transcendent for the priestly writer. God is revealed through his kabod, his "glory". The priestly edition has a very cosmic perspective.
For the priestly writer the dietary laws and sacrifice begin with Moses. Thus an absence of sacrifice by the ancestors.
Distinctive vocabulary:
"be fruitful and multiply"
"according to its kind"
"on the face of all the earth"
"throughout your generations"
"be gathered to one's people"
"to establish a covenant"
"male and female"
The priestly writer ties the narrative together with geneologies and chronological markers. There are two prominent structures which give order to the priestly work.
1. The history of the ancestors is divided into ages by a series of formulas: "these are the generations of . . ."
the heavens and the earth (Gen 2.4a); Adam (5.1a); Noah (6.9a); Shem, Ham, and Japeth (10.1a); Shem (10.10a); Terah (11.27a); Ishmael (25.12); Isaac (25.19); Esau (36.1, 9); Jacob (37.2); and Aaron and Moses (Num 3.1).
2. Sacred history is also sharply periodized by three perpetual covenants. These covenants also had a narrowing focus.
Covenant with Noah: The sign is the rainbow. The promise to all humanity is that God will never again destroy the earth.
Covenant with Abraham: The sign is circumcision. The promise to Abraham and his descendents is that there will be numerous descendents and God will give them land.
Covenant with Israel, mediated by Moses at Mt. Sinai: The sign is the Sabbath. The promise to the people of Israel is that Yahweh will be their God and they will be his people.
For the priestly writer, the whole history of Israel's ancestors leads to Mt. Sinai and looks back to Mt. Sinai.
|
|