This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES
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
Translated by John J. Scullion
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 89
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. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch.T. O.106 ISSN 0309-0787 ISBN 1-85075-229-X . Berlin: W. 1977) © 1977 by Walter de Gruyter & Co. R.Originally published as Das iiberlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (BZAW. Pentateuch. Series III. de Gruyter.—Critical studies I. 17. Bible. The problem of the process of transmission in the Pentateuch 1.. English 222. Title II.
3.5 The combination of individual promise themes 2.2 The promise of descendants 2.3 The promises to the patriarchs 22.214.171.124 The promises in the divine addresses in the Abraham story 2.3 The documentary hypothesis maintained 24 1.2 The story of Abraham 2.4 The function of the promise addresses in the composition of the patriarchal story 2.2.5 The absence of any definite reworking in Exodus-Numbers 43 43 48 49 52 55 57 61 64 66 68 74 84 .1 The variety of layers in the process of transmission of the Abraham tradition 2.CONTENTS Foreword Translator's Note 7 9 Chapter 1 THE PROCESS OF TRANSMISSION AND THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS 11 1.3. and Isaac 2. Jacob.1 The promise of the land 2.3.1 The new approach of Gerhard von Rad 12 1.1 The stories of Joseph.2.4 The guidance 2.3 The blessing 2.4 The question of the 'larger units' 31 Chapter 2 THE PATRIARCHAL STORIES AS EXAMPLES OF A 'LARGER UNIT' WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE PENTATEUCH 2.2 The modification of this approach by Martin Noth 16 1.
2.1 The patriarchal story 126.96.36.199.1 Chronological notes 3.1 The stories of Joseph and Isaac 3.3 The problem of the synthesizing.3 The Abraham story 188.8.131.52 Reasons against the acceptance of a Yahwistic work 3.3.3 The function of the priestly layer 3.4.2 The other 'larger units' 4.5 Synthesis Chapter 4 CONCLUSIONS AND CONSEQUENCES 4.2 The Jacob story 3.2 Theological'passages 3. 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 .4.7 Traces of an over-arching reworking Chapter 3 CRITICISM OF PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM 184.108.40.206 Literary analysis of the Yahwist 3.2 The larger units' in the Pentateuch 4.2. but a layer of priestly reworking 3.4 The priestly layer in the patriarchal story 3.3 The theology of the Yahwist 3.6 The larger units' in Exodus-Numbers 2.2 The problem of the Yahwist 3.2 Characteristics of the work of the Yahwist 3.1 Dissent from the documentary hypothesis 220.127.116.11.4 No priestly narrative.1 The present state of pentateuchal criticism 3.4 Genesis 23 3.3 The problem of a priestly narrative in the patriarchal story 3.
of many years of confrontation with the basic methodological questions of pentateuchal criticism. after many earlier meetings and discussions. . In the lecture 'Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte' in Uppsala in 1965 (EvTh 27  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. there are my Heidelberg colleagues with whom the dialogue has been. Finally there are Konrad Rupprecht. Discussions with colleagues of other countries provided many a stimulus to concentrate more intensively on these questions. for the time being. I have to thank many with whom I have been able to discuss these questions in the course of the years. pp. First. Then there are my colleagues and friends in Jerusalem. And so it is no mere chance that a variety of earlier papers on this complex of questions reflect these discussions. I tried to show that as a result of a consistent traditio-historical approach. I finally questioned the existence of the main pillar of the documentary hypothesis. the documentary hypothesis could not be sustained.FOREWORD This book marks the terminal. 5-11). to devote my attention entirely to these questions and. 28  158-66). carried on in a variety of ways. in intensive exchange with them. they gave me the opportunity. In Edinburgh in 1974. as guest of the Hebrew University in the winter semester 197374. without whose constant consultation and co-operation the book would never have appeared. the Tahwist' (T)er "Yahwist" als Theologe? Zum Dilemma der Pentateuchkritik'. to clarify them further. and is still being. In my contribution Traditio-Historical Method and the Documentary Hypothesis' in Jerusalem in 1969 (Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies. a new approach to pentateuchal study is to be outlined on a broader basis. Here. VT Supp.
July 1975 Rolf Rendtorff .8 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. SchriesheinVHeidelberg. I thank the German Research Council (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) which enabled me to spend a first period of study in Jerusalem in 1966.
A. especially in the German-speaking area. Rolf Rendtorff is interested above all in the process by which the Pentateuch reached the form in which it now lies before us.A. The references in the notes are to the standard English versions. relief and a readiness to look for other ways than that of the documentary hypothesis to explain the formation of the Pentateuch. His approach has met with strong disagreement. But the documentary hypothesis is a hypothesis and not an article of faith as many scholars. A Methodological Study (JSOT Supp. in some quarters. 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. de Gruyter. 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. Emerton has written of R. and. VT 39 . Whybray's The Making of the Pentateuch. I have given my own translation of these.N. 1977). 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. It is sometimes said that Rendtorff has not disproved the documentary hypothesis. cautious agreement. p. seem to presume. Series 53 . 116). Berlin: W. Clines of the Department of . showing a stubborn unwillingness to consider seriously another approach. He concludes that the classical documentary hypothesis has been tried in the fire and found wanting. 110-16.TRANSLATOR'S NOTE In Das iiberlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuchs (BZAW 147. and traces briefly in his preface the scholarly path that led him to this conclusion. as the distinguished Cambridge semitist J.
University of Sheffield. for his encouragement. Victoria 3052 Australia .10 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch Biblical Studies.J. and co-director of Sheffield Academic Press. Newman College University of Melbourne Parkville. Scullion S. United Faculty of Theology Melbourne John J.
Consequently. takes its point of departure not from the final form of the written text of the Pentateuch. 1969. two methods of approach stand juxtaposed. The other is the method of form-criticism and the history of the process of transmission which. The Growth of the Biblical Tradition. The one is the literary-critical method which. in the classical form that it has taken since Wellhausen. cit. p. . originally independent. distinguishes continuous literary 'sources' running through the Pentateuch. Koch. 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. 2 K. op.Chapter 1 THE PROCESS OF TRANSMISSION AND THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS In the present state of pentateuchal research. This does not necessarily mean that they come to opposite conclusions. 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 Form Critical Method. Koch describes literary criticism as a 'part of form-criticism'. However. since Gunkel. Those scholars who developed or make use of the form-critical and traditio-historical method adhere almost without exception to literary source division. Koch. and traces the process of their development right up to their final written form. The main reason for this is obvious. individual units. but from the smallest.2 The procedure is often that which Westermann 1 K.. The two methods therefore are opposed to each other in their starting point and in their statement of the question. but of a fundamental alteration of the statement of the question. 77.
p. that the process was irreversible'. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Genesis 1-11. Noth. had introduced 'a process of disintegration on a large scale': and many scholars had been paralysed *by an awareness. He saw that the reaso for the general 'scholarly lassitude' lay in this: the analysis of the Pentateuch into sources on the one hand. They are: G. Eng. At the same time. Von Rad's perception was that this process of disintegration pertained especially to the final form of the Hexateuch.1 Gerhard von Rod's new approach Von Rad wanted to break a deadlock that had been reached in pentateuchal (hexateuchal) research. The present work is an attempt to show the reasons for this and to advance a step further towards this goal. 1984. and the study of individual pieces of material on the other. 3 M.1981. (1966-1974) Eng. 1-78. in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. 1. 1972. 1981). these two works. von Rad. since Gunkel. .2 and M. (German 1938). The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch' (1938. and partly to carry them further. have had a lasting influence on pentateuchal studies. has not yet developed fully. (Eng. and in critical dialogue with. Eng.3 The problem of the process of transmission of pentateuchal traditions will be developed here on the basis of. And so I deliberately take up two works which. von Rad. 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.12 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 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. 1966).1 But the consequence of this procedure is that the form-critical approach. Noth. which was deemed to be no longer worth any serious discussion in itself. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (1948. 1966). (German 1948) Eng. 'The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch'. pp. I take up their approaches partly in a critical vein. now according to the other'. 2 G. 573. vague or clear. rather it served merely as a 1 C. in its attempt to progress by means of the traditio-historical approach. Westermann. 1972.
1-3. and further. 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.3. . as was von Rad's intention. which were originally independent. has not yet thrown clearer light on the final shape of the Pentateuch. 3 See below.. 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'. the subdivision of the pentateuchal traditions into several independent complexes of tradition. the other. are in some way recognizable'. attempting to understand the whole Hexateuch as 'genre' (Gattung) 'from which it must be supposed that. to a concern for the larger units. and so to a new 1 Von Rad. 1. even when the authors quoted speak of the Hexateuch. it has led beyond the treatment of individual pieces of material which featured so prominently in the works of Gunkel and Gressmann. 2 We will speak of the Pentateuch in what follows.1. its 'setting in life' and its further extension right up to the very expanded form in which it now lies before us.. Von Rad therefore directed attention once more to this final form.2 and his initiative has had far-reaching effects beyond this area. cit. the importance that he ascribes to the Tabwist' for the final shape of the Pentateuch.1 Von Rad has given new and substantial stimulus to hexateuchal (pentateuchal) study with this fresh approach. the recognition that there was available a variety of complexes of tradition. originally independent. He did so by means of form-criticism. op. Two principal features of von Rad's work have had further consequences for the Pentateuch itself: the one. his interpretation of the large complexes of tradition in which the pentateuchal traditions. The term Hexateuch will be used only where it is actually required. But it has diverted attention from the one-sided emphasis on literary analysis. His thesis of the 'small historical Credo' has provoked a variety of form-critical and traditio-historical works. Finally.3 However.. pp. were collected and passed on. has been of far-reaching significance for Old Testament theology.
op. 6 Von Rad. the question arises whether one can identify the 'collector' of the Gilgal stories. Tassahfest und Passahlegende'.e. 'in all its essential elements issued into a fixed form' before the tradition settled down to its literary shape in the liexateuchal sources JE. 4 Von Rad. and so for him 'it is no longer just a literary question with J and E. 1953 (2nd edn).. And so von Rad insists that the process of formation of this complex has. whose method of working Noth had discerned in his commentary on Joshua. Noth.2 Von Rad. 76. op. cit. p.. 3 J. With regard to the patriarchal story von Rad. 2 Von Rad. 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. i. as Noth had done. pp.. 52.. perhaps even the end stage'. 'We have here. but just as much a question of genre'. cit. with one of the pentateuchal sources or. 1938.. following Pedersen. op.. a genuine exodus tradition which is clearly distinct from the tradition of the occupation of the land'. cit. with the Yahwist and the Elohist'. cit. following 1 With Noth. ZAW 52 (1934) 161-75. Exodus 19-24..14 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch branch of the study of the historical process of tradition.5 Von Rad underscores here the internal connection with the pentateuchal traditions by means of the orientation towards the taking of the land. right up to the whole as it now lies before us. Das Buck Josua.4 This tradition too was at the disposal of the Yahwist. clearly recognizable as a selfcontained unit. the question remains unresolved. p. 1. across their broader development and insertion into smaller and larger collections.. With regard to the tradition of the occupation of the land. op. p. this latter is to be regarded 'rather as a later procedure.3 regards Exodus 1-14 as a further complex of tradition. Pedersen.6 However. separate him completely from them. 5 M. 18-19. in the long run.1 Von Rad recognizes several larger complexes of tradition in the Pentateuch which stand out clearly from each other. I understand Uberlieferungsgeschichte as the whole process of the formation of the tradition which extends from origin of the smallest units. This is the case above all with the Sinai tradition. .
Since Gunkel.24). cif.. On the one hand. 6 Op. many texts are linked which.6 These studies of von Rad gave pentateuchal research a new theme. was already complete'. p.5 just as is the 'joining together of the primeval story and the story of salvation' (12.p. The Documentary Hypothesis 15 Gunkel. p. ci*. are of quite different kinds. 3 Von Rad sees the beginning of the Penuel story only in v..4 The primeval story too forms an independent composition whose shape derives 'from a series of originally independent pieces of material'. originally independent. to demonstrate the part that the Yahwist played'. op. 4 Op. 5 Op. 59.. cit. For the Abraham stories.59.p. apart from intelligent guessing.1 As for the Jacob stories.2S-33). the independence of these larger units. but 'which is certainly the work of the Yahwist'.59. form critically. and for this certain principles of organization clearly hold good. and fitted it into his work'. 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.10-22) and Penuel (32. 25 (Eng. on the other hand.. von Rad believes that he can recognize him in the arrangement of the cult-stories of Bethel (28. v. units had passed over the old source analysis which took its point of departure from the final form of the text. .1-3). and the quite different and independent devel1 Ibid.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. attention to the smallest.2 At best.. cif.. 58.. 2 Ibid.64. 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'. The most conspicious feature is the regular thematic matching within the individual complexes of tradition. though it is all but impossible.1. recognized different groups of stories of very different kinds. p.. the union of the Jacob-Esau cycle and the Jacob-Laban cycle. and they are fitted together with each other so as to produce new larger units. 65.p.
1. Rendtorff. Ringgren. Noth. far beyond the limits of pentateuchal research. EvTh 27 (1967) 138-53. reached their final shape out of various elements in the course of transmission of the traditions. 'Literarkritik. Formgeschichte. has taken a strong hold on the attention of subsequent scholarship. that Noth is likewise concerned here with the very same stage of the process of development from which the works lying before us. 1943. 1957 (2nd edn). In 1943 he published 'Studies in the History of the Process of Traditions'. cf.16 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch opment of each of them. has become the determining leitmotif of all Old Testament scholarship. R. 'Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte'. each coloured by its own theme. The close association consists in this. . 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. 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'. since that moment. This distinction of larger complexes of tradition. Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alien Testament. namely the deuteronomic and chronistic histories. Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. 2 M. The idea takes a somewhat different form in the Uppsala-school'. emerges.2 In his introductory remarks Noth takes his stand explicitly in strict and historical continuity with von Rad's work on the Hexateuch. ThLZ 91 (1966) 641-50. Uberlieferungsgeschichte'. H. 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.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.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.
at least in several instances. 2 Noth compares the work of the Deuteronomist expressly with that work which von Rad attributes to the Yahwist. larger complexes of tradition had already been joined together. individual traditions which were often described as the 'smallest literary units'. ThBl 6 (1927) 333-37 = Kleine Schriften 1. cit. An Introduction to the Old Testament (1964. 3 Already. 3rd edn) Eng.1962. Die . Eissfeldt.. cit. Despite the different starting points. 2. Both approaches reckon with larger complexes of tradition.3 They form the proper object of form-critical study. 'Die kleinste literarische Einheit in den Erzahlungbiichern des AT'. p.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. But neither approach took as the object of its study the path that led from the individual traditions to the larger complexes. The work as a whole had acquired the shape in which it now lies before us out of a series of complexes of tradition. and he describes this Yahwist as the 'forerunner' of his Deuteronomist (op. Noth dealt with the final stage of the process of development. both the intent and statement of the question agree in substance with the task that von Rad undertook for the Pentateuch. 123-49.17 17 of cases at hand to him in which. arranged in the way in which he could or wanted to use it for his total presentation.2). One can well invoke Gunkel himself in this context. pp. working with the presupposition that in each case the complexes have grown together or been assembled out of individual traditions. O. 1965. already formed. Gunkel had directed his special attention to the original. smaller or larger. 61-62.2 And so. In 1 Op. n. or not at all.. 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'. 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. under the catch-phrase 'the history of the process of tradition' (Uberlieferungsgeschichte).
The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
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
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.
The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
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.
1. The Documentary Hypothesis
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).
Consequently. however. and after him von Rad in particular as well as others. 2). thence. Gunkel. In many ways.. then. We must now take up a further critical objection.. Consequently. they have followed them further to the formation of larger complexes of tradition and ultimately to the final literary stage. is not the subsequent and final result of the simple grouping together and arranging in sequence of individual traditions and individual complexes o traditions.. However. already noted. 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. Methodologically. have made these the objects of their study and exegesis. von Rad and others proceeded by and large in this way without. having developed a comprehensive understanding of the task of the study of the process of the history of tradition. but.. 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. 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. This would be in a way the first phase of the process of the history of tradition. cit. Gunkel.1 And so once more it is back to Gunkel's approach. 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. the limits of Noth's methodological approach must be pointed out. Gressmann. His work at the same time bypasses the concrete text. . 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. the further question of the pre-history of the text and the traditions embodied in it would be put.. at the very beginning of the formation of the traditions.22 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch research. to the procedure of Noth's traditio-historical programme It is the fact that Noth. there was a small number of themes that were essential for the faith of the Israelite tribes' (op. p.
The form-critical method and its application mean a basically new approach in the matter of access to the pentateuchal texts. O. EKL. accounts of the whole pentateuchal material which have been brought together in a 'redaction'. cols. however large. and it is with this that we are now concerned. 1413-19. III. . consists of several. cols. Smend. 'Pentateuchkritik'. are not yet a matter of attention in this approach. However. R. The contexts in which each individual text now stands. 2 For other hypotheses about the formation of the Pentateuch. the statement of the question is basically altered. 109-14. as soon as access to the pentateuchal texts is set in the context of the form-critical method.1. Ploger. The different 'sources' of the Pentateuch was the answer to a particular question. 211-17. seeking to explain the tensions and contradictions and inquiring about its coherence with the context. inasmuch as it explains that the present text. the traditional 1 Op. one should consult the appropriate sections in the standard introductions to the OT. Rendtorff. taken as a whole.1 Some fundamental remarks are necessary here. originally independent. 1959. when all is said. Also: R. The Documentary Hypothesis 23 literary growth of the tradition. 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. whatever different shapes it may take.2 So then. BHHW. 1966. presupposes the existence of 'pentateuchal sources' in the traditional literary-critical sense and includes them within his presentation of the traditio-historical process. This does not mean that there is no place for questions of literary criticism. as it puts the question of unity to a concrete. The work begins as it were at the opposite end. The documentary hypothe sis. in particular for the 'complementary hypothesis' and the 'fragmentary hypothesis'. III. 'Pentateuch'. a fundamental distinction must be made between literary analysis on the one hand. and on the other. the 'smallest literary unit'. but rather the concrete individual text. RGG (3rd edn) 1961. The Pentateuch as a whole as it lies before us is no longer the point of departure. cols. has meaning only as an answer to this question.. cit.par. 'Pentateuch'. individual text. 2-5. nor must they be the primary concern of the interpreter.
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. shows that this is scarcely ever the case. belong to particular 'sources' in the sense of continuous 'documents'. This could give rise to the impression that the two methods belonged together or in any case could be joined together with- . one is only justified in accepting continuous 'sources' in the Pentateuch when. often it is only then that one can delimit the original smallest unit. But they must be related on each occasion to the stage of the formation of the tradition and limited thereby. This requires that the literary-critical questions as well be put at all phases of the traditio-historical inquiry. to pursue the whole process of the formation of the tradition right up to the present final literary stage. as is so often the case today. at the end of the traditiohistorical inquiry. 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.24 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch division into sources. Recent study of the Pentateuch. both adhered to source division. 1. the source theory offers the most enlightening answer to the questions which arise from the final shape of the text.3. 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. But all this has nothing at all to do with the question of whether individual elements. It is a fundamental error when literary-critical work on the Pentateuch is equated with source division in the traditional sense. From the standpoint of the traditio-historical approach. I see two main reasons for this. One consists in the fact that Gunkel. which literary criticism has shown to be separate from each other. 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. however. and likewise his pupil Gressmann.
1 The first thing to be said to this is that frequently in the history of research. but have arisen in the course of a history'. Mose und seine Zeit. 368. with the Tahwist' and the 'Elohist') it is not a question of unities or even of collocations of unities. Genesis. they did not see themselves in a position to recognize the 'Personalities' of the authors of the written sources. one must try in the meantime to come to terms with the hypothesis of JE. there is only a gradual awareness of the consequences of a new methodological approach. so that this fact in itself. p. from the literarycritical point of view.4 and he adds: 'In many cases JE are nothing more than labels which can be exchanged at will. the symbols JE are indispensable. What individual hands contributed to the whole is thus a matter of relative indifference because they differ very little individually. He portrayed in a 1 2 3 4 5 So too Rendtorff.3 Gressmann goes even a step further. Nevertheless. He attributed to him the central role in the definitive formation of the Hexateuch. and never reveal themselves with certainty'. Above all.e. applied the separation of sources in a far less stringent manner than is generally done today.1. Ibid. But for it to establish itself and to find justification for the abundance of variants.5 In the long run therefore it is merely a matter of giving terms to passages which. but of collections which are not from one mould and cannot have been completed at one stroke. but schools of narrators. The Documentary Hypothesis 25 out difficulty. never forgetting that it is a hypothesis. Ibid. p. In his view the distinction of J from E can only rarely be carried out with any sort of certainty'. Ixxxiv. The second. The sources have not each its own profile.2 And so he continues: "«F and 'E' therefore are not individual writers. that it is clear that Gunkel. Gunkel. can say nothing about its methodological justification. EvTh 27 (1967) 148ff. Gunkel emphasized that liere (i. . are separate from each other. 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. p. even though they can lay claim only to relative validity'. considered from our present point of view. and particularly Gressmann. Ixxxv.
p. one plan is at work'..50.27. cit. 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'. up to this point..3 The result is a 'massive work'. speaks of the Yahwist only in a casual way.... Op. whether instead of reckoning with one 'great collector and moulder* it were better to reckon with 'a gradual. He touches only the other.53. Op.2 In von Rad's view. cit.35. often widely scattered.. traditions are gathered together in a powerful work of composition under a dominant idea and become literature'. without giving him any notable pre-eminence. p.. notes 17. 51. before all else. in a powerful theological work. a theological achievement is to be seen here. pp. cit.. p.7 That this role belongs to the Yahwist derives apparently. But the switch-points have already been set in another direction.29. 48. the Yahwist is the one who. 52). to the basic on-going tradition'. 59. cit. a'*..1 and he worked out with particular emphasis that. cf. Op. p. more basic question. cit.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.4 and 'it is astounding how firmly it was possible to bind the bewildering abundance of the assembled traditions. p. because he obviously saw in it no problem at all. 15-16.5 Why did von Rad attribute this role precisely to the Yahwist? It is surprising to note that von Rad did not put this question. pp. 52. but that liere. 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. He underscored that in this case there could be no question of an anonymous growth. 7 Op. 'took up the material which had broken free from the cult and preserved it in the firm grip of his literary composition'. anonymous process of growth' (op. Von Rad discusses only the question. . without it being said explicitly.. Von Rad. 67-68. Op. p.26 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch most impressive way the great achievement of the Yahwist as composer and moulder. on the same literary level as the other sources.
cit. 50-51. 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. 2 Op. This shows that von Rad has here simply taken over something already available.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. an entirely satisfying and explicable phenomenon! The question of the origin and destiny of these two works. as something theological.. . 'the form of the Hexateuch is definitively his'. pp. and 1 Op. 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. But this is to be understood. from the form-critical point of view.1 But the possibility that another than the Yahwist could have brought to completion this 'massive work of composition' is never considered. and the 'stratification' of the two other sources in relationship to this work remains basically opaque. There is here so to speak a re-discovery of the personality of the authors of the sources. the Yahwist. though only of one of them. of their growth and their readers is after all open and is likely to remain so. 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. The Documentary Hypothesis 27 writer'. The form of the Hexateuch is definitively the Yahwist's'. and in essence can only be understood. p. rather the Yahwist has provided a basic arrangement. But these problems are of a different sort from what we are discussing here.74.1.. introduces nothing essentially new over and above what has been discussed. The stratification of E and P in relationship to J and their binding together is a purely literary matter and so. cit.
. but only one of many. and after him had a share in it."the insetting of the Sinai tradition" and "the extension of the patriarchal tradition") derive from G (Grundlage) (namely. .. the Yah wist has a special place: his theology contains 'the richest and most important theological accomplishment expressed anywhere in the pentateuchal narrative'. inasmuch as it pointed con- 1 A History.. the reflective. To be sure. as von Rad would have us believe when he attributes such an epoch-making role to the Yahwist in the traditio-historical process. and the synthesizing over-view'. cit. however. then this was of significance not only for literary criticism. and enters into the realm of the theological. Many others.3 The Yahwist then 'is not the sole author of the most important advances in the process of the development of the Pentateuch.... cit. it has moved out of the realm of the cultic. 3 Op. is clearly the work of the Yahwist.. But the two others (i.236.e. 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. pp.28 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch primarily as a theologian who gives shape to large passages. 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. so necessary for the forming of themes. which is the primeval story.p. 228. which gives rise to the shaping of narratives out of the themes.. 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. 40-41. but also for the general traditio-historical process. p. before him. But the Pentateuch did not come into being by looking backwards... It is a question rather of a growth that took place step by step'.. and out of the realm of the popular.2 Closer examination. at the same time as him.1 Thus for Noth too. 'the forecourt (Vorbau). When literary criticism unraveled the common basic (G) of J and E. 2 Op..
cit.3 then 'the theology of J is all the more clearly before us'. everything depends. 236. 41.5 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'. What is Noth's position here? When discussing the 'question of the basic ideas. he kept almost exclusively to the traditional stuff of the pentateuchal narrative without intervening to alter or expand its substance. ascribes to 'G'. in this. .4 It finds expression above all in the arrangement of the primeval story and its binding with the subsequent Pentateuch narrative'. because we can know nothing at all of its wording1. 12. Von Rad's judgment of the Yahwist as a theologian depends on his view of him as a composer of a work. p. Thus the essential connection between the work of composition and the theology on which.. cit. He was 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.2 And so there can be no theological judgment on the basic composition that Noth. Ibid. 'So the whole weight of the theology of J lies at the beginning of his narrative. Ibid. cit.. By reducing the contribution of 1 Op. But if E is 'to remain.1 Von Rad's basic view of the Yahwist can in fact scarcely be contested more concretely and clearly. and it is this view that Noth contests. Noth is in broad agreement with von Rad in his explanation of the Yahwistic primeval story and his understanding of Gen.. 2 3 4 5 Op. almost completely out of consideration'. is abolished.236. Op. The Documentary Hypothesis 29 cretely and clearly to this fact'. for von Rad.1-3 as a link passage between the primeval story and the patriarchal story.1... at any rate. Subsequently.. p. p. one must prescind from the entity G. according to the state of things. which were normative when the material being passed on was given literary formulation.
While he held to the view of the Yahwist as a theologian. it becomes apparent that in many cases the theological ideas and the compositional standpoints are quite different in different parts of the Pentateuch. Noth has pulled away the mat. right up 1 Op. Apart from the primeval story. cit. This is so particularly for the Tahwist'. In general. it must be underscored once more that. Noth regards only Gen. arrives at the existence of an elohistic source. Here again the (unproven) opinion that these passages belong together as a literary unit must bear the burden of proof that. through the larger literary complexes.30 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch the Yahwist to the shaping of the Pentateuch. p. one has recourse to the presentation of his theology or in any case to the overriding ideas and compositional standpoints. yet he described the stage of the pentateuchal sources as the stage of 'the theological. from the point of view of the traditio-historical approach. cit. as a passage of Yahwistic theological work. 18. But scarcely any attempt has been made to demonstrate a literary cohesion between the passages ascribed to the Yahwist. it is a matter of the theology of one author. 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. in spite of this. its literary content is unraveled by way of negation. 238. hence his existence is in need of literary demonstration. the reflective. And so the prevailing view is that which.2 On the other hand. p. However. however imperfectly preserved.1 Many others have followed him here. and the synthesizing overview'. Generally. 2 Op.22ff. . And so a particular branch of literature has developed which is concerned with the theology of the sources of the Pentateuch. The general view is that it is easy to delimit the content of the 'priestly* writing.g... by means of literary analysis. 228. But opinions are divided over the 'Elohist'. signs of a deuteronomistic reworking). What remains belongs to the 'Yahwist' inasmuch as there are no convincing reasons against it (e. 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.
And this all the more so when it is to serve as an assistant to the traditio-historical method. as is done so widely today. If the question that the traditiohistorical approach is taken seriously. section 3. 1 For more detail. and there has scarcely ever been any consideration of their function in the process of the formation of the Pentateuch. literary-critically. This procedure identifies a particular method o study almost exclusively with one of its conceivable results. 1. have to work with literary-critical tools and. will have to give answers to the questions raised by literary criticism. From a methodological point of view. The Documenatary Hypothesis 31 to the final stage of the text. It will itself. then. There is a lack of studies of the larger units. on methodical grounds. 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. the acceptance of 'sources' is excluded by reason of an analysis made at the final stage. the literary-critical statement of the question too must always remain open to results other than those of the traditional source division. And so it will have to proceed no less 'critically' and also. of course. 3 Cf. for its part. .3 but they have scarcely ever been the object of independent studies.2. Introductions to the OT by Eissfeldt and Sellin-Fohrer. to be sure. 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.1 1.1. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism. 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. without its being verified through the study of the formation of the tradition.2 There is many a reference in the literature to the existence of such larger units. But it cannot from the very start equate the literary-critical method of working with the results carried over from the source theory. 2 See above.4. see below. But above all.
so far as they have been worked out hitherto. and how this relates to the composition of coherent written 'sources' whose existence is generally accepted. the methodological pre-requisites must first be broadly established and developed. and finally. the larger units within the Pentateuch. This makes clear the means used in the course of formation of the individual stories and the comprehensive 1 See above. on the other hand. The peculiar nature of these larger units has already been outlined in the presentation of von Rad's study. under this point of view. The different stages of the process of the formation of the tradition can be clearly discerned in them: the independent individual narratives. and before all. the formation of individual 'cycles of stories'.32 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch there has been a lack of studies of the question of how these texts grew into or were arranged into larger units. the putting together of the stories about the patriarchs so as to form a larger unit. a survey of the material gathered together in the Pentateuch. The patriarchal stories of Genesis will be chosen as the example.2. the intent of what follows is twofold: on the one hand. 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. 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. Hence. must be presented so as to acquire. 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. 1. 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.1 They are a synthesis. the gradual collecting of the narratives about the individual patriarchs. . of texts which form-critically and because of their origin are often to be judged very differently. and in brief. forming a new unit.
p.6 But he speaks also of the 'apparently unconnected block(s) in the primeval story which are heaped together*. Festschrift. 4 Genesis. G.. 7 Op. And finally. Steck.H. in Probleme biblischer Theologie.64.64. cit. 12. 'Genesis 12. of achievements. 562 3 O. 65.. 525-54. the last group stands under the heading 'Crime and Punishment'. The primeval story forms the first larger unit. .5 Westermann tries to arrange the texts into three narrative groups: 'narratives of creation. Gunkel writes: The passages begin almost always quite abruptly.1-3 is regarded as 'a clamp between the primeval event and the patriarchal story'.26 (Westermann). which once more lead back to the basic question that this work puts. cit. The current stage of exegesis sees a clear link between the primeval story and the patriarchal story at the beginning of the Abraham story. For the most part they delimit themselves. 12. they are in rough sequence or are in complete contradiction'. and of revolts and their consequences'. Something must be said first of all about the larger units within the Pentateuch. 2 Genesis 1-11. It comprises Genesis 1-11. p. In the table on the same page.3 As for the matter of the primeval story in detail. 1971. 2. von Rad distinguishes a 'series of cycles of material originally independent'. some reflections are added on the relationship of the larger units so formed to other units. von Rad. and the literature is broadly at one in accepting this self-delimitation.1.1-3 und die Urgeschichte des Jahwisten'.7 All interpreters try likewise to work out the inner connection between these narratives within the framework of the 1 'The Form-critical Problem'. One can put the division between the two after Gen.p.1-3 (von Rad)1 or after Gen. 6 Genesis 1-11. 11. pp. p. The Documentary Hypothesis 33 larger units and the theolological intentions at work in the process of assembling and reworking them. p. 5 Op.4 Following Gunkel. p. there is broad agreement that the passages stand side by side with no intrinsic link between them.2 In both cases Gen. 566.
the two types belong to two fundamentally different styles and lines of tradition'. Neither.4 So then. cit. nevertheless. Genesis 1-11. and to what extent a common. when and at what stage of the formation of the tradition these very different complexes were joined together. Gunkel speaks of a 'thread as the last collector will have conceived it'.. so that despite this disparity in the individual elements. joined with each other in a much more profound arrangement than appears at first sight. is immediately obvious so that very different answers are given. of course. an arrangement which derives from the primeval story as a whole and keeps this whole always in sight'. Op. The patriarchal story (Gen..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. 12-50) forms the next larger 1 2 3 4 Genesis. rather must it be said 'that the style of the narratives in Genesis 1-11 is basically different from that in Genesis 12-50. reworking can be discerned.34 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch present composition.64. .2 and Westermann puts the question whether these apparently unconnected texts are 'somehow. they seem to have been put together as if by one who wanted to impose a unified form. p. the whole has the effect of a tightly closed unit. over-arching. Ibid.p. 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. Interpreters try now to work out the intention of the composition and the means used to give it its shape. 1.1 von Rad sees in the composition 'the directing of the individual pieces of material towards a goal'. 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..
1. Apart from some smaller cycles of stories within this larger framework.21 can be followed clearly.388. 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. 387. and on the other a clearly recognizable. see below under 2. it is only in the patriarchal story that they are found in this form.. The dominant intentions and the way in which they have been arranged are clearly evident. Op. pp. Jacob. it will be dealt with in detail in the second chapter. Op. And more—the first three have been further joined together to form a larger unit. ZAW 52 (1934) 161-75..5 Pedersen brought a completely new approach to Exodus 1—15 when he considered it as a coherent larger unit. p. Each of the patriarchal stories in itself exhibits such a synthesizing reworking: each of the Abraham. The Documentary Haypothesis 35 unit. synthetic shaping of the narrative materials into larger complexes.6 He understands the 1 2 3 4 5 6 For further detail.p. The stories from the birth of Moses to the arrival of Israel at Sinai3 form a coherent unit up to a point..1 Various suggestions have been made for the delineation of larger units in the following books of the Pentateuch. cit. and Joseph stories are the result of the juxtaposition and collection of single narratives. but after this the contours fade'. 387-88. Gressmann writes: 'The cycle of stories of Exodus 1.1-15. cif. cit. However. Op. 386.4 Let us turn then to the first part of the Moses story.2 But Gressmann did not himself divide this large narrative complex further. Isaac. p. Mose und seine Zeit. this group of stories in the Moses narrative 'splits into two loose halves'. 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'. . The second half of the Moses story portrays as its general theme the departure of Israel from Sinai for the promised land.5.
in a quite different place. he brings chs. 1-15 together again under the heading The leading out from Egypt'. must be judged quite differently than from a purely narrative point of view.7 On the one side. 167.3 Noth also accepts the validity of Pedersen's thesis. he divides the material into a great 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Op. 51-52. the intentions and the method of arrangement.5 But in the division of the book of Exodus in his commentary. pp. Despite all unevennesses and secondary additions.. it considers the history of the growth of larger units within the Pentateuch not only from the point of view of narrative. growth and formation of larger units presents itself in a radically altered form. p. 1-15). 66.1 And so an entirely new statement of the question arises here. 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'. 156ff. Op. but also from that of the history of cult and liturgy. Noth deals with the traditions of the birth and call of Moses. Op.6 Fohrer too has analysed the way in which Exodus 1-15 cohere. constructed according to a definite plan'. pp.36 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 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. Exodus heading on p. 'Die vermeintliche 'Passah- .. however 'in a somewhat more narrowly drawn framework. which have been at work in the process of assembling the individual pieces of material. It is clear that with such presuppositions the question of the origin..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.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'. See in particular S. A History. The Form-critical Problem'. Mowinckel.. 19. p. cit. 51-52. the legend forms a well articulated whole from beginning to end (Exod. as they have taken form in Exodus 14. confined to the narrative of the plagues of Egypt'. In particular. pp. 201ff. cit. Further. including in his approach the criticism by exegetes of Pedersen. cit.
he regards it as a 'cult legend'. he brings into legende'. . 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. then the death of the charismatic leader Moses. 1 Uberlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus. The Documentary Hypothesis 37 37 number of smaller narrative 'elements'. 'Ex 1-15 in Bezug auf die Frage: Literarkritik und Traditionskritik'. but on the other. (the exodus is 'not an isolated event to be evaluated separately and by itself).e. STL 5 (1952) 66-88. 3 See below under 2. That larger whole was the occupation of the land by Moses' host which comprised the tradition of how the exodus came about. 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. between a predominantly narrative approach and a cultic approach. 121. Besides the difference..?. the further wandering right up to the entrance into the territory of east Jordan. i.1. and originally too the settlement in east Jordan'. 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. Within the framework of our statement of the question.. 2 Op.2 It is obvious that very different methods and statements of the question clash in this discussion of Exodus 1-15. Eine Analyse von Ex 115. Exodus 1-15 is directed to a continuation of and forms a part of a more comprehensive historical narrative. On the contrary. p. cit.3 Von Rad has laid special emphasis on the independence of the Sinai passage. this would require an entirely new approach. and continues: In reality.1 He rejects 'the fiction of a deep cleft that has made it possible to accept an isolated exodus tradition'. already mentioned. there has so far been scarcely any attempt to look for clues to the conscious shaping of larger units within Exodus 1—15—as is the case too in other parts of the book of Exodus. the exodus..1964. 122. Following Mowinckel. and finally. in particular of Exodus 19-24.6. the firm alliance with Yahweh on Sinai.
W. as it is so obvious. 156-238. and Num. 1969. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der Wiistenuberlieferung des Jahwisten. 20 and 21. 16-18. Hence. But as to how all this came together into a whole. But it is just this discussion that has stood in the way of further study of the formation and structure of the Sinai pericope. 'further sojourn in the wilderness'. and so in his commentary on Numbers he makes the division: Num. A. 81. and legal material which has been thrown together. Beyerlin. Num. liturgical function of this collection. pp.38 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch relief once more the cultic. Noth sees in Num. 20. 148). V. Scholarship has. 1970. and was joined with them only at a relatively later stage. 3 There are differences in the delimitation of the ending of this complex of tradition. Introduction to the Old Testament. there have been scarcely any studies of the question of how the extremely different elements within the Sinai pericope came together. This opinion has been frequently criticised. The relatively self-contained independence of the Sinai pericope has scarcely been contested.2 It lies before us in a form that reflects a wild growth.13.3 Gressmann accepted as a basis for all these narratives a collection of stories connected with the sanctuary at Kadesh. 206). p. 20.1-20. and whether there were any guiding principles of arrangement or discernable intent at work in the process. . 11-20). pp. esp. 11. in particular different codes of law. 2 Further pointers in this direction may be found in L. nor can it be. Exodus 19 through to Numbers 10 contains an assortment of narrative.14-36. to be sure. Fritz represents an opposite view: Israel in der Wiiste. Bundestheologie im Alien Testament. 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. 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. Herkunft und Geschichte der altesten Sinaitraditionen. separated out certain blocks of material.13. chs.14-21 the transition to the theme 'leading into the land' (A History. According to him they 1 Cf. Perlitt.1 The criticism is concerned primarily with the question—do the different complexes of tradition just mentioned belong together or not. 'Preparation for and beginning of the "conquest"' (Numbers. cultic. this question has still not really been put. Weiser.
25. p.4 Finally. religio-historical. A History. The Documentary Hypothesis 39 were only separated from each other by the inset Sinai passages in the course of the traditio-historical development. the question of how the narratives came together in their present arrangement has remained undiscussed. and traditio-historical questions. especially with the question of whether Kadesh was ever a cultic centre for some or for all the Israelite tribes. of particular interest is the discussion of the traditions about the Israelites' occupation of the land. Beyerlin. The reason for this is that it is not possible to arrive at internally coherent complexes for each of the accepted continuous narrative threads'. 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.5 Instead of continuous 'sources' in the narrative parts of Joshua. The reason for this was that the texts in Joshua were regarded as belonging to the pentateuchal 'sources'. Fritz. Op. It is surely not due to chance that this occurred in 1 2 3 4 5 6 Gressmann. 386-87. demonstrated above all for Genesis. 8. op. cit. Noth. Mose und seine Zeit. 1953 (2nd edn). who gathered together older traditions which had already been partly joined together and shaped them into a 'very old whole unit'.1 This question is in turn linked with historical. cit. 164-65. came to the conclusion 'the literary-critical theses. Noth has contested this thesis very strongly. he discerned a 'collector' at work.6 This means nothing else than that Noth here regarded the occupation of the land traditions in Joshua as an independent larger unit. 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. . in his analysis of the book of Joshua. 12.. are not valid for the book of Joshua in the same enlightening way.. cit..2 while others have accepted and elaborated it. Cf. And so one spoke of the 'Hexateuch'. p. op. 165ff.1.3 But in all this. pp. That is. pp. pp. Das Buck Josua. p.
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. in Noth's opinion. 'its description would have ended with the reports of the death of Miriam.1 Further. the reason being that the priestly writing is not interested in the theme of the occupation of the land. 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'. 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'. And so he makes use of a redactor who has simply left out' the postulated. texts. on the other. On the one hand Noth. draw the consequence of this. 1 A History. this raised a new difficulty for Noth. Aaron. However. or will not. Noth thinks that this original description of the occupation of the land in the older pentateuchal sources has Tbeen lost'. It seemed certain to him that the old pentateuchal sources originally ended up with a narrative of the occupation of the land. he cannot. on the basis of his analysis of the book of Joshua. 2 Ibid. and Moses'. there is the fact that the book of Numbers begins with the account of the occupation of east Jordan which. and hence any talk of the *Hexateuch'.2 One can only say that this is an extremely precarious way of arguing. requires a continuation in the account of the occupation of west Jordan. . hence. and has been accepted by various scholars. again without the consequences for the source theory as a whole being drawn. p. but not extant.40 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 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. namely to submit the source theory itself to critical examination. 16. cannot maintain the thesis of continuous sources which end up with the description of the occupation of the land. Noth's thesis has subsequently undergone lively discussion.
Research so far has acknowledged the independent character of most of these units. The question whether it belongs to a broader context is to be put only at a later stage. there is no ground for regarding this larger unit as. each is assembled from various elements of tradition and presents itself now as a more or less self-contained unit. the patriarchal story.1. together with other 'theological' reworkings. Sinai. to what pentateuchal 'source' does it belong. for our context. anything else than an independent complex of tradition within the Pentateuch. plays no role. 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. however. to someone called the *Yahwist'. 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. sojourn in the desert. As a consequence. The Documentary Hypothesis 41 41 It must be stated that. and there are already many individual studies. One is often content to designate a reworking as 'theological' so as to ascribe it. 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. there . Moses and exodus. occupation of the land. try consistently to show that the present unity is a constituent part of a larger context. a large unit consisting of traditions about the occupation of the land has been clearly discerned in the book of Joshua. Each of these units has its own characteristic profile. These works. and the qualities characteristic of the carefully planned arrangement are for the most part very quickly—or even a priori—traced back to the authors of the 'sources'. in essence. Hence. 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. namely the pentateuchal 'sources'. the question of the independence is not dealt with. But for the Pentateuch itself there would be the further question. From the traditio-historical point of view the question.
It is only in a next step in the comparison that the question of the larger complexes can be put. .42 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 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'.
not only to describe a collection of originally independent stories. .2 Consequently. p. as in other places.. First of all he writes: The Joseph story is a cycle of stories (Sagenkranz)'. he continues: 'However. we must call it a Novelle'. it marks itself off. cit. The notion 'Novelle' has prevailed by and large for the Joseph story. but also for literary arrangements. one must go further and say: the Joseph story is not a cycle of stories.1 After describing the characteristics of the style and the manner of presentation in further detail. he describes it as 'a well arranged whole'. rather 'the boundaries between the passages are very fluid'. Nevertheless. Gunkel has already described appositely its peculiar character. The special place of the Joseph story (Gen. Gunkel uses the notion 'cycle of stories' in a very undefined sense.Chapter 2 THE PATRIARCHAL STORIES AS EXAMPLES OF A 'LARGER UNIT' WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE PENTATEUCH 2. Its special character within the patriarchal story 1 Genesis. and Isaac Within the patriarchal story several independent narrative complexes delineate themselves clearly.. It is scarcely possible to separate the individual stories from each other.. However. the constituent parts of which are not appropriately designated as stories (Sagen). It is clear that here.1 The stories of Joseph. Jacob. he shows himself remarkably uncertain in his choice of form-critical terminology. 396.397. 37-50) stands out most clearly of all. hence. we can scarcely call this narrative a story (Sage).p. 2 Op. from the other cycles of stories by its very tight structure'. he says finally: 'After all this.
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.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).17 onwards under the heading 'Jacob in Canaan'. however. 29—31). 5 Ibid. 292. Von Rad has added a further dimension with his thesis: 'the Joseph story is a didactic wisdom narrative which.. cit. and especially the conclusion which reverts to the beginning.. 25. 27. 291. Mahanaim. in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. It is a question here of the cult stories of Bethel. 4 Op. 2 Gunkel. p. deals with the passages from 33.9. accordingly.6 Von Rad has taken Gunkel's observations further at this point by showing that the two cultic stories of Bethel (Gen. He specifies the arrangement that has thus arisen in the following way: This Jacob—Esau-Laban cycle is. is dependent on many a stimulus of Egyptian origin'. cit. both in the ideal that it presents and in its basic theological thinking. They stand at the two turning points of Jacob's journey: 1 The Joseph Narrative and Ancient Wisdom'. Penuel.. 6 Op. 28.. 32. cit. and Shechem which *have been distributed along the trail of Jacob's travels'. 32-3G2) and the Jacob-Laban stories (Gen. p.44 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch has been generally acknowledged. 3 Op. He has shown that it consists in essence of two large narrative complexes: the Jacob-Esau stories (Gen. Gunkel has also made the most important observations on the Jacob story. but an artistic arrangement: a sequence of cross references forwards and backwards. 368.23-33 [22-32]) in particular play an important role in the overall arrangement. pp. Both have been skilfully joined together: 'a 'frame' has been fashioned out of the Jacob—Esau stories into which the Jacob-Laban stories have been inserted'.10-22) and Penuel (Gen. p. binds the whole together into a unit'.. 292. not a loose juxtaposition from the hand of a redactor. 292-300. p. 1966 (German 1953).1-28. .19-34.
3 Ibid. 9-91. cit.. 87. 1972. 291. A History.3 There is an independent Isaac story in Genesis 26. pp. on the other.2 He says of this group that 'in the way in which they are arranged they stand somewhere between the type of short.6-11. 57. These two narrative blocks are clearly markers indicating the guiding theological thinking*. 2 'Arten der Erzahlung in der Genesis'. cit. 26. 98ff.7 1 Genesis.4 Von Rad writes: 'There are only two stories about Isaac (Gen.. 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'. . 270. 4 Op. p. but looks at it within the frame of the Jacob story. Looking at the entire block of the Jacob-EsauLaban cycle of stories. 12-33) which have been incorporated into the broad arrangement of the Jacob stories'. p. 1964. Gunkel puts it under the heading 'Survey of the arrangement of the JE Jacob stories'. p.1 Westermann too has arrived at essentially the same division and designation of the constituent parts of the Jacob narrative. p. in Forschung am Alien Testament. cit. 6 Op.. also Noth.. self-contained Abraham narratives and the Joseph narrative which forms a much larger and more complex unit'..6 Gunkel too felt that the Isaac story had its own character over against the other patriarchal stories. by a later hand'. it is different. 7 Op. 5 'The Form-critical Problem'. and so surmised that the chapter liad been taken from another related book of stories and inserted here'.. p. esp.. The literature for the most part does not evaluate this chapter as an independent section. 39.5 In his Genesis commentary. he speaks of a 'group of coherent narratives dominating the whole which can be called one large narrative'. however. On the one hand it is fitted more firmly into the 'units of tradition'.2. pp. 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. it is in brackets with the additional note. 'inserted.
J) *has assembled here. 2-4. 103ff. Kessler. 104. The remaining parts of the chapter are of a very different type.6 Both are linked as narrative by the cross reference in v. in my opinion. pp. the second by w. from the traditio-historical standpoint.7 Verses 1 Franz Delitzsch. on the basis of his study of the cross references within the chapter. 21. 1 and 6. 7-11) and the making of the treaty with Abimelech of Gerar (w. 26-31). The chapter is described as a 'mosaic'. 6 Op. cit. comes finally to the conclusion that 'Genesis 26 presents a narrative cluster that can be described as "the Isaac cluster"'. 5 A History. 2 Gunkel.4 We must pursue this question somewhat more closely. Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der expliziten Querverbindungen innerhalb des vorpriestlichen Pentateuchs. Noth stated that the author (for him. 1972. p. Genesis 26 contains only two detailed narratives: 'the betrayal of the ancestress' (w.. 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..1 a passage which 'has not become a completely self-contained composition'.3 Kessler. He describes the chapter as a 'string of units of tradition that are in part only sketchy and in themselves not tightly knit'. 3 Von Rad. the first divine address is linked to the context by w. 24). all that the narrative tradition known to him about Isaac was aware of. 12. Heidelberg.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'.1-18. Noth has. 7 However.46 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch The independence of Genesis 26 with respect to the context is well underscored. Genesis. Both have their parallels in the Abraham story (Gen. 29. Diss. 300. as it were in a compendium and with the help of a continuous narrative thread. Die Querverweise im Pentateuch.5 In fact. Two divine addresses stand out which have no immediate connection with the narrative context (w. p. older. Neuer Commentar fiber die Genesis. theol. p.22-32). p. . Genesis. proposed convincing reasons arguing that each of the Isaac variants are.108. 23 and 25. 1887.10-20 and 20. 360. 4 R.
302. 'Die Arten'. Wellhausen admits that new statements are being made here which are not taken from other narratives. wants to put Abraham's wells out of action by blocking them up so that Isaac can dig them again'. in a rather infantile manner. Perhaps we can go further if we point to similar short communications. p. p. 2 Genesis. which actually amounts to something different. and that Isaac had dug them again and given them their old names. Hence. v. 1899 (3rd edn). 3 Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bttcher des Alten Testaments. The Patriarchal Stories 47 12-14 provide some very general information about Isaac's wealth.22ff which. which is described as a result of God's blessing. and it is a question only of passages that have not been elaborated in narrative fashion. Abimelech's men took the wells by force.1 (Verse 28 refers back expressly to this. and about the consequent envy of the Philistines. They lack only the usual narrative shaping. Rather in the place to which reference is made (Gen. not developed in narrative form. namely that in this version they wanted to use the wells themselves. Since Wellhausen it has been common to attribute these verses to a redactor (Gunkel. RJ) or to a later hand (von Rad).) Verses 16-17 report quite undramatically Isaac's 'expulsion' from the Gerar territory. According to Gunkel. . It is easy to discern here the concern to form a unified whole. 21. and there is a reference back to this in v. It is amazing how woolly the arguments for this are. 21. in other 1 Westermann.2 But no story about the Philistines blocking up the wells dug by Abraham exists. 18 is a harmonizing insertion referring back to 21. 27. The remainder has to do entirely with wells.25). They have the very obvious function of giving the prerequisites for the subsequent narratives about the disputes over the wells.3 Wellhausen was consistent in this: 'After all. How are they to be evaluated? Verses 15 and 18 report that the Philistines had blocked up the wells that Abraham had dug earlier.2. the 'insertion betrays itself *by referring back to an earlier story'. But why should these verses come from a 'later hand'? They give certain pieces of information and are quite comprehensible in themselves.
Festschrift G. gives the impression of a relatively self-contained piece. 5). 1971. 15 and 18 very differently.2 The story of Abraham The interpreter of the Abraham traditions is faced with a 1 Cf. Rendtorff.48 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch places in the Old Testament. about the dispute over the newly dug wells at Esek (w.302. in Probleme biblischer Theologie. there are a number of brief passages with self-contained pieces of information which have not been developed into narratives. 19-20) and Sitnah (v. for the Isaac story. von Rad. They have been fitted into the framework of the other Isaac traditions in such a way that the synthesis. nevertheless. 32-33). 2. There is no reason for considering the tradition in w.25b. he wanted to take into his work. 432ff.2 What typifies these short communications is precisely that they have not been turned into story. 2 Gunkel. 'Beobachtungen zur altisraelitischen Geschichtsschreibung anhand der Geschichte vom Aufstieg Davids'. it is form-critically misguided to say that 'an etymological story has been spun' out of the names of the wells.1 One must conceive of these as the work of a collector or author of a particular group of texts who. pp. and finally about the naming of the newly dug well at Beersheba in association with the treaty between Isaac and Abimelech (w. 15. despite the variety of the material. R. 428-39. . esp. 16—2 Sam. 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. made use as well of information which had not been formed into narrative. p. with the naming of each well on each occasion. pp. In the story of David's rise (1 Sam. but which. 21). 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). and the undisputed use of the well Rehoboth (v. This would mean that. side by side with developed narratives. Further. for example.22).18). and so by means of short communications he was able to pass on the relevant information. Genesis. faced with these short communictions.
12. what are the characteristics of this larger unit.On the other hand.2.3038j1 but he has seen also that the expression 'cycle' is not entirely appropriate here. . 159. This notion is clearly not applicable to the passage Gen. summing it up. into a larger unit? 2. 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. there are many independent units of tradition in the Abraham stories which have no explicit relationship to their context. 19. 12. He developed this 'information' into a sort of story (Geschichte) which he has set 1 Genesis. He describes it in the form-critical context as a collection of originally independent. 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. as Gunkel himself has explained.2 The term story (Sage) however. and what are the means used to arrange these originally independent smaller units.1-8.1-16aa.2.1-28. The Patriarchal Stories 49 unique situation. in its present form it must be considered late. writes: The narrative has little concrete about it and can scarcely be called a 'story' (Geschichte)'. of which Gunkel. p. 19. 2 As. is appropriate only for a part of the texts mentioned.1-8. On the one hand. 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. still recognizable as such today.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. There is scarcely any other area in the Pentateuch where the individual narratives stand out as such self-contained and independent literary units. for example. 13. Gunkel has already spoken of an Abraham-Lot cycle to which he reckons the following texts: Gen. 18. is the case in the Jacob-Esau and the Jacob-Laban stories. individual stories (Sagen} which had been woven into a certain unity.
so as to form a larger unit with Genesis 13 (and 19. p. 19. the obedient one. 22. and especially by the geographical references in 18. . 21. cit.1 Accordingly.1-8 in the collection when he described it as the 'signature tune' (Motto) of the Abraham stories as a whole. 176. 2 Genesis.1-7. 13. 8-21.1-16) and Sodom (19. 3 Kessler. This narrative is not constructed for itself but is rather a preparation for the two narratives about Abraham and Lot at Mamre and Sodom.3 the intention of which is quite clear.2 Hence Genesis 13 would have been placed before the two narratives of Mamre (18.50 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch as it were as a 'signature-tune' (Motto) at the beginning of the Abraham stories. and consequently the one blessed'. he gives chs. as are the means used to arrange and bind together the individual elements. pp. op. 69ff. and so one must consider it a later and new formation. Kessler has described them as the 'Negev group' because their common scene of action is in the Negev.17-33.. These for their part have been joined together by means of the intermediary passage 18. 19 the title 'Narrative groups'.1-28) only after these had been brought together to balance each other. Hence we are to regard Abraham as the believer. But this broader context which Gunkel established covers only a small part of the Abraham tradition.30-38). 18. 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. 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. p.27-28. A further group of narratives that belong together is readily discernible in Genesis 20-22.16. Gunkel himself limited the function of 12. a shoot grafted on to an older branch'. 22-34) are joined together 1 Genesis.. 167. not with an original story (Sage) or narrative.. Of particular importance here is Kessler's demonstration that the four 'scenes' (Gen. Gunkel considers that we are dealing here with something belonging to the collection and the reworking. 20. Gunkel maintains that the same holds for Genesis 13.
It has.1. op. p. 23.1. . 590. A History.1. Further. and Genesis. however. 20. 3 For the relationship of Gen.1. 16. the narrative in 12.5 17.. cit. 611.2. This is the case with Genesis 14. apart from the fact that the actors in them are the same. Ill.8 refers back to the preceding passage which tells of Isaac's birth. p.1. von Rad.1 The note about Isaac's growing up in 21.1. 12.1. p.1. cf. likewise self-contained which. 16. the passage about the treaty between Abraham and Abimelech at Beersheba in 21. 87. 22 to the 'Negev-group'. cf. pp. compare too 18. Kessler..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. 253. On the other hand. 2 Op.10. 21. the birth of Ishmael is presupposed.1. The Patriarchal Stories 51 by cross-references. 17. 8. cit..22-34 'is unintelligible in its beginning (w.6 23. 4 Gen. 5 The mention of Sarah's barrenness in Gen. 13. 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. 80-87. been joined to the context in 12. n. op. 22. so that it cannot be taken in itself to be a typical sign of a particular layer of reworking. 7 And so there are no grounds whatever for any claim that this 'resumption' belongs to the Yahwist: this is against Noth. 22. presuppose the whole context of the Abra1 Kessler. however. 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. however.7 There are some further narratives.30 cannot be alleged against this.. 6 Here. ad loc. 14. 15. 11. cit.10-20 is self-contained and has no explicit references to the rest of the Abraham traditions. "The Form-critical Problem'. 59.1-2.1.1 (Then Abraham set out from there') joining it with the preceding narrative(s). 92. 6. nn. for a link with the context: 13.2 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). 221f. But this procedure is without parallel within the patriarchal story.1.9. pp. 3-4 in a remarkably elaborate way by 'resuming7 geographical details. 24. 22-23) without a knowledge of Genesis 20'.
allows the impression of a self-contained unity to emerge.1-8 has been arranged with a view to the overall complex of the Abraham tradition in its present form. L. to that stage of the reworking which was bringing the Abraham tradition together. 92ff. therefore. see above under 1. Kessler. it has already been noted that the passage 12. so 1 Cf.52 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch ham traditions to such an extent that they can scarcely have existed without it. The situation is much more difficult in Genesis 15. 7-21). It belongs.2 In contrast to Genesis 24. then the answer must without doubt be: the divine promises to Abraham. If one asks. however. This is true in particular of Genesis 24.1 It presupposes the whole life-story of Abraham. Both parts of the chapter (w.2 The promises in the divine addresses in the Abraham story The Abraham traditions present. but over against which it exhibits clear tensions. 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. 7-21) presuppose as a whole. 2. despite this. independent exposition of the basic themes of the Abraham tradition. reveals that the element of promise appears in a bewildering variety of forms. op. 1-6.4. On the other hand. therefore. for the most part.2. cit. Closer examination. 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.. . and each in a different way. both in content and formulation. the chapter stands in the middle of a context with which it not only has no link. Finally. what is the overarching element which. of which we have spoken above. from the literary standpoint. It presents a unique. as well as the departure from the original homeland (Ur-Kasdim) and the promise of the possession of the land (w. 2 Cf. the narrative about the winning of a bride for Isaac. pp. 1-6). again in contrast to the two chapters already mentioned. it cannot have been formulated with a view to the present context. a picture that is very uneven and many-layered. Periltt. come together.
2 His statement of the question must be taken up and developed here. we must undertake the task because it is possible that this may give access to the problems of the composition of the Abraham traditions. 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'. 7 Op. The promise motif belongs predominantly to that stage when the old narratives were brought together to form larger units'. in 15.. the promise of the son is closely joined to the promise of numerous descendants. from the traditio-historical standpoint. in all other cases the element of the promise does not belong to the oldest constituent part of the narrative. The promise of a son is the central narrative element here. 29. Rather. Westermann has made an important step in this direction. see above under 2. pp.7 Investigation must 1 Cf. .1 Nevertheless.5 Finally.2. and there is no way in which it can be detached. Westermann however surmises that the narrative does not lie before us in its original form.. cit. p. cit. 21ff. The Patriarchal Stories 53 that at first glance it seems impossible to arrive at criteria for the collection and arrangement of the Abraham traditions.6 According to Westermann's analysis. p. p.. 19. It is notable that both narratives contain as well elements of a place etiology. cit. p.1-6.7-21. very difficult to penetrate. 33. He has dealt with the theme of the promises to the fathers above all in his work The Types of Narrative in Genesis'. 4 Op.. Westermann.4 In 15. 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. 3 Op. 6 Op. 11-34. cit. The structure of the whole passage is multi-layered and. the promise of the possession of the land is an essential part of the narrative. 5 Op. cit.3 Genesis 18 is a very obvious example of a promise narrative.. 2 Op.1. pp.. 33. cit.
19. 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.22-34.3. for the complicated situation. 24. does not allow an immediate analysis of the text. Genesis. already referred to.22. 2). and speaks directly to people. even though unrecognized at first. . the divine address forms a constituent element. the promise element is in the foreground. Gunkel. which Abraham carries out.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. in a second group of narratives. There is a divine command at the beginning of Genesis 22. 17. And the formula. 3 On the element of guidance in the promise addresses.54 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch carry on from here.3 There is a command from YHWH to Abraham in Gen.30-38. further inquiry commends itself so as to broaden the investigation and to inquire about the function of the divine addresses in the Abraham stories. p. In Genesis 18. 2 Despite Gen. The promises occur almost exclusively in divine addresses or in citations from them. as in Genesis 18 and 19. but which contains no explicit promise (v. In these cases. This is the case particularly when the divinity itself is present. However. 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. The first result of this is negative: however significant the role of the divine address is in many places. the divine address is a direct. there is a striking number of narratives in which there is no divine address at all: 12. as there is in 21.12. On the other hand.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. remains opaque. On the other hand. 21. constituent part of the narrative.1 In the remaining cases YHWH only speaks without intervening in the action. Hence. it is by no means present in all the Abraham narratives. below under 2. cf. 15. Then YHWH appeared'.10-20.9 to do a particular thing. 14. Rather.4. 23. 200. cf.
2. These examples show that the divine address can be employed in different ways as a narrative device. that the late narrative form in Gen. the action recedes completely behind the promise address. There is therefore a basic difference between the development of the narrative on the one hand. 23-27). only at a later stage is a promise addressed to Hagar. But it has no influence on Abraham's conduct.1-6 too. On the one hand.15-18. 24 contains no direct divine address. a great number of different promise themes occur in the promise addresses 1 It is of interest. joined here with covenant obligation.13-16. . in each case added to or inserted into the context. where the direct divine address yields more and more in favour of an indirect divine action—Gen. 22. Likewise in 12.14-17. There are some cases where the divine address is so dominant that one can hardly speak of a narrative. that when the divine address dominates the context or stands independently over against the context. in contrast. 15. In 15. Finally. We have mentioned already the difficulties to which this inquiry gives rise. which is an example of a very advanced stage of narrative art. nor does the Joseph story. the divine address is predominantly promise. This is a clear indication that the promise emerges into sharper relief particularly in the later stages of the history of tradition.3 The promises to the patriarchs And so we return once more to the promise addresses in the narrower sense. 24 is an expressly 'pious' narrative!—and on the other.1-3. the divine address occurs as an independent and clearly denned piece in 13. the development of the increasing use of the divine promise address as an element of reworking. The same is true for Genesis 20 where the address is directed to Abimelech only.1 2. it becomes more and more exclusively a promise address. therefore. the promise address carries its own weight in the context. though does not at all have to be joined always to the promise element. The Patriarchal Stories 55 any divine address to Abraham. Each is pure promise address. It is clear. 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.
56 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch which can be formulated in a variety of ways and whose relationship to each other is difficult to determine. in undoubtedly older narrative passages in 28. finally.. cf. also the synthesis on p.4 He adds. again when referring to the divine address in 31. In the Jacob story. . cit. Westermann has studied both the individual promise elements and the links between them and has gained important insights. p.13-15 (cross reference in 35.13-15.2 But the synthesis of his results leaves the question open. 3 Op. Hence.23. 24). they occur nevertheless in the Isaac and Jacob stories in the same or similar form. cit.. especially in P and the later expansions of the old narratives'. in passages like 28. then in narrative context. He writes: 'the combination or addition of a great deal of promise material can be considered with complete certainty as a late stage'. 31. pp. 32. in the independent promise addresses in 35. he writes: 'At the end.2-4 and in the account of a promise address in 48.27-30. and 1 In the Isaac story. 33. 2 'Arten'.1 but they are completely absent from the Joseph story. to be sure: This late stage however is evident too in J. 4 Op. p.2-5. these individual promise addresses are inter-twined with each other in very different ways without there being at first glance any definite principle.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. Setting side by side the various possibilities in which the promise elements can appear. we are left with the cumulative combination of a great deal of promise material.3-4. 32. 11-34.1113.9-12 and 46. And Westermann has not really succeeded in progressing beyond this situation. On the other hand. it is very necessary to extend the study across the patriarchal stories as a whole.24. divine addresses occur only in two independent promise addresses without any immediate connection with the context (26. the practice is somewhat more varied: the divine address occurs in the poetic passage which has been taken up in 25. Though promise addresses are incomparably more frequent in the Abraham story.3 (more of this later) and 31. further.1) and 32.
The situation is obviously very complicated.2 It is this task that we now undertake. texts which are not in direct divine addresses are placed in round brackets. Hence. The Patriarchal Stories 57 in E. we will begin with an analysis of the individual elements and so postpone for the time the question of their joining or combination.4) 1 Ibid. That means that where we find different promise elements joined together. a stage which in the process of tradition is to be subordinated to the appearance of individual promise elements.12 26.17 28. 2 Ibid. . one cannot avoid extending the analysis across a relatively wide area.7 13.8 28. to which the following table should help. * It is obviously a question of a relatively late stage. In so doing. 22'.2. And so we must try to make it more perspicuous by a careful analysis of the individual promise elements. 2.13 13.1 The promise of the land We begin with the promise of the land which occurs in a variety of formulations. and inquire about their individual elements and the particular history of each in the course of tradition'. we will first deal with each of them separately and compare them with the other texts that contain the same promise material.3. that is. the principle established by Westermann is of particular importance: 'One must go behind the late combinations which contain a number of promises.3 17. We will try to throw light on the history of the traditions of these formulations. without thereby making any pronouncement about its absolute age. In accordance with the methodological principle already mentioned.3 15. 3 In this and the following tables.15 35. in the addition in ch.
13 13.7.7 24. 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 (28.17 28.4 48.4 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. 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 26. in a number of other cases which occur in addresses to all three patriarchs.7 is clearly outside the pattern).13.8 (28. 13.12).4) 15. the formulation in 15. that you may possess the land of your sojournings.7 13.18 26.7) 15.7 (24.58 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 12. to you and to your descendants with you.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.15 35. . In some cases God's address to Abraham runs: 'to you will I give it (the land)' (13. 'seed'.3 17. the words 'and to your descendants' are added to 'to you'.) The table tries to trace a definite line of development in the formalized phrases within the promises of the land.7 15.15).18 26. lit. 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. 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. (2) the word 'descendants' renders the singular Hebrew word zera'.
18.18). 26.7.3 28.16. 18. 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.14 'and in your descendants' is attached.4 12. 17.4).14 in you will all the clans of the earth find blessing and in your descendants (18.2. which may be regarded as the latest stage in the process of formation. Finally. from whom the effectiveness of the blessing proceeds. in the second to 'all the nations of the world'.14 18.4). Finally. in the other it is in the Hitpa'el (22. the personal element has receded entirely into the background so that the 'descendants' alone appear as the recipients of the promise (12.14).4).3. 15. the descendants alone are the receiver. (18.4. Before pursuing further the development of this formula. 24. 12. The Patriarchal Stories 59 In other cases.18) 22.8. 28. the verb is in the Nip'al (12.3. while in 28.18 in him will all the nations of the world find blessing) 22.18 26.18.) What is important for our perspective is that in the first group the receiver of the promise. in the second group. in the first group the effectiveness of the blessing is directed to 'all the clans of the earth'.18 takes an intermediate position. 48. that this is a subsequent addition is as clear here as in the corresponding formulations of the promises of the land. 28. 18.18 in your descendants will all the nations of the world find blessing 26.3 in you will all the clans of the earth find blessing 28.3.7. The development corresponds exactly to that in the . is the patriarch himself (12. 26. in which the verb is in the Hitpa'el.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 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.
1967. I will give it to you' 1 See below under 2.3. and likewise with a juxtaposed 'and to your seed'. walk through the land.3.7. Literarkritische.15. these too regularly speak of 'seed'. which has not yet been inserted firmly into the formula. one of which links the 'promise of increase' (so Westermann) with the key-word 'seed'. but on each occasion has a clear purpose. cf. 'assembly* and others. formengeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium.7 out of consideration.17 and 28. 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.1 This means therefore that we are dealing with two different lines of tradition. because I will give it to you' (13. p. On the other hand there are sentences in which the promise of numerous posterity is expressed by the concept of 'nation' . 'up.13 is clear. The key-word 'seed' (Heb zera'. . This is a further proof that the use or non-use of the word 'seed' is neither accidental nor arbitrary. are more obviously related to the context than those formulas which we regard as later in the process of tradition. this is obviously part of a fixed deuteronomistic formula. There are. 2 On the deuteronomistic character of 15. the situation in 13. the other on the contrary does not. 'the land upon which you are lying. Ploger. J.60 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch promise of the land.. 'descendants') also plays a notable role in the promises of numerous posterity.1).G. ZAW 70 (1958) 107-26.2. is to be understood simply in this way.. the most important of which is the following: the formulations with 'to you'. in my opinion.2 However. clear indications in favour of this. These are also expressions in which the image of dust or sand is used. It is surprising that the expression 'seed' is never employed in these. Let us return to the promise of the land! The question might arise whether the line of development accepted above (2. I will give it to you' (13. in which the expression 'to you will I give the land' stands at the beginning.17).15). And so we will have to leave the formulation in 15. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Genesis 15'. 0. . Kaiser. On the one hand there are formulations in which a multiplication of the 'seed' is promised without the use of any image of comparison. 65.
2. but the land is described as 'the land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac'. similarly Westermann.13). the formula in 26.4 is part of a complex divine address with a number of promise elements. The Patriarchal Stories 61 (28.4. where it is set in conjunction with the preceding promise of increase.7 is a formalized cross reference to the promise of the land pronounced earlier in Abraham's address. the suffix referring to the land about which the narrative is actually speaking. R. it is similar in Jacob's address in 48. p. 39-59.7 the formula is set within the 'note'1 about Abraham's foundation of an altar in Shechem. in Offenbarung als Geschichte.2 In 15.2 The promise of descendants The promise of descendants (posterity. RendtorfF. Finally. 1970 [4th edn]) = Gesammelte Studien zum Alien Testament. and after the promise of increase. 'Arten'. the promise of increase) occurs in a variety of forms. It is similar again in 35. with the same suffix form as in the passages already mentioned.12: here the promise of the land is set within an independent divine address. and the words 'I will give it to you'. KuD Beih. pp. First of all. 28. The phrase in 24. On each occasion ('I will give it') is found in the Hebrew text.. This is the case particu1 See above under 2.1.18 the formula is part of the note about the striking of the covenant which clearly stands apart from the narrative itself. the author is rather using the basic elements of the cult etiology in a very formalized way.3. 1 (1961. refers to it. . 1975. At the other end of the scale there are formulations in which the receiver of the promise of the land is the 'seed' only. 2. 2 Cf. pp. These occur particularly in short formalized sentences without any immediate relationship to a narrative context: In 12. 'Die Offenbarungsvorstellungen im Alten Israel'. 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. esp.41ff. which can scarcely be described as narrative. 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.2.
14 32. Finally.13 I will make your seed like the sand of the sea which cannot be counted for number) finally. was certainly independent (w. 19 show no formalized elements such as are found in the remaining promises of increase. the formulations with which the birth of a son is promised in 17. 22.14 your seed will be like the dust of the earth (32.10 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.5 26.5 26.4 15. there are first of all a group of expressions which speak simply of the increase of the 'seed' without using further images or metaphors.16 I will make your seed like the dust of the earth 28. In Genesis 16. dust and sand. the stars. originally.24 16..12 26.14).17 . 21.4 count the stars! . the announcement of the birth of a son to Hagar is made by taking up a poetic piece which. 15.62 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 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 21.3. In the promises of increase.16 28.16. 13. 10.13 13.12 because after Isaac will your seed be named 26. a combination of both. then. so will your seed be I will increase your seed like the stars of heaven. In 15.4 too the formulation of the assurance of the birth of a son is determined entirely by the context.. 11-12). with the resumption of Abraham's hesitant utterances in v.24 I will increase your seed 16.
The Patriarchal Stories 63 22.16 may they increase in number over the earth) For the rest.2 I will make you into a great nation 21.16) 17.13 I will make you into a nation 12. very fruitful. there stands another group in which the word 'seed' does not appear.18 because I will make him into a great nation 46.20 35.2 I will increase you very. and I will make you into nations.5 17. 17.3 21.3 because I will make you into a great nation there 18. The assurance of the great increase of descendants is.6 I will make you very.18 he will indeed become a great and strong nation 17. very greatly (48.13 12. kings of nations will come from her . the talk is of a 'nation' and 'nations' of 'peoples' .2.2 48.6 17.4 17. entirely without comparative images. and kings will come forth from you 17.4 you will become father of a number of nations 17.3 18.18 46. incidentally.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.16 she will become peoples.11 28.18 17. and of 'assembly' and 21.5 because I will make you father of a number of nations 17.3) 48.4) 21.16 17.
also 28.15-16. This too makes clear that we are dealing with traditions that are independent of each other. 'Arten'. on the other hand. 2.3 The blessing The declarations of increase are frequently joined with the assurance of blessing.3. pp. There is a further terminological difference: the verb 'to increase' hip'il) is used predominantly in the first group.4 see. and hence it is not the object of a promise which will only find fulfilment in the future. 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. Westermann has pointed out that blessing cannot really be the object of promise. cf.1-4). the verb 'to be/make fruitful' qal/hip'il) is found only in the second group in combination with the notions of 'nation' etc.3-4 Jacob says: *E1 sadday appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan.20 I will make him fruitful and increase him very. he blessed me 1 Westermann. very much. . 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. There is no doubt that the idea behind this is that the blessing becomes effective at the instant that it is pronounced. In 48. then some uncertainty or vagueness accompanies its use. he will beget twelve princes. and I will make him a great nation 35. At times the statement about the blessing precedes the divine address so that the address itself as a whole appears as blessing. though it occurs also in the second.11 be fruitful and increase! A nation and an assembly of nations will come from you. 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. and kings will come forth from your loins (28.3 may he make you fruitful and increase you.1 When blessing is assumed into the realm of promise where it did not belong originally. as already noted.64 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 17. 25-26. and you will become an assembly of peoples) (48.
with or without the mention of the 'seed'.17-18.2-3.2 the promise of increase stands immediately before the blessing ('I will make you a great nation and bless you'). and God said to him: Your name is Jacob. 25. 22. op.2.4 the possession of the land is described as the immediate consequence of 'the blessing of Abraham'.4. 28. the idea of blessing (or the act of blessing) appears within the divine address. The obvious conclusion from all this is that the 'blessing' is not an independent promise theme.12 does not belong here because the word occurs neither in v.3.. 26.9-12 is introduced as blessing: Then God appeared to Jacob again when he came from Paddan-aram and blessed him.3 it is linked with the assurance of guidance ('I will be with you and bless you'). for the rest. 26. 20.2 It should be noted further that the pronouncements of blessing begin with both combinations of the groups of promises of increase mentioned above. and in the very large majority of cases with the promise of numerous posterity.16. independent development of both these sequences of pronouncements. 25-26. It is striking too that the assurance of blessing for others ('clans' or 'nations') is always combined with promise of increase—but in reversed order: in all five places where the promise of blessing for others occurs.24. The Patriarchal Stories 65 and said to me: See. and the promise of the land follows it.. as well as with the others in which it is missing (12. Here too there is no difference with respect to the formulations. I will make you fruitful... 2 These are the correct references. 18.104.22.168). 32. 28. In 26.. In 12. Westermann. . 28..17.3 1 Op.' Further. but occurs always in combination with other themes.' Likewise.14. p. it is preceded by an assurance of increase: 12.24). 3 Cf.2. This combination therefore is on a different level in the process of the history of tradition from the individual. the precedence that Westermann1 established of the promise of blessing before the promise of increase holds: 17. cit. 13. 17. 26. In 28. the whole divine address (consisting of two parts) in 35. cit. 22. 18. 12 nor in v.16. which use the expression 'seed' (22. pp.
or in a kind of reverse process: T)o not go down into Egypt. also 50. 2. 31.20.4 The guidance Finally. there are addresses there which are very close in content to these. For example in 12. This promise often occurs as someone is about to set out on a journey for which guidance is assured. 28..24)..66 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 2. There is too a clear connection with the words in 22. This promise is formulated in very brief and lapidary wise: 'I will be with you' 26.1: 'Go forth from your country and your kinsmen and your father's house to the country that I will show you'. it occurs too in the form of a report: 'the God of my fathers has been with me' 31.5 below. cf. namely the assurance of guidance which includes YHWH's presence or Taeing-with' the patriarch. cf. 31.13. Also. '. 'Return to the land of your fathers and your kinsmen' (31.24. For example in 46. the brief formulations already mentioned are almost always there in a corresponding context: 'I will protect you everywhere you go. presents a problem of its own in connection with the formula. It is striking that these stylized. but stay in this land which I bid you' (26. ich will mit dir sein'.2). 32.10).3.21).3) or 'I am with you' 26.13). Talk of : in 26. However. D. 31.' (28. 1971. Preuss. .2: 'Go forth to the land of Moriah and offer him (i. is the reference to 'the land that I will show you'. but not in the Abraham story..24.3. which has links with the promises of guidance.15). cf. Jacob's words to Joseph and his sons: 'God will be with you' 48.5. similarly 31.2).4: 'I will go down with you into Egypt and I will bring you back again'.e.3.3.42). A further element. even though the phrase 'I am with you' is missing. 35.15. 42.5. Vetter. This formulation is obviously very close to 31. Isaac) there on one of the mountains that I will 1 On the formula: H. 28. Jahwes Mit-Sein—ein Ausdruck des Segens.. finally. cf.D. 32.3. lapidary promises of guidance occur in the Jacob and Isaac stories. and will bring you back to this land.1 One must include here as well: 'I will prosper you' 32. there is yet another independent element in the promise material. ZAW 80 (1968) 139-73. it recalls the command to Isaac to remain 'in the land which I bid you' (26.10.
then. 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 . of Beth-El) I am YHWH.7 17. and the reference to the 'mountain that I will show you' recalls both 12. and the God of Isaac I am Ha-El.13 46.1] 26.13) 15. the God of your father I am Ha-El. lapidary form. 26.2.1 . One can ask. show that Abraham set out and undertook a particular journey under divine instructions.1 I am the God of Abraham. Clearly. therefore. in the opinion of the narrators. 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.1 [15.7 17.2.1 and 26. it contains a divine command which requires Abraham to make a particular journey in trust.13 46. If this is so. go through the length and breadth of the land' (13. the God of Abraham.1 35. your father I am YHWH.11 15. They are brought together here. it should be further mentioned that a number of promise addresses are introduced by formulas in which the divinity presents itself.3 31.3 (31.3 15. your father. One must mention further in this context God's command to Abraham: 'Up. but there are pronouncements which. there are no explicit assurances of guidance in lapidary formulations in the Abraham story. if the stylized expression 'I am with you' draws something from this idea which it passes on to the other patriarchs. By way of conclusion to this resume.24 28.24 28. The command to go uses the same language as in 12. The Patriarchal Stories 67 show you'.17).
17. 'I will give it to you and to your seed for ever*. This situation is even more characteristic in 28. independent promise themes.22.214.171.124. 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'.1 The keyword 'seed' occurs in both sentences.5.10. 32.3. 18. we will begin again with the promise of the land. 48. 13 (cf. 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. The promise of increase occurs more often without other promises: 15. In 13. The promise of the land is found relatively seldom by itself. 16.10.2. is followed immediately by the promise of increase. 2. 'and I will make your seed like the dust of the earth'. 31.18. with the word 'seed' again in an 1 . 28. There is in some cases a characteristic combination of the promises of land and increase. the word 'seed' now stands in an emphatic position at the end of the promise of the land. cf. 13.13-14. each of the other promise themes occurs also by itself within a divine address. Consequently. 35.3.1) and in 15. In our investigation of the combinations of different. above 2. 24. and only in that group which belong together in the process of the formation of the tradition (12.3) that occurs always with other promise themes.3.7.20. it is only the promise of blessing (above 2. 15. The promise of increase follows immediately.3. for the most part it is joined to the theme of numerous posterity (promise of increase).15-16. the promise of the land.68 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch means used mechanically and that there was considerable variation in the individual formulations of the divine selfpredications.5 The combination of individual promise themes Among the individual themes of promise whose different formulations and variations we have examined and noted. 21.5. 42. The theme of guidance—given the overall frequency of its occurrence—is found alone for the most part: 31. it is resumed immediately at the beginning of the promise of increase.21).
in 35. and to your seed'.11-12. The text by and large is somewhat more compact and shows in addition an interesting shift of emphasis.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.1 The link appears even more clearly here as an explicit resumption of the key-word 'seed'. Finally.word 'seed' is not used. We are dealing here with those formulations of the promise of increase in which the key.word 'seed' binding the two. And so one can speak here of a gradual expansion of the promise. It is immediately clear. there is only 'to your seed'. . that the presuppositions here are different in many ways. 12. however. instead of the two-fold 'to you . in 28. there are the notions of 'nation' and 'assembly' as well as the verbs 'to be fruitful' and 'to increase'. The Patriarchal Stories 69 emphatic position at the beginning: 'And your seed will be like the dust of the earth'. the only two places where that image occurs.3-4. 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. 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'.3-4 too the promise of increase is at the beginning with the same terminology. In this respect therefore there is no immediate connection between the formulations of the promise of increase and the promise of the land. where explicit reference is made to the promise in 35. The sequence and the theme correspond in 48. Firstly.2. the word 'seed' is at the very end without any reference to the promise of increase. and certainly not 1 . The combination is reversed when the promise of increase precedes the promise of the land. and kings will go forth from your loins'. instead. a sort of link by association. It must be mentioned further that in both cases the promise of increase is formulated with the image of 'dust of the earth'. . the parallelism therefore is clearly discernible. the promise of the land follows at the end with the key. It follows without any explicit link in v. In these cases therefore we are dealing not with a gradual expansion of the promise.
1969. though the real theme is the promise of increase. 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.1 the real theme of this extensive promise address is the promise of increase. The reason is rather that these two promise themes were now regarded as belonging together. 2). One might describe this situation. 8) where. . but rather with the fitting together of two completely self-contained and independent elements. 2 Cf. Habilitationsschrift. and finally.13. as object of the divine 'covenant' with Abraham (v. The theme is unfolded in several layers: first. cf. the 'seed' offers the key-word for attaching the promise of the land (v. in contrast to 13. it stands at the very beginning of the (more detailed) formulation. 35. 17. without any immediate linguistic link. Heidelberg. then. Israel und das Land. 7). So ends the long divine address with the combination of different promise themes.2 the key-word 'covenant' is taken up anew and developed by bringing it into explicit relationship with the 'seed' (v.15 and 28. where a change of name from Jacob to Israel occurs likewise in a divine address. 42ff. Ch. Macholz. Vorarbeiten zu einem Vergleich zwischen Priesterschrift und deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. Genesis 17 belongs here too. in the other case. the promise of the land is attached to it. also Gen. in contrast to the former. and linked also with a promise of increase.70 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch with the resumption of a particular element by association.9-12. It is obvious that we are dealing here with a later stage 1 On Gen. then as the unfolding of the change of name (w. 5-6). pp. 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. There are therefore two clearly separate ways of combining the promise of the land and the promise of increase: in the one case. G. One gets the impression that the promise of the land was felt to be necessary here for completion. 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.
(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. 15-16).2. We must now go back again to the first group of texts. then we must assume: (1) that the assurance of guidance (v. In addition. and then drew with it the promise of increase. 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. 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. there is a further passage in the divine address (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. after the combination of the promise of the land and the promise of increase (w. Finally. crossing is a much more immediate and concrete way of taking possession than seeing (v. The Patriarchal Stories 71 where promise themes have been simply added. In the face of this assurance of guidance. Now if the view expounded above is correct. There is a sentence in v. Let us begin with ch. 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. v. 28. 18) which he must reach for the further continuation of the narrative. We must certainly ascribe the addition of these two promise themes to an overarching reworking of the patriarchal story. In this text too. 15) was the earliest part of the present context. 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. 17 presents the earliest stage of the promise of the land in the process . 13). 15). in contrast to the gradual growth and development of the themes in the course of the process of their being passed on. taking up the key-word 'seed'. it is concerned yet again with the promise of the land. (3) that this was expanded. Genesis 13 and 28. When we approach the text with the insights gained from Genesis 28. In both cases. namely that the promise of the land drew the promise of increase with it. 17). The situation is very similar in Genesis 13.
represents a later stage in the process of tradition than v.1 A promise of increase follows (v. see 2. nevertheless we can presume a similar process of growth for 13. inasmuch as the key-word 'seed' has not yet been added: 'I will give it to you'. plural. Even though the situation here is not quite as clearly discernible as in Genesis 28. The passage contains therefore a series of unusual elements. a formulation which elsewhere is all prevailing in deuteronomistic usage. Finally. Further. again with the plural reference to 'all these lands'. there. following our reflections. In any case. Finally. 4ad) according to which the 'seed' is to be like 'the stars in the sky*. 4 would also favour this. representing an intermediate stage in the history of the process of the development of the tradition.13-15. it is quite unusual for the promise of the land to be traced back to an 'oath' of God to Abraham. 2.3a).14-17 as for 28. yet another promise of the land is attached (v. the procedure is to be reck1 On the oath formula. The two-fold promise of the land is striking. . 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. 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. it is made to follow yet again. the plural occurs only here and in v. Then comes a promise of the land (v. hence. 5).72 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch of the history of the tradition. then.3 where the promise holds 'for you and your seed'. the passage concludes with the promise of blessing for others. it may be explained as follows: First.25. The version in v. but this time it is a promise to *your seed' only. 4 in the promise of the land in the patriarchal story. namely 26. The promise address begins with the assurance of guidance on which the promise of blessing follows immediately (w. and this.3b) in the form in which 'you and your seed' are brought together in immediate succession and not separated by the verb. 4b. only the 'seed' appears as the receiver of the promise. It is striking that the promise is directed to 'all these lands'.7 below. the promise of increase was understood as a consequence of the promise of the land. basing it in detail on Abraham's conduct (w. 4a).
Finally. despite great variety.13-15 too. likewise in 31. definite contours stand out. the promise of blessing follows at once on the assurance of guidance. The promise of blessing is not an independent promise element. and the promise of the land is linked with these by an emphatic *because'. the unusual formulations point to a stage of reworking which is not identical with most of the other promise addresses.17 the promise of the land follows it. Indeed. 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.3. There are then a number of possible combinations with the assurance of guidance. In the accounts of the divine guidance or the divine presence with Jacob. as Westermann has already shown. the 'blessing' in the form of wealth in herds is the consequence of the presence (31. 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. in 46. 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.3 the promise of increase is worked into the assurance of guidance: Tor there I will make you into a great nation'. according to our earlier observations. The Patriarchal Stories 73 oned as involving several stages. . 32. Synthesizing the results of our study of the combination of the different promise elements we see that. 42). In 28.5. especially in short. in 26. 1 Westermann. 15) is the first step in the expansion of the promise address.10-11. the addition of the promise of the land (v.2. where there is talk of God's 'prospering* Jacob and the visible expression which this finds in the increase of his possessions. In 26. then in 12. and in 13.24 the divine address contains only these two promise elements. 13b) to the assurance of guidance (v. We will return to this again. 'Arten'.2 the promise of increase again follows the assurance of guidance. p. Further. In some cases it is clearly linked with the promise of increase. If we include here the non-stylized statements of the Abraham story.
which now speak of the 'seed' as the receiver of the promise. cf. in combination with the promise of the land.74 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch stylized phrases as in 12. Likewise in 15. the other. formulated differently. In each of these cases the context is exclusively that of the promise of the land. more can be said about the function of the promise addresses in the patriarchal story. in some cases. 15. it is in a context stamped by deuteronomistic language. it is the reverse—the promise of the land is attached to the promise of increase.7.18. The promise of increase. Even when it is combined with the promise of blessing. on the other hand. that it grows out of the promise of the land. 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. nothing of importance is attached to it. And so we come to the question of the structure and composition of the patriarchal story and the over-arching . the promise of the land is the older in the process of the formation of the tradition. Finally. The promise of increase occurs rather frequently without the addition of other promise elements. in such cases. For the rest. in the relationships of the promise themes and formulations to each other. the promise of the land combines in a characteristic way with the assurance of guidance. the promise of the land is combined with the promise of increase in such a way that the latter. so as to round off the general theme of promise. on the one hand. in such cases. the promise of the land is not linked with other promise elements.4 The function of the promise addresses in the composition of the patriarchal story The question now arises whether.7: 'to your seed will I give this land'. It is scarcely by chance that we are concerned here with these brief formulations. associated with it by the key-word 'seed'. 2. relatively late in the process of the formation of the tradition. grows out of it.7. the promise of increase is earlier in the process of the formation of the tradition than the promise of the land. admits of two possibilities: the one. 24.
Jacob receives the divine command to return to the land of his fathers. in the closing address in v. the emphatic end-point of the theological interpretation of the Isaac story. a very complex and many layered picture. one at the beginning (26. p. 140. then. 12.3. 13). Both contain the element of the assurance of guidance. 31. It contains only two divine addresses. the other at the end (26. It marks the first decisive intervention in the life-story of Jacob—the flight to Haran. It is obvious here that the divine address with the theme 'guidance' is not part of the narrative.2. let us consider the Isaac story. though it be from Abraham's . 24. 3 It is to be noted that the term in Gen. 3) breaks the narrative thread which i resumed again in w. here it is the goal to which Jacob will return. 4-5 with the words from v. hence. cit. The theme appears yet again at the very end of the Jacob story: in 46. Both divine addresses begin with the phrase *YHWH appeared to him'. 7. as already noted in detail. only the promise of increase is there with the guidance. we find that w. the promise of the land stands underscored as the centrepiece.3 could also be understood in a future sense. they can well be elements of the theological reworking of the collection. however. 2 Cf. 2-5 present. 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. 'I am with you'.1 even though the language in which it is expressed takes a somewhat different form. The Patriarchal Stories 75 reworking.24) of the collection of Isaac traditions.4. Kessler. op.15.2-4.. In contrast. When we look at the content of the two addresses.2 It is there with all its force in the first divine address to Jacob in 28.3 is not used of the whole land as in Gen. Jacob is the subject of a divine address before he sets out 1 in 26. First.3 It is particularly striking here that the divine address (v. that besides the guidance. It is clear. The element of guidance plays an important role in the Jacob story as well. They form. It appears a second time and is underscored at the next turning point: in 31. Neither has any immediate connection with the narrative context.2-5). but serves the theological interpretation of the Jacob story in the context. i is the place whence Abraham set out. 2.1 and 24.
Of the promise elements.1). 12.9-12). to which again 1 a promise of the land has been attached. The Jacob story.. 2 Compare.76 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch for Egypt.12) with (17. its main content is the assurance of guidance on the journey. and the theological interpretation that goes with it. framed as it is by divine addresses. With regard to the content.13). as we have already seen. 22). At the conclusion. The instruction. are each marked out by a divine promise address. it is only the promise of increase that has been interwoven into the assurance of guidance (46. the Abraham story too begins with a narrative of guidance or. the theme of 'guidance'. The framework of the Jacob story. More exactly.. for example. rather it exhibits several stages or layers. which becomes divine guidance because of Abraham's obedience. the turning point. to the land that I will show you' (12. 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. Let us turn finally to the Abraham story. the second begins with the extensively elaborated promise of increase.19). The Jacob story. however. .3). 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. (35. Nevertheless. is not as fixed and formalized as with Isaac and Jacob. stands at the beginning and the end of the Abraham narrative. Yet another detailed divine address stands before the broadly developed Joseph story (35. There is a parallel to the Isaac story here. the beginning. has double conclusion. Here. and was elaborated first out of the promise of guidance. our analysis shows that the promise of the land is in the foreground in the first of the divine addresses (28. Following our observations so far. obviously did not take place at one stroke. therefore. with a divine address in which the element of guidance occupies a central place: 'Go forth from your country. more accurately.2 here too there are obvious linguistic links with Genesis 17. the promise of the land stands at 1 In v. is framed by these three assurances of guidance. and the end of his 'journey'.
8). 15.20. The Patriarchal Stories 77 the very beginning. 17.18). when Abraham is to set out 'to the land that I will show you' (12. 21.10. 17. 13.18.1). here too the promise of increase is emphasized at the conclusion. The nip'al form is found at the beginning of the Abraham story (12. brings the traditions about them together into one large unit. These verses underscore the close of the Abraham story. and then throughout the whole Abraham narrative. is obviously one of those passages of the framework such as we have encountered already in the Isaac and Jacob stories. and notably at the beginning. 16. A further element in the closing address must be mentioned here: the promise of blessing for others (22.18). It appears first with an introductory function in the Abraham story (12.12. which clearly extends beyond the limits of the narrative of the offering of Isaac.13. it is developed further as an 'oath' of YHWH. This 'addition'. It occurs once in each of the Isaac and Jacob stories.7.3) and in the Jacob story (28. in the first divine address to each of the patriarchs (26.2). The function of the divine addresses as framework and interpreters are once more clearly recognizable in this promise element. 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.5. The passage 22.4. that each of the three patriarchs is to be a blessing for the whole human race.7. 21. further. it is applied to Ishmael. 15.17. 13. This promise. with formulations which have been taken up again in the introductory passages of the Isaac story (26. For the rest.2.15. it is repeated in the citation in 18. the promise of the land is found particularly in the early chapters of the narrative (12. and it is found yet again at the close of the Abraham story (22. though not in the fixed and formalized form.15-18 is of special importance for our purpose.2-5).1 As in the other collections.14). 17 (passim).14). and then no more. 28.16.2). . 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.18.18. The promise of increase also occurs at the very beginning: 'I will make you into a great nation (12. We spoke earlier of the different linguistic formulas of the promise of blessing for others.
First.4).4 of'all nations of the world'. and which is rare in the Old Testament and is found only in these two places in Genesis. 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 Isaac story was added to them as a collection in its own right.3 and the promise described as the fulfilment ('maintenance') of the oath.14 speak of'all the clans of the earth'.18) and in the Isaac story (26. Each of the patriarchal stories had its own antecedent history.3 and 28. this statement is expanded in the deuteronomistic style. The reason is that Abraham listened to the voice of God. the divine 1 Talk of possessing the gate of one's enemies' in 22. In both cases the promise address comprises the promise of increase—using largely the same terminology1—and the promise of blessing for others. there. the gift of'all these lands' is assured. this oath is taken up explicitly in 26. the formulations in 12. especially between the conclusion of the Abraham and the Isaac stories.16 is introduced by a solemn oath formula.18 and 26.16-18 and 26. 12. and another reason was added which in both language and thought is close to that of Deuteronomy. . following our observations. A second phase saw the same promise element of blessing used to bind the Isaac tradition as well to the Abraham tradition.17 does not occur in 26.5. In contrast to the two other collections of narratives.78 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch form on the contrary at the conclusion of the Abraham story (22.3-5 is quite clear. But there is more in common. 22. Later.2 in 26. Corresponding to this. The assembling of the patriarchal stories therefore to form a larger unit took place in different stages. older from the point of view of the history of traditions than those in 22. And so the very tight link both in language and content between 22.24.14 are. introduced by a phrase which one might render by 'that is why9.3.4. 'in that'. 2 See also the phrase 'because of Abraham my servant' in 26.18 and 26. The whole of the divine address to Abraham in 22.3 and 28. the collections of the Abraham and Jacob stories that had a more markedly narrative form were joined together. later formulations were used here in the process of the formation of the tradition. In both cases the reason is given.
but the primary purpose is to emphasize the legitimate line of the posterity through Isaac in contrast to Ishmael. This must be investigated in further detail. However. there is only the brief remark in 21. there is talk only of the one son. the situation is somewhat different. First. which plays an important role in the Jacob story. there is no reference at all to a promise of increase in the sense of numerous posterity. In the Abraham story. promise addresses occur and serve only to construct the framework described.2.12: 'because your seed shall be named after Isaac'. because one can discern readily definite layers of tradition and reworking. As for the narrative account of the tradition of the birth of Ishmael. In the Jacob story too. up to a point. in which the Isaac story was brought in. whereas there is no talk here of numerous posterity. The key-word 'seed' is used here. And so the talk of the increase of . and in the process the element of guidance. the narrative of the promise of a son was not included in it. acquired a prominent place. here too one can always discern typical links with the other patriarchal stories. This means therefore that when the promise of posterity was developed further in the form of the promise of increase. The different promise elements were taken up into these speeches. even though. There are promise addresses here of broader compass whose function is more than constructing a framework. the promise of increase only became part of it at a later stage in the reworking. 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. we must take up an observation mentioned earlier. in the narrative of the promise of the birth of a son to Abraham and Sarah. 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. The Patriarchal Stories 79 promise addresses were not yet inserted into the narrative context but stood by themselves as independent speeches. This phase. With regard to Isaac. In the Isaac story. We begin with the promise of posterity. they have been brought somewhat more into the narrative context. their use is to be understood basically in the same way. The promise of the son occurs first in narrative form. In Genesis 18.
the same occurs in a very different sort of context in 17. that Ishmael is to become a (great) nation (21. This formulation does not occur again in the rest of the Abraham story.13.3. the promise of the son and the promise o increase are clearly separated. in the framework of the extension of the promise of the land to the promise of increase. or nations.18.1-6 as it now lies before us. there is the rather frequent statement. where the new name is explained in a word play as 'the father of a host Cab-hamon) of nations' (17. 22. This statement is heavily underscored in the framework of the alteration of 'Abram's' name to 'Abraham'. It is also said.18). at the conclusion of the Jacob story.2. By and large.4-5). 17). But it then moves on to speak of the abundance of posterity. First. It is noteworthy that this formulation.3. a text which is traditio-historically parallel. a great nation. and repeated.15-18 (v.2 and 18.13. as a single statement. 2-4).1-6. 2 See above under 2. from which the word 'seed' is missing. it occurs in the Isaac story in 26. making use of the image of the stars.3.16 where. therefore.2 The groupings here are again clearly different.80 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch descendants (seed) in 16. The situation is somewhat different in 15. that the posterity will become a nation. it is 1 See above under 2.18 (where it is expanded). A further expression of the promise of increase appears in 13. This text too begins with the promise of a son as an answer to Abraham's hesitant questions (w. Ishmael is to become a (great) nation.4. so that it is in this that one must look for the purpose of the text of 15.14. though it does in the Jacob story in 28. .20. The image of the stars is found again in the Abraham story only in the closing passage. there is no doubt that Isaac is in mind.5. There is another group of texts in which an increase to 'peoples' is promised.10 stands in a quite isolated divine address. occurs again in 46.1 Finally. The promise of the son therefore is developed further towards the promise of increase. Given the context of the Abraham story. in 21. for the rest. the multiplication of the 'seed' is to be like the dust of the earth. there is the single statement about a great nation in 12.
there has been a series of stages which.13-15. Here it is a matter of the assurance of the possession of the land after the separation from Lot. besides also D'D. . where Abraham is ordered to journey to the land which YHWH will show him. BHS.1.3 There is a further series of texts in which the promise of the land is likewise the consequence of the promise of increase. 2 So with the Sam and LXX. namely 15. We will have to reckon here with a gradual growth of the tradition. and then in the passage that frames the Jacob story (35. 16).3.3.912). fits nicely into this context. 11. it is the original announcement of the occupation of the land where Abraham is already living. II). where there is an accumulation of ideas. 2. 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. 'nation and an assembly of nations' (v.2. in part.5.7 11.1 The promise of increase has certainly not been developed at one stroke in the course of the reworking of the Abraham story. have had scarcely any connection with each other.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. Once again we must refer to the parallel texts in 28. First. cf.14-17.31 15.31.31 15.7-21. 3 See above under 2.4. The Patriarchal Stories 81 conceivable that the plural form 'nations' had its origin in this word play. 17. The orientation of the promise of the land is different in 13. outside the divine address in the form in 28. while the possession of the land is assured to the 'seed' as well. one must note carefully that this verse is formulated in quite obvious parallelism to 11. 48. where a corresponding assurance is given to Jacob. The plural occurs twice more in Genesis 17 (w. 12. 6.16. rather. 1 Gen.
Finally.7. one must always keep in mind that one is dealing here with a late stage in the process of formation of the tradition. in parallel passages about Sarah (17. Likewise. The same formula confirms the striking of the covenant in 15. For the rest. the formulation is notably different from 15. in the Jacob story. it is found twice more in the Abraham story in conjunction with the promise of increase.4. Here too one can recognize clearly a deliberate intention in the placing of the promise elements.16) and Ishmael (17. In the Abraham story it occurs. this is underscored by the brief to your seed will I give this land'. The citation of a divine address in 24. at the beginning (12. 35. In conclusion. cf. also 26.4.2) and at the end (126.96.36.199. with the same wording. before and after the journey to Haran (28. When Abraham takes possession of Shechem as a place of cult.3. Here.18. belongs here also. the place where it occurs is not without significance. in a series of passages where the real interest is the promise of increase. the promise of the land occurs in brief. 35. 48. However. and certainly not by chance. then again at the very end (48.3. let us add a few remarks on the promise of blessing.3) where there is talk of the blessing. and in precisely in the same places in the Isaac story (26. characteristic of these is that the promise is addressed only to the 'seed'. formalized sentences without any link with other promise elements. and outside the Abraham story in 28. the promise of the land has been added. This is the case in 17. Let us summarize: we have seen that the promise addresses have on the one hand gone through a varied and many-lay- .17).7 holds a similar emphatic position. the promise of the land itself is not the real theme. 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.82 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch We have already referred to this combination of the promises of increase and land.7 and belongs without doubt to a quite different stage in the process of formation.20).9). 24). We can reckon therefore with a stage in the process of the history of tradition in which. One could say then that the promise of the land in 12. We have discovered that it always occurs in combination with other promise elements.
a clearly stamped guidance narrative stands at the beginning (12. There can be no doubt therefore that the patriarchal stories present an independent larger unit which.2. The reworking did not take place at one stroke. 22). The Patriarchal Stories 83 ered process of development. Certain elements are particularly prominent. here. by means.1. in the course of the process of its formation. 12. The Abraham story too is determined by it. 31. 31.15. and blessing.2. there are still further passages to mention in which the divine guidance appears as a determining element (28.34). In these last two. 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. In the Isaac story.4. but on the other hand have been carefully and consciously made a part of the reworking and theological interpretation of the patriarchal stories.18) of the Abraham story. 42. It stands at the beginning (12. there is a close link between the guidance and the blessing for others.14). the element of guidance is in an emphatic position at the beginning of the two divine addresses which frame it (26. Likewise. posterity. 32.1 The blessing for others is a second promise element which joins together all three patriarchal stories. . It pervades and stamps the Jacob story also.1-9. 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. the intention and careful planning which have directed the process are in many cases clearly discernible. has been reworked in different stages and provided with theological interpretations. and at the beginning of each of the Isaac and Jacob stories (26. 28. however.10-11). 46.3. of a variety of links with the other promise themes—land. but shows signs of different stages and layers.2-3.5. see above under 2. and the divine promise addresses dominate both the reworking and the interpretation.1-3) and the end (ch. besides the divine addresses (28. 24).20.3) and at the end (22. These were obviously the two elements which had established themselves as stamping and covering comprehensively the patriarchal stories.
it is clear that the reworking has fitted these three collections together so as to form one composite whole. And this suggests that we direct the question first to the continuation of the patriarchal story in the book of Exodus. and that once again by means of the promise address. there are but two terms. determined by the same purposes and using the same means. 12.7). has undergone intensive reworking and theological interpretation.5 The absence of any definite reworking in Exodus-Numbers It has been shown that the patriarchal stories represent a selfcontained larger unit which.84 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch effect in the narratives.3. as a determining and characteristic element. are not found in the traditions of the book of Exodus. The prolific increase in numbers of the Israelites is mentioned in the very first verses of Exodus (1. in both its individual parts and as a whole. the contents of the promise addresses of Genesis scarcely occur and are not at all the centre point. A first result is a negative conclusion: the promise addresses. in the patriarchal story. 22. but there is no reference at all1 to the constantly repeated promise of increase 1 In the very redundant Exod. The question now arises whether one can demonstrate a reworking.14 (Jacob).7. holds for the whole of the patriarchal story.18 (Abraham). while in the Isaac story it appears only in the two divine addresses without any reference to the context. for the rest of the Pentateuch as well. not very specific. which stands as a signature tune (Motto) at the beginning of the Abraham story. referring to the increase of the Israelites. But before all else. This is clear at once in the passages where themes occur which. 28.4 (Isaac). belong to the content of the promise addresses. in the Jacob story it shows itself as an element of the composition. 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. 1. which have already occurred in the promise of increase in the book of Genesis. . in particular. Thus one can see that this promise. 26. The direct divine address is used far less often than in the patriarchal story. 2.
nevertheless.2. The situation is even more striking with the first mention of the land into which it has been proclaimed. . 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. the home of the Canaanites. the Israelites are to journey after they have been rescued from slavery in Egypt. 50. In Gen. One would expect that this promise would be taken up in Exodus 3. Westermann. and instead. into a land that flows with milk and honey. 15. 'Arten'.3. In Gen. The Patriarchal Stories 85 addressed to the fathers.2 Following the terminology of the promise of the land in Genesis. And so the silence about these links in Exodus 3 is all the more striking. 2 Cf. those addressed here would be the 'seed' for whom the promise holds good. Fohrer-Sellin. 27. the Hittites.2.8). the Perizzites. they are to return to the land promised them. pp. The text reads: 'I will lead you into a good. 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. Isaac. the Amorites. This text stands in splendid isolation within the patriarchal story. It is not. the Hivites. and Jacob'. 1 Cf. and more. 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. as a land that is the home of foreign nations. broad land. 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. But they are not spoken to as such. at a time determined by God. p.1 of which the author is obviously not aware. references to the patriarchal story are not the verbs and see above under 2. However. Introduction to the Old Testament. 124f.24. and the Jebusites' (3.13-16. the land is introduced as something entirely new. The land is introduced here as an unknown land. 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.
4). the assurance of God's presence has been taken up from 17.24.7. The reference back to the patriarchal story is obvious.7 in a somewhat adapted formulation (v. The word 'covenant' is there again. Macholz.8. 17. In the former. .23-25. it is a matter of a resumption of those formulations which. the theme 'covenant' is developed extensively. 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. where there is likewise reference back to the promises to the patriarchs. see above under 2. 8). with Isaac. it is once more stated expressly that God will lead the Israelites into the land that he has solemnly promised to give to Abraham. In Exod.86 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch entirely lacking.2-9. 6. The land is described as the 'land of Canaan' and 'the land of sojourning(s)' (Exod. Isaac. in the latter.18). 2. and moreover. The text reads: Then God remembered the covenant with Abraham.1). belong to the latest in the process of the formation of the tradition. but not by way of resuming one of the promise elements. there is a transition piece between the story of Moses' youth and the following traditions about his call and the leading out of Egypt. and Jacob (v. and with Jacob' (v. n. 17. 3. which has no immediate connection with the narrative context. it is the land that is mentioned as the content of the divine self-obligation (15. it is rather by mention of the 'covenant' that God made with the patriarchs. it stands outside the narrative context in an independent narrative address. 2. nothing is said about the content of the covenant obligation. The formulation corresponds to that in Gen. and with the addition of the assurance 'to be your God and the God of your descendants after you' (17. there is a very extensive divine address. one might perhaps conclude that the author had in mind some sort of general statement. cf. 7). 6. but only in explicit relationship to the promise of the land. within the patriarchal stories. In Exod. 141a. Only in Genesis 15 and 17 is there talk of this 'covenant'. In Exod. than a concrete promise. 24). This is a reference back to the patriarchal story. Ch.3. with the whole range of promises sounding.5. . rather like Gen.1 At the end of the divine address. n. However. Further.
24.2 The reference therefore is to a layer of tradition in the patriarchal story which is relatively late and by no means central. The prescriptions in both cases refer to the period after YHWH will have led the Israelites into the land. with certain differences in the formulation. 24. and Israel.7. The address of YHWH to Moses in Exod.16-17 with the oath that YHWH swore by himself and the promise of increase under the image of the stars. Isaac.7. One can recognize again 1 For the connection with the tradition in Exod.8. and Jacob: to your seed I will give it'. there is extensive reference to the promises to the patriarchs: 'Remember Abraham. after the people had sinned by making the golden calf. the promise of the land.7. 2 Further detail see below under 2. and the whole of this land of which I have spoken to you I will give to your seed. especially to the promise of the land. missing in Genesis 22. And so it is a matter of the two passages in which. in the patriarchal story.11). 50. 22. it refers not to the promise of the land but to the promise of increase. In each case it is said of the land.* In these places. the citation of the divine address to that in Gen. is added here. and they will take possession of it for ever' (32.1 reads: TJp. There is a clear echo of Gen.13).24). Isaac. though quite sporadic.16 and 26. . your servants to whom you swore by yourself and to whom you spoke: I will increase your seed like the stars of heaven. 33. 22. 3. see below under 2. however. In the prayer of Moses. Exodus 13 contains cultic prescriptions about the eating of the unleavened bread and the offering of the firstborn. to the land of which I swore to Abraham. The Patriarchal Stories 87 process. The address corresponds almost word for word to that of Joseph in Gen.7. 50. There is talk here of the oath which is found in the patriarchal stories in Gen. whereas it occurs in connection with the promise of the land only twice outside the divine address (Gen. go on your way from here.2. that it is that which YHWH swore to the patriarchs to give to the Israelites (w. 5.24. where there are references to the promises to the patriarchs.3. God's oath is joined with the promise of the land. There are some further places. you and your people whom you have lead out of the land of Egypt.
has appeared to you' (4.6). the question of the identity of the God who appeared to Moses with the God of the patriarchs.5). And finally. and none other than the God of the patriarchs Abraham. God's presentation of himself as the God of the father . Instead. This latter question plays no explicit role in the patriarchal stories. he is to do so 'in order that they may believe that YHWH. when Moses has to justify himself before the Israelites. more precisely. The very first of YHWH's addresses to Moses reads: 'I am the God of your father. and the contents of the promises are not mentioned. and the God of Jacob. Isaac. has appeared to me. the God of the patriarchs takes the central position. 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. when Moses has to justify himself by signs. and Jacob' (v. 16). as one would expect from the patriarchal stories. and Jacob. There is alongside this another group of explicit references back to the patriarchal story in which the 'God of the fathers' is mentioned. the God of your fathers. it is a continuity of God's revelation. But the reworking did not find its way into the narrative substance. and the God of Jacob' (3. Both are here brought into relationship with each other in a new way and with a new posing of the question. Isaac. The patriarchs are not now spoken of as receivers of the promise. 15). the God of Abraham. They are stacked together in Exodus 3 and following.88 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch and again from the different passages throughout the book of Exodus isolated references back to the patriarchal story. the God of Isaac. the God of Isaac. But it is not a continuity of the contents of the promises. the God of Abraham. The consequence of this is an entirely new relationship between the Moses tradition and the tradition of the patriarchs. he refers to 'the God of your fathers [who] has sent me to you' (v. and he is to bear the good news of YHWH to the Israelites with the opening words: *YHWH. Then. There was clearly a layer of reworking which joined the two complexes of tradition together. The identity of YHWH with the God of the fathers is the central question here. It is a question of continuity. the God of Abraham. the God of their fathers. rather it has the mark of a relatively late layer in the process of formation.
besides the divine address. and does not take up a topic already at hand there. In the basic stage of their formation and reworking. when taking up this episode in 32. 2 Cf. talk of the God of the fathers.2 It is of particular importance to have established that there are here other questions than those in the patriarchal stories which are determinative.3 to Jacob). there is no reference at all to the corresponding promise themes in the patriarchal stories. 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. 15. . 18.24 to Isaac.7) and with the first mention of the land into which YHWH will lead the Israelites (3. In Exodus 3-4. further Exod.8). Further.3 Hence.5. and Jacob... 32. says.2. This goes together with the observation that with the information about the prolific increase of the people (Exod. 1 It is only here that the divine name YHWH occurs when God is addressing himself to one of the patriarchs. In 46. 28.10).10 (Eng. the God of the patriarch (Jacob) presents himself as "?«n. 46. 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. 9). these two traditions obviously did not belong together.13)1 and twice in connection with the formula 'Fear not' together with an assurance of guidance (26.2. 3 See above under 2. and that likewise almost entirely in connection with statements about the guidance of Jacob by YHWH (31. 42. The Patriarchal Stories 89 or fathers occurs once in connection with the promise of the land to Jacob (Gen. 29. within which the author or redactor wants the questions to be understood. rather it looks back to the patriarchal stories with a different formulation of the question. Accordingly.4.3. the inevitable conclusion: the Moses tradition has been reworked and interpreted from entirely different points of view than the patriarchal stories. in the Jacob story there is. this reference back to the patriarchal stories is not something that arose out of the stories themselves. talk of the God of the fathers has acquired a new function which it did not have in the patriarchal stories.5 (beginning). 1.
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.1. Now they experience this themselves. It is clear that Exodus 1—4 has been composed as a relatively self-contained unit.5 Just a few remarks may now be made on the composition of the Moses narratives. 192 = p. who speaks of a 'tighter arrangement of events' with regard to Exod. as we have tried to do for the patriarchal stories. p. 3 Op. 326). the statement of the "belief of the Israelites is taken up by way of conclusion in 14. EvTh 28 (1968) 301-28. 'the tight inner coherence of the narrative in Ex 1-14'4 is striking. 192-93 = pp. the basic element of the divine addresses does not appear in the Moses tradition.31.. pp. First. Hermann. and they would have to be quite different because.31 has clearly several functions: first. 582. 9): 'the people believed'. also S. (p.. Finally.27b). as we have seen. 2 Op. 18998. 8. EvTh 31 (1971) 579-88 = Gesammelte Studien zum Alien Testament 2. 582-83. but on the Israelites 1 'Beobachtungen an der Moseerzahlung Exodus 1-14'. by and large. cit. they bow down in worship. The conclusion in 4. the presuppositions are essentially other. cit. of 'developed narrative units'. And more.3 In contrast.90 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 2. pp. it brings to a close the question whether the Israelites will "believe' Moses 4.2 This is in accord with the absence. 1973. rather we have to do at most with 'motifs' (Sagenmotiven). 'Mose'. 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. cit. the methodological criteria would have to be worked out.25) the Israelites and their distress. The verses 2.2325 mark the decisive turning point: God hears the cry of the oppressed Israelites and takes heed of it. then it takes up the statement that God 'saw' (2. Von Rad has indicated briefly1 that one can scarcely speak of stories (Sagen) in the proper sense in the Moses-tradition. . p. Iff. 193 = p. 4 Op.. Their belief is no longer based merely on the proclamation of rescue by Moses.583. 5 Cf. 5.
YHWH says to Moses: 'your people. cit. 2 Account is not taken here of references which occur within the legal material and the uncontestably priestly layer of the Sinai passage.5 The link with the promises to the patriarchs 1 Cf. The Israelites say: 'As for this fellow Moses. Here. The Patriarchal Stories 91 having 'seen' what YHWH has done. ZAW 86 (1974) 425-53. The references in Exodus 32 are more concrete. There is only a very general reference here to the event of the Exodus. 8). Moses uses the same formulation about YHWH (v. One can discern then a clear connection between the composition of Exodus 1-4 and the overall composition of Exodus 1—14. op. II). 33. go on from here.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. 32. 198 = p. the situation in Exod.1-3 is interesting. 4. 3 of the image of the golden calf they say: 'these are your gods. the people you brought out from the land of Egypt' (v. 4 See above under 2. 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. who brought us out of the land of Egypt' (w. 'Die Herausfuhrungsformel—Zum Verhaltnis von Formel und Syntax'. 5 Cf. Israel. 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. cf. No particular demonstration is needed to show that the Sinai passage is an independent larger unit.5.. W.7. 12 the verb (Hip'il) is used instead of (hip'il). comes the broad reference to the promises to the patriarchs (v. p. . Exod. 19. you and your people whom you have brought out of the land of Egypt'. to kill them on the mountains and to wipe them from the face of the earth?' Then. von Rad.4).1 But these questions must be pursued further. Gross. YHWH commands Moses to set out with the words: 'Up. On the problem of the difference between these two verbs in the 'formula of leading out'.2. 1. 23). 588. 3 Here and in v. that brought you out from Egypt' (w. 13). Express cross references to the preceding complexes of tradition occur only in isolation.4 Finally. attached to this. 7).
primarily.2-4. dangerous situation in the desert and the comparatively much better position in Egypt." .2 The passage is characterized by a striking mingling of traditions. 18. 2 Verse 2. it is spoken of in the same way as we have known it from the beginning of the Moses narrative.4.3 [cf. 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. and YHWH announces the expulsion of the nations living there. In the narratives about Israel's stay in the desert. One rather gets the impression that the tradition of the 'murmuring' of the Israelites contained this element right from the beginning. w.5.8.13. and Jacob: to your seed will I give it'. It must be said that in general. 3). and so bring to the fore the accusations against Moses (and Aaron) (Exod. 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. 11. see above under 1. 20. 16.3. 3. Its function is. 16. It is clearly something more than mere passing references or after-thoughts. only the sequence 'Amorites. 17.1 Then. 3 On the question whether ch. the leading out from Egypt is mentioned often in connection with the 'murmuring' of the people. 20. The land is described as 'the land that flows with milk and honey' (v.92 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch follows immediately on this reference back to the leading out from Egypt: 'to the land of which I swore to Abraham.4-5. and with that striking absence of any connection with the patriarchal story. 32]. This does not in any way mean that the two complexes of tradition must have been related to each other originally. 14. 3. enumerating them in almost the same terms as in Exod. there is more about the land into which Moses is to lead the Israelites. to set in relief the contrast between the present. 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. Num.5. this holds too for the references to the patriarchal story. Hittites' is the reverse of Exod. 21.8.6. 21 belongs to the desert or occupation of the land tradition.53). Isaac.
in an address of YHWH. the 'signs' which he had done in Egypt and in the desert (!) are referred to (Num. whereas its real significance as a historical and saving action of YHWH for Israel is scarcely mentioned. as well as Exod. It is scarcely possible to glean from the texts that the leading out was a saving action of YHWH for Israel. cf.12. The Patriarchal Stories 93 the Israelites. the leading out from Egypt is mentioned 1 On the other hand. Exod. 16a).8.15. and he heard our voice and sent an angel and led us out from Egypt' (Num. The second combines the traditions: immediately before. as a whole. that in a limited sense. 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. at the same time been a notable shift of emphasis. 18. There has. and hence.2 Here. 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. 18. In both cases the reference is to the 'oath' that YHWH swore to the patriarchs that he would give them the land (Num. In the narratives of the occupation of the land in the book of Numbers. The first occurs without any links within an address of Moses to YHWH. Then we cried out to YHWH. 14. The narratives of Israel's stay in the desert have not.6.13. 20.2.22). been brought into an inner harmony with the traditions preceding them. 14.1 There are only two places in this complex of tradition where there are references to the patriarchal stories. The Egyptians treated us and our fathers badly. 19. Num. 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 reference to the leading out from Egypt serves only as a contrast to the present situation. 22.23). 2 Moses' message opens in v. so resuming a formulation already used in Exod. however. . 11. 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. there is some dependence in the process of the formation of the tradition. 14. 14 with reference to the 'ill-treatment' that 'befell' the Israelites. 16.
And so only isolated references to the exodus tradition and to the patriarchal stories occur in this context.8. These are mentioned explicitly within the same context and by name: 'None of the men who came up out of Egypt. The notion of 'fathers' has shifted. Jacob. one cannot speak of any real connection with the larger units of tradition that have preceded. 26. This passage joins together the traditions of the promise of the land to the patriarchs and of the leading out from Egypt. 33. 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. The cross references. 2. But here too. But no comprehensive reworking which shapes the whole into a unit is immediately . And further.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.11). are to see the land which I swore to Abraham. introductions to lists..94 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch together with the history that preceded it. in the context of the leading out from Egypt. In Num. 32.1 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'. The relationship to the different traditions is clearly quite disjointed in this chapter. there are two further places. do not as a rule belong to the real narrative substance of the individual units. however. and in Num.. which appear everywhere. Finally.4 the lists of the tribes and clans is introduced: 'These are the Israelites who came out from Egypt'. making any concrete narrative connection. though there is nothing more precise as to who is meant by the 'fathers' who went down into Egypt. the passage speaks of an angel and not of Moses. where the leading out from Egypt is mentioned: in Num. it evokes no association at all with the patriarchs of whom Genesis speaks. and Isaac' (32. 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.
16. however. show a very thorough reworking in which a theological intent arranging them was clearly at work. 1967. 22. It appears. Rather.3. would be in no wise discernible. Talk of YHWH's oath is not very deeply anchored in the patriarchal stories. It is noteworthy that the mention of YHWH's oath in 22. But this theological intent is not discernible in the same way for the Pentateuch as a whole. p. there emerges one particular group of texts to which we must give somewhat more careful attention.16. Die Landverheissung als Eid. 3. Gen. however. 50.16 does not appear in a fixed formula as in the majority of other cases. 2 See below. and Jacob'.31. The Patriarchal Stories 95 evident. Gen.2. This is all the more striking because the patriarchal stories which we have examined closely as examples. in two texts which are important for the composition of the patriarchal story as a whole. . they are all concerned with one thing—that YHWH swore to the patriarchs that he would give the land to them. YHWH's address (i. Isaac. but it has already become quite obvious that it will have to be of a different kind from that of the patriarchal stories. 15. 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. through the mal'ak 1 For . cf. which encompasses the different larger units. Lohfink. 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.e.24 anticipates the exodus story. Among the cross-references mentioned. that an over-arching reworking of the Pentateuch. The reworking and arrangement of the remaining units requires still more careful study. This does not mean. 4. 26. also N.2 here. In other words: the theological arrangement of the patriarchal stories is not to be equated with the theological arrangement of the Pentateuch. see also Exod. 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.
a fourth passage needs to be mentioned. 50. The situation is not entirely clear in 26. The passage of course is linked with 22.. 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.16.24 therefore has not developed immediately out of the Abraham story as it lies before us.2 The words 'I will fulfil the oath that I swore to your father Abraham'. and Lev. 50. Jer. Gen.5. 22. the God of heaven . 14.).24. and which has obviously been added subsequently to the body of the Abraham stories. It occurs in the context of a narrative which is relatively late. 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'. so important for the composition of the Abraham story as a whole.7. But what is most important is that it has the function of a transition piece in the place in which it stands. can refer only to 22.1 The reason for this is then given.17. and 11 x in Ezek. there is talk of YHWH's oath.. where there is a clear connection between YHWH's oath and the promise of the land: *YHWH. One can scarcely see here a connection with the promise of the land where the formulations are quite different. 50. The passage about the oath is framed by the double promise of the land (w. 1 .16 in the process of formation of the tradition.18. and appears again only in Num. 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. linked with (as in Isa. 49. elsewhere only in Jer. 24.24.. namely Abraham's comportment in the preceding story of the offering of Isaac. 22. who spoke to me and swore to me: to your seed will I give this land'. Finally. It joins the patriarchal story to the following traditions.24. Gen.16 is the only attestation of in the book of Genesis.4. it is completely absent from Exod. 3b and 4a ). The formulation of Gen. The formulation is close to that in Gen. 2 See above under 2. but without any connection with the promise of the land.96 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch YHWH) is introduced by the phrase: *By my own self I swear*. We can only conclude that in this passage.3. 22.28. One can see here a step in the direction of the formulation in Gen.
. 5. one must remember that the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt has been mentioned immediately beforehand (12.19) with express reference back to Gen. which. As for their function. 3. And I will 1 On see above. What follows in ch.8. 13) in the prescriptions about the unleavened bread. 50. so that what is said reaches far beyond the ambit of ritual prescriptions. first occurrence).1-3a: Then YHWH spoke to Moses: Up. Isaac. an intent directing the composition. the oath of YHWH to the patriarchs is mentioned twice (w. 3-10 about the leading out from Egypt and of the imminent leading into the land promised by YHWH. to the land which I swore to Abraham. In Exodus 13. It provides a link. In v. namely that what was announced in Gen. 13 is concerned in content with the prescriptions about the unleavened bread.1 This then is the obvious place where the link with the last words of Joseph could.51). The command to Moses to set out is given in Exod. 33. The next example does not appear. there is much talk in w.2. 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. and had to be made. as we have seen. It could then very well be that one can detect in the express mention of the promise of the land in this place. you and the people you have led out from the land of Egypt. 'which he swore to your fathers to give you'. 50. therefore. The formulation therefore presupposes both traditions. the formalized description of the land. depart from here. 1. and with the description of it as a land flowing with milk and honey'. is not present in the two units of tradition themselves. each time with explicit reference to the promise of the land. is joined with the enumeration of the foreign nations who now occupy it (Exod. at first sight.5. and Jacob: to your seed I will give it. 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. to give any grounds for thinking that it has a corresponding function in the over-arching composition.24 is beginning to be fulfilled. p. The Patriarchal Stories 97 in particular to the narrative of the leading out from Egypt. 95 n. nevertheless.25. Seen from this point of view.
The reference to the promise of the land in the prayer of Moses in Exod. with the exception of Caleb (14. 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.98 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch send an angel before you.11-15. 22. Gen. 32. 24.7. in the context of the promise of increase. the Perizzites.13 is also to be seen in this context. and once again YHWH's oath is recalled in the same concise form (v. among many other things. the realization of the promise is put in question: YHWH declares that not one of the desert generation is to see the promised land. So then. and the Jebusites—to a land flowing with milk and honey'. 2 On (Gen. besides. 14-15). 32. YHWH's oath is mentioned here. as the God who made the promise of the land. Moses gives expression to his doubts.1 and I will drive out the Canaanites. where Abraham requests that YHWH. in however concise a form ('the land which you swore to their fathers'). . the promise of the land is again mentioned and confirmed when the journey is resumed. The links with the oath in Gen. with YHWH's express decision in Exod. the Hittites. 23).11-14. We find the same traditions joined together here as in Exod. After Moses' intervention in Exod.10 to annihilate the people. These two passages then complement each other.22-24).1-3). would send his angel before Eliezer.16-17 are once again clear. whom he describes.16). as in Gen. 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. 22. so Moses intercedes and counters YHWH with his very own promises. 22. after a break in the journey by a stop at Sinai. 11. In the episode of the scouts in Numbers 13-14 also. In the prayer in Num. 'the stars of heaven' are mentioned. the Amorites. YHWH himself resumes the promise of the land to the patriarchs in his command to journey on (33. at the same time it is said that this journey to the land constitutes the realization of this promise. 32.15.2 The function of this cross reference at this place could be that. (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. the fulfilment of the promises to the patriarchs would have become impossible. the Hivites. 13.
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'. cit. 2 N. One usually calls the layer of reworking of which we are speaking here 'deuteronomistic' or more recently 'early deuteronomic'2 or 'protodeuteronomic'. cit. p.23!]). 17-18 with n. Ploger. it must be first explored. 14. 33. and the command of YHWH to Moses in Exod.. 445. . 30. The land is described as quite unknown. 50.24: (Exod. It has been shown that this reworking has left the texts at hand essentially unchanged and has inserted interpretative additions at definite places. 50. strange. esp. 67. 32. It 1 K. Both passages join the patriarchal stories with the traditions which tell of the journey of the Israelites from Egypt back into the promised land. and dangerous. ZAW 82 (1970) 442-46. pp. Hos.3 In any case. that is. 3 J. 1.1 and at the same time clamp together all Pentateuch traditions under one allembracing theme: YHWH has given the land to the Israelites..24 that YHWH will bring the Israelites back into the land promised to the patriarchs. there is not a word [except in Num. op.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. op. 2.2): "Sich des Landes bemachtigen"?. Two passages are of particular importance for the composition as a whole: the announcement by Joseph in Gen. it is a matter of a reworking which in its ideas and language is closely related to Deuteronomy.2. Rupprecht also supports this function for Gen.1-3a at which the real journey into the promised land begins. The Patriarchal Stories 99 the promise of the land to thw patriarchs.10. but have merely made clear at certain decisive places the guiding point of view under which the whole is to be understood. that the patriarchs had already lived there for a long time and that YHWH had promised them possession of it—of all this. these words of YHWH are cited again in Num. Finally. Lohfink. they belong to a layer of reworking which has not penetrated into the substance of the narratives themselves.
100 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch presupposes therefore the present text more or less in the form in which it lies before us. .
1 See above under 1. recent pentateuchal research puts the question of the 'sources' in the sense of the documentary hypothesis. 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. 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.3. 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. take the documentary hypothesis as the virtually uncontested point of departure for their work. across the larger literary complexes. and their interest in the most precise understanding of the nature and theological purposes of the individual written sources seems undisturbed.Chapter 3 CRITICISM OF PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM The question now arises whether. right up to its present and final stage.1 Hence. this is the place to ask if this assumption is justified. . 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. 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. apart from this reworking with its deuteronomic stamp. the individual. At the same time.
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. i. does the chief source of the Pentateuch. 4 Einleitung in das Alte Testament. There is also the standard.'1 This sounds like the final result of a long development. 5. p. English.3 Fohrer represents the view noted in the parenthesis. 3 E. 44.1 The present state of pentateuchal criticism One reads in the latest German 'Introduction to the Old Testament' by Otto Kaiser: 'The sources are. the 3rd edition of which is not much older than the two mentioned. circulating in German and contemporaneous with Kaiser's book an 'Introduction' by Georg Fohrer. Introduction to the Old Testament (London: SPCK. on the whole definitively separated. 1975). but calls the second source the 'lay course'.e. The sources are. of a first and second Yahwist. accepted by Kaiser and many others. p. 1970 (2nd edn). Einleitung in das Alte Testament. the Yahwist. 2 Emphasis added. see below p. Fohrer. 107 n.102 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 3. 1969 (llth edn). discussed earlier. contains a parenthesis. 1970 edn (and incorporating further revisions by the author to 1973 (Oxford: Blackwell. prescinding from the problem. actually exist or must two sources in fact be accepted in its place. after all. 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. and the author obviously wants it to be understood as such. .4 he likewise divides the Tahwist'. of the theological significance of the Yahwist depend on it? There is. 1969. English version of Introduction to the Old Testament. 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'. 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. completely revised and rewritten. however. comprehensive 'Introduction' by Otto Eissfeldt. 5th edn. 1984. 48. The sentence. 1964 (3rd edn) English.. 1970) trans. on the whole definitively separated'. Sellin-G.. David Green. not yet finally explained.2 The reader must pause here: Is the question.
223-24.. 23. 580. 4 Fohrsr. Kaiser. Introduction. while others on the contrary maintain that it once existed as an independent work. 190 = p.9. The same holds. 152. with the appropriate adaptations. as Eissfeldt puts it: the latest documentary hypothesis'. 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. 3 So H. Schmidt cites C. 2 German edn.4 Here too the methodology used is inadequate to arrive at a final explanation. The situation is still more complex here inasmuch as not a few scholars contest the existence of an independent 'elohistic' source. Steuer1 Fohrer is one of these. though he prefers to speak of 'source-layers' rather than of 'sources'. . 124-25. pp. 'The Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch' in Interpretation 26 (1972) 158-73.2 One must say then that in one decisive and basic question. German edn.H. 3 still others think that one should consider the 'Elohist' 'as an originally independent and for the most part preserved source layer'. source criticism has not led to a definitive conclusion. par. 91ff. See op. from the time that Wellhausen formulated the now widely accepted documentary hypothesis. 1974.5 When considering the first part of the book. but is preserved only in fragments (so that it is better to speak of 'elohistic fragments'). Wolff.3. there have been distinguished scholars who have constantly supported the division of this oldest pentateuchal source. p. for the 'Elohist'. p. pp.W. great uncertainty dominates the separation of these two or three sources. As an example. Schmidt. pp. 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. Criticism of Pentaieuchal Criticism 103 division. 5 Exodus. one may cite the most recent commentary on the book of Exodus by W. Introduction. As a consequence. 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'. cit. the first fascicule of which appeared in 1974. But one cannot thereby get rid of the fact that.
Willis from Swedish.3 But further. J. cit. 59. It is certainly true that there is broad agreement in working out a layer of tradition within the Pentateuch which.4 But there are basic differences of opinion when it comes to determining further the nature of this layer and establishing its intent. in style and content. p. there is often great uncertainty in separating J from E. p.6 Noth represents an opinion which is the complete opposite of 1 Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament.... p.104 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch nagel who wrote: 'Complete certainty has been reached in separating out P. p. 2 Op. 53). cit.5 He writes: 'A characteristic of the content of P is the tight link between historical narrative and law. trans. 5 Fohrer. 1912. can be described as 'priestly'. 183 . p. The survey that follows therefore claims only a limited degree of probability. op. 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. 4 Op. Engnell has expressed in withering words how this situation is to be judged: 'In reality. 146.2 Nothing essential then has changed in this uncertainty for half a century.T.. 8. cit. On the contrary. one can only describe such a statement as wishful thinking.. 3 I. Even so passionate an opponent of classical source criticism as Engnell acknowledges this. 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. and many a time one has to renounce completely any separation of J and E as too uncertain'. 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'. 1970. pp. amounts to a complete dissolution of the entire system by the very scholars who defend it' (Critical Essays on the Old Testament.1 Schmidt observes that this characterizes 'the state of research into the book of Exodus which remains basically unaltered up to the present da/. 183 6 Op. The two are bound together inseparably'. the development of the literary-critical approach in the period following Wellhausen's classical formulation .. cit.
10. which legal texts are to be regarded as original constituent parts of the 'priestly writing* and. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 105 this. cit. very different answers are given to the question. of course. there can be no talk at all of unanimity here. 10. 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. They should be given some sort of neutral sign. by necessity also a variety of views on the nature and intent of this source or layer. in Fohrer's opinion. p. 15. However. one can scarcely maintain that the symbol T' really means the same in both cases. . though with some further precision. cit..3 while Kaiser wants to use it for the legislative material' which has been attached secondarily to the basic narrative. 10 3 Op. He wants to separate the legal components completely from the narrative. There is a variety of views on the question. p.3. 2 Op. each provided with yet another letter qualifying P. p. n. One must prescind entirely from these passages when dealing with the P narrative'. Between these two extreme positions there is an abundance of attempts to make distinctions within the P material.1 This can only mean that Noth contests that a notable amount of material which. 4 Op. the literature offers a veritable host of designations for these legal parts. s = secondary). 103. Noth will have the symbol used only for additions to the P-narrative. 1 A History. p. can be assigned to P 'with broad unanimity'.4 For the rest. Faced with this. what is to be understood under T8>.. Hence. cit.. 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. He even goes so far as to reject utterly the designation *F for the legal parts. The most popular view distinguishes a *basic narrative' or the like (Pg) from parts added later (P8. A survey of the present state of pentateuchal study leads to the conclusion that adherents to the documentary hypothesis generally acknowledge only two things.2 belongs to this source or layer.
There has been no essential change in the arguments and counter-arguments for the delimitation of the sources not O0nly since 1912. however. What is often presented as the 'triumph' of the documentary hypothesis since Wellhausen is basically but two things: (1) since then.H. it is accepted that the Pentateuch is assembled from several continuous 'documents' or 'sources'. In face of this. Schmidt has noted. but looking across the broad spectrum of current OT scholarship. Pentateuchal research. there is. which reckons not with sources extending from the beginning to the end of the Pentateuch. therefore. fragments. the 'priestly document' has normally been regarded as the latest of the pentateuchal sources. that these two hypotheses have had virtually no support since the middle of the 19th century. quoted by H. 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. DBS.e. i.106 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 1. but only with individual. no agreement as to its more precise purpose nor as to which texts are to be assigned to its basic content. long before Wellhausen. One must add. is far less unanimous than is often maintained. Gazelles. there still remains a variety of different opinions. 791. VII. and the 'complementary hypothesis'. (2) Since Wellhausen. but nogreement as to their number. besides. there is a priestly layer in the Pentateuch. . Holzinger1 in 1893 are still represented today by individual exegetes. the 'documentary hypothesis' has been supported almost exclusively. 2. and certain scholars or groups of scholars have shifted the emphasis in their statement of the question. 1893. 1966. their delimitation. more or less extensive. col. in fact. however. i. There have certainly been new positions in addition. one or several more sources or layers. and their relationship to each other. the 1 Einleitung in das Hexateuch. but since the end of the previous century. and a glance over its history shows that it was ever so. according to which there was one basic document which was complemented by all sorts of other material. there is. as W.e. Tentateuque'. the other hypotheses proposed in the course of the 19th century have receded into the background: the 'fragmentary hypothesis'. Most of the positions assembled by H.
4 O. Wagner presented his views: "Pentateuchal Criticism: No Clear Future"'. 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. LohfET. esp... Engnell. 13-19(15). Creenberg from Hebrew. IV. has taken the narrative material in essence from the Yahwist. 1974. ed. 1960.. The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch.E. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism s 107 Eeuss-Graf-Kuenen~Wellhausen-hypothesis' has prevailed to such an extent that. Gazelles^ who wrote not so long ago: 'The present state would justify the title under which N. . Let us cite only such a brilliant interpreter of pentateuchal research as H. 153ff. Haha. 4 Ibid. 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. Others go farther. op. W. which necessarily has repercussions on the theological analysis'. pp. Y. but assumes that the redactor has used the priestly document as a frame. in Wissenschaftlicht Theologie im Uberblick. Kaufmann.g. trans. 5 'Die alttestamentliche Wissensehaft'. 1.t pp. and abr. U. This is because lie sees that the very question which he himself felt to be central. since then...5 As an example of the younger German 1 E. and Conclusion. thus. 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'. Kaiser maintains that pentateuchal research is really on the move again. 2 See above p.. I. sections III. 3 Caselles then speaks of the 'present malaise in pentateuehal criticism.. it has only been contested by outsider—though still with the limitations already mentioned with regard to the extent and purpose of the priestly document. dt. 106 a. namely concerning the Yahwist. Cassuto. and has added the Elohist by way of complement only to a limited extent. 1981. 9.3. The Religion of Israel from the Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile. esp. M.SOff. 3 BibThB 2 (1972) 3-24. pp. p. There is an increasing number of voices today which question the apparent consensus or doubt whether it exists at all.
and that for two reasons: (1) the Yahwist is the only older source accepted by all supporters of the documentary hypothesis.. reckon with a Yahwist whose character is as complex as can be imagined. one may cite F.3 (von Rad's view of the Yahwist). If one does not succeed in demonstrating this chief source convincingly. If this source is no longer clearly discernible.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.2 3. 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. let us put the question of the literary analysis.1 above). In any case. that it can be demonstrated that it is complete from beginning to end. hold in fact for all sources: namely. then the hypothesis as a whole can scarcely be maintained. p. To what extent does it see itself in the position to delimit clearly the texts to be ascribed to the Yahwist.e. 1974. Stolz whose writings reflect a widespread view.1 3. it is in no wise a rounded picture'. from the creation right down 1 Das Alte Testament. Certain demands must at least be put to the Yahwist which. 2 See above under 1. judgment about the Yahwist constitutes as it were the key to the whole problem of the documentary hypothesis. also the citation above from Gazelles (3. then the current. i. according to the basic principles of the documentary hypothesis.2.. the theological meaning of the Pentateuch has to a large extent been built on the interpretation of the Yahwist. essential parts of the narrative material derive from it. widespread method of explaining the Pentateuch theologically is in danger. 36. In fact.108 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch OT scholars. the other sources are dealt with and characterized in comparison with him.1 Literary analysis of the Yahwist Has the current Pentateuch research a clear picture of the Yahwist? First. (2) More recently.
in an extensive block of 1 See above under 1. 440. 1967. 3. Eng. in the last edition of his Genesis commentary. added an appendix in which he took account of these doubts. J and P (or three: L/N. J and P). But it is not enough to demonstrate the lack of unity in the text. namely the 'sources'. Only then can the Yahwist stand as a 'source' in the sense of the documentary hypothesis. the Elohist has no part in the primeval story according to the prevailing view. or four sources. 20 (1970). also D. according to the respective views. VTSupp. Recently. voices have increased which doubt if the source theory is applicable to the Joseph story (Gen. in that it has worked out the earlier constituent parts. three.3. 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. Redford. among two. 2 Genesis (German 9th edn 1972. 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. 92. At first glance no particular problems appear to arise in the analysis.e. p. and that the texts attributed to it constitute a clearly recognizable coherent whole. .B. inasmuch as there could be the most diverse explanations of this. The majority of exegetes reckon with only two sources for the primeval story.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. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 109 to the occupation of the land. Cf.2. Ein kritischer Bericht. Die Landnahme der israelitischen Stamme in der neuren wissenschaftlichen Diskussion. A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 3750). and it only makes sense as an answer to this question. the documentary hypothesis claims to be the best and most convincing (and so.2 This at least puts a large question mark over the documentary hypothesis as the method which is to explain the whole Pentateuch if. and has also traced the path from them to the present final form. 2nd edn 1972) p. i. Rather. O. 37—50). n. the correct) explanation of the origin of the present form of the text. in the opinion of its subsequent supporters. Steck. The rest of Genesis is shared out. Von Rad.
1. Where does a source really begin. i.N. 2 Redford and ¥/eippert. It is relatively easy to perform the task of sorting out roughly the passages whose r or.her from the commentary of W. R.Story and Pentateuchal Criticism'. 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.H. 1974. Schmidt in this matter: There is often agreement in registering the tensions. pp. breaks. op. After weighing thoroughly all 1 Sfcesk. 20. 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. Noth.3 The difficulties of delimiting the sources in the first half of the m:ck of Exodus have already been mentioned. Testaments.110 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch the tradition. 4 See above under 3. 82-83. inserting them into their original context. here as elsewhere. 6 Cf.? co live contents cohere. ./' but that a generation of work has not succeeded in determining which individual passages belong to the different sources. 'The Joseph. and (2) the precise delimitation of the units.5 This citation shows that one can establish that a text is not a unity. There is often a twofold problem: (1) the assigning of these pieces to each other. Also. One surmises that this work. but in explaining these unevennesses. cit. because this large passage of text drops completely out of the conventional framework of explanation.2 This means yet a deeper breach in the validity of the documentary hypothesis. A History. 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. the assignment of texts remains an extremely doubtful matter. the tensions and unevennesses which are present in the text have to be explained in another way. axcgetes are more or less divided. Accordingly. is assembled out of J and E. 52). p. 1899 [3rd edn].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.e. Whybray. VT 18 (1988) 522-28. p.4 Let us cite furl. 5 Exodus. and gaps in the text.
26.1964. there are few concrete clues for assigning the text to any literary source. 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. on the basis of the available source hypothesis. can be assigned to several sources.1 There is therefore great uncertainty of method in delimiting the sources. for example. Schmidt assigns Exod. 64. The available clues 'speak in favour" of one source. even if the redaction has almost completely altered the original text.11-22 'presents a narrative which has been moulded almost to a perfect unity from elements of the source layers J. Decisive in this is that there are no solid criteria capable of indicating which passages are to be assigned to which sources. nevertheless they speak more in favour of the Elohist. p. assigning it to J remains questionable.1-10 as follows: Though. 2 Uberlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus. in such a procedure. unified passages of texts also. 2. Despite intensive efforts... Such statements show clearly that the exegete. to whom one earlier and without exception assigned the main part. E. Recently. namely the question of an explanation of the breaks and repetitions ascertainable in the present text. Eine Analyse von Ex 1~ 15. 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. Criticism of Pentafouchai Criticism. by means of them he can often discern elements of the sources. and by means of an in-built system . 111 arguments. even though he has no criteria for doing so. one has abandoned the point of departure of classical pentateuchal criticism. and N'. though there 'is a preference for the other'. which in themselves offer no cause for literary-critical operations. 2. Wellhausen was rightly reserved in the judgment that he pronounced on Exodus 2: "the separation cannot be carried through"'. the preference is for the Yahwist because of general considerations.2 Therefore. there has been no success in providing precise data for the continuous course of the Yahwistic narrative thread. sees himself compelled to assign the texts to one of the accepted sources. J. Exod. 3 It is at the same time clear that. So for Fohrer. p.3.. Fohrer solves the problems differently. Nevertheless.3 1 Exodus.
but also from the literary standpoint'. already within the old pentateuchal material (Exod. Perlitt.112 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch If Schmidt and other exegetes find it difficult to point to a Yahwistic narrative in the first two chapters of the book of Exodus. 4 Noth. L. . 31. ibid.1-4. Bundestheologie im Alien Testament. 5 Op. 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. 32-34). n.1 in so far as he does not hold it to be elohistic. p. cf. n. n. pp. the problems do not become easier. 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. by expansions and interpolations.2Q3.p. 103. 114.3 One could also describe this situation in another way. been given such a complicated literary arrangement that a plausible analysis is now no longer possible'. Noth finds problems in Exodus 3—4. p. 30. 2 Op.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. 1 A History. 31. 1969. has not been included in the list. 24. Noth maintains that the narrative of the Sinai event. It seems here to be a matter of a conglomeration of seconda/y growths'..3-8. 19-24. eft.. 6 Op. n. eft. which deals with the ceremony of the *blood of the covenant'.549. 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'.4 'One must renounce any literary critical analysis of Exodus 33. n. 156ff.. 31. 3 Op.6 And so there is less and less left over for the Yahwist—and more and more texts disappear from the record by the methods of source divisions! As one proceeds.5 And the passage Exod.17) as a 'secondary element'. which seems 'to have been interpolated only secondarily into the work of the Yahwist'. 115.. cit. has. p. namely by concluding that the criteria for source criticism have proved unsuitable to explain the literary problems of the Sinai pericope! Going into detail. but only verified the hypothetical solution given earlier. cit. 115. p. 3.
Numbers. Noth writes: The very fragile ch. In the last available pieces in Numbers 32.4 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. Ibid. and character ('fragment hypothesis')'. all sorts of supplements have been inserted towards the end of the Moses tradition in the different literary stages.. cit. 12 of Numbers is one of the most despairing cases in pentateuchal analysis.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. p. 32f. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 113 more difficult.6 As for the 'results of pentateuchal analysis gained elsewhere'. p. 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. 126. the old pentateuchal sources begin again. cit. 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'. then one would not easily come to the idea of 'continuous sources'.5 Nevertheless.5.32. . Immediately after dealing with the Sinai pericope where. but rather to that of an unsystematic arrangement of numerous pieces of tradition of very different content. as already said. Ibid. Introduction... 4. 89..1 And a little later: In the second half of the book of Numbers. there has also been a literary working together of the Pentateuch and the deuteronomistic history. In his rehearsing of the Yahwistic work he writes: *We feel our way through the fragments of the Yahwistic narrative.3. p. the situation in the 4th book of Moses does not of itself lead at once to these conclusions'. Op. n.p. n. I simply give up any attempt to dismember it'. age. pp. 120. Moses appears no more'. according to the prevailing view. one should call to mind 1 2 3 4 5 6 Op. Noth is of the opinion that one should not isolate the book of Numbers.
and the results have 'often only a limited degree of probability*. 2 See above under 1.4. even if one does not 'renounce completely as too uncertain5 the assignment of texts to particular sources. 5 Op. 4 Ibid. 'great uncertainty' reigns in the source division in the first part of the book of Exodus..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'. 3 'The Kerygma of the Yahwist'. from Steuernagel to Schmidt. even though one cannot discern them there.1 It must remain doubtful if this is a basis from which one can expect 'sources' in the book of Numbers.4 Wolff then is satisfied to conclude the Yahwistic work with the Balaam narrative (Num. Noth is in basic agreement. 37. But the citations given here indicate that there is in any case widespread uncertainty. been 'contracted to a secondary narrative trait'. but thinks that the conclusion *has been lost' in the course of the redaction. with the Yahwist.5 There is no more talk of the death of Moses. cit. . 22-24).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. 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. n. the analyses of Noth must be counted as truly representative of the present day. 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. 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. and in addition.114 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch once more that already.1. One must not pass over the fact that there are also exegetes who place more confidence in the trustworthiness of source analysis. Interpretation 20 (1966) 131-58. Hence.
pp. p. also S. p. rather.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. 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. 1966. 127). rather: 'How can it be otherwise. 115. Introduction. 3 A History. 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. 34. ..3. n. They acknowledge thereby Noth's separation of the book of Joshua from the Pentateuch. 4 Ibid.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. 78ff. col. 33. they want to retain a small bit of 'Hexateuch'. what is the significance of the Sinai periocope for him. pp. Noth has already spoken against this view (A History. the making of the covenant. Biblische Zeug"Jsse. and the 'law'-giving has obviously given occasion for all sorts of subsequent expansions and statements'. But this is not due to redactional alteration of the text. 86-87.1b-6 to the Yahwist as 'tenant' (DBS VII. 1967.5 Noth is clearly of the opinion that the Yahwist too originally had a considerable and discernible share in this central passage. 13. 791). Smend. 6 Exodus.Literatur des alien Israel.1 But for these also the difficulty remains that in the Yahwistic work there is no information about the death of Moses. p. great uncertainty reigns. but here too. 31. n. but do not draw the consequences from it. 2 Gazelles finds the opinion which ascribes Deut. given as starting point the kerygma (of the Yahwist}? The nations which 1 E. Kaiser. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 115 chapter of the book of Judges as the conclusion of the Yahwistic work.3 He is of the opinion that this is 'thoroughly comprehensible in view of what is narrated here'. Many would like to find it in Deuteronomy 34. Wolff thinks otherwise: He maintains that the Yahwist is 'taciturn' on the Sinai theme..g.
because it was already there before him. Coppens. . 1969. Zwei Glaubenszeugnisse des Alien Testaments. 6 The Yahwist.3 For von Rad. p. pp. themes which for Wolff have no further independent significance. Over against this there should be set other opinions. the simple and basic soteriological idea of the tradition of the occupation of the land acquired a powerful and beneficial substructure'. 5 Jahwist und Priesterschrift. 34-57 (50).1 And so Wolffs conception of the Yahwistic work allows no significance worth mentioning to the Sinai theme. both themes are at the very centre of the theological conception of the Yahwist. 1969. The Bible's First Theologian. on whose account the patriarchal theme was so fruitful for him. The Form-critical Problem'.116 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch preoccupied him in the primeval story. 'Positions actuelles dans l'ex£gese du Pentateuque'. 181. having grown up together with the other themes'.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'. 1969. p. cit. Von Rad has emphasized that the 'inset of the Sinai tradition' was one of the decisive theological accomplishments of the Yahwist. pp. have no place at all in the Sinai theme. Festschrift J. Ellis writes: The Sinai covenant may rightly be termed the climax of the Yahwist's saga'. in De Mart a Qumr&n.4 There are still further opinions in the different monographs on the theology of the Yahwist. It was 'a free and daring act of the Yahwist' and signifies theologically 'a considerable enrichment'. According to Marie—Louise Henry 'the Yahwist makes the event at Sinai the climax of his presentation'. the selection of which can only be more or less random. pp. 1.2 The tradition of the occupation of the land attests Yahweh's merciful will. 53-54. Gazelles says of the Sinai theme: the Yahwist 'knows the Sinai [theme] and is more interested in it than one thinks'. Op. He could not of course by-pass it. By taking to itself the Sinai tradition. in the centre of the Sinai tradition stands Yahweh's will that demands justice.5 P. and whom he saw both in the Joseph story and then in the exodus tradition in the form of the shackling might of Egypt..F. 53-54. 19.
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.2 again with further details on grammar and style. pp. all that is left is that the slave woman is called in the J-layer and in the Elayer. Eissfeldt writes: *Even for J and E a whole list of statements have been made which are of permanent value. 1893. Introduction to the Old Testament. Hexateuch. Op. 183. confusion begins.. each time on the basis of language'. pp. but little has remained from Holzinger's comprehensive lists. 181-89. 6 Introduction.339-48. But as soon as one comes to refinements. cit. The same narrative is not infrequently assigned by one author to J. Synopse.5 But in his Introduction he again advanced the argument from linguistic usage.6 Here the argument from different linguistic 1 2 3 4 Einleitung in den Hexateuch. p. Older generations applied much ingenuity to working out the linguistic peculiarities of the penta-(hexa-) teuchal sources. 5. 93 (emphasis in original). and tries. and notes. 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' .3 Since then. There is a corresponding 'Lexikon' of E (9 pages).3. narrative motifs. . 11.1 1 There follow no less than fourteen pages of Yahwistic vocabulary. 5 Op. p. pp. 5. also A. The uncertainty becomes still greater when it is a question of the marks that characterize the Yahwist's way of presentation and style. Op. 29. by another to E. 'in the current abandonment of other arguments to make use of this one alone to solve the problems of the Hexateuch'. 1959 (5th edn). argument by means of differences in linguistic usage has receded completely into the background.. cit.. cit.4 He therefore gives place to the argument of the frequent occurrence of narratives.45. apart from the distinction 'Canaanites/Amorites' and 'Sinai/Horeb'. Bentzen. It is generally emphasized that the language of the priestly document is clearly recognizable. p. then some more on grammar and style. likewise for (T)' and) P. 283-90. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 117 to be regarded as specifically and characteristically Yahwistic. p. 1922 = 1962 (2nd edn).
. 104 n. 1913) and Steuernagel (1912). 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. is reduced after all to the statement that there are two (or three!) different designations for the slave woman. 31.7 Reference to tables in older literature without con1 Introduction.6 it can only be due to the principle of inertia that this argument is still used at all. but in detail cannot be more sharply defined. 5 The German word used is 'diffus'. 7 And this all the more so in view of A. something like Eissfeldt. 115. 6 Cf. must be questionable.2 Kaiser refers to Holzinger (1912) and mentions a few examples. is not due to chance but coheres with other distinguishing marks'. 2 Whether the summary details given by Steuernagel in his Lehrbuch—4see above under p. can be described as 'detailed' (so Fohrer). also F. objects etc. arguments are often taken over and repeated on the basis of a general.5 consensus about the acknowledgment of the documentary hypothesis. 233-34. Jepsen's discussion. p. 93. Further examination shows that the change in the designation of places. but only to state that the consensus consists only in a basic conviction. 4 A History. 21.. 203. 'Amah . When the claim that the sources J and E differ from each other in their use of language. however illdefined.3 Noth. 3 Introduction. Fohrer speaks confidently: The linguistic usage is different in the individual source layers.1 However. p. Das alte Testament. he does not produce any examples but refers merely to the tables in Driver (1891. these arguments scarcely carry conviction and the individual exegete has scarcely been able to substantiate them with concrete content. 214-15. 1974.4 One thing becomes very clear from this example: in the present state of pentateuchal study. and these words and phrases occur too seldom to be of any real service in classifying the material as a whole'. Stolz. persons. 1) pp. p. however. it is not used in any polemical sense.118 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch usage is reduced to a tiny crumb. p.
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. 39. p. 297. Since then further intermediary steps have been introduced into the discussion. it has something to do with the question of oral and written tradition.. The collection of stories had already begun in the oral tradition'.IS.. p. 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. Op.1 Fohrer extended the thesis.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. It has been accepted since Gunkel that the individual narratives often existed independently at first before they became parts of larger compositions—and then at some time or other of the Yahwistic work as well. 1 2 3 4 . One generally insists today that the Yahwist's work had a long pre-history. A History. It is not a matter of alternatives as opponents of the documentary hypothesis have developed it under the catch cry 'oral tradition'.!29.p. 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}. 'G has been worked over in different ways 2 . Their committment to and Schiphchah'.. p. cif.3. VT 8 (1958) 293-97: 'It would be far better to exclude the two words and from the arguments for source division'. 3. first an older (G1) and then a later (G2)'.2. so that one must reckon with two basic narratives. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 119 crete details about what is considered still valid in them.3 But this only makes the question more urgent. one finds a very divided answer. serves scarcely more than to function as an alibi. Introduction. First.
cit. in his discussion of this whole group of questions..120 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch writing 'will have followed at a time which lent itself rather to writers'. as we have seen.3 Koch.. The written sources/layers therefore are in essence unanimously considered to be written works. were written down only relatively late. . p.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'. 131. What preceded them? For Gunkel. See above under 1. cit. 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'. the formation of the written sources meant the transition from oral to written tradition. 85. Op. and answered differently.. 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. cit.. cit. p. as they are found from Genesis to Samuel. to the older of which we owe "the collections of the Yahwist (J) and the Elohist (E)"'.2 Fohrer's judgment is similar: 'In accordance with the literary promises available to Israel. p.4 insists that the question of the transition from the oral to the written stage 'must be put anew for each type of literature. Ibid.. Op. Op.. p. cit. Op.8 There is then only an apparent contradiction to the opinions of Gunkel and Fohrer already cited. 85.5 He surmises that 'the popular narratives. 128-32. took place in a long process in which one can distinguish "two periods". Op. The written collection of stories.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. and indeed for each literary unit'. pp. and with their committment to writing the living oral transmission by no means came to an end'. But what about the entity 'G'? Noth leaves the question open 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Genesis. Ixxx.
p. 74. whereas G2. p. pp.8L 3 Introduction.5 For the rest.8 And Fohrer very similarly: 'Apart from their individual characteristic.1. see above under 1. p. 7 Genesis. be it oral or written. 229. pp. 2 Introduction..4 There is no unanimity therefore on the question whether the Yahwist used written sources which were available to him. 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.1 Kaiser speaks similarly of a 'moulded tradition (G).3. Schulte. Introduction.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. had a distinct form.lSOt 4 Kaiser. Gunkel had already insisted that the stories were taken over by the collectors essentially as they found them. 39. Die Entstehung der Geschichtsschreibung im Alien Israel. from which 'the Yah wist took over. Ixxx. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 121 and maintains that it cannot be decided. 6 For von Rad's view. 84f. Despite this agreement with Gunkel.2 Fohrer is of a different opinion here: 'It is to be presumed that G1 circulated only in oral tradition. 229. 5 Differently. 1972. Ixxxiii. there is a recognizable tendency to give an affirmative answer. it is emphasized that the material available. was probably available in a written version'. the authors of the ancient source layers kept in general and in detail to the tradition that they 1 A History. p. the basic outline for his narrative'. H. however. be it oral or written'. pp. He insists 'that this common basis for J and E must already have had a fixed form'.. at the division of the kingdom after the death of Solomon. Noth rejects G's opinion of the sources as 'schools of narrators'. he was much more strongly bound to what lay before him. 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'. Noth writes: 'the ancient sources clearly kept substantially to the narrative tradition given to them both as a whole and in detail'. .7 meaning here by 'collectors' expressly J and E. 8 A History.
1 Is there anything then such as a Tahwistic style' or a Tahwistic language'? Gunkel replies affirmatively: 'On the other hand..122 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch used'. in the final written form'. so that the ancient sources could not have yet become formal. the source layers rest on the activity of individual writers who show differences in both language and style'. They have allowed the stories to penetrate their being. p.4 Noth's judgment is more reserved: 'The work of J and E consisted largely in simply giving formulation to the narratives transmitted. has been preserved.6 Thus he has basically denied the existence of a peculiar Yahwistic style.10-20 and texts in the 'detailed' style of Genesis 24—not 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. tightly selfcontained. cit. their uniform use of language is a clear sign that the stuff of the stories has passed through the mould'. 144 5 A History. which gives one readily to reflect that all sorts of modes of expression and stylistic characteristics had already been given with the old tradition. 6 Ibid. Ought other standards hold for the Pentateuch? Or can other common and convincing stylistic marks be found which. p. rather the very difference in style would be judged as evidence against common authorship.5 Noth makes the explicit point that 'the brief/detailed narrative style. 1 Introduction.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. for one cannot seriously bring together under the common term 'Yahwistic style' texts in the "brief narrative style of Gen. 12. each in the style transmitted. 2 Genesis. 143. there are collectors who are far removed from passing on material transmitted without any alteration. units'.. 3 Introduction.2 Likewise Fohrer: 'In any case. n. 603. Ixxxv. 229. . p. without any attempt to balance the individual narratives. p. 4 Op.p.
5 We have already spoken of a sort of method of subtraction which is used today whereby everything. to the Elohist. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 123 despite these fundamental differences. or did he rework their language and style so that they now bear his own characteristic stamp? If yes. or did he 'mould' them into another form. p.3.. is ascribed to the Yahwist. 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'. there is no unanimity: did the Yahwist not even so much as formulate or remodel the texts passed on. 6 See above under 1.3 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. .3. Literatur des alien Israel. if need be. also W. 26. Eng 2nd edn) p. 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. given the fundamental differences in form and style between the individual narratives? If no. (He) has for the most part been content to pass on what was available to him'. cit. Op. 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'. that the documentary hypothesis holds and that consequently everything that is not ascribed to the priestly writing or.6 If one 1 2 3 4 5 Genesis (9th edn German. 1967.27. p. Exodus. which is not on firm grounds reckoned to another source or layer of reworking. then in what does this stamp consist. Schmidt. p. 37.. Biblische Zeugnisse. considered as certain.2 Smend writes on the question: We must think of the Yahwist as first and foremost a loyal collector of popular tradition.p. 64. 136. The Kerygma'.. must be considered Yahwistic.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'.
However. 1969. one can understand why the statements on this point in the literature are mostly very vague. . 792-93. with Noth's qualifications. But the outline is as a whole independent of this. how an argument is maintained. sometimes sparsely. inasmuch as he holds the assumptions described above to be not all that certain. and so above all are the contents of the great forecourt known as the primeval story which is generally regarded as his literary accomplishment'. The presentations by Gazelles1 and Ellis2 can serve as recent examples of this. in my opinion. However. 3 The Kerygma'. is really nothing else than a description of the 'art form of the stories (Sagen)' as Gunkel had already provided for Genesis. because we cannot see clearly what was sacrificed when the material was worked together with the Elohist and later with the priestly writing. And what is offered to him. Hence. p. And so Wolff writes: *What the Yahwist himself has to say becomes clearer in his arranging of the material handed on. that the actual work of the Yahwist as a composer has been reduced quite notably. 1966. The Bible's First Theologian. 113ff. as with the Sinai tradition. on the basis of the variety of forms in the traditions used by him. is left without a concrete answer. as with the patriarchal tradition. in which he allows the large blocks of tradition belonging to the preliterary stage to give expression to themselves.3 It is quite clear here. 136. sometimes extensively. how does one recognize the work of the Yahwist?—but. there is no reliable evidence here. One asks then not. pp. now here now there. as representations of the variety of styles in the Yahwist. 2 The Yahwist. in his outline. VII. 1 Tentateuque'. DBS. cols. what does all this mean for the stylistic forms found in the Yahwist—whose literary stock has been fixed beforehand and independently of them? But whoever wants to put the first question. But we have already seen. then one can quite well argue. that the Yahwist likewise disposed of a variety of stylistic forms. This was the fundamental idea in von Rad's plan.124 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch accepts this assumption as certain. 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.
According to Kaiser the Yahwist has 'in the traditions available to him undoubtedly moved the action of Yahweh firmly into the foreground'.p. see below under 3.3. Op. 12. But Wolff has to qualify this immediately and say in the very next sentence that there is 'no reliable evidence here'.!50.1 He continues further: 'Striking here is the mingling of national (already noted) and universal concepts'. 8. Wolff holds to this idea and underscores it heavily. According to Wolffs opinion therefore and in face of the present text—and we have no other!—one can not give concrete details of what this compositorial accomplishment comprises. the arrangement of the larger blocks was the decisive accomplishment of the Yahwist. 84. 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'.2. . The picture is similar with Fohrer.3) are taken predominantly. 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'.2 As proofs are alleged Gen. p. often almost exclusively. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 125 although it has lost its essential basis and thereby its power of conviction: for von Had. the 'self-expression' of the Yahwist becomes very clear. and how 'history' (Geschichte) is shaped out of individual stories (Geschichten). 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. from Genesis! It is not mentioned if the 'special emphasis' of J is demonstrable in other places as well.21 and (without explicit citation) Gen. p. Another characteristic mark of the present discussion is in evidence here: the arguments for identifying the Yahwist (for his theology. ci*.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.. 150 (with reference to Weiser). while in this 'arranging the material passed on'. Introduction. Ibid.3 (The other nations can and so ought to share in its blessing?3). namely 'the contents of the great forecourt known as the primeval story*.
even though one cannot exactly prove it). 6. 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. 'Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte'.3 The theology of the Yahwist But we have not yet mentioned a crucial matter of discussion 1 Ibid.!36ff. 8. Rendtorff. 12. cit. 3 See above under 3.17-18.) talks of five much discussed bridge passages. 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. it does not occur to them to doubt it.4). there can be no talk of a promise motif or motifs being passed on to the Yahwist.2 And more—two sentences before we read 'that besides the basic plan linking together the different cycles of themes. EvTh 27 (1967) 138-53.1 (towards the end).2.1-4a. larger complexes of traditions were already available (to the Yahwist)'.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..5-8. 5 See further R.1 Here too there is the undemonstrated claim about the 'linking together of the ancient traditions' and the intention inherent in it. 18.2. .21-22. T3y giving shape to the promise motifs handed on and by linking together the ancient traditions he achieved furthermore a theologizing*.3-2. What then could he still link together? There is present here once more that general yet ill-defined consensus which we noted earlier. exclusively from the book of Genesis.23b-33.5 3. one can discern clearly yet again how the overall conception has been maintained. pp. 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. 2 As shown above (2. even though so many individual supporting arguments have been shown to be no longer tenable. 4 Wolff (op.126 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch clearly in the versions taken over by the Yahwist. in my opinion.
'. with the heaviest emphasis.!37ff. . It is striking that this text is missing from the presentation of the Yahwist's theology in the Introduction of Fohrer and Kaiser. It has already been noted that von Rad saw the theological achievement of the Yahwist above all in the theological composition.22b-33. 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. there are mainly two places: Gen. Moth's opinion has prevailed by and large.2 The second text.1 This text has been explained often and in detail. p.1-3 and 18. He did not mention in it his The Formcritical Problem. 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. 2 The Kerygma'. Criticism of Peniateuchal Criticism 127 which dominates to a large extent the current literature: the theology of the Yahwist. 18. has put it at the centre of the theology of the Yahwist.21-22). The selection of texts has generally remained the same.22b-33. 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. Gen. i. 12.. it is 'the clamp between the primeval story and the story of salvation' and 'the etiology of all etiologies of Israel'. Wolff. in the arrangement of the hitherto independent large complexes of tr&dition of the Pentateuch/Hexateuch. in his commentary on Genesis he writes of both passages: If they do not stem precisely from his (the Yahwist's) pen. pp.e. on the contrary plays no role at all in von Rad's presentation of the Yahwist's theology. In their presentation of the Yahwist. they are in their whole pattern of thought incomparably closer to him 1 The Form Critical Problem'. 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. 66. Besides a few sentences in the primeval story (especially 6. We have already referred to the basic shift of emphasis which judgment about the Yahwist as a theologian has undergone through Noth..3.5 and 8.
and so only the Yahwist remains.6 And this is the only passage outside the primeval story that Fohrer expressly cites in his presentation of the theology of the Yahwist. Noth sees it differently. 151 8 Cf. in any case one would like very much to ascribe so lapidary a piece of theology to this great theologian. Nothing.. pp.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'. it has never had a constitutive function for the understanding of the Yahwist.8 such refined theological reflection ought not be confided to a 'redactor*. pp. but of a theological reflection which.5 Smend writes: 'Only once. 1972.128 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch than the really ancient narratives'. It is obviously a matter here not of a piece of ancient story tradition. 238. cit. 6 See above under 3. 2 Theology of the Old Testament.239. As this is beyond dispute. cit.2 Hence. 2nd edn). it seems. . in his Theology of the Old Testament he has this to say about the second piece (18.1..p. op. 9th edn. For him this piece is 'an independent contribution of J'3 and 'in the analysis of the theology of J deserves especially careful attention'. 5 Introduction. p. 214-15. 1972. 395. n. 1 Genesis (German. it immediately suggests itself to many exegetes that the piece is to be ascribed to the Yahwist. for von Rad. Eng.20-33): The passage stands quite isolated and it is scarcely possible for us to classify it in the historical-theological process'.2. Noth.1 However. 4 Op. speaks in favour of one of the other sources. 3 A History. only the 'addition' in 18. apparently. 239. but stands in solitary isolation. without any doubt. I. 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'. is to be reckoned only to a stage in the process of tradition when reworking and reflection were at work. p. 7 Introduction. p. p. 627. 84-85.7 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.19 is deuteronomistic.
. described as unambiguously and consistently as anywhere else in the Old Testament'. 23 n. And further.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. consist in this.. Noth..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 he would not as it were number off the 'just' over against the 'godless'.p. Cf. Introduction. op.1 Noth points out that in Sodom. according to Abraham's view implicitly confirmed by Yahweh. probably there would not even be one'. 25) would. it becomes clear that people in this world can only be rescued through the free action of God himself. 2.32. . 239. there were not even the 'ten just' of v. and he is of the opinion that thus 'the human being of the Yahwistic primeval story stands before us. cit.239. 239. namely that the individual 'just' would be taken up into the judgment that befalls the 'godless".. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 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': '. 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. that the 'righteous action' of the 'judge of the whole earth' (v. ci*. Op.. not through some sort of righteousness of their own by which they might be able to protect themselves and others before the divine judgment'.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. such reflections do not appear 'in other parts of the Yahwistic work' (Smend). op. Kaiser.. Ibid. cit..3. p. The statement of Noth (and Kaiser) that the human person 1 2 3 4 5 Cf.. the "judge of all the world". towards a world where righteousness is missing or hopelessness seems to lie at its base'. p. Noth. p.
there is no intercession.7)..4 For von Rad it is 'a unique breakthrough which. The answer is: in the tireless intervention of Abraham-Israel on behalf of those who are destined to death'.7 belongs to the 'Elohist'. 2 For the claim that 20. 17!2 The intercession of the Tahwistic' Moses for the Egyptians is. cit.10)'. 9. 395. And so it is difficult to find in Gen. individualistic solution* of the question. 9.22b-33 evidence of a theology that is characteristic of the work of the Yahwist. . 53. On the contrary. 4 Fohrer.1 But the closest parallel to Abraham as intercessor would be the 'elohistic' passage in Gen. 238.7. op. op. 151 5 Theology of the Old Testament. that Pharaoh acknowledge that YHWH alone is God and has the power (Exod.3.18. in place of the old notion of collectivity.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. 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. 147f.29). 1 'The Kerygma'.3 or is already 'on the way from corporate to individual responsibility and liability as formulated in Ezekiel'. p.4-6 where it is said expressly 'not because of your own righteousness'. I. see Wolff. on the contrary. Introduction. pp. but rather Ezek. 9. 20. 8. 3 Noth.14. in many ways doctrinaire. p.6. how blessing can come to those threatened with death in Abraham-Israel. p. 11. 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. 12.130 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch cannot be rescued 'through any personal righteousness' would find its parallel in the Pentateuch at best in Deut. cit..3. and finally. Wolff wants to see in this passage an initial development of the Yahwistic theme of Gen. 18. when the firstborn of Egypt are destined to death. One may leave it an open question whether the view in the text is 'still far from the later. the plagues also serve the same goal (8.
has broken away from the literary critical problems of the documentary hypothesis and become independent.12-20 which. 14. .14. p. What.1 in any case it is clear that the theological reflections in Gen. However. in my opinion. cf. 16. It must remain open here whether Ezekiel holds this thesis to be utterly false theologically. 18. p.22b-33 and Ezek. One could say somewhat subtly: Ezekiel's contemporaries also know the problem dealt with in Genesis 18. 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.22b-33 to be an 'insertion'. might take its 1 Verses 22-23! 2 On this. Criticism of Pentate uchal Criticism 131 14.3.2 What remains of the 'theology of the Yahwist'? First. 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. whether a few just can save a whole community. 14. 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. underscores the closeness to Isa. It is evident here that for many authors—often enough when writing for a rather broad circle of readers—the idea of the Yahwist as the great theologian who has given the Pentateuch its decisive stamp. 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. they alone would be saved (Ezek. Wellhausen.12-20 belong to a common context in the process of the history of tradition. 1899 (3rd edn). 395. 18. von Rad passes over too quickly. Rather. 25. I. of the Yahwist as a 'source' or 'source layer' as understood by the documentary hypothesis. Die Composition. in the question of the 'theology*. Theology. 53. Daniel. He holds Gen. 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. 18. and Job could not effect that. the talk here is first. if need be.3. 20). But Ezekiel denies this: men so exemplary and just as Noah. 10. in the methodologically strictest sense.
attention must be drawn to a peculiar situation: although attempts to present a theology of the Yahwist proceed almost entirely from Genesis. L. pp.. 60. Festschrift G. . And the individual programmatic statements can be claimed for him only to a very limited extent—and that only at the very beginning of his work. On the contrary: they present almost an embarrassment. Gen. 'Zum geschichtlichen Ort der Pentateuchquellen'. but not with von Rad.1-3. 'Genesis 12.* or limited almost entirely to the primeval story. cit. 25-35.3 And as for the Abraham-Lot narrative in Genesis 13. 12. The Form Critical'. The Kerygma'.H. p. Steck. in which. is a later question. he is in agreement with Noth.). But they are not of the kind out of which one can develop a theology of the Yahwist. Old Testament Theology in Outline. 3 Op. von Rad.1-3 has to explain that the promise of the land. 1965. p. p. Language and style he took for the most part from what was available to him. O. Rost. 12. 52554. 1971. the element of the divine promise addressed to the patriarchs plays an astonishingly small role. is 'contracted to a secondary narrative feature' and 'is not in the area of his particular interest'. Here again. 233. 167-72. Yet it is clearly evident that there is in them a very concentrated form of theological reflection and speech.132 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch place. When he describes 12. Individual passages had for the most part already been formed. can no longer be claimed for him. pp. And so even Wolff in his approach to Gen. ZThK 53 (1956) 1-10 = Das kleine Credo und andere Studien zum Alien Testament. 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.1-3 und die Urgeschichte des Jahwisten'.7 as 'tradition' (ibid. It is entirely in accord with the present state of scholarship when the theology of the Yahwist is developed out of one programmatic passage. in Probleme biblischer Theologie. 140. 2 Thus Zimmerli. pp. A History.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. which so clearly runs through the whole patriarchal tradition. in its present narrative con1 Wolff.
4 Reasons against the acceptance of a Yahwistic work We return then to the place where the reflections of this chapter began. And when these themselves are the subject of a theme. Wolff writes: The one blessed becomes a source of blessing inasmuch as he freely leaves to the other fertile land'. the 'sources' on the contrary play no role. . ci*. 1 Op. But other authors as well scarcely mention the promises in this context. 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'. as he sees it. so as to be able to interpret the text within the frame of the Yahwistic theology. as is the case with Westermann.2. the assurance of the land to Abraham plays a central role. whereas. so the question must now be put. this theology often has to be tapped from very indirect hints.1-3 the *Yahwistic' theme of blessing. 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. op. blessing) is not directly sounded.. in many cases.3 3. the promise of the land. this question is *but touched on in passing'.1 And so he exchanges the theme expressly mentioned in the text. This is true in a special way for the Yahwist. taking out of 12. Criticism of Pentate uchal Criticism 133 tent.1. the weight of tradition has not yet allowed to penetrate consciousness. 22.2 There is obviously in Genesis a large area of quite expressly theological statements which cannot. in the intent of the Yahwist'.p. we came to the conclusion that the agreement in essential basic questions was very much less than is generally maintained.. p. in reverse. 133 on Gen. Wolff.3. In his case. We had put the question. for that not contained in it. cit. that the uncertainties coming to light show a very obvious weakness in the whole theory which. or can scarcely.16-17: This is a guide to understanding passages. be taken into consideration when one inquires about the 'theology' of the 'sources'. 3 Cf. in which the theme (namely.l4a 2 See above under 2.
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. for. . 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. are acknowledged as valid.134 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch there are certain general basic presuppositions which. 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.1-3.3) and Jacob (28. incompatible contradictions arise. but his 'seed' that is to be the mediator of the blessing to the 'nations' (Gen. of the guiding theological ideas that compass the Pentateuch as a whole. Verse 3. 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. without exception. Now we have already seen that in the different attempts to set out the theology of the Yahwist. 12. which make it clear that the fundamental unanimity claimed does not in fact exist to any extent. as we have seen.3. this promise appears in a further developed form in which it is not the patriarch himself. therefore. And attempts to work out the 'theology of the Yahwist' are not in the end touched by this. 22. But this is not the final stage of the process of formation of the tradition. Gen. as Westermann has shown. represents one stage within the history of the theological reworking and interpretation of the patriarchal story.18. belongs to a stage in the process of tradition which links the stories of the three individual patriarchs with each other: Abraham (12. If our reflections are correct.14) are to be a blessing for all the clans of the earth. 26.4). the promise addresses of the patriarchal stories play a remarkably minor role. but in the concrete application of the general framework. the element of blessing is not an independent promise theme. when the Abraham and Isaac stories are joined together. 12. then the question must be put. but not the last. which is generally held to be the central statement of the Yahwist.
Eissfeldt assigns 46. displays the later form of the promise of the land in which the 'seed' is the bearer of the promise.3.13-15 to J. and there is no mention at all that the patriarchs had already lived there for a 1 See above under 2. also.147.11. 5 Op. 28.p. and Noth. 15.14-17 and 28. that it is only with a layer of reworking that bears the deuteronomic stamp that explicit cross references have been inset. where all three assign 28. Particularly remarkable is the fact that in Exod. 103. 21. the assurances of guidance to Jacob in Gen. Fohrer. Introduction. so that it is not very plausible when these texts. is described as an unknown land. 31. 3 See above under 2. Gen.15.2 This is true also in other places: for example. The incompatibility becomes all the more clear when we take up once more the question. but in brackets.8 the land.. attributes Gen.14-17 to L/N and Gen. 28.3. for example.2-4.5. Other promise addresses have several layers. 161. 1922 = 1962 (2nd edn).3. Noth to J.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. Hexateuch-Synopse.7. p.2-4 to E/J. pp. which obviously belong together. into which YHWH will bring the Israelites after leading them out of Egypt.52-53. 46. . pp. 4 See the respective passages in Eissfeldt. 3. 13. 12. 13.15 to J. n. A History. 13. cit.13-15.3 are assigned to different sources.18. a verse which is judged entirely differently in the allocation to sources. the same wording of the formulation is found in Gen. Noth to J. which have so much in common. 31. for example. Eissfeldt.14-17 to the Yahwist. 2 Eissfeldt and Fohrer assign Gen. Fohrer. Noth.30.3 to L/N. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 135 Other texts which are ascribed to the Yahwist belong to other stages in the process. 28. Gen. inhabited by foreign nations.1 are assigned to different sources. 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.4. Eissfeldt and Fohrer assign 31. Fohrer to E.13 also belong here.
This conclusion best supplements the uncertainties and incompatibilities in the current discussions described in detail above. but it is clear also that there are weighty. in my opinion. He requires that one 'prescind completely' from all non-narrative passages with a . It is utterly inconceivable that the Yahwist has now suddenly forgotten. of a coherent narrative work covering the whole Pentateuch. have but one explanation: a *Yahwist'. i. all the theological concerns that preoccupied him with the divine promises to the patriarchs in their various forms.3 The problem of a priestly narrative in the patriarchal story Before we draw the final conclusions from the reflections on the Tahwist'. or has consciously chosen to remain silent about. 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. does not exist. who shaped and handed on the patriarchal stories and the complexes of tradition that follow them. These facts. 3. the 'priestly document'. Even when one makes way for sources to which one may assign passages in this synthesis of texts. 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. we want to turn our attention first to the question of the status of the other chief source of the Pentateuch. Noth represents the most extreme position inasmuch as he will include under the symbol P only the narrative sections. reasons against the acceptance of a Yahwistic work in the sense of the documentary hypothesis.136 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch long time and that continually repeated promises had assured them and their descendants that they would possess it. 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. as does Noth. and in my opinion compelling.e.
What 'stands out' here? Only this. There is another of Noth's theses that has found wide agreement..p. This is all the more important inasmuch as it follows therefrom 'that only in this (i.. however that may be. 1 2 3 4 A History.2 An astounding closed circle! When one excludes all the non-narrative material.. Op.l2. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 137 cultic-ritual interest 'when dealing with the P narrative'. coherent account of events from the creation on..e. Op. cit. Ibid. This includes the opinion that P provides an originally independent. 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. For our statement of the question it is important that the document being discussed is a coherent P narrative with but few gaps. p. or whether parts of the traditions of the occupation of the land in the book of Joshua belong to it. the P-narrative).p. But.l7.3. the rest 'stands out more clearly and clear-cut as narrative. . cit.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. then. only the question of its ending is in dispute: whether the work ends with the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34. the opinion that the priestly document is a narrative work is today almost universally shared. 10. 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'.4 And he sees himself compelled at once to call in question his own basic principles. that Noth carries through his opinion consistently by excluding all the material that is opposed to it. about this 'coherent (story) without gaps' in the P-narrative? Let us examine the question in the patriarchal stories! Here.3 What. Noth himself must be content with a 'very meagre P-content'.
H. Cf. op. According to Fohrer. 1966. 37.A.. p. Speiser. DBS VII. 121-22 = pp. *besides the introduction in Gen. 86.1. col. 2.3. n.46a of the summary synthesis of the presupposed P-narrative of the Joseph story'.3 one finds only a gap! P. According to him 'it is (here) no more than the notification of what is absolutely necessary. Gazelles. even though in his view 'it was not all that extensive'. p. only the brief note in Gen.2 When one looks for proof of the 'sold into Egypt' in the table provided by Elliger himself. 5 Op. 4 'Aufbau und Struktur der priesterschriftlichen Jakobsgeschichte'. Genesis. pp.. 195). cit.. 3 Op. p.. however sparse it may be. 831. 14. 181). it only wants to explain why Jacob went down into Egypt'. cit. 174-98 (p. cit. ZThK 49 (1952) 121-43 (esp. 174-75. This once more is a clear case of a circular argument. p. 195. We have rather. 1964. There must be such— because P has presented a coherent account without gaps. in P 'the primeval and patriarchal stories. 124) = Kleine Schriften zum Alien Testament. 177). 41.. 'Pentateuque'. 6 Op. Obviously it has not been preserved 'without gaps'. is sold into Egypt. but that nevertheless they postulate the existence of an originally independent coherent narrative. The possibility that perhaps there might not be such a coherent 1 Noth. ZAW86 (1974) 174-203 (p. 41. Introduction. p. Joseph makes himself the object of his brothers' hatred.138 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 3. He discovered the gap. pp. cit. E. 292.6 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. Weimar has dealt with this text recently.1 The stories of Joseph and Jacob Let us begin with the Joseph story.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. p.46a is not included in Fohrer's synthesis of the P source layer.. 195. . 1966. p. and is elevated by Pharaoh'. are reduced to an introduction to the revelation on Sinai' (Introduction.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'.1 K Elliger has largely disregarded the fragmentary character of this tradition.lflOl 2 'Sinn und Ursprung der priestlichen Geschichtserzahlung'.
46a an 'unnecessary and pedantic addition' that is 'characteristic' of P. and the prevailing opinion is that details of this kind are characteristic of P. whose beginning is allegedly here. 1898. 37.1 Such valuations—or better. 2.3 Gunkel has less scruple: '37. sees in the attachment of the words 'king of Egypt' to 'Pharaoh' in Gen.p.46a to P? First the details about his age: on each occasion the age of Joseph at the time is given. See below under 3. But there are still further reasons. Joseph himself has given cause for it.. Gross. 2.3. is a unity and a possibility for P.5 Unfortunately. 3ff. Genesis. 'Jakob der Mann des Segens. p. But that the verse for that reason belongs to P. nevertheless they serve as generally accepted signs of P-passages. such does not exist. p. this narrative no longer exists. cit. 3. without any criteria for them ever being given. 492. Op. comes to the conclusion: 'then only P is left to take 26'. 41.3. 492.2 belongs entirely to P.2 It is maintained that in 37. 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.6 But this is very surprising. he knows too the reasons why P introduced changes in face of the older source. What are the reasons for ascribing Gen. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Genesis erkl&rt.2 and 41. Genesis. Holzinger. a whole narrative.4 He discovers. and this is entirely the work of imagination. pp.224. Gunkel. devaluations—of the writer P are common. p. and the whole of v. According to w. One must then in all sobriety conclude that for the exegete who is not convinced beforehand that there must be a P-Joseph story.3. Bib 49 (1968) 321-44 (spec.. followed by Gunkel. 219. after discovering the tension. 321-22). the reason for the enmity is Jacob's preference for Joseph. according to v. . is difficult to prove. Zur Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie der priesterschriftlichen Jakobsuberlieferungen'. Ibid. See W. after the exclusion of secondary elements. things seem clear: There is no separate Isaac story in the priestly history'. though it would explain the situation without trouble.2. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 139 narrative is not considered. Holzinger. For the Isaac story.
although he had already on p. for at least 'feeling himself obliged to preserve due order'. But nevertheless.4 When one wants to understand the Toledot' headings attributed to P as structural signs in a coherent and continuous P-narrative. which has made its home in much exegesis.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. one attributed many fragments of 1 Genesis. 3 See above under 3.12-17 explicitly as the 'Ishmael story' without solving the contradiction. 25. . obliged to talk. 25.19 as 'having been prefaced by Pg to the whole Isaac story as heading and structure-signal (?).12-17'. This surprising shift has come about because P had nothing appropriate to say about Isaac. according to the prevailing opinion.. but felt himself obliged to preserve due order. and so to put in a column for Isaac and fill it out'.140 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch One must assume as certain that the patriarchal genealogy Abraham—Isaac-Jacob was long established at the time when P was supposedly written. p. this accords with the image of P as a second rate writer. there is no Isaac story. then one gets into insoluble difficulties. 385. 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. In other words: there is no discernible beginning to the P-Jacob narrative.2 3. 2 I cannot understand how Weimar (op. 175 established the absence of the Isaac story in P. knew the older sources.3. And what next? Earlier. 25. the sentence only raises again the dilemma described by Gunkel. 'had nothing appropriate to say about Isaac'! He is given credit. 185) can speak of the Toledot-formula in Gen.2 The Jacob Story What is the situation with the Jacob story? Weimar writes: 'The Jacob story begins with the Toledot of Ishmael Gen. cit. p. p.1.1 It is curious enough that P who. 385. rather condescendingly.3. 4 Genesis.
Pg only takes up again with Jacob's departure from there (31. Introduction. p.1. the word is generally regarded as characteristic of P.5). 6 See above under 3. 4.46—28. . Introduction. not to mention a report on the successful outcome of the commission to marry. cit.2 Now this is a remarkable and unreasonable demand on the reader. Hexateuch-Synopse. one invokes Elliger among others: 'Omitting Jacob's stay in Paddan-aram. but to find one to go to Paddan-aram.3 He thus hushes up the fact that nothing at all is reported of the execution of the commission.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. 4 Op. Eissfeldt.. 7 Cf..1. 27. 3 See above under 3. if one 1 See the divisions of P in Eissfeldt. But P would not have considered it necessary so much as to register Jacob's arrival in Paddan-aram. 14. the land of his mother's family to find one. would have required Jacob not to take a wife from 'the daughters of Canaan'. 5 See above under 3.4 One recalls that for Noth only for the P-narrative 'is there to be expected the complete preservation of the original content'. 183.5 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'. and would have sent him on his way with a blessing extending far afield (Gen. 31. he would have been satisfied with a note about his departure from there. Fohrer's table.18ap. n.6 But why is the piece ascribed to P? Here the arguments are taken almost exclusively from language.7 However.1 but now. But what of the quite isolated verse Gen. see above under 3. 182 2 Weimar. p. in an unusually detailed speech and with the most pressing of reasons. First. According to P Isaac.3.b).3.3. Elliger plays down this dilemma when he writes: 'Jacob obeys by looking around for a wife among his mother's relations'. 43ff. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 141 texts in the story of Jacob and Esau to P.1. 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. pp.18ap. p.3. p.3. 183.
12. The verb need not be dealt with here as it occurs in more or less immediate context with the noun.1 There is a further attestation in Gen. p. 388. 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.23) which no one ascribes to P. but only 'makes up for it. is. Taddan-aram'.32b (a piece almost universally not ascribed to P!) and 35. 15. p. The places in question in the book of Genesis are 12.142 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch opens the concordance.5. The word 2 serves as the next 'proof (Gunkel) for P. the closed circle of argumentation appears once more. which among recent exegetes.15. 13-16). . It occurs three times in the book of Genesis. 48. there is the designation of the land from which Jacob departs. 1924. where one would expect it. 22. is attributed to P only by Procksch. as far as I know. In the attestations that remain. regarded as an addition to P. once in a text (34.6. 2 Genesis. which likewise is not ascribed to P. Finally.6. and that with reservation.16 [2x]. And so one can scarcely say that this word can make a contribution to source criticism. 13.. It is found later in the Pentateuch within the "Holiness Code' (Lev. 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.. 35. in the form of a 1 Die Genesis Ubersetzt und erkldrt. First it must be stated that the only attestation which uses simply the designation Taddan' (Gen.7. In 46. Weimar tries to explain why P does not report the birth of the sons there. ascribed to P. at any rate. on the contrary. 11. It too is held to be characteristic of P. 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). The list of Jacob's sons in Gen.14.3.7) is not generally reckoned to P. which is closer to the priestly pentateuchal layer. however its usage is quite different. add Num. within the reflection on the theology of history (w. 36. although immediately beforehand there is a text so reckoned. 21). 46. 501. in which Paddan-aram occurs.22b-36. 16. even though this involves difficulties.
although they are in no way a bother or offensive.. when he came from Paddan-aram' are ascribed to P. But not by Wellhausen. 33. op. Gunkel is not entirely consistent when he claims for P on one occasion the words cited.. op.1. cit. Introduction. Gunkel.9. 11. cit. 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. So too the text fragment Gen.31. 'to the city of Shechem'.g.3. e.18a is assigned to P because of the expression Paddan-aram.3. this thesis is maintained. the list is either given preference so as to substitute for the missing account of the birth of the sons of Jacob. 384. 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. 35.2 or ends up after the Toledot of Jacob in Genesis 37. p. Composition. with the expression Paddanaram.6. the expression Paddan-aram is found in the chronological note on the marriage of Isaac in Gen. and on another the preceding words as well. Hexateuch-Synopse. pp.2. 553. It should be further noted that.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. There is often talk merely of the city of Haran—generally too in texts that are usually ascribed to P. Procksch.4 The classical solution is to take out v. p.. p. 45. 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. in the introductory piece to the divine address to Jacob in Gen. p. 69. 388. nevertheless acquiring thereby and at the same time criteria for determining other texts. 25. p. cit. 12. and four times in the narrative of Isaac's sending of Jacob (28. op. Fohrer. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 143 list'. Hence. Gen. cf. 368. Eissfeldt. 5.1 Others have experienced greater difficulties here.5! The last mentioned 1 2 3 4 5 See above under 3. But the P-context must be established! Finally. even though all assertions about the completeness and integrity of the P-narrative are clearly contradictory.20.lTft . inasmuch as the argument from linguistic usage enables the texts ascribed to P to give each other mutual support. 7).3 And so.
2 Gunkel says more exactly why this is a sign of P: 'the superfluous and precise determination of the place'.g.20 relating to Isaac). 99-100 n.387.5. 6a where is a certain sign of P'. in Gen. 25. 13 which exegetes divide variously between J and E. 19. The next piece ascribed to P is again a fragmentary sentence.7. but Haran. Within the story this designation is used in all 'sources' and layers. and in Genesis 50 in passages quite close to each other by J (v. Holzinger's reason is: T naturally narrated as well the arrival in Bethel.1 One accepts that the second half of the sentence. or the like.3). op.. 'he and all the people with him' stands unrelated. namely Gen. like so many other examples.5 46. which now bears the name of Bethel. 4 Cf. p. the only other descriptions used of it are 'the land of sojournings' (generally to *P'!). 2 Holzinger. by P again (48.. 13). according to Eissfeldt. 5 A History. The expression Paddan-aram then occurs only in the context of Jacob (with the exception of the note in Gen. the concordance shows that there is no other so to speak 'geographical' designation of the land in the patriarchal stories. 42. cit. A 'certain sign of P? Further. by secondary pieces (48. 36. and nobody ascribes them to P.4 Noth. Genesis erklart. 5) and P (v. though not Paddan-aram.144 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch has also the word .3 We have already noted earlier these typical judgments about P. Ga. 'the land of the fathers'. But the opinion is 1 Once again it is to be noted that Wellhausen does not ascribe this fragment to P. nevertheless. pp. 3 Op. this is ascribed to P together with the other attestations with reference to 'characteristic' linguistic usage.p. p. e. cit. or rather in Luz. but scarcely has anything to do with 'sources' in the sense of the documentary hypothesis. 184. 35. this is now lodged in v. 7. 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. 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. This is without doubt a pointer to a particular layer in the tradition. E.12). .
It is remarkable that Gen.1 After the divine address in Gen. among other things. In Gen. namely in 28. When we survey the texts in the Jacob story which are supposed to belong to P. Further. The repetition is apparently a sign of the same source and not of another. 'the names Mamre and Kiriath-arba' are.2 This is a bold statement as the two names occur together only here! The association of Kiriath-arba and Hebron. 35.30. while Mamre for its part is associated with Hebron in 23.27.27-29 is reckoned as P's. this is scarcely evidence of the studied and 'pedantic' style alleged against the source P. 'why not.19. 50. 35.18. There can be no question at all here of a standardized linguistic usage characteristic of a single source. 340.18 it is said of Abraham that Tie settled by the terebinths of Mamre which are in (near) Hebron'. characteristic of P. 15 is also to be accounted to P. it is said several times of the field in which the cave was situated that Abraham bought.19. is not clear'. The account of Jacob's return home to Isaac and of the latter^ death in 35. p. 23.). 2 Op. but with the limitation that it 'however occurs also in JE'. that it lay > (Gen.19. had taken into account the findings in the concordance.22b-26. 3 Ibid.14 is ascribed to E although/because it reports again the erection and anointing of the massebah which E has described already in 28. For Gunkel. 35. 35.13) (translated each time by 'east of Mamre' in NEB.13). though this is presupposed in 49. There has already been talk of the problem of the list of Jacob's sons in Gen. we find very fragmentary and incoherent 1 Holzinger in Einleitung in den Hexateuch. 25.2 (but without mention of Mamre).3 But in any case. v. trans.3.17) or (23.9) and Jacob (50.9. He maintains there that the 'occurrence of (is) an almost certain mark of P'.389. It is curious that 35. 1893.30-31 and though it is said of Abraham (25. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 145 clearly laid to rest by the concordance material without more ado. which is found in Gen.p.27-29 does not say that Isaac was buried in the cave. the change of name from Luz to Bethel had already taken place earlier in the other sources. .. cit. 49. 13.9-13. But that is obviously using a double standard. occurs in 23.
First.4-5). are for the most part small or very small textual units.1 3. 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. Questions begin again with the latter text. it must be said that there is no coherent Jacob story from P. see under 3. 145. starting from their own assumptions. 23 which is to be dealt with later.4a or Gen. 188.8.131.52 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch pieces which can be attributed to this source for the most part only on very dubious grounds. 2 S. apart from ch.2 Nowhere in the patriarchal stories is there a passage so extensively laid out. The passages ascribed to P in the Abraham story. In addition. McEvenue.1—2. p.10-17). First. Noth has concluded 1 This makes no difference to Weimar's construction. and more. the special nature of the passage must be considered carefully. It is the freest composition' within the whole P-narrative. 9. The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer. The few examples.E. and as a whole bearing the marks of the priestly layer of the Pentateuch. 1971. 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 (11.3.4. 1. so self-contained. Such comprehensive and self-contained passages of a priestly character occur only rarely in the rest of the Pentateuch.1. such as Gen. many exegetes have felt themselves compelled to rearrange the texts freely at their discretion so as to construct some sort of reasonably continuous text. Genesis 17 stands out as an entity that is sui generis. are not as free compositions as seems to be the case here.3 The Abraham story Let us now turn to the Abraham story \ It seems to offer the clearest and most convincing narrative complex. then the migration of Abraham from Haran to the land of Canaan (12.31-32).1-17. following on the genealogy of Shem (Gen. 3. . 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.
12. it is the chronological note about Abraham's age at the time of his migration in v. 4b.1. But such assertions are not untypical of the method. i as well. Why? First. because in this way different P-passages give each other mutual support. But whereas in the Jacob and Joseph stories P-passages are supposed to have been suppressed by the older sources. 22). 24.23 (Eng. this. it is the most natural and obvious way to state that somebody is departing and that he is taking others with him. We have already experienced the whole area of problems that this last argument raises.3.2 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.31.1 further.4b-5. 1 Genesis. The balance of tfsu meaning 'persons' and i referring to the rest of one's possessions occurs again in Gen. while there is no occasion at all to take it out of its context. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 147 that 'a corresponding passage with the same content from the old sources has had to give way to the P-passage. The passage Gen. however. Gen.3. As for Gen. 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'. . 2 See above under 3. 4b is to be seen in conjunction with other like notes. Gunkel): and i and according to Holzinger. 32. p. the verb-form as in Gen.3. is not in the problem area inasmuch as it would hardly have suppressed a corresponding statement in another source. which is ascribed to P.4b.21. Ixxxv. here the opposite is assumed. 5. 22. 3 See above tinder 3. it need only be said that the chronological note in v. cf. 31.2. hence outside of the passages ascribed to P. This is 'in the interest of retaining as fully as possible' the content of P.23. 14. 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. 11. In v. 5 we meet again an argument already well known: linguistic usage 'proves' that it belongs to P (Holzinger.10. here'. Noth himself mentions them expressly a few sentences later. 12. and elsewhere.3. would be a mark of P. 61. It is meaningless to claim as a mark of P.
6 is superfluous in the context of the story. 124. p.6. 13. lib. p. 6b to 'the other source'. and then looks for proofs for them.2 Criticisms are made here about the quality of the writing. Gunkel writes: 'v. so he disects a little more and assigns only v.1. 9. . one can hardly find reasons for attributing anything in Genesis 13 to the P-narrative.1 In what follows. Gen.3 But in another place he says: 'A part of 6 is indispensable for the context'. 12ab should belong to P.. cit. 12). Genesis. the 'Jordan valley' describes the fertile area that Lot chooses. Genesis erkl&rt. it will have done little to put the writers on the track of striking out something 'superfluous' so as to get a 'good narrative'. each of the expressions has a different function. The arguments are again: (v. It is incomprehensible how there could be any competition or contradiction here. It is of further interest to see how the resulting P-narrative 1 2 3 4 5 See above under 2. 7 and becomes entirely clear from 8. and 12a come from F.1-9 shows every sign of being very composite indeed. it makes clear that the necessity of source division is not based on contradictions or tensions in the text. p. 140. while the 'cities of the valley' are mentioned as the place where Lot is to establish his future home. 140. This becomes even clearer in v. 263. 6). which assumes the presence of several sources already.2. Gab to P. that a lack of space is the cause of the quarrel is to be read out of 2.p. The absence of an explicit basis for the conflict between the herdsmen of Abraham and Lot disturbs him. Gunkel writes: '12a also. 12. a conflict is seen between the expressions the 'Jordan valley* (w. p. 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. But Holzinger sees things differently.4 This type of argument is characteristic. while reckoning v. further. which can be dispensed with more easily in J than in P.5 When one does not want to engage in this sort of argument. good narrative does not say everything explicitly'.148 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 12. 5. 10-11) and the 'cities of the valley*. less clearly. This is a remarkable statement. Op. Genesis. 174. (v. But there are a number of other arguments in addition.
as well as Abraham's readiness for a peaceful settlement. nothing is said of his living in Sodom (N. Wellhausen. 15. as Abraham's nephew and erstwhile companion in the caravan. cit.3. everything concrete. 15-16 are assigned to the P-narrative.: because v. 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. there is not a sign'.1 under Q (= P). 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. 5 A History. 6 Genesis. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 149 is judged and evaluated. does not include 16. are less concerned with 'real and reliable history'? Or ought one not ask this question? Further.p. Gen.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. 4 See n. 124. p. 12bp is attributed to another source! [author]). Gunkel. 12. According to the basic principles of source division. 16. it is a matter here of real and reliable history'. p. and of the mood of malicious joy ringing in the story. always with precise dating. 174).. .B. 3 See above under 3.la.5 This means therefore that what remains of the 'old Hagar story' is incomplete without these pieces. What are the arguments? According to Holzinger and Gunkel. la. especially the dispute between the herdsmen and Lot's self-interest. Genesis. He writes: *Here too P has taken merely the bare facts from the story. the 'pedantic addition' of 'Abraham's wife'. 264. Characteristic also is the general nature of the statement that Lot settles in the area round about. p.4 3. 3.1. 121 (= p.3 Does this mean the other narrators who report vividly. 13. 16.3. 14. 124. thus it would appear that Lot. Die Composition.6 A glance at 1 Ibid. p. p. is missing. 16'. 2 Op.2 Elliger exalts still further the literary intentions of P: The main facts are communicated soberly. is a half saint who must remain free from any suspicion that he went to live among the people of Sodom out of sympathy'.1(a). but without precise dating. Gunkel has on the whole a poor opinion of P. a mark of P is to be found in v.
21.' What shows that it is part of a P-narrative? According to Holzinger. The same holds for v.8ff. are more complex. For Noth also v. Many exegetes have followed this view. 14? Verse 15 could also be a 'redactional addition with attention to Gen. as Wellhausen has already shown in detail. 13. the very basic principles of source division forbid that it be assigned to P. Verse 3. n. 16. a classical 'J-'piece. 2 Die Composition. 12. One could use this material better as a certain proof that this part of the verse does not belong to P.e. i. again. And as it is indispensable in the context of the narrative. 28. Only v.1 But this is a very unsatisfactory piece of information. 19-20. But it remains an open question for Noth how the original conclusion of the 'old Hagar story' may have looked. but 'with attention to Gen. 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. the 'old Hagar story' has been 'pruned at the end' in favour of P. 9 is a 'redactional addition'. 86. . it is not in competition with the expected statements of other 'sources'. 21. prescinding from the sweeping judgment.'. 10 11-12. But there is nothing about this in v. and in 20. p.18. 15. 3 A History.2 The words of the mal'ak YHWH in v.8ff.150 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch the concordance shows that this pedantic addition appears as well in Gen.3 where it is presupposed that Ishmael is present as a member of Abraham's family. pp. Perhaps there was originally nothing more than the tribal saying about Ishmael and the place etiology in v. a piece regularly attributed to *E'. it is a note that Hagar went back to Abraham. p. 'the utterly pedantic 1 A History. 15 remains! According to Noth. as is well known. 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. The second address in particular presupposes that Ishmael grew up in the desert. 9 require Hagar's return to Abraham. that Hagar did not go back to Abraham. if there is anything missing. is a chronological note which must be seen in the context of other chronological notes. which is ascribed to P.17.
4 Noth. 12ab ..119. It is beyond dispute that the conclusion of Genesis 16 is not a unity and leaves questions open. because this verse should have followed immediately on Gen. According to Dillmann. 13. Genesis. not to speak of the conjectures of the exegetes! That it is only in P that the father gives the name is untenable. Genesis 38. and how un-unified are the texts in this regard.4 The verse is undoubtedly a *brief summary note about the rescue of Lot'. And there is no tenable argument that v. according to the prevailing opinion. Holzinger himself confirms this for Gen. 57. p. 18.22'.26: This is one of the exceptional cases in which in J it is not the mother who names the new born child: cf. 2 Verses 3.25f. 15. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 151 awkwardness of the verse'. One usually reckons Gen. A History. 9 which nobody attributes to P. Gunkel. 15 belongs to a continuous P-narrative. it is 'the giving of the name by the father*. One has the impression that none of these 1 Genesis.25-26. 9. who usually named the new born child in ancient Israel. 132. ibid. lib. One need only look at the tensions and lack of clarity in the single chapter. p. is a mark of P. but in the final redaction it could 'only be accommodated to the continuation of the narrative Gen.6 Reference is made to Gen. 19.3. But this holds as well for v.. 30.6. 13. are exclusively from linguistic usage. it is clear also that v. . Genesis. p. 6. Gunkel. 5 and 29. 3 Genesis. (5. 264: T records the whole act like a registry clerk'. Ex 2. 6 Holzinger. 124. and others. p.29). p. Gunkel.3 The list of exceptions is far too long for one to draw a definite criterion from it for source division. 263.2 or in Gen. 25.1 Now everyone who has ever been concerned with the matter knows how difficult it is to answer the question. 5 Holzinger. the use of the verb in the pi'el. 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. 4.5 the function of which is not immediately discernible. following Dillmann. But this is a sign of embarrassment.11. p.17. 4.28'. 'destroy'. Holzinger. But. 25. what argues for P? The arguments which are advanced by the commentators.29 to the P-narrative.
p.. 19. God 'remembers' immediately the one he will rescue. the expression is used with reference to Rachel whose prayer for fertility God hears. Holzinger gives voice to the dilemma: 'Something in 21.1. there1 Op. The verb is used immediately beforehand in Gen. 8. however.13.27.2 must belong to F. cit. Isaac. Gen.1 It must belong. 8. according to Gen. also Deut.1-5 has provided the exegetes with a headache because the sources do not readily allow separation. and Israel. your servants'. 19.29.29 is to be compared with the apparently corresponding expression in Gen. This. and the expression 'cities of the plain' in the allegedly priestly verse. a further note: the phrase 'then God thought of Abraham' ("ori) in Gen. mention is made of clearly a stereotyped phrase. 19.152 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch commentators has taken the trouble to consult the concordance. 9. For the rest. cf. 132. 19. must be brought in to support the priestly character of Gen. which bears the deuteronomistic stamp: 'Remember Abraham. Gen. . 13. 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. on the other hand. A further argument is the use of the divine name elohim. It would be more appropriate to make a comparison with the sentence in the prayer of Moses in Exod. The account of the birth of Isaac in Gen. 13. in the middle of an address by YHWH about the destruction of Sodom in which the divine name YHWH is used four times.1. This sort of argument becomes all the more contradictory when the *Yahwistic' verse. which is attributed to P. First.11. One can hardly draw an argument out of all this for assigning a passage to a particular 'source'. is ignored.13 in the J-narrative as well as in the 'J'-text of Gen. in Gen.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. One text only will be referred to: in Amos 4. But there are problems here.29. 32. 21. 13. is not all that is to be said on the question. he remembers Abraham and rescues Lot because of him.10.1.12.
comes about exclusively through Gen. p. the reader does not learn. cit. continuous P-narrative has occasioned exegetes to assign elements to P even when there are serious reasons against. has inserted this divine name into P. so important for the context. thus. 'and especially the rambling nature of the whole piece' (Gunkel). 4 A History.p. 17. la. Further. no longer holds! But it is almost too easy to criticise manipulations of this sort by which many exegetes discredit their own methodology. It is the common and prevailing opinion that the Abraham story concludes with the account of Abraham's death and burial in Gen. 2 KBL. It is clear once again that. 18.1 The word . And in w. 1 Op. Again.3 Noth's judgment is different: in his opinion 'the mention of the birth of Isaac. even when the consequence is that one of the most certain signs of P.1b-5 by leaving out the corresponding statement of the old sources'.14 in VF? Holzinger's overall judgment is: '21. 3 Op. a special mark of P?). are to the fore (N. even paucity of presentation. the chronological data. 2b and 4 elohim is of course once more a mark of P. reference is made to Gen. 133. the use of the divine name elohim.2 because it is 'colourless'.3. P has not had a chance to speak fully and his wording has even been altered'. under the influence of in v. 'do. 21.7-10. s. the astonished reader learns that in v. the search for elements of an assumed. la looks like P. . 2b is a sign of P. but has mixed them. cit. 13.21—but is it to be insinuated that the reader has passed over or already forgotten the same expression in Gen. 133. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism.1-5 is one of those cases where R has not simply juxtaposed the elements from his sources.. it becomes a mark of P.B. 153 fore arguments must be found for it! For example: 'the colourless in v.. 25.v.: but was not brevity.p. by and large. We will come back to this later. and this is seldom enough the case. the 'pedantic detail' (Holzinger). make' occurs 2600 times in the Old Testament.4 What reasons he has for disregarding the reflections of Holzinger and others. but R.
273. and concludes from this that one must assume older material available. style of Genesis 23 seems untypical of F..5. though rather ancient in origin. 4 G. 7 Genesis.3. A further argument is 'the juridical exactness' (cf. verses of this kind are freed from any control by their context precisely because of their assumed P-character. 6 Introduction. 2 Ibid.154 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 3. it has 'the appearance as if P. 1964. In many other cases.4 Even today the special character of Genesis 23 within the Pnarrative is underscored.p. 309. 23: 'the alleged "P-characteristics" have their basis in the subject-matter of the text rather than in its "author"'. on the contrary—and only here—a chronological note of introduction is used at the same time to assign the whole narrative to a particular source.4 Genesis 23 One of the strangest phenomena in this area is that exegetes almost unanimously attribute Genesis 23 to P. When Dillmann speaks further of the 'artistic detail of the presentation'. not for the body proper of the narrative. Macholz has written appositely of the style of Gen. 1875 (3rd edn). 5 Die Genesis. 9 Op. .2).5 According to Fohrer the narrative 'is of material of Palestinian origin'..7 McEvenue does not follow this entirely. See above under 2.3.8 but notes: 'the chatty. Gunkel mentions further 'the many repetitions in the narrative'. The arguments have been passed on. esp. 17 onwards. 173.2 For the same reason he should also reckon the extensive narrative of Genesis 24 to P.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. is relatively quite fresh. 3 Die Genesis.6 Speiser sees in it a passage from J going back to an older tradition in which only the introductory note belongs to P. since Dillmann who based himself on Knobel (1852/1860!). 8 See above under 3. The first argument is the chronological data in v.22. here. Procksch writes: This narrative. unaltered in essence. a new example that P has used older material available'. 1. c#.. 17-18)'.3. p.. colloquial.1 but this holds only from v. Ch.. p.3. 526 (see above under 3. w.9 According to von Rad. p. p. 1 Genesis.
p. 1972 (2nd edn Eng. replies our narrative: in death they were already "heirs" and 1 2 3 4 5 Genesis.). all this 'could not remain unformulated by such a precise and conceptual theologian as P.3. often very heavy. Genesis. who had left everything behind them for the sake of the promise. and 'precise chronology* is the real mark of P.e. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 155 against customary practice. cf. From this standpoint Genesis 23 cannot belong to P. 246.1 The narrative 'is thus rather a puzzle for us from the traditio-historical standpoint'. . 47. p. p.5 but what this in fact means for Genesis 23. to reckon this chapter to P? Once again.9). Introduction. A second characteristic mark of the P-passages is the strong. has built in an older narrative almost unaltered. it is due to the pressure of traditional opinion. But a question arises here: did the patriarchs. because the freshness and liveliness of thrust and counter-thrust is unique within this source'. the narrative) such a prominent place in the priestly document?' His answer: 'the typical broken relationship to the material of the promise of course.2 In any case it has become clear that Holzinger's decision: 'there is no possible doubt that this passage belongs to P*.8.). 182. 23. 249. Macholz.7. Op.1. it is because of the chronological note in the introduction. he does not say. nevertheless. as von Rad alleges. 17. So why then is it reckoned to P? Without doubt. p. For the whole of ch.4 Fohrer says: *But everything is entirely ordered to and subordinated to the personal leanings of P. 28. there is not a trace of this in Genesis 23. 36. theological statement. remain without any share at all? No. The question for von Rad is: *What theological interest— and it is this alone that is of concern—has given it (i. 133. Genesis 1972 (2nd edn Eng. one must bear clearly in mind the methodological procedure: the general opinion is that one recognizes P first and foremost by the style.3 can hardly be maintained today in this form. What then has given occasion. 37. He says several times: the patriarchs live "in the land of their sojournings" chs. that the possession of the land was promised to the patriarchs.. the land'. cit. but that this promise was not yet fulfilled.4.
4 The priestly layer in the patriarchal story It is clear that a coherent P-narrative in the patriarchal story cannot be demonstrated. We will add just a few remarks about the fragmentary nature of the narrative and about the arguments with which one usually disregards them.28 should have departed so far from his own style as to have taken over this purely 'profane' story. not even a hint. 3. complementary. It would be beyond the limits of this book to advance in like detail the corresponding proofs for the remainder of the Pentateuch. cit. cannot withstand critical examination. And so the opinion that there is a P-narrative running through the Pentateuch is.. When all is said and done. point of view: all the more detailed texts that are elsewhere ascribed to P consist. of accounts of an action or an address of God. 6. 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. And there is a further. which are claimed to establish an even tenuous.250. A large part of the texts or text fragments. about these theological connections. There is not a word. without throwing even the slightest theological light on it. but numerous reasons against. more or less entirely. coherent narrative. continuous. he would certainly have expressed this in such a way that the reader could not but understand it.p. effectively contradicted. unaltered (there can be no question at all. in my opinion. there is a series of cases in which the material in the concordance contradicts the alleged linguistic criteria. of P being the real author). In particular. and further.156 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch no longer "sojourners". I see no valid reasons for accepting that Genesis 23 is a part of a P-narrative.'1 This very impressive interpretation has. But God is not even mentioned in the whole of Genesis 23! It is. in my opinion. It is obvious that no 1 Op. . in my opinion but one basic error: from what we know elsewhere of this 'precise theologian'. inconceivable that the author of texts like Genesis 17 and Exod. in my opinion.
2-8).2. 6.3. Some further reflections may be added to these.4. at the same time. Q = P). there is no introduction of Moses: he is suddenly there and receives assurance that the Israelites will be led out of Egypt (Exod.41. so trouble-free and with such nightly stealth and security does it take place!'2 And so here. 3. They do not form a continuous. 2 See above under 3. and how from this assumption obvious facts which speak against it are ignored or overlooked. they serve to show how widespread is the assumption that there must be a coherent P-narrative. First. A simple chronological note is encumbered with a narrative function. one ought not expect such banalities as that a leading person be first introduced. is not justified in Q'. the absence of an indispensable piece of narrative is exalted to a particularly profound theological interpretation.1 Chronological notes First. A new critical scrutiny of the arguments will only be possible when this assumption is brought into the discussion. Elliger writes: *NB: the departure itself is simply recorded with a single sentence Ex 12. there is a group of chronological texts which stands out 1 Die Composition. as has become clear. the well known pre-emptive judgment about P serves to hush up the fact that the story lacks continuity.3. 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. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 157 coherent narrative can be constructed out of the pieces usually attributed to P in the first chapters of the book of Exodus. And so once more. . A further example: an account of the departure from Egypt is obviously missing in the assumed Pnarrative. coherent narrative.1 But this only means: in the case of so poor a writer as P. they are obviously linked with each other. They are not meant as a polemic against particular authors. 62 (for Wellhausen. But this is typical of wide areas of current pentateuchal research. Wellhausen writes on this: To expect that Moses be first introduced before he appears as a well known person.1. rather. p. as in 6.
The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
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. Gesenius—E. 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.
3. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism
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.
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,
The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
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.
3. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism
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.
28b. the reworking has separated them from each other so as to insert between them the last words and instructions of Jacob. not only is the burial of Isaac in the cave reported by way of supplement. The execution of Jacob's instructions in Gen. Two further texts belong immediately in this context: Gen. 49. and Jacob come from the same layer of reworking. but also the burial of Rebekah and Leah. although Gen. whereas it did not in the Isaac story.e. 22) which we have already met in Gen. like the closing verse of Genesis 23. it begins in the same way in Gen.33b.28a and which occurs often in the primeval story. Gen. This is true too of Gen.22. otherwise it would remain incomprehensible why the reference is missing in the case of Isaac. presupposes that he was buried there.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. With Jacob. 47. This is more easily explained if. after the insertion of Genesis 23 in the Abraham story.30f. a corresponding assimilation took place. Isaac. 26 diverges from the other texts in that 1 Here only with instead of 2 In 25. 47. The subordinate sentence too in v. 50. Ishmael. 26. 49.162 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch begins with the words followed by the age. somewhat shorter in the case of Isaac (35. This suggests that one consider a subsequent expansion. who are nowhere else mentioned. occurs again here.29-32 presents a further stage in the formation of the tradition. i. and his sons Jacob and Esau buried him'. the subordinate sentence is formulated in greater detail: 'then Isaac expired and died and was gathered to his kin. belong together. It is clear then that the information about the deaths of Abraham. here. 25. The same detailed formulation occurs several times.28). but these two pieces. old and fulfilled in life. 50.1 but concludes only in 49. The formula is expanded in Abraham's case by mention of the burial place in the 'cave at Machpelah' which is awkwardly formulated. The remaining texts show other marks. The introductory (v. following the parallels.7 expanded with .12-14 also belongs to this layer of reworking.
story.3.2 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. 2 The problem of the toledot-formulas still remains opaque. it is surprising that this verse is without exception reckoned to E. How can a list be a main part of a 'history' (Geschichte. which I cannot comprehend. and with the prefixed . . All in all. It is remarkable that there is nothing about Jacob in the first group. His understanding of 'narrative' is displayed. it is clear that there has been no uniform and consistent reworking.2 3.). 183. in the synthesis on p.). 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. 182. etc.2. there is no mention of Esau's death. Weimar (see above under 3. I do not understand how a list can be a 'phase in the life'. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 163 it repeats again the age with the information about the death.4. on the other hand. or divided between J and E (Procksch. the first main part of the history of Ishmael' (p.3. though they contain some correct observations.g. for example. n. Here again another layer of reworking is discernible. e. But this is form-critically quite incomprehensible. Gen. This then would be the only place where the older sources would have given such information about the life-span. 'narrative'.17 and 26. A little later he writes that the list of Ishmaelites 'presents only a phase in the life of Ishmael'.2) has erected an imposing structure on these formulas.34 are classified respectively as 'heading' and 'narrative'. story.. but there is something about Esau. in the table on p. There are no discernible links between the two groups.. But perhaps these notions are not to be understood as form-critical precisions? But how else could they be understood? Weimar's constructions. No reasons at all are given why this is considered to be the case here. trans. Let me pick out a sentence at random: 'And thus the list of Ishmaelites formed. seem to me to point much more to a particular system of reworking an available narrative than to an independent 'history' (Geschichte). trans. where the two chronological notes. the chronological data in the patriarchal story shows a variety of marks. Fohrer)..1 Looked at as a whole. 25. The main difficulty which I see in his work is the fact that he works with notions of 'history' (Geschichte. 'report'. 179). (2) information about the entire lifespan in the context of the report of the death. Weimar often puts 'narrative' for 'history*.
5-6 to P. They are Gen. 48. The objects of the blessing are fertility and increase in v. 48. with reference back to the latter.5. which correspond to the other texts. It is noticeable that the cross reference does not cite literally.6-7 (cf. A number of different explanations present themselves: first.3.3 and 48. 27. w. 12). the content of the blessing however follows only in the second address.3-4 to 35.9-13. 4). one should note the repetition in 28. In 48.1 is introduced as Isaac's blessing of Jacob. 17.4.1 and 35.6-9 belong here as well. in v.1-4 refers back to ch.1 35.3. *E1 sadday*. and is again fertility and increase (v. also v. in 17. 4 a reference back to the 'blessing of Abraham'.46-28. the possession of the land in v. . 17.6-9! 2 There is scarcely any argument in the literature for assigning 48. understood as blessing without 1 26. First. though with numerous variations in the choice of words. The texts stand in pairs: 28. one notes that they all use the divine name. 11-12.8 in the phrase (an eternal possession).3 28. which occurs in these two places only in conection with the promise of the land.11-12.3. 20) is described expressly as blessing.3 there is the actual blessing formula and in v.9 the two-fold divine address is again introduced as blessing.3-4. the content is again fertility and increase as well as possession of the land (v.4 and 17. in 28. it would be conceivable that the author of Genesis 17 wanted to have the promises that he mentioned.34-35 and 28. there is further a link between 48. In Genesis 17 the promise address is not introduced as blessing. 11) and possession of the land (v. the promise of fertility and increase for Sarah (v. and further. it is said that El sadday appeared to Jacob and blessed him. 2) corresponds exactly to what is described as blessing in the texts just mentioned.2 One can discern readily that these texts are related to each other. 3 See above under 2. with reference back to it. In 35.11 it occurs in the form of the formula of self-presentation 'I am El sadday' as introduction to a divine address.164 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch sages.3-4 (5-6).3. but that the passages run in parallel lines. This is very remarkable in view of the fact that the content of the promise in 17. 16) and for Ishmael (v. A further link is that the talk in these texts is of blessing.
35. the connections between these four texts are clear.12). 20. 20) and the covenant with Abraham and Isaac (w.1.4. The formulation 'to you.3. 1 See above under 2. which obviously forms the point of departure for the whole group of texts. 35.1 the land promise in second place testifies to a later stage of the tradition. as well as in the cross references).8. 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. but that it is missing in the actual promise address in w. Finally.12. 17. one could argue that the assurance 'I will make you very. 28. 19b. Some further observations may be made on the position of this group of texts with the remaining promise addresses in the patriarchal story.9 the word ^bless' has been put in front of the whole complex of divine addresses. Criticism of Pentate uchal Criticism 165 saying so explicitly. and would only have been supplied later (in 17. both expressions follow immediately on each other twice (Gen. In three cases 'after you' 17. . 4.. Whatever the case may be.4). but that this idea has been eclipsed and suppressed (w.' in v. 21!). 16.3. there could be a third possibility: that originally there was talk of blessing at the beginning of ch. the latter is not formulated as a divine address and shows some peculiarities).. And so these text do not stand out from the other promises of the land as a self-contained group (see above under 2.8.. and once it is repeated after them (35. despite the notable differences. It was shown earlier that therein lies the peculiarity of these texts against others in which the sequence is reversed. once the verb stands between them. once..5 and 2.16.8.. table of beginning). very fruitful.4) is added to 'seed'. 48.3.) by the idea of 'covenant' in any case a clear distinction is made between the blessing for Sarah and Ishmael (vv. this is a peculiarity of this text group. as well as already mentioned (17. 7. and your seed' is found in three texts promising the land.. 6 is nothing other than a pronouncement of blessing..4. and one could also argue that in Gen.2. 17. 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. there is only 'to your seed' (48. 11-12.
It is notable that the plural form 'nations' and 'peoples' occur only in this group. 27.2 his departure for Haran (Gen. his return from there (35. in particular the notion of God's 'covenant' with Abraham. that circumcision as sign has not been carried further. 17.9-13).10). and the 1 See above under 2. however.5).4. tables).5 for more on Gen. There can scarcely be any doubt. the only other note about circumcision concerns Isaac in Gen. It is remarkable. . that these four texts are related to each other. They show how the blessing of God (more accurately. after the account of the actual circumcision of Abraham. which are found in various forms in the patriarchal story.3.3. but the group is not to be detached entirely from the historical process of tradition of the promise addresses. The special place of the texts then is apparent.1 while on the other new elements have taken their place.166 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 48. are synthesized in a characteristic way. but rather to anchor the prescription about circumcision in God's covenant with Abraham. Their intention is obviously to point in a definite theological direction. and the males who belonged to the *house' of Abraham in Gen.23-26. the different promise elements. Abraham (17.46-28. On the one side. Ishmael. As for the promise of increase. where there is reference back to Gen.2. And this parallel is clearly intended. There are the same main stages which in another layer of theological reworking are characterized by the theme 'guidance'. in particular to v. of El sadday) accompanies him on his way. 21. 17.5) and Jacob (35. these texts belong to the group which does not use 'seed' in this context (see above under 2. 2 See above under 2.9-12 involve a change of name of the patriarch concerned. The purpose of the author of Genesis 17—perhaps more accurately of these parts of Genesis 17—was obviously not to report a continuous passage of the patriarchal story. therefore. and circumcision as the visible expression of the covenant relationship. 12 There is no account of any other circumcisions in the patriarchal story.4.4). The remaining passages are all concerned with Jacob. yet another link is that the two divine addresses in Genesis 17 and 35. Finally. 17.
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. there are many details in Gen. The emphases in detail lie in a different direction from those in the 'guidance' layer.3. and the last mention of blessing looks back. But this does not touch the many promise addresses to Abraham which belong to other layers of tradition and reworking.1 At the same time it is evident this layer of reworking has a quite characteristic interest in the figure and journey of Jacob. Neither the assurance of guidance.3. presupposing the journey down to Egypt.9). An important direction is given in the Abraham story in Genesis 17. It has already been shown that these texts cannot be part of a continuous priestly Jacob story. But it is notable even so that. 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. 3. are not reckoned to P. the second blessing is given only after the return to the ground of the promised land. These texts give the Jacob story a separate. 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. 26.2.3-4).2 nor the assurance of mediatorship of the 1 See above under 3.3 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. 2 See above under 2. And further.1) and Jacob (35. 17. new interpretation which takes its place by the earlier one. . The departure for Haran is already under the blessing. like the divine addresses to Abraham (Gen. which runs through all three patriarchal stories. The impression that arises from this is that of a complement and a new emphasis of an already existing narrative.4. But these questions require farther study. they are introduced with . But this exhausts their contribution to the shaping and interpretation of the patriarchal story as a whole. generally. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 167 end of the journey in Egypt (48.4.
there are again those which are generally reckoned to the priestly document: In Exod.7. 17. Cf. 7.5 For the rest.5.4 one can recognize clear echoes of Gen. 41-119.1 which has proved itself in a special way to be an element binding the arrangement together. .3 there is reference back to God's 'covenant' with Abraham. 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. with the broad expansion of the formula 'I am YHWH' and with the 'recognition statement'6 in v. 1954 = Gottes Offenbarung. in a link piece.7-8. At the same time one can discern a definite line of interpretation in this group as a whole. a quite unique type of theme is evident. and in addition it does not share in the overall arrangement of the story. 1963.7. The 'priestly' texts then stand out in relief within the patriarchal story as an independent group with a number of peculiarities. W. Also. which in the present context indicates the change of fortune pointing toward the imminent rescue of the Israelites. However. Zimmerli. We had concluded earlier that on the one hand the lack of connection between the individual complexes of tradition is striking. But it is by no means the dominant interpretation within the patriarchal story. it strikes one immediately that in the further course of the narrative there is no cross-reference of this sort to be found.5. See above under 2.2-9.168 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch blessing for others. because it embraces only a partial aspect (primarily the Jacob stories). Gesammelte Aufs&tze. Erkenntnis Gottes nach dem Buche Ezechiel.4. however. Isaac. 17. in the divine address in Exod. 2.23-25. The exodus event 1 2 3 4 5 6 See above under 2. are found in these texts. 24) We had earlier expressed the conjecture that one might see here a link with Gen. A few further remarks may be added here about the combination of the patriarchal story with the traditions that follow.5 and 2. See above under 2. 6. See above under 2. Ibid. pp. and Jacob (v. With these two texts then a deliberate tie of the patriarchal and exodus traditions is achieved.
Study of these texts demonstrates that the arguments for assigning them to P (arguments which are almost entirely absent in more recent literature) cannot.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. partly the total life-span with the information about the death of the person concerned. Nor are there connections between the chronological notes and the theological texts. while the others all have to do with Jacob (Gen. a small group of'theological' texts stand out. a single tie of the patriarchal and exodus traditions under the aspect of YHWH's covenant with the fathers. We find in these priestly texts therefore no reworking covering the whole of the Pentateuch. the goal of the journey. 25) at the time of their circumcision is mentioned. and the occupation of the land.46-28. 1. The texts generally claimed for this narrative thread are to be judged very differently. but only. that YHWH had assured to the patriarchs. 24) and Ishmael (v. coherent narrative. new interpretation of the patriarchal story. 48. They mention partly the age of a person at the time of a particular event. 35.3-4).4. 17).5. 3. either stylistic or in content or in their particular setting in the present text. withstand critical examination. First. so that the result is a continuous. one of which synthesizes the divine promises to Abraham in a new way and puts them under the key word 'covenant' (Gen. there are several groups of chronological notes. only that in Genesis 17 the age of Abraham (w. though they do not use the idea 'covenant'.9-13.3. there is a considerable number of assertions which a simple glance at the . 27. beside the episodic. 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. give no indication that it is the land. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 169 itself. There are no discernible connections between these groups. the wandering in the desert. in the majority of cases. indeed. they are linked with Genesis 17 in a particular way. Further.
of a continuous narrative which once existed independently on its own. and that on the grounds of 'proofs' from linguistic usage. i. 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 .18. the claim for P of the expression 'at the particular time' in Gen. Even when one assumes that the remaining groups of texts mentioned are all to be reckoned to one 'source'. I underscore once again as typical examples: the appendage 'Abraham's wife' in Gen. despite the lack of any discernible relationship to each other. on the one hand. In my opinion. hence. The refutation of arguments such as these sets up a sort of chain reaction. critical examination shows cogently that these connecting pieces are not to be claimed for P.17 and in the 'E-passage' 20. 16.2b.5 Synthesis It has been demonstrated that.14. 19. the alleged P use of the verb in the pi'el.10.29 which is used in the immediately preceding J-narrative in 19.13 as well as in the J-text in 13. and of the Moses and exodus traditions on the other. But no proof is forthcoming that they are constituent parts of a 'source' within the meaning of the documentary hypothesis.170 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch concordance proves to be false. one could attribute them all to the same layer of reworking which has complemented and interpreted in a particular way a text already available.1 which is held to belong to P. 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. Examples could be multiplied at will. 'destroy* in Gen. 21. they still do not produce a coherent narrative. 3. which are claimed for P. we are faced with the question. to a large extent support each other. but which occurs also in the 'J-passage' 12. because the texts. and further.e. there have been different reworkings of the patriarchal story which are consistent and of theological significance. which is found also in the immediately related 'J' piece in 18. At most. This pulls the mat from under any assumption of a coherent P-narrative.
The deci sive causes of this uncertainty are the fact that certain basic theses are maintained. It proved almost impossible to acquire from current study any sort of clear picture of that source. its unity. the determination of his character and his intention. hence. In particular. and the arguments by which they were supported in the first place have lost their tenability. side by side with a later priestly source. and the persuasive power of its arguments. differences in the use of the divine name and other linguistic usage. there were several older sources. The attempt to carry through this 'crosscheck' ran into a serious difficulty very soon. and of a redaction that fitted them together. Though the thesis is almost universally maintained that there is basically general agreement about the delimitation of his work. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 171 this sort appear as the next logical stage in the formation of the tradition. 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. generally regarded as the most important. closer attention reveals very soon that there is no such basic agreement among the majority of exegetes in any single essential question. The endeavour to establish these sources as accurately as possible and to work out what was peculiar to each. The examination of the reasons for these divergences and differences of opinions shows that they arise out of a profound methodological uncertainty.e. its *built-in system'. it is on this that the larger units'. It is because our studies hitherto have not led to such outlines that we have undertaken the 'crosscheck'. themselves collections of very different kinds of material. namely the Tahwist'. build and are brought together into larger outlines which cover the whole theme of the Pentateuch. different religious and moral concepts. it seemed convincing that. i. The assumption of several parallel and originally independent sources. different historical presuppositions. one could divide among these different sources individual narratives which occurred several times. and so on.3. revealed . even though their presuppositions are no longer correct. we have subjected current pentateuchal study to critical questioning directed to the tenability of its arguments. seemed to answer plausibly the greater part of the literary questions.
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. cit. 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'.W. op.2 The problems of source division have intensified notably with the rise of form-criticism and the discipline arising out of it. p.. . or ascribe relatively large sections of texts to redactors. 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. The changing fate of the TDlohist' is a clear example of the problem. 136. 'growths' or whatever. see above under 3.1 That the doublets or complements at various places in the Pentateuch could be independent of each other is thus not given serious consideration. Even though many exegetes have clearly not 1 H. because since Wellhausen the 'fragmentary* hypothesis has been superceded. The question whether the individual sources have been fully preserved has played a special role in these discussions. 'glosses'. namely the study of the process of formation of the tradition. When it is recognized that individual texts belong together. but never to be able to distribute the entire material of the Pentateuch among them. or to reduce by virtue of necessity the demands of the criteria for source division. 2 Those who contest the Elohist are the exceptions here.172 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch very quickly the difficulties and the problem area of this undertaking. And even when today one has largely renounced any wish to reconstruct the Elohist completely. then they must also belong to a 'source'. 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 question—and so the situation has remained up to the present. Wolff. or to explain them as not belonging to sources and so as 'additions'. This has led time and again to the questions whether one should postulate new sources or sub-sources.1.
The first basic alteration is that the Pentateuch is no longer regarded primarily as a literary product. Thus. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 173 become conscious of this. First.e. further problems come into the perspective. p. there has. been many an alteration in the presuppositions. at least for Old Testament scholarship in the German-speaking area.lll.3. 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. pentateuchal study and documentary hypothesis have become so inseparable. 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. . After von Rad had demonstrated the independence of the individual complexes of tradition within the Pentateuch and their general independence of each other. nevertheless. Introduction. what part did the authors of the sources play in the composition of the present whole. that alterations in the statement of the question are felt to be merely problems within this theory. the question arose. One usually reckons with a stage of oral tradition in which the texts to a large degree more or less acquired their form. 'None of the views mentioned [i. this means that the authors of the individual written sources made use by and large of material already given shape.1 But when the question is put in the context of the process of the formation of the tradition. But because one can speak of 'sources' only from the earliest time when the text was fixed in writing. but not a question addressed to it. Many exegetes are not aware of this and it has not left any discernible trace in the literature. Von Rad 1 So Fohrer. a much greater self-sufficiency is attached to the individual narrative or tradition. the only explanation is that. 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'.
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'. which the Yahwist has inserted between the old narrative passages'. Fohrer. the Yahwist has 1 Von Rad. This process of the transition of the material at one time stamped by the cult into new literary' arrangements is then described in detail.174 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch himself assumed that all complexes of tradition had been fixed in essence before they were taken over by the Yahwist.. but to 'G'. 67f. pp..' still discernible. in the exegesis of 18.. "The Form Critical Problem'. 18. he speaks of'connecting pieces. yet in the summarizing 'epilogue' to the preceding cult story of Mamre. which were available to him..g. But Noth. 32) that 'the part of the Yahwist in [their] composition.. Gen.1: Thus. 28) and Penuel (Gen. for example. and there is very often talk there of the Yahwist without his part in the development becoming readily discernible. On the contrary. And so once again other criteria must be sought for discerning and characterizing the Yahwist. There is evident here. essentially self-contained.1. and consequently the 'fulfillment and penetration of that ancient story material by the Yahweh faith. .1 and many exegetes have more or less followed him expressly. He writes of the two cultic stories of Bethel (Gen. the Yahwist is not mentioned. he is occasionally claimed for narrative details: e.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.. even with von Rad. 18ff. in one most vivid sentence about place and time.. 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.2233. a remarkable imbalance in evaluating the Yahwist. On the one hand he ascribed to the Yahwist the final arrangement of the complexes of tradition. is very probably. as for the literary arrangement... Kaiser and others had already assigned these not to the Yahwist. clearly standing out from the narrative context. of other cult stories it is said expressly that 'we can regard the blending of [the] sacral traditions with the Yahweh faith'. only as the work of the Yahwist'. 53ff. 2 See above under 1.
2 See also Westermann's critical survey.1 and 3.2.3. .. Genesis 1-11. . 1 See above under 1. speak against the currently reigning view of pentateuchal sources within the meaning of the documentary hypothesis. across the larger units or the complexes of tradition.Jl It becomes quite clear from all this. I think. however. from such a statement of the question. examining seriously and reflecting methodically on their compatibility with the assumptions and statements of the question of the 'classical' documentary hypothesis. On the contrary.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 see numerous important reasons which. 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). 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. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 175 brought us right into the picture. pp. 569ff. to the present synthetic whole.
This page intentionally left blank .
Hence. A result of our study is that the mutual independence of these complexes is considerably greater than has been generally accepted to date. then one cannot acquire a coherent view of the history of its growth.1 We might take then some observations of von Rad as our point of departure. there is a notable absence of cross-references between these larger units'. but that this is not continued in the following larger units which deal with the stay in Egypt. . He has shown that the Pentateuch consists of a number of complexes of tradition which are clearly separate from each other. This is particularly remarkable at the level of the generally accepted 'older sources' of current pentateuchal study. each of which has obviously had its own pre-history. These 'sources' are for the most part regarded as theological works. It is precisely this that is the express goal of the traditio-historical method since it appeared.2. 1 See above under 1. 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.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. Above all. to which the essential arrangement of the Pentateuch is ascribed. 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.
But this check was rendered extraordinarily difficult. must be regarded as. ill-defined consensus about him.178 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch the exodus. and especially of over-arching interpretative evidence. and the wandering in the desert. 4. We tried to establish by means of a 'crosscheck' of the documentary hypothesis whether. the result is that for the critical observer. the documentary hypothesis. 'sources'. however. important. according to which the Pentateuch is assembled out of several parallel. Sinai. how do the literary-critical method in the form of the documentary hypothesis as it reigns . 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. undertaking. and which have scarcely been reflected at all. we might perhaps gain better insights into the connections between the individual larger units within the Pentateuch. That the continuity of the 'priestly document' is greatly overestimated and often supported by arguments which cannot withstand critical scrutiny. and in many respects. each with its own profile and own thought pattern. the *Yahwist'. On the contrary. a consensus. In particular. there is a characteristic lack of continuity. These remarks must of necessity be understood as critical questions addressed to the currently reigning 'documentary hypothesis'. a highly problematic. namely. directing the question in this way. 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. a first answer is given to the question raised in the introduction to this study. methodologically. concrete detail. to which there is no agreement among the exegetes in any single. a quite anachronistic. the documentary hypothesis proves itself to be extremely contradictory. Our observations are scarcely in harmony with this. continuous. is another aspect of the same problem. especially in wha concerns its chief source. There is today scarcely anything more than a general. and especially the picture which it presently presents of the *Yahwist'. On the contrary.1 Dissent from the documentary hypothesis Hence.
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'. pp. dissent from the documentary hypothesis. cf. 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. and it must be repeated again here. On the contrary. in recent pentateuchal study. This conclusion must be protected from possible misunderstanding. and the traditio-historical method.1. and when one tries to allege the currently reigning notion of 'sources' to answer the questions raised by traditio-historical study. Schmidt. see above under 3.1 In any case. Exodus. What is to be questioned rather is a particular conclusion of the literary-critical work on the Pentateuch. Literary criticism of different passages of the Pentateuch has separated out individual units of text. as an (unintentional) example.2. namely what is known as the 'documentary hypothesis'. this hypothesis has almost been identified with the literary-critical method as such. 63-64. Fohrer expresses 1 The terminology of the discipline is significant: one assigns the text to a source.4. a particular hypothesis. then there is no answer. Many of the observations made about the texts since the rise of the literary-critical method retain their validity and still require an answer.H. W. . means an alteration in the methodological approach. 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. However. 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. Conclusions and Consequences 179 today. that it is not at all a question of contesting in any way the legitimacy of literary-critical statements of the question. while maintaining the literary-critical position. and quite obviously even when there are no clear criteria favouring one source or the other. It has already been underscored. so that the difference between the two must again be expressly brought to mind.
2 See above under 1. to start with. It too. pp. the literary-critical separation of the different strands. that from the traditio-historical point of view. has shown that this is not the case. 'Beobachtungen an der Moseerz&hlung Ex 1-14'. Similarly Fohrer: 'Indeed. as the documentary hypothesis demands. at the end of the path of the traditio-historical inquiry. EvTh 31 (1971) 579-88 = Gesammelte Studien zum Alien Testament 2. 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). be it that the basic principle cited agrees with exegetical practice or not. the assumption of continuous 'sources' in the Pentateuch is only justified when. in my opinion. But. 189-98: 'So as things stand today. namely. p. The basic principle already mentioned earlier must be set against it. is no longer to be gained. 3 Von Rad has seen this clearly.2 But our inquiry. and put the question of belonging to one of the 'sources' only at a later stage of the exegesis. 4. from a form-critical or a traditio-historical point of view. 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.3.. it is long since clear. although it has long since become clear that a self-contained picture of the 'sources'. 1973. 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. and especially the 'crosscheck' of the documentary hypothesis. it is to be flatly denied. that the Hexateuch contains more material that does not belong to a source and that the narrative threads contain more disconnected narrative . has in fact long since lost its force because 'to start with'.1 But it is legitimate to contest even this basic principle.180 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch aptly the current situation: It is a non-negotiable basic principle of the anlaysis of the Hexateuch that.. it presents itself as the most plausible answer to the questions which the final form of the text raises. 1964. must stand'.3 And even if one might hope to come to convincing 1 Uberlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus. one must in many cases concentrate on individual narratives and other such 'smallest units'.
The conclusions remain to be sketched briefly and the consequences to be pondered. especially of the 'Yahwist'.' (see p. 'Die Ehen der Erzvater'. N. Tentateuchal Criticism: No Clear Future'. this is no longer possible from the Sinai pericope on at the very latest. it is evident yet again that the Abraham. H. DBAT 8 (1975) 2-10. Van Seters.1975.5. but in my opinion it is chasing after a phantom. 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. however. Schult. 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. B. 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. 1 J. 'Argumenta e Silentio. Rendtorff zum 10. 'Edom in alttestamentlichen Texten der Makkabaerzeit'. VT 22 (1972) 448-59. DBAT Beiheft 1. And the newly enkindled discussion about the dating of the sources of the Pentateuch. CanJT 13 (1967) 225-32. Das grosse Schweigen als Folge der "alten Pentateuchquellen"'. . Diebner/H. 4. Conclusions and Consequences 181 conclusions in Genesis or in the first half of the book of Exodus. and that very obviously. 2). 23-34.2 The 'larger units' in the Pentateuch The main purpose of this study.1 only shifts these concerns on to another plane.. is not to refute the documentary hypothesis. 'Confessional Reformulation in the Exilic Period'. 6 n. as an example of a 'larger unit' within the Pentateuch we have subjected to detailed analysis. Isaac.1 The patriarchal story The patriarchal story which. and Jacob stories each has its own history of formation and its own independent profile.H.Wagner. Schmid has also argued for a late dating of the Yahwist (May 1975: Fachgruppe Altes Testament in der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft fur Theologie). DBAT 8 (1975) 11-17. in Festschrift fur R..4. proves to be a complex and at the same time a rounded unit.2. First.E. 4.
4 This belongs as well to the passages which bind the three patriarchal stories with one another and fit them together into a whole.2-5 and 26.4). Only a few problems will be indicated here which present themselves anew. 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. 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. The traditio-historical problems of the patriarchal story are not thereby finally solved.2.4) and to Jacob (28. . in the framework of the Isaac story with the two divine promise addresses in Gen.3.4. 26.4. and the assurance of abundant descendants at the end. 22.18. especially in the closing promise address in Gen.14) and.241 and in the arrangement of the Jacob story as a 'guidance' narrative. only at a later stage of the reworking and arrangement. See above tinder 2. It is given to Abraham (12.2 In both cases the promise of the land is emphasized at the beginning.15-18. See above tinder 3. for example. rather a way has been opened to deal with them more intensively.3.18).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. See above under 2. This is evident. The promise of the blessing for others dominates here. to Isaac (26. the genre 'Sage' undoubtedly needs a renewed and more nuanced study. 28. But here too the function of a framework is clearly recognizable. the different formulations show that the Abraham and Jacob stories were first joined together (12. In the Jacob story. the Abraham and Isaac stories (22.4.14). the assurance of blessing which accompanies him on his way has been added in another layer of tradition. First. 22.4. 26.182 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch intact. But now that the independence and complexity of the patriarchal story has become so evident.
4. 3 Von Rad has included Gen. Genesis 1-11. 4 And thus. Kessler on the 'cross references' offers further pointers 1 Cf. to take up an example already mentioned. I have deliberately tried to avoid preliminary decisions about whether individual texts belong to particular 'sources'. and so did not merit any thorough consideration. but in such a way that he was forced to span certain texts. And further. in dealing with the promise addresses in ch. the work of R. In this area. Finally. 2 See above under 3. one would pursue more precisely the connections between the divine promise addresses and their context. Westermann. In particular. study can turn itself to the questions of the structure of the patriarchal story under different presuppositions. pp. . And texts which are difficult to classify. 15. like Genesis 14 and 23.2. and likewise again chs. can be simply studied and evaluated in their own right. In doing so. 17 were not there. 2. the collection and arrangement of the patriarchal stories.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. 1. pp. but I am very conscious that my own insights are only a beginning. A new beginning may be made here. The reflections presented above still leave many questions open in this regard. 18fF. one must investigate in more precise detail than has been possible within the limits of this study. particular groups of texts were not assigned to the priestly layer.4 thereby leaving the way open for as unprejudiced analysis as possible.3 They were added anyway by a redactor. Conclusions and Consequences 183 the one hand and the complex of traditions with which the book of Exodus begins on the other. 20-22. 170f). 22 among the narratives designated by him as 'Yahwistic' (Theology of the Old Testament. 14. 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. In the case of the *Yahwistic' Abraham story.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. he had to carry on as if chs.2. and it can.
This is especially the case with 1 See above under 2. which do not arise in the same way for other larger units within the Pentateuch. 12. 4.184 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch and suggestions. .1. Hence.3-4) with an emphasis to which there is no parallel in the patriarchal story? Can one. whereas the event at Pnuel (Gen. put this side by side with other narratives in which. 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.10-20 ('the ancestress in danger*) has no divine address and so no mention of the divine promises to Abraham. 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.23-33 [Eng. 28. yet they are mentioned in an insertion into its context (13.1. without more ado. and so allow one to discern the guiding principles and methods of reworking. throw light on the path. 22-32]) has remained quite untouched? Can one simply maintain the interpretation of von Rad. answers to them would first promote a better understanding of the patriarchal story as an entity. are concerned with specific problems in the patriarchal story. 32.2. To give but two examples: how is one to understand the following: the narrative in Gen.1 a question of course which is linked with those already mentioned.1. but have not been tied to the context in any comparable way? And how does one evaluate this: the cult etiology of Bethel (Gen.2 The other 'larger units' Something corresponding holds for the other larger units within the Pentateuch. 2 See above under 2. the divine promise addresses carry such weight. from the smallest units to this larger unit. step by step.10-22) has undergone a very varied and multi-faceted interpretation by means of the divine promises. in their present form. so plausible at first sight.
3 is one of those passages which bring the patriarchal stories together as a whole. 12.W.4 The independence of the primeval story as a larger unit has long since been recognized and stressed. 549-50. Probleme biblischer Theologie.3b and is in fact not a continuation of the promise given there.3b. about which Wolff insists 'the real message of the Yahwist is to be seen only in 12. O. 12. Westermann.g. 550. yet another aspect becomes clear: many studies on the primeval story limit themselves entirely to it. but further reflection is required about its connection with the other units. Genesis 1-11. pp. a whole. 1972. they take it for granted that the layers of tradition discernible there must be regarded as constituent parts of the pentateuchal sources. 1-11 alone. on the basis of Gen.4.32 shows no connection with Gen.1 it has always been the object of studies which have focussed entirely on the problems in these chapters. Genesis 1-11. p.6 This could be a clue to the simultaneous growth of 1 Cf. And the single occurrence in the book of Numbers within the Balaam oracles. 2-11 is. 3 E. At the same time. 4 So Westermann.. then it means that.g.3b'. in the intent of the Yahwist. Conclusions and Consequences 185 the primeval story. underscore its internal coherence. rather the opposite. also Westermann. Steck. 1971. cf.64ff. 549). can certainly be related to Gen. 12. Wolff has unintentionally shown this in 'The Kerygma of the Yahwist'. but which has no counterpart in the larger units that follow. which is meant to encompass all that is typical of the human condition. 3'5 is often alleged as a reference back to the patriarchal story to the primeval story. pp. Genesis 1-11. If this is correct. 12. . 2 E. in 'Genesis 12. according to our reflections. but only with it. 7. pp. p. however.'. 6 I think that H. 24. 12) v.1-3. Steck: 'Gen. the primeval story has indeed been tied to the patriarchal story. p. 5 Steck. with all the possibilities and depreciation of human existence. cit. Num. The express connection is made merely by a few remarks about Gen. and interpret it accordingly as a unit in itself. 525-54 (esp.9. op.K. 12.3a (despite the notable change of the verbs) but not so to the words of 12.3 or not at all. the only occurrence of the key-word 'blessing' in the whole of the book of Exodus in Exod. Ertrage der Forschung.2 nevertheless.1-3 und die Urgeschichte des Jahwisten'.. Festschrift von Rad. because Gen.. And a further remark: 'the universal perspective of the primeval story which the Abraham story achieves in (Gen.
With regard to the other larger units. S.4 And so it is evident once more that the reflections made here have no counterpart in other larger units. 'Beobachtungen an der Moseerzghlung Exodus 1—14'. 4 It is remarkable that the verb used in these passages. we can for the most part latch on to what has already been said. occurs only seldom elsewhere in the Pentateuch. "Mose'. expresses very clearly—even if in part—that the section is an entity to be considered in itself and that it has in some way to do with divine worship. 2 Cf. is then studied again. Herrmann. nevertheless its peculiar literary character and relative internal coherence is continually underscored. God takes heed of the Israelites.31). theologically interpretative. which has given this passage its own stamp. borrowed from the liturgical realm. Even if the supposition that the unit is in essence a liturgical text has receded into the background. EvTh 28 (1968) 301-28 (esp. This notion. There is obviously a mind at work here. The analysis of the Sinai periocope usually begins with the speedy. EvTh 31 (1971) 579-88 = Gesammelte Studien zum Alien Testament 2. G.4.3 Exod. (hip'il). when the definitive rescue is announced to them (12. arrangement of the unit. cramped together into a few chapters. von Rad. exclusion of the parts belonging to the 'priestly document'.27b) and they finally see this rescue with their own eyes (14. though from the most divergent points of view.186 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch these two larger units independently of their connection with the following units.23-25 marks the turning point in the first section of the call of Moses. 2. pp. In 4.2 Once again we may take up the reflections on a deliberate. 3 See above under 3. the question of the special character of Exodus 1-14(15) has been there.1. interpreting.31 the Israelites 'believe' the message that Moses has received and bow before it—just as later. and thereby further cut 1 See above under 1. 189-98. and unanimous. planning. arranging. 326). The remaining 'nucleus'. But this question needs further careful attention. . Pentateuchal study takes for granted that the Sinai pericope is an entity in itself.1 Since Pedersen. 1973.2. mainly in respect of assigning passages to their sources.
157-58. 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 holds particularly for the still quite open question. 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. Perlitt. 2 See above tinder 1. how the larger units have been brought together and finally assembled into the whole which is the present Pentateuch. The problems of the narratives of Israel's stay in the desert have already been outlined. But the notion of larger units' must not be overdrawn. Conclusions and Consequences 187 up. L.3 It must be emphasized. pp. what were the intentions and ideas at work. and that many exegetes would not find it all that difficult to renounce it in this area. Bundestheologie im Alien Testament. and what systems of arrangement are discernible.4 and 2. The task that now lies before us is to put the question more concretely of the texts in the Sinai pericope.4. . This brings up a partial aspect of the question. see above under 1. been torn apart again.6.4. how does one explain the process by which these texts came together.g. 1969. over against recent attempts. 3 E. 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.2 Here too there are indications that this group of texts is to be understood as an independent larger unit. Fritz. whether and how far these texts belong together in one larger unit. that it is necessary to free oneself from the hypothetical realm and the bonds of source division. V. The advantage of this could well be that source division (prescinding from T') has thus exhausted itself. Here. and then when the different parts of the Pentateuch were assembled.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 attempt to work out an isolated 'Yahwistic' desert tradition must of necessity cover over more problems than it can solve. and to put the question. These 1 Cf.
have only been taken up at one of the stages of a synthesizing redaction. or at the final redaction of the Pentateuch. It is similar with other larger units: the 1 See above under 1. which have not belonged to such larger contexts. . but that this collection has undergone work of arrangement and interpretation. The study of the patriarchal story has shown that it is not only a collection of texts that belong together thematically. On the one hand there is the question whether they were at one time bound together as an independent larger unit. requiring further discussion. the continuation is to be sought. whether they were conceived as part of a comprehensive presentation of the occupation of the land and where. however. that most of the texts of the Pentateuch were united into 'larger units' before these were brought together to form the present whole. on the other hand there is the problem.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. 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. One must examine the corresponding texts in the book of Numbers independently of these to see if they belong together.188 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch questions then must be examined very carefully and without previous commitment. but shows several stages and layers.4. It is clear. 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. The narratives about the occupation of the land in east Jordan also contain a double problem. if at all. One must always be ready to grant that single pieces of material. They are much more readily recognizable as an independent larger unit with its own particular profile. and that this work did not take place at one stroke.
each with its own complexity. the Sinai pericope. 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.3 The problem of the synthesizing. our reflections and considerations mean a basic shift from the view hitherto taken. sufficiently apparent for Exodus 1-15. final arrangement of the Pentateuch Finally. even though not with the same clarity. in my opinion. 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. and it would be consistent with this approach if it were to be freed from the hypothetical realm of the documentary hypothesis. a 'theology of the Sinai pericope'. a 'theology of the Moses and exodus narratives'—each of them with several layers. 4. methodologically justified and necessary. This concerns first the concept of 'redaction' or 'redactor'. is set out. and. must. a 'theology of the patriarchal story'. The present study has expounded this in the case of the patriarchal story. I think.4. Rather the concern. one must look again at the question of the synthesizing. namely that each of these theological outlines. find its appropriate expression in the description of a 'theology* of the individual larger units. to discover the theological plans which precede and underlie the present Pentateuch. it is. Work on the Pentateuch has long since taken this path. so that one can maintain the same for this larger unit as well. in my opinion. The documentary hypothesis . And so what is remarkable and characteristic is this. and. and at first with no connection with one or several of the others. In this regard too. final arrangement of the Pentateuch. One can then trace a 'theology of the primeval story'. the Moses and exodus narratives of Exodus 1-15. It goes without saying that the attempt to present a 'theology' of the individual 'sources' of the Pentateuch is incompatible with this. Conclusions and Consequences 189 primeval story. entirely self-contained. it needs no further demonstration for the primeval story and the Sinai pericope.
2 Even when one can discern here a loss of confidence in the possibility of explaining the history of the redaction of the Pentateuch. Rather. one has the sequence RJ RE RB RD RH Rp. B([Bundesbuch] Book of the Covenant). 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. JCYahwist). 191. H(Holiness Code). Here too. E(Elohist). But this does not at all mean that all the literary-critical observations made so far.190 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch assumes that the individual written sources were joined together by redactors. He saw the chronological sequence of the constituent parts of the Pentateuch as follows: L(lay source). it is not possible to describe in detail the redaction history of the Pentateuch.1 Hence. Fohrer supports in essence this view of the growth of the Pentateuch to its final form but without any further precisions: 'In the interim. and which have led to the assumption of redactors at work. 2 Introduction. Eissfeldt carried through his view of the situation consistently and in detail to the end. p. 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'. . 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. D(Deuteronomy). 239ff. These reflections must look in part for their answers within the history of the formation of the individual larger units. have thereby become untenable. when one designates each of the Redactors with an index letter indicating the source that was added. pp. that to contest the documentary hypothesis is not to question the right and necessity of the work of literary criticism. the earlier statement must be repeated here yet again. there persists. Not even the question of the sequence in which the source layers were joined together can be answered with certainty'. A new area of study is opened here 1 Introduction. however.
The notions of 'redaction' and 'redactor* are too closely bound with the putting together of 'sources' in pentateuchal study. Conclusions and Consequences 191 because it is no longer a matter of assigning individual texts to different sources. Isaac. 2 See above under 1. refinement. one must make further distinctions here. However. Thus.4. 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'. This should not result in imposing a fixed terminology. so far as is possible. and Jacob. First. but of outlining more exactly the process by which the single narratives came to form the larger units. and. is a cohesive group of 'priestly' texts. and on the other hand for the process of gathering them into one larger unit. which he wanted to withdraw expressly from the prevailing realm of the documentary hypothesis.2 Hence the suggestion that similar terminology be used with them. and so more refined distinctions commend themselves. it must be emphasized that the only layer that can be discovered within the Pentateuch that is comparable to the 'sources'. For this reason Noth introduced other notions into the study of the book of Joshua.4. . on the one hand for the independent process of growth of each of the stories of Abraham.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. 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. And to this end various reflections from earlier chapters of this work may be taken up. but should point primarily to the necessity of arriving at a further clarification. 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. there must be renewed discussion of the sign of this work of collecting and reworking and of those who were responsible for it. it is better not to retain the expression 'priestly document' because it is 1 However. However. Hence. it has become evident that the assumption of a continuous 'priestly' narrative cannot stand critical examination.
2-9 the priestly cross-references to the patriarchs cease.23-25 and 6. 2.4 It should immediately be called to mind that these 'theological' priestly texts do not occur throughout the whole of the Pentateuch. Studien zur Geschichte des Opfers im Alien Israel. and Exodus 6. the patriarchal story.192 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch too heavily impressed with the stamp of a continuous narrative. there must be renewed examination of the question. Rendtorff. It commends itself to speak of *priestly texts'.2. 9. . R. 3 The refinements necessary here within the priestly layer cannot be carried out in this study. pp. 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.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.1-7 is introduced as blessing and thus corresponds to the other theological priestly texts in the patriarchal story.3 There are also obvious connections with the creation account in Genesis 1.2-9. 4 A corresponding connection with the flood story is less clearly demonstrable. We had discovered that with Exod. In addition. 5 See above under 3.4. These texts reach beyond the limits of the larger units. The chronological details. whether different types of priestly texts belong together. It is evident that the priestly texts are not restricted to one of the larger units of the Pentateuch. 6-7. but do not cover the whole Pentateuch. which are generally reckoned to 1 Cf. 2 See above under 3.4. 1967. disputed in current pentateuchal study.4.12 as well as to the terminology where there is talk of fertility and increase as consequences of the blessing. 6. Likewise the retrospective linking of these texts with the primeval story is obvious: the divine address in 9. We have seen that the 'theological' priestly texts in patriarchal story find their clear continuation in Exod.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.
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. 2. one might put Exod.11.40. There is no text at all in the primeval story which corresponds exactly to the pattern of the group mentioned above.17. 2 See above under 3. whereas in Gen.4 The remaining chronological remarks in Exod. there are clear connections between the patriarchal story and the preceding 1 Ibid.8. in respect of the chronological notes. which give details of the entire life-span in connection with the notification about the death.1 and 19. these texts are formulated according to a fixed pattern. and at the beginning of the flood (7.6).1 in some sort of relationship to Gen.29. and that this other event is on each occasion in the infinitive with a preceding lamed. to which there is no parallel in the rest of the Pentateuch.7 in the note on the age of Moses and Aaron 'when they spoke to Pharaoh'. With the texts of the second main group. 7. and Japhet (5.3. And so.32). 11. however are close to it: the note on the age of Shem when he begot Arphacsad (Gen. a text which is quite outside the 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. 11. . data about the death is missing.4. on the age of Noah when he begot Shem.4. or departure from the land of Egypt. it has already been pointed out that the note about the death of Terah in Gen. 20.1 show no linguistic relationship to the chronological texts of the patriarchal story.10). Some. Num. 27. 34. ll. 4 One could see a connection in that the specific time is on each occasion given in relation to another event. except in the case of Terah. 12. 20.3 Of the other chronological notes. 3 The information about the death of Moses in Deut.32 corresponds to the basic pattern in the patriarchal story. 14. manifest likewise some connections between the different larger units.7 is formulated in a unique way. 16. namely the beginning of residence in the land of Canaan. 11.lOff. 10. Conclusions and Consequences 193 the *F texts. This holds too for the corresponding data in Genesis 5 (w. Ham. 31) and the notification of the death of Noah in 9. 16.
they consist partly in rather short promise addresses. 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. 48. which is not present in the same way with Abraham.7. the link with the patriarchal story is once again underscored emphatically and the name of YHWH is introduced. The same picture is evident in the following units as in the theological' texts.12 Finally. see above under 1.11. 35.194 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch and following larger units. 2 The characteristic formula. The pronouncements about Jacob form a further central point. at the beginning of the Moses story.1.3. Sinai. After this. has not held and so must be abandoned.3 This means that we are dealing here with a layer of reworking which extends beyond the limits of the individual larger units. 17. but after it. they show a clear connection with the pronouncements of the creation account. both verbs appear next to each other in Gen. 'be fruitful and multiply* echoes clearly in Gen. there is no further sign of the priestly layer in the Pentateuch.4 It is different however with the layer of reworking which bears the deuteronomic stamp. 5 See above under 2. 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.3. no more. . 28. and the beginning of the occupation of the land which refer 1 See above tinder 4. The Moses story shows a further tie with the patriarchal story. though there is no complete agreement. 20. but does not cover the whole Pentateuch.5 It is evident that there is a whole series of texts dealing with the events of the exodus from Egypt.3. In the patriarchal story the main emphasis is on the divine covenant struck with Abraham. but only in the promise about Ishmael in v. 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. to which we have already drawn attention.4. The connections with the primeval story are also rather marked. The earlier surmise expressed from time to time that *P might be identical with the end redaction of the Pentateuch.
op. Thus.4. at the end of the patriarchal story. his decision to annihilate the people (14. the occupation of the land in east Jordan.7. It is the same immediately before the next departure. Kessler. to the formula 'the land which I swore to Abraham. Sinai.24 and Exod. there is Gen. and especially to the promise of the land to the patriarchs.12 both are set side by side in almost identical formulations.23). the desert. 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. 33. from Sinai. Isaac. The connection between the promise of the land to the patriarchs and the leading out of Egypt is particularly underscored: in Gen. and are stamped with deuteronomic language. 12). cit. 13. cf. 33.1-3a). 11.13). The formulation is very close to that used in Gen. 24. Conclusions and Consequences 195 hack to the patriarchal story. Moses prays to YHWH. In Numbers 11 there is yet another critical situation in which Israel's journey into the promised land appears in danger. p. Gen. First. 50. partially. 32. at the 1 Except in the isolated passage. immediately before the departure from Egypt.1.. . is added: 'to your descendants (seed) will I give it'.7.24 where. there is reference back to the promise of the land to the patriarchs. 33. 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. 12. 15. and Jacob'. In Exod.13-16. 15. 340.5. and YHWH orders the departure for the land which he swore to the patriarchs that he would give to their descendants (Exod. 32.18. 2 In Exod. 50. It is similar in Numbers 1314 where YHWH himself recalls his oath as he withdraws. 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.11). reminding him of his oath (v. the exodus. 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 patriarchs—an idea which is expressed neither in the patriarchal1 nor in the exodus story.
or which can definitively be made responsible for it. the only one which unambiguously views the Pentateuch as a whole and will have it understood as one great coherent complex. And so this deuteronomically stamped layer of reworking is the first and. This is significant because our inquiries hitherto have found no text or no layer of reworking about which this can be said. But nothing is thereby said of the part that this layer had in the final arrangement of the whole Pentateuch. the whole coherent pentateuchal narrative is presented: the promise of the land to the patriarchs—the leading out of Egypt—the leading (back) into the promised land. There is another question which is relative to the more precise designation of this layer and its pertinence to texts in other areas. 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. It is not the purpose of this study to inquire in detail into the final stage of the history of its formation. The advocates of the 'source' theory can no longer demonstrate this for the ancient pentateuchal 'sources'. 33. and the ^priestly document' has shown that it likewise can not establish itself as a coherent whole. But this certainly does not solve the problem of the final redaction of the Pentateuch.1). 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. 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). But there should be a brief sketch of the consequences and the questions thus raised.196 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch same time. I have described these texts as 'deuteronomically stamped' so as to avoid a premature conclusion as to what . or is it a matter of a predominantly interpretative reworking. according to our examination so far. 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. and this is pronounced at the departure from Sinai (Exod.
It would be methodologically inadmissible.1 But here too there would be a definite conclusion which it would be better to avoid at first. 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. 1 See above under 2. This.5-9. or how 'deuteronomic' is to be discerned in this area. without examining more closely and basing more firmly their connection. In Gen. new theories were to replace hypotheses now outgrown. the heavily 'deuteronomistically stamped' Genesis 153 contains nothing about YHWH's oath which is so frequent in Deuteronomy. have not yet been adequately worked out.24 and Exod. in Exod. It occurs in Deuteronomy only in the 'Credo' text (6. In Deut.1. but the formula found elsewhere. a quite different sort of theme occurs.2 and in the deuteronomistic history only in Judg. 3 See above under 2. of Gen. 24.7 (end). 6.23 the verb is used instead of. e.1.g. inadequately based. It would be cause for concern if premature. 18. Rather. For example. all-embracing.3.23). . to mention just one other example. 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. 26. of course. This is necessary because criteria for what is 'deuteronomic'. 17-18). 33. to one layer of reworking and redaction. is used. Conclusions and Consequences 197 their place might be within the concept 'deuteronomic'. There exists here a fundamental difference between the 'Credo' formulations of Deut. Neither is the promise of the land to the patriarchs mentioned in Josh. 26. The texts do not contain just current deuteronomic or deuteronomistic statements. there is no mention of the promise of the land to the patriarchs. 50.4.1. a 'land flowing with milk and honey'.19. 3. is by no means excluded. with the group of texts already mentioned. 2. but this does not necessarily mean that this text belongs. but requires careful scrutiny. 6.11-14 (cf. I have already referred to the discussion whether one ought speak rather of 'early deuteronomic' or 'proto-deuteronomic'. w.20-24 and Deut.8. therefore. it belongs to the broad realm of deuteronomic-deuteronomistic language and theology. 2 In Deut.
. Vriezen.. of the same phraseology. belonged to the same circles. and all that generation. It is hardly likely. is of the opinion that here there 'was an older and a later' example available for this pattern... and there rose up a new king/another generation.p. 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. a few further observations and reflections may be added. convincingly I think... 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.6. idiom' in Judg. and refers to 'the dtn... 3 Ibid..' Vriezen has shown. 1 'Exodusstudien Exodus 1'.. 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*..6. VT 17 (1967) 334-53.1 The texts of Exod... 10 show much in common both in structure and in formulation: 'Then Joseph/Joshua died. in my opinion.198 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch With this reservation. who used this pattern in Exodus 1 and Judges 2.. 8 and Judg. 1.2 He sees in them 'two clear examples .4 This fits very well into our picture of the history of the formation of the Pentateuch. however convinced he may have been of the continuity of the two periods and have arrived at his formulation in this conviction'.343. rather we must assume that the reworkers.8..p.. which is used in the historical literature at the transition from one epoch to another*. 1.339. 2.. Vriezen has drawn attention to the striking parallelism between the beginning of the exodus story and the beginning of the story of the judges. 2. cit. . 2 Op. And so again we encounter the deuteronomic-deuteronomistic circle. crt. 4 Op. that these two texts *belong to the same literary pattern'. under the influence of the source theory. who I which did not know Joseph/YHWH.3 Vriezen reflects further and interestingly 'that the author (of Exod.. 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.
(could) consider here. 32-35. 2 Op... p. But it can hardly be explained by the conjecture of a 'special esteem' for a fictitious earlier 1 The Chronicler's History. . 143. especially in chs. 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. Finally... came to reject this conjecture. 3 Op. p.2 Noth. Conclusions and Consequences 199 This gives new weight to the fact that towards the end of the book of Numbers. And so in Noth's view. In any case. p. the deuteronomistic element appears clearly. cit. cit. 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. The announcement of the death of Moses in Num. The book of Deuteronomy in its turn cannot.4.12-23 and the account of it in Deuteronomy 34 show that the link between the two is intended. be separated from the books that follow. it is also clear that the last sections of the book of Numbers are not comprehensible when detached from this overall complex. in its present form.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. because they show too many common features. 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. it is clear that the book of Deuteronomy cannot be sharply separated from the remaining Tetrateuch'. because of his presuppositions. only becomes really comprehensible if it already existed within the limits set by the P-narrative and enjoyed special esteem'. 27. 145.. 25.. that this link was made in the context of the great work of the redaction of the Pentateuch'. the fact that it is not *P* but 'Dtr' who dominates in the account of Moses' death in Deuteronomy 34. Noth dealt with this problem in detail1 and expressed the view that 'one.
The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
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-
4. Conclusions and Consequences
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 Samuel—Saul 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.
The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
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. 12—50. Eine Sammlung literaturgeschichtlicher Beobachtungen nebst uberlieferungsgeschichtlichen Spekulatationen', DBAT 7 (1974) 38-50 (p. 48).
4. Conclusions and Consequences
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.
The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
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.
4. Conclusions and Consequences
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
440. Eng. That would be to pour new wine into old skins. One must tackle it. 2nd edn).206 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch interpretation of the Tahwist' or other 'sources' with another dating and on the background of other time-conditioned circumstances.1 1 Genesis (German 9th edn. as von Rad demanded in one of his last statements: 'we urgently need a comprehensive new analysis of the narrative material of the Pentateuch'. p. The problem of the process of tradition in the Pentateuch lies deeper. .
30 5. 54.14-17 55.11-26 11.12 12. 55. 132. 77 12.6 142.5 148 13.4-5 146 12.5 12.15 9. 148 51n4 13.3-4 51. 135. 77 .9 51.26 11. 150. 135.32 146 192 151 193 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 146 147 158.10-11 148 13. 73 12. 81. 152 13. 83. 52 12.10. 34 11. 148.15 12. 77 62.10 152. 185 12. 84.2 65. 159 195n2 12.8 5.20 5.1-9 49.1-17 9. 184 12. 68. 132n3. 143 12.4b-5 147 142. 72.11 5.1-7 9.1 66.32 6.31 5.31 32.17 57. 161.10 11. 71 13. 60. 70.11 9. 125.12b 149 13.29 11. 151 13.2-3 65 12. 160 12.16 12. 70. 185 12. 71.9 13.27 5. 63.7 58. 76. 78.26 5.14 5. 122.INDEXES INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES Genesis 1-11 1.21-22 8.15-16 68.10.17 12.6b 148 13. 60. 130. 33. 50. 67. 75n3.l1b 148.2 148 13. 184 13.1-3 15. 150 12. 77 13.12a 148 13. 151 13. 59.19 13 150 51n4 49 150 150 170 161 50.1 8.16 13. 74. 182.13 12.15 57.3.3a 185n6 185n6 12.1-2 51. 77. 148 13.8 148 148 13.10-20 46. 61.1-8 12. 150.31-32 11.2 5.17 5.5 6.29 5. 82.30 11.12.12 148.3b 12.17 7. 71.4 158.10 12.17 11.1 13. 51. 193 34 12-50 83nl 12. 170 13.3 59. 58. 135n2 13. 134.7 58. 73.6 8.4a 1 4. 183. 77. 184 13.21 9.
55 20. 70nl. 68. 59. 63.19 62.30-38 49.19b 165 17. 192 51n4.22 50 18. 169 53. 166 17.7-8 168 17. 51. 18. 54 20-22 50. 509 19. 160 51. 159. 142. 168 57.6-7 164 17.13 152.2-4 15. 174 18. 59. 183 51n4 142 142 142 142. 81.2b 153. 152.la 16.13-16 15. 68. 77.18 59. 77. 50.3 15.9 15. 58.1-18 46 20.12 14. 63. 62.18 14 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 71. 170 21. 61. 80 62 149 151 158.1a 159 17.19 128.11-12 16.23-26 166 158-60. 75n5 17. 82. 197 52.20 63. 160.11 14.1 51.29 151.10 16. 170 19.7 70.1 14. 60. 165. 81 57.la 153 21. 85. 80.1 159.1-6 158. 155. 70. 55. 68. 68. 53. 65. 167. 183. 78. 77. 131n2.27-28 50 19. 195nl 142 58.16 50 18.17-33 50 18.21 165 17. 16467. 82. 135. 165 17. 76.12 161 20. 158n2. 81. 62.9 16. 82.7 130.24 169 17 17. 82. 165 17. 74. 165 17.4-5 80 17.1 86. 164. 67 80 62 62 62. 77.116aa 49.1 16. 161.4 63. 130n 2 20.21 15 15. 17. 170 18.2 63. 145 51. 86. 165 17. 77.20-23 128 18. 77.4 15.7-21 15. 169.5-6 70 17. 86. 82 54 55. 183. 77 52. 53. 65.18 16 16. 165. 170 . 17.32 129 19 54 19.1-28 49. 77.1-7 50 152 21. 151 54n4. 170 19. 183 20 50. 67.1-5 21.15 16.1-19. 181 15. 67. 164. 195n2 51.18 150.10 62 18. 165 17. 86.25 129 18. 81.3 16. 156. 146. 149n2 17.23-27 55 17.6 63.5 63. 70.14 62. 53. 130. 147 52. 54. 80 51n4. 80 18. 131.16 14.208 13. 54. 28 151 18.25 18 14.7 15. 193 151 62. 164.8 70. 86.14 15. 74. 81nl. 51n4 20.16 18. 55. 169 17. 65.15-16 16. 17.22b33 127.5 15. 164. 197 18.16 62. 174 18.1 15. 170 149 149.17 130 20. 54.22 54n3 17. 50 51n4.12 166 17. 164.
128. 82. 54.25 22 209 78.2-3 26.12 26. 26.9 25.12 21. 47 50. 77nl. 77nl. 48 47 47.19 24 24. 84.56n l. 59.67 25. 72. 72. 144.5 26. 84.32-33 26. 59. 183 23. 72. 59. 159 45. 74. 46.13 21. 154. 63. 169 71. 65.8-21 21. 182 46 83 72 66. 61. 66. 80. 98.12-17 25. 134.22 21. 51n4 54. 54 46. 77.5f. 65. 134.22-23 21. 161 145 154 145.2 22. 166.5 28 28. 122.7-11 26.8ff.1 22.2-3a 26.4 21.19-34 25.29 26.17 22.26 26 26.4 24.18 26. 66 147 96 96 55. 154 145 52.6-11 26. 167. 61. 164 . 80. 182 51. 78nl. 95.22-32 21.15 26.1 23.17 25. 162n2 145 140 162.28 26.26-31 26.24 26. 87 51n4 54. 78nl. 182 78 87.4b-5 26.22-34 21.7 25.20 25.17-18 23. 146.19 25.3-5 26. 89. 82. 160. 159.17 23.7-10 25. 78n2.21 26. 77. 75nl.17-18 22. 48 48 48 48 46.16-17 26.2-4 26.1-4 141. 76. 15456.22 26. 98n2 65 62.61 24. 158. 21. 182 72 72 72 78 45 46 45 46 75n4 47. 75. 79 63. 87. 160 56nl. 62.25b 26.3b 26. 68.4 26. 96. 161 56nl 151 158. 83.16-18 22.23 25. 80 63.8 21. 174 64. 78. 72.1 24. 80 51.15-18 22. 162. 166 158 160 150 50 51.4ad 26. 68.34-35 26. 96nl.4a 26. 96 72 58.18 21.5 21. 164. 83. 82. 95. 77.12-14 26.25-26 25. 182 48 46 47 46 48 164nl 159. 62.10 24.34 27.12-33 26. 68. 68. 57. 160.2 26. 54nl. 78. 54. 133n3 59. 77.16 22. 163n2 44 140n 2 143. 78.3 22.9 27.18 23 153. 159 78 57.16-17 22.7 24. 80. 77. 77.2-5 26. 163n2 44 22. 77. 65. 21.2 23. 52. 73. 54. 87. 75. 96 59. 183 51n4 75n3 58.3b 22. 82. 55nl. 159. 6567.Index of Biblical References 21.3 51n4. 195n2 147 147 161 153 162.4628.19-20 26.4a 22. 51 51n4 47 51n3. 83.
161 162 158 161. 166 35. 65. 75. 75.15 66.11-13 31.5 164nl 28. 61. 73.7 42. 164 58.6 46.9 161 28.10-11 31. 70.15 35. 75 141 147 56nl 89 66. 83.3 35. 71. 155. 135.3-4 48. 70n2. 67.12 57.18 145 28. 64. 80.9-12 56nl. 66 44 164 69 143 63. 72.26 47. 68.20 66. 68 144 145.13-15 56.28 36.13-14 68 28.19 145 28. 3ff.2 34. 59. 67.1 28. 164. 167. 59.4 57. 164.46 41. 135 63. 65.5 31.160 138. 66. 164. 73. 83.10 166 35. 89 44 174 83 66. 61. 62. 164. 65.210 28.3-4 28.10-11 32. 58. 167 35.28 47. 135 35. 76.9 47. 73.18a 34. 194n2 28. 56nl.5 42.3-4 161 30. 194n2 164n2 . 165 143 28.13 46. 80. 59. 58. 73.5-6 142. 68. 81n1. 184 28.23-33 (22-32) 32. 37. 162 56nl. 135. 166. 78.28a 47. 165 42.42 32-36 32 32. 135n4 28. 75n5.10 32. 162 155 43 143 38 155 139. 89 73 56nl 66-68. 75. 22b36 35. 31. 135n2 28. 194n2 35.4 34.3 48.23 31.13 31.13 57. 60.14 59. 138nl.11-12 69. 69. 83.4 48.9-13 66. 44.1 37.3 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 31.1 35.14 41.6 143 28.6a 35. 164. 82.24 31.23 35. 169 35. 69. 65.27 35.7 143 28.3 46.3 68. 68.29 31. 63. 71.9 82.1-21 37. 81nl.18abp 31. 83. 165 35.13 32. 67.14 35. 162 161. 76.15 47. 77.12 46. 75n3. 159 139 139 151 161 158.2 75 56nl. 89 28. 82.7 37-50 37 37. 139 144 144 144 56nl. 82. 169 144.11 63. 73. 82. 68. 165. 164.10-22 15. 164. 81.8 34.6-9 28.27-30 33.3 38 38. 28b 48.27-29 35. 82. 165. 81.4 46. 89 66 142 144 142 158. 83 30. 81. 89 65 n 2 62.13b 73 28. 134 28.46a 145 145 147 56nl 143 161 161 161 142 56nl 66. 76.23 (22) 32. 83. 164.12 32.2-4 46.2 37. 84. 145 145 145 161.9 161 31.2 28. 61.
13 13.2 157 6. 87.31 90. 186 36. 37. 90 4. 168 90 88 89. 98. 197n2 111 89 50.6 1.23 33 33. 33b 50.3 18 184 18.25 50.7 48.30-31 49.6 3.3 16.11 13. 99.40 193 12.30 49. 97 13 13. 90.8 86 7.17 3 3. 913n5 91 89nl. 99. 95nl 3. 30f.1 16.19 14 14. 36n7. 90.3-10 97 87.3 . 91. 186 89n3 38 193 92 92. 168. 144 64 63 66. 162 35. 186 192 6 6. 195.20 50.12-14 50.49-32 49. 157 6. 9597.5 195 13.11 32.32 17.15-16 48.1-3 33.11 50. 189 35 36.2-8 6. 158n3.4 24.8 1. 162 66.24 211 87.16 4. 195n2.4 86 6.16 48.15 88 88. 192 156. 135.23-25 2. 3–4 3. 49. 195. 84nl. 112 Exodus 1-15 1. 85.8-17 9.11-14 32.6 130 130 8. 198 84. 97.5 50.1-3a 33. 195 87.3-8 32-34 32 32. 1 1.11-22 2. 145 158n3.10(9) 32.1-10 2. 91.26 142.14 130 9. 13.3 32. 99nl.7 32.7 1. 93nl 93 92 93nl 89n3 93n2 38 37. 195 97 98 97 36 80. 195 91 112 91.5 88.115.1 37 46. 161. 152. 168. 92. 196.6 16. 97.21 198 99nl 111 111 111 151 112 85 88 85.14.7 160nl.8 86.24 2.41 157 12.7 130 12.21 1-14 1-4 Iff. 193 8. 192 86.15 13. 197n2 97 158.1 32. 89 2.8 90 4.Index of Biblical References 48.31 15.21 49.8 19-Num 10 19-24 19.32 185n6 12. 85nl.4 32. 89. 186.7 86 6.9 90 4. 98 97.8 32. 98 98 91 91 87.18 192 9. 36. 197n2 3.10 2 2.27b 90.2-9 86.25 3ff. 91 90n5 198 161n3. 111 91 112 112 91 91 92 91 91. 68 162 162 145 145 162 144 158 162 144.12 32.2 16-18 16. 90.29 130 11.1 90 4. 37nl.13 50.51 97 87. 87nl.13 32. 186 12.
10 Jeremiah 22.4-5 20.8 32.2-4 14.24 Hosea 2.14 33.5 48 25. 131n2 Deuteronomy 6.1436.17-18 Judges 2 191 191 197n2 197n2 Ezekiel 14 14.5 114 22-24 86nl 131n2 130 130.19 14.22 14.5 22.13 38n3 93 20.11 32.11-14 24.212 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 24.1 161n3 Isaiah 49.32b 142 20. 199 34.4-6 130 9.12-20 14.20 13-14 14.5 11.2 Amos 4. 195 94 94 142 1 Samuel 1.120. 99.11 11.11 130 131 131 131 131 131 130 204 99nl 2.11 142 Numbers 10.162.1 35.14-21 38n3 20.3 53. 137.13 11-20 11. 99.9 26.4 27. 198n3 197 152 . 195 92 93nl 93nl 98 93nl 98.7 193n3 Joshua 1-12 13-21 24.16 14.20 18 33.12-23 32-35 32 32.12 11.18 14.14 14.24 96nl 96nl Leviticus 22.3 185n6 94 199 199 113 94 94.23 913 38 n 3 38 92 98 195 92 92 98.18 53. 195 96nl 14.13 14.27 152 197n2 25. 6.11-15 11.28 92 16.23 197n2 9.22-24 14.13 16.15 20.18 11.5-9 34 115.16a 93 92 21.5 53.20-24 197n2 197.1 198.1 193 92 20.
174. 24. H. 107. R. 24. 15n3. B. 19.W. 103n4. G. 102.50nnl. 20. 143n5. 105. 115nl. 107. 13. 46. 37 Noth. 19nl. 49. 15. 128. von 12. 35. 111. 17. 135nn2.112. H. 75n2. 117n6 Beyerlin.6. 105. 145. 50. 103n4. 90n5. 22. 25n2. 118. M. 20. 141nnl. 38n3. 118. O. 105. 113-15. 124. 110n6. 141nl. 107. . 39n4. 151nl. 99 Plöger. 139nl. 139. 24. U. 147-49. 163nl. 45n3. 135nn2.R. 13. 139. 161nl Henry. 39nl Gross. 106.F. L. 40. W. 38. J. 27. 116.G. 36n7. 203n4 Kaufmann. 122. 11. 137. 28-30. 186 Perlitt. F. 31n3. 151n4. G. 19. llnnl. 18. 119-21. 121 Gesenius. 11. S.-L. 16. 139n6 Gunkel. 27. Y. 135nn2. 120-22. 121. 179.7. 127. Schult. 149. 142.-E. 115nl. 20n3. 181nl. 121 Knobel. 112n3. 187nl Ploger. 195nl Kilian. W.107nl Fohrer. 35. 128. 147. 46n4. 70nl. 16n2. 154. 113.2. 66nl Procksch. 12n3. 118n7 Kaiser. S.3. H. W. 104. 141.3. 155 Jepsen. 128. H. 138n6 Coppens. 21. S. 129. 190 Elliger. 117. O. M.4. 140.-H. 154 Koch. K 138. Kautzsch 158nl Gressmann. 12n2. 154n5. 14n5. 129. 138nl. 22nl. 124 Engnell. 191. 153. 103. 117. 121n8. F. 144. 17n2. 16. 115n2. 119-21. 45. 174. 86nl. 18. 18n3. 120 Lohfink. 155. 118n2. 33. 144. 154. 43. 143n5. 60n2. R. 157 Ellis.4. 17.C. 36. A. P. 22. 23n2 Preuss. 46nl Diebner.D. 132n3. 60. 122. 150.J. 48n2. 112n4. 147-53. 199. 44. 50. 107nl Kessler. H. 51nnl. 121n8. 46n2. 52n2. A. 39n3 Cassuto. 14nn2. 14. 151. 144. 38n3. 17n3. 17n3. O. 128n8. 102. 203n3 Macholz. 153. 14. 46.INDEX OF AUTHORS Bentzen. 145nl. 143n5. 155n2 Mowinckel. 14. 38n2. 142. G. 13. V. J. 18nnl. 143n3. 186n2 Holzinger. 173nl. 125. 39. 30nl. 201 Pedersen. O. 112. 15. 21. A. 47. 36. 95n2. 50n3. 203nl Fritz. I. 104n3.4. 91n3. 18n3. 174. 154 Driver. 52nl. 14n3. 118 Eissfeldt. 18nn2. 107nl Gazelles. 99n2. 125. A. 136. 121n4. 143. 202 Diebner. 151. 124. N. 163nl Rad. 138nl.2. 144. 190.4. 22. 13nl. 116 Hermann. 116n4 Delitzsch. 51n7.l81n2 Dillmann. 44n2. B. 154. K.
118. 172 Westermann.127. 12nl. 53. 47nl. 108. 182nl. 114. 65n3. 11. 23n2 Speiser. 114. J.132. 133. 37. H. 106. 103n3. E-G. 61n2. 179nl SeUin. 64. D. 26n7. 185n2 . 65. 186n2. 157. 123125. 66nl Vriezen. 185n6. 21n7. 140.214 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch Steuernagel. 32-34. F. 172nl.1 77.B. 106.H. 57. R. 102n3 Seters. 33n3. N. 133. W. L. 198n3 Wagner. O. 45. 64nl. 11. 110n2 Rendtorff. H.184 184n2. 114-116. W. 183nl. 112. 99nl Schmid. 144nl. 48nl. R. 60. 103. E. C.W. 134.H. 110. 38nl Wellhausen. 183n3. 206 Redfern. 45. Fohrer 31n3. 85nl. 25.130n2. 103n3. 168n6 22.C. 204n2 Smend. 51n7.E. 130. 163 Weiser. 175n2. 44. P. 123. 46n3. 150. R. 142. 132n3. D. 194n5 Ringgren.H. 174. 154. 27-29. 111. 126n5.130. 132. 132n2. 109n2. 56. 118n2 Stolz. 91nl. 128. 90. 154 Steck. 138n6. 155. 34. 181n2 Schmidt. 149n4. 146nl. A. 73nl. 198. 36. 26. 47. 109n2. 109.N. 16nl Rost. 133n3. 132n2.126n4. 61n2. 185nl. 125. 103. 143n4. 121n6. J. 118n6 Vetter. 107 Weimar. 181nl. 127. 138.. 110n2 Wolff.2 Whybray. 131n2. T. 103. K. 131. 16nl. 33. 142n2. 132n2 Rupprecht. H. 23n2. van 181n2. 173. 47. 116. 85n2. 114. 123n6. C. 123.A. 131n2. 111. 25nl. 203n2 Zimmerli. 53nl.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.