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
Title II. The problem of the process of transmission in the Pentateuch 1.106 ISSN 0309-0787 ISBN 1-85075-229-X . 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. English 222.T. O. Pentateuch. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch.. 17. R. Bible.—Critical studies I. Series III. de Gruyter. Berlin: W. 1977) © 1977 by Walter de Gruyter & Co.Originally published as Das iiberlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (BZAW.
and Isaac 2.3 The documentary hypothesis maintained 24 1.4 The function of the promise addresses in the composition of the patriarchal story 2.1 The stories of Joseph. Jacob.1 The new approach of Gerhard von Rad 12 1.3 The blessing 2.5 The combination of individual promise themes 18.104.22.168 The promises in the divine addresses in the Abraham story 2.3.2 The modification of this approach by Martin Noth 16 1.3 The promises to the patriarchs 2.1 The promise of the land 2.CONTENTS Foreword Translator's Note 7 9 Chapter 1 THE PROCESS OF TRANSMISSION AND THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS 11 1.2.2 The story of Abraham 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 2.1 The variety of layers in the process of transmission of the Abraham tradition 2.5 The absence of any definite reworking in Exodus-Numbers 43 43 48 49 52 55 57 61 64 66 68 74 84 .4 The guidance 22.214.171.124.2 The promise of descendants 2.
3.4 Reasons against the acceptance of a Yahwistic work 3.2 The Jacob story 3.3 The Abraham story 3.2 Characteristics of the work of the Yahwist 3.3 The function of the priestly layer 3.4. 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 .1 The present state of pentateuchal criticism 126.96.36.199.3 The problem of a priestly narrative in the patriarchal story 3.2 The problem of the Yahwist 188.8.131.52.4 No priestly narrative.1 The patriarchal story 4.1 The stories of Joseph and Isaac 3.1 Dissent from the documentary hypothesis 184.108.40.206.1 Chronological notes 3.3.2 Theological'passages 3.3 The problem of the synthesizing.3 The theology of the Yahwist 3.4 Genesis 23 3.4 The priestly layer in the patriarchal story 3.1 Literary analysis of the Yahwist 3.7 Traces of an over-arching reworking Chapter 3 CRITICISM OF PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM 3.2.5 Synthesis Chapter 4 CONCLUSIONS AND CONSEQUENCES 4.3.2 The larger units' in the Pentateuch 4.4. but a layer of priestly reworking 3.2 The other 'larger units' 4.6 The larger units' in Exodus-Numbers 2.
Finally there are Konrad Rupprecht. without whose constant consultation and co-operation the book would never have appeared. I have to thank many with whom I have been able to discuss these questions in the course of the years. And so it is no mere chance that a variety of earlier papers on this complex of questions reflect these discussions. to devote my attention entirely to these questions and. 5-11). . 28  158-66). a new approach to pentateuchal study is to be outlined on a broader basis. I finally questioned the existence of the main pillar of the documentary hypothesis. for the time being. First. pp. the documentary hypothesis could not be sustained. In my contribution Traditio-Historical Method and the Documentary Hypothesis' in Jerusalem in 1969 (Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies. as guest of the Hebrew University in the winter semester 197374. Discussions with colleagues of other countries provided many a stimulus to concentrate more intensively on these questions. Then there are my colleagues and friends in Jerusalem. and is still being. I tried to show that as a result of a consistent traditio-historical approach. the Tahwist' (T)er "Yahwist" als Theologe? Zum Dilemma der Pentateuchkritik'. 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. in intensive exchange with them.FOREWORD This book marks the terminal. VT Supp. carried on in a variety of ways. In Edinburgh in 1974. they gave me the opportunity. to clarify them further. Here.
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.
Series 53 . Whybray's The Making of the Pentateuch.A. as the distinguished Cambridge semitist J.TRANSLATOR'S NOTE In Das iiberlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuchs (BZAW 147. especially in the German-speaking area. But the documentary hypothesis is a hypothesis and not an article of faith as many scholars. I am grateful to Professor Rendtorff for his lively interest in the translation during my stay in Heidelberg (January-June 1989). The references in the notes are to the standard English versions. p. Berlin: W. seem to presume. A Methodological Study (JSOT Supp. Rolf Rendtorff is interested above all in the process by which the Pentateuch reached the form in which it now lies before us. His approach has met with strong disagreement. 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. 110-16. I have given my own translation of these. relief and a readiness to look for other ways than that of the documentary hypothesis to explain the formation of the Pentateuch. 116).A. showing a stubborn unwillingness to consider seriously another approach. Clines of the Department of . and to Professor David J. 1977). and traces briefly in his preface the scholarly path that led him to this conclusion.N. in some quarters. and. It is sometimes said that Rendtorff has not disproved the documentary hypothesis. VT 39 . cautious agreement. Emerton has written of R. 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. He concludes that the classical documentary hypothesis has been tried in the fire and found wanting.
for his encouragement. Newman College University of Melbourne Parkville. and co-director of Sheffield Academic Press. University of Sheffield.10 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch Biblical Studies. Victoria 3052 Australia . Scullion S.J. United Faculty of Theology Melbourne John J.
in the classical form that it has taken since Wellhausen.. The Growth of the Biblical Tradition. individual units. . but from the smallest.2 The procedure is often that which Westermann 1 K. 77. op. p. it is surprising that so far there have scarcely been any studies of the relationship to each other of these two basically different approaches. but of a fundamental alteration of the statement of the question. The two methods therefore are opposed to each other in their starting point and in their statement of the question. Koch describes literary criticism as a 'part of form-criticism'. cit. Those scholars who developed or make use of the form-critical and traditio-historical method adhere almost without exception to literary source division. distinguishes continuous literary 'sources' running through the Pentateuch. and traces the process of their development right up to their final written form. The Form Critical Method. However. since Gunkel. Consequently. The one is the literary-critical method which. The main reason for this is obvious. 2 K. originally independent. Koch. 1969. The other is the method of form-criticism and the history of the process of transmission which. two methods of approach stand juxtaposed. 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.Chapter 1 THE PROCESS OF TRANSMISSION AND THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS In the present state of pentateuchal research. takes its point of departure not from the final form of the written text of the Pentateuch. Koch. This does not necessarily mean that they come to opposite conclusions.
A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (1948. 1972. 'The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch'. They are: G. in its attempt to progress by means of the traditio-historical approach.1 But the consequence of this procedure is that the form-critical approach. Von Rad's perception was that this process of disintegration pertained especially to the final form of the Hexateuch. 2 G. vague or clear. At the same time.1 Gerhard von Rod's new approach Von Rad wanted to break a deadlock that had been reached in pentateuchal (hexateuchal) research. these two works. since Gunkel. Noth. in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays.2 and M.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.1981. (German 1938). that the process was irreversible'. Eng. He saw that the reaso for the general 'scholarly lassitude' lay in this: the analysis of the Pentateuch into sources on the one hand. (German 1948) Eng. (Eng. has not yet developed fully. 1. Westermann. 1981). I take up their approaches partly in a critical vein. 1966). 1966). von Rad. The present work is an attempt to show the reasons for this and to advance a step further towards this goal. 3 M. 1-78. and in critical dialogue with. 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.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. have had a lasting influence on pentateuchal studies. rather it served merely as a 1 C. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. . Genesis 1-11. now according to the other'. Eng. and the study of individual pieces of material on the other. 1972. which was deemed to be no longer worth any serious discussion in itself. (1966-1974) Eng. The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch' (1938. 1984. pp. p. 573. Noth. had introduced 'a process of disintegration on a large scale': and many scholars had been paralysed *by an awareness. von Rad. and partly to carry them further.
3. pp..3 However. attempting to understand the whole Hexateuch as 'genre' (Gattung) 'from which it must be supposed that. Finally. has been of far-reaching significance for Old Testament theology. 1-3. his interpretation of the large complexes of tradition in which the pentateuchal traditions.. originally independent.. But it has diverted attention from the one-sided emphasis on literary analysis. are in some way recognizable'. which were originally independent. has not yet thrown clearer light on the final shape of the Pentateuch. the recognition that there was available a variety of complexes of tradition. op. Von Rad therefore directed attention once more to this final form. His thesis of the 'small historical Credo' has provoked a variety of form-critical and traditio-historical works. it has led beyond the treatment of individual pieces of material which featured so prominently in the works of Gunkel and Gressmann. 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'. were collected and passed on. the other. cit. and further.2 and his initiative has had far-reaching effects beyond this area. He did so by means of form-criticism. Two principal features of von Rad's work have had further consequences for the Pentateuch itself: the one. its 'setting in life' and its further extension right up to the very expanded form in which it now lies before us. the importance that he ascribes to the Tabwist' for the final shape of the Pentateuch. even when the authors quoted speak of the Hexateuch. The term Hexateuch will be used only where it is actually required.1. and so to a new 1 Von Rad. .1 Von Rad has given new and substantial stimulus to hexateuchal (pentateuchal) study with this fresh approach. to a concern for the larger units. 1. 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. the subdivision of the pentateuchal traditions into several independent complexes of tradition. 2 We will speak of the Pentateuch in what follows. as was von Rad's intention.
'in all its essential elements issued into a fixed form' before the tradition settled down to its literary shape in the liexateuchal sources JE. as Noth had done. op. separate him completely from them.. Noth. with one of the pentateuchal sources or. 5 M. . 52. cit. this latter is to be regarded 'rather as a later procedure. And so von Rad insists that the process of formation of this complex has. 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. perhaps even the end stage'. clearly recognizable as a selfcontained unit. the question remains unresolved. a genuine exodus tradition which is clearly distinct from the tradition of the occupation of the land'. the question arises whether one can identify the 'collector' of the Gilgal stories. This is the case above all with the Sinai tradition. right up to the whole as it now lies before us. 1938. ZAW 52 (1934) 161-75. following 1 With Noth. 3 J. I understand Uberlieferungsgeschichte as the whole process of the formation of the tradition which extends from origin of the smallest units. 4 Von Rad. 1.. with the Yahwist and the Elohist'. p. cit..1 Von Rad recognizes several larger complexes of tradition in the Pentateuch which stand out clearly from each other. pp.4 This tradition too was at the disposal of the Yahwist.. 'We have here. op.5 Von Rad underscores here the internal connection with the pentateuchal traditions by means of the orientation towards the taking of the land. p. and so for him 'it is no longer just a literary question with J and E. With regard to the patriarchal story von Rad. Exodus 19-24. cit. Das Buck Josua. whose method of working Noth had discerned in his commentary on Joshua.. Pedersen. 6 Von Rad. 76. following Pedersen. 2 Von Rad. Tassahfest und Passahlegende'. i. cit.6 However. but just as much a question of genre'. 18-19. op. op.14 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch branch of the study of the historical process of tradition. 1953 (2nd edn). p.e..2 Von Rad. With regard to the tradition of the occupation of the land..3 regards Exodus 1-14 as a further complex of tradition. in the long run.. across their broader development and insertion into smaller and larger collections.
op. units had passed over the old source analysis which took its point of departure from the final form of the text. 58.10-22) and Penuel (32. cif. and for this certain principles of organization clearly hold good. the independence of these larger units.59. and the quite different and independent devel1 Ibid. was already complete'. 59. though it is all but impossible. The Documentary Hypothesis 15 Gunkel..59.p. 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'. cif. 3 Von Rad sees the beginning of the Penuel story only in v.p. and fitted it into his work'. attention to the smallest.. the union of the Jacob-Esau cycle and the Jacob-Laban cycle.. 25 (Eng. apart from intelligent guessing. cit... are of quite different kinds.1 As for the Jacob stories. The most conspicious feature is the regular thematic matching within the individual complexes of tradition. 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. 6 Op. p. 2 Ibid.24).1-3). but 'which is certainly the work of the Yahwist'..6 These studies of von Rad gave pentateuchal research a new theme. recognized different groups of stories of very different kinds.2 At best. p. v. Since Gunkel. ci*.2S-33). and they are fitted together with each other so as to produce new larger units.p. For the Abraham stories.. originally independent. 65. on the other hand. 5 Op.5 just as is the 'joining together of the primeval story and the story of salvation' (12.1. von Rad believes that he can recognize him in the arrangement of the cult-stories of Bethel (28. many texts are linked which.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. On the one hand. form critically..4 The primeval story too forms an independent composition whose shape derives 'from a series of originally independent pieces of material'. . p. 4 Op. to demonstrate the part that the Yahwist played'.64.
In 1943 he published 'Studies in the History of the Process of Traditions'. Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. R. that Noth is likewise concerned here with the very same stage of the process of development from which the works lying before us. far beyond the limits of pentateuchal research. cf. Ringgren. 1943. 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. emerges. has taken a strong hold on the attention of subsequent scholarship.2 In his introductory remarks Noth takes his stand explicitly in strict and historical continuity with von Rad's work on the Hexateuch. EvTh 27 (1967) 138-53. 'Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte'. has become the determining leitmotif of all Old Testament scholarship. 1957 (2nd edn). reached their final shape out of various elements in the course of transmission of the traditions. Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alien Testament. Noth. 1. The close association consists in this. This distinction of larger complexes of tradition. since that moment. Uberlieferungsgeschichte'. Formgeschichte. 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'. each coloured by its own theme. 'Literarkritik. namely the deuteronomic and chronistic histories.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. 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.16 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch opment of each of them. ThLZ 91 (1966) 641-50. Rendtorff. The idea takes a somewhat different form in the Uppsala-school'. H. 2 M.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. .
cit. 61-62. Both approaches reckon with larger complexes of tradition. arranged in the way in which he could or wanted to use it for his total presentation. already formed. 3rd edn) Eng. Die . 3 Already.2 And so. But neither approach took as the object of its study the path that led from the individual traditions to the larger complexes. under the catch-phrase 'the history of the process of tradition' (Uberlieferungsgeschichte). Noth dealt with the final stage of the process of development. 2 Noth compares the work of the Deuteronomist expressly with that work which von Rad attributes to the Yahwist. individual traditions which were often described as the 'smallest literary units'.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. 1965. 2.2). at least in several instances. ThBl 6 (1927) 333-37 = Kleine Schriften 1. An Introduction to the Old Testament (1964. Despite the different starting points. In 1 Op. Gunkel had directed his special attention to the original. One can well invoke Gunkel himself in this context. The work as a whole had acquired the shape in which it now lies before us out of a series of complexes of tradition. 123-49. p. working with the presupposition that in each case the complexes have grown together or been assembled out of individual traditions. smaller or larger.3 They form the proper object of form-critical study. and he describes this Yahwist as the 'forerunner' of his Deuteronomist (op.. or not at all. n. 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. both the intent and statement of the question agree in substance with the task that von Rad undertook for the Pentateuch. O. cit.1962. 'Die kleinste literarische Einheit in den Erzahlungbiichern des AT'.17 17 of cases at hand to him in which. Eissfeldt. pp. larger complexes of tradition had already been joined together..
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).
. In many ways. the further question of the pre-history of the text and the traditions embodied in it would be put. von Rad and others proceeded by and large in this way without. . 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. We must now take up a further critical objection. but. thence. then. Gunkel. 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. Consequently. However. have made these the objects of their study and exegesis. to the procedure of Noth's traditio-historical programme It is the fact that Noth. the limits of Noth's methodological approach must be pointed out. Methodologically. This would be in a way the first phase of the process of the history of tradition. 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. Gressmann. Consequently. having developed a comprehensive understanding of the task of the study of the process of the history of tradition.1 And so once more it is back to Gunkel's approach.. 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....22 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch research. there was a small number of themes that were essential for the faith of the Israelite tribes' (op. His work at the same time bypasses the concrete text. they have followed them further to the formation of larger complexes of tradition and ultimately to the final literary stage. cit. however. at the very beginning of the formation of the traditions. it is not possible with his approach to arrive at a history of the process of formation of the Pentateuch which takes as its point of departure the concrete shape of the texts. Gunkel. p. is not the subsequent and final result of the simple grouping together and arranging in sequence of individual traditions and individual complexes o traditions. and after him von Rad in particular as well as others. already noted. 2).
'Pentateuch'. 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. EKL. 'Pentateuch'.2 So then. Smend. consists of several. inasmuch as it explains that the present text. This does not mean that there is no place for questions of literary criticism. However. accounts of the whole pentateuchal material which have been brought together in a 'redaction'. Rendtorff. in particular for the 'complementary hypothesis' and the 'fragmentary hypothesis'. originally independent. as it puts the question of unity to a concrete. . The Pentateuch as a whole as it lies before us is no longer the point of departure. when all is said. The different 'sources' of the Pentateuch was the answer to a particular question. 1959. 109-14. and on the other. the traditional 1 Op. and it is with this that we are now concerned. one should consult the appropriate sections in the standard introductions to the OT. 2 For other hypotheses about the formation of the Pentateuch. R. III. taken as a whole. nor must they be the primary concern of the interpreter. the statement of the question is basically altered. The contexts in which each individual text now stands. Ploger. but rather the concrete individual text. The Documentary Hypothesis 23 literary growth of the tradition. as soon as access to the pentateuchal texts is set in the context of the form-critical method. RGG (3rd edn) 1961. 'Pentateuchkritik'. The work begins as it were at the opposite end. 1966. The form-critical method and its application mean a basically new approach in the matter of access to the pentateuchal texts. a fundamental distinction must be made between literary analysis on the one hand. cit. whatever different shapes it may take. seeking to explain the tensions and contradictions and inquiring about its coherence with the context. individual text. III. cols. presupposes the existence of 'pentateuchal sources' in the traditional literary-critical sense and includes them within his presentation of the traditio-historical process. 2-5. the 'smallest literary unit'. are not yet a matter of attention in this approach. cols. O.par.1 Some fundamental remarks are necessary here. 211-17. has meaning only as an answer to this question.1. The documentary hypothe sis. however large. BHHW. cols.. 1413-19. Also: R.
shows that this is scarcely ever the case.24 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch division into sources. Recent study of the Pentateuch. 1. 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. to pursue the whole process of the formation of the tradition right up to the present final literary stage. both adhered to source division. 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. belong to particular 'sources' in the sense of continuous 'documents'. I see two main reasons for this. One consists in the fact that Gunkel. often it is only then that one can delimit the original smallest unit. one is only justified in accepting continuous 'sources' in the Pentateuch when. which literary criticism has shown to be separate from each other. 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.3. at the end of the traditiohistorical inquiry. as is so often the case today. This could give rise to the impression that the two methods belonged together or in any case could be joined together with- . and likewise his pupil Gressmann. But they must be related on each occasion to the stage of the formation of the tradition and limited thereby. 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. This requires that the literary-critical questions as well be put at all phases of the traditio-historical inquiry. the source theory offers the most enlightening answer to the questions which arise from the final shape of the text. however. 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.
but schools of narrators. The sources have not each its own profile. Ixxxv. never forgetting that it is a hypothesis. p. EvTh 27 (1967) 148ff. Ixxxiv.2 And so he continues: "«F and 'E' therefore are not individual writers. In his view the distinction of J from E can only rarely be carried out with any sort of certainty'. can say nothing about its methodological justification. and never reveal themselves with certainty'.1. Gunkel.4 and he adds: 'In many cases JE are nothing more than labels which can be exchanged at will. p. and particularly Gressmann. What individual hands contributed to the whole is thus a matter of relative indifference because they differ very little individually. even though they can lay claim only to relative validity'. But for it to establish itself and to find justification for the abundance of variants. are separate from each other. . p. Gunkel emphasized that liere (i. Nevertheless. one must try in the meantime to come to terms with the hypothesis of JE. from the literarycritical point of view.e. The second.1 The first thing to be said to this is that frequently in the history of research. He attributed to him the central role in the definitive formation of the Hexateuch. that it is clear that Gunkel. with the Tahwist' and the 'Elohist') it is not a question of unities or even of collocations of unities. so that this fact in itself. there is only a gradual awareness of the consequences of a new methodological approach. 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. but of collections which are not from one mould and cannot have been completed at one stroke. but have arisen in the course of a history'. the symbols JE are indispensable.5 In the long run therefore it is merely a matter of giving terms to passages which. The Documentary Hypothesis 25 out difficulty. He portrayed in a 1 2 3 4 5 So too Rendtorff. Mose und seine Zeit.3 Gressmann goes even a step further. they did not see themselves in a position to recognize the 'Personalities' of the authors of the written sources. 368. Ibid. considered from our present point of view. applied the separation of sources in a far less stringent manner than is generally done today. Above all. Ibid. Genesis.
. 59. a'*.4 and 'it is astounding how firmly it was possible to bind the bewildering abundance of the assembled traditions. a theological achievement is to be seen here. without giving him any notable pre-eminence. 52).. Op. without it being said explicitly. He touches only the other. cit. cit. p. in a powerful theological work.. but that liere. 52. notes 17. the Yahwist is the one who.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. Op.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. before all else. p.29.. Von Rad discusses only the question.53. traditions are gathered together in a powerful work of composition under a dominant idea and become literature'.50. cit.. 48. speaks of the Yahwist only in a casual way. anonymous process of growth' (op. 'took up the material which had broken free from the cult and preserved it in the firm grip of his literary composition'. up to this point. 15-16. because he obviously saw in it no problem at all. cit. p. pp. p. Op.. Von Rad... 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'. cf.. 51. p.. But the switch-points have already been set in another direction. p. more basic question. often widely scattered.2 In von Rad's view. on the same literary level as the other sources. pp. 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.35. .27. whether instead of reckoning with one 'great collector and moulder* it were better to reckon with 'a gradual. one plan is at work'.3 The result is a 'massive work'. cit.26 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch most impressive way the great achievement of the Yahwist as composer and moulder.7 That this role belongs to the Yahwist derives apparently. He underscored that in this case there could be no question of an anonymous growth.1 and he worked out with particular emphasis that. Op. to the basic on-going tradition'. 67-68. 7 Op.
The form of the Hexateuch is definitively the Yahwist's'. cit. pp.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.. and the 'stratification' of the two other sources in relationship to this work remains basically opaque. . The Documentary Hypothesis 27 writer'.. introduces nothing essentially new over and above what has been discussed. 2 Op. p. the Yahwist. 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. though only of one of them. an entirely satisfying and explicable phenomenon! The question of the origin and destiny of these two works. as something theological.1 But the possibility that another than the Yahwist could have brought to completion this 'massive work of composition' is never considered. 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.1. 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. cit. and in essence can only be understood. from the form-critical point of view. of their growth and their readers is after all open and is likely to remain so.74. But these problems are of a different sort from what we are discussing here. rather the Yahwist has provided a basic arrangement. and 1 Op. There is here so to speak a re-discovery of the personality of the authors of the sources. 'the form of the Hexateuch is definitively his'. The stratification of E and P in relationship to J and their binding together is a purely literary matter and so. But this is to be understood. This shows that von Rad has here simply taken over something already available. 50-51.
it has moved out of the realm of the cultic. the reflective... shows that Noth's portrait of the Yahwist does not agree in important points with that drawn by von Rad.28 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch primarily as a theologian who gives shape to large passages. 'the forecourt (Vorbau).. To be sure. at the same time as him.236. and enters into the realm of the theological.. before him.2 Closer examination. But the Pentateuch did not come into being by looking backwards. but only one of many. the Yah wist has a special place: his theology contains 'the richest and most important theological accomplishment expressed anywhere in the pentateuchal narrative'.. For Noth contests the fundamental statements of von Rad about the way in which the Yahwist composed the work.p.. and after him had a share in it. which is the primeval story. . however."the insetting of the Sinai tradition" and "the extension of the patriarchal tradition") derive from G (Grundlage) (namely. 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.. 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.3 The Yahwist then 'is not the sole author of the most important advances in the process of the development of the Pentateuch. cit.. so necessary for the forming of themes. inasmuch as it pointed con- 1 A History.. 3 Op.. It is a question rather of a growth that took place step by step'. pp. and the synthesizing over-view'. Many others. When literary criticism unraveled the common basic (G) of J and E. 228.. But the two others (i. which gives rise to the shaping of narratives out of the themes. 2 Op. 40-41. but also for the general traditio-historical process. then this was of significance not only for literary criticism.e.1 Thus for Noth too. cit. is clearly the work of the Yahwist. as von Rad would have us believe when he attributes such an epoch-making role to the Yahwist in the traditio-historical process. and out of the realm of the popular. p..
Op. 12.. at any rate. cit. cit.2 And so there can be no theological judgment on the basic composition that Noth. Von Rad's judgment of the Yahwist as a theologian depends on his view of him as a composer of a work. 41. 'So the whole weight of the theology of J lies at the beginning of his narrative. 236. and it is this view that Noth contests.236. everything depends.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'.1. p. Ibid. p.1 Von Rad's basic view of the Yahwist can in fact scarcely be contested more concretely and clearly. Subsequently. The Documentary Hypothesis 29 cretely and clearly to this fact'. And it must be underscored yet again that von Rad's judgment depends precisely on the work being a theological one. in this.1-3 as a link passage between the primeval story and the patriarchal story. almost completely out of consideration'.. 2 3 4 5 Op. cit. p. But if E is 'to remain.4 It finds expression above all in the arrangement of the primeval story and its binding with the subsequent Pentateuch narrative'.. 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. he kept almost exclusively to the traditional stuff of the pentateuchal narrative without intervening to alter or expand its substance. one must prescind from the entity G. Noth is in broad agreement with von Rad in his explanation of the Yahwistic primeval story and his understanding of Gen. Ibid. is abolished. By reducing the contribution of 1 Op. because we can know nothing at all of its wording1.. according to the state of things.3 then 'the theology of J is all the more clearly before us'. What is Noth's position here? When discussing the 'question of the basic ideas.. which were normative when the material being passed on was given literary formulation. ascribes to 'G'. Thus the essential connection between the work of composition and the theology on which.. for von Rad.
right up 1 Op. Here again the (unproven) opinion that these passages belong together as a literary unit must bear the burden of proof that. it must be underscored once more that. 18. by means of literary analysis. its literary content is unraveled by way of negation. 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. Noth regards only Gen. But scarcely any attempt has been made to demonstrate a literary cohesion between the passages ascribed to the Yahwist. it becomes apparent that in many cases the theological ideas and the compositional standpoints are quite different in different parts of the Pentateuch. yet he described the stage of the pentateuchal sources as the stage of 'the theological. This is so particularly for the Tahwist'. signs of a deuteronomistic reworking). p. 2 Op. the reflective. however imperfectly preserved. arrives at the existence of an elohistic source. Apart from the primeval story. 238. Noth has pulled away the mat. one has recourse to the presentation of his theology or in any case to the overriding ideas and compositional standpoints. cit.1 Many others have followed him here. it is a matter of the theology of one author. But opinions are divided over the 'Elohist'. from the point of view of the traditio-historical approach. hence his existence is in need of literary demonstration. And so a particular branch of literature has developed which is concerned with the theology of the sources of the Pentateuch.30 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch the Yahwist to the shaping of the Pentateuch. . cit.2 On the other hand. What remains belongs to the 'Yahwist' inasmuch as there are no convincing reasons against it (e.g. In general. The general view is that it is easy to delimit the content of the 'priestly* writing.. 228. 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. in spite of this. While he held to the view of the Yahwist as a theologian. through the larger literary complexes. However.. and the synthesizing overview'. Generally. And so the prevailing view is that which.22ff. p. as a passage of Yahwistic theological work.
to be sure. 2 See above. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism. see below. and there has scarcely ever been any consideration of their function in the process of the formation of the Pentateuch. And so it will have to proceed no less 'critically' and also. 3 Cf. If the question that the traditiohistorical approach is taken seriously. 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. It will itself. The Documenatary Hypothesis 31 to the final stage of the text. of course. as is done so widely today. . 1 For more detail. then. From a methodological point of view. the literary-critical statement of the question too must always remain open to results other than those of the traditional source division. will have to give answers to the questions raised by literary criticism. 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. But it cannot from the very start equate the literary-critical method of working with the results carried over from the source theory.1. the acceptance of 'sources' is excluded by reason of an analysis made at the final stage. have to work with literary-critical tools and. for its part. section 3. on methodical grounds.3 but they have scarcely ever been the object of independent studies. literary-critically. Introductions to the OT by Eissfeldt and Sellin-Fohrer. 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.1 1. 1.2 There is many a reference in the literature to the existence of such larger units. But above all.4. There is a lack of studies of the larger units. without its being verified through the study of the formation of the tradition. This procedure identifies a particular method o study almost exclusively with one of its conceivable results. And this all the more so when it is to serve as an assistant to the traditio-historical method.2.
1 They are a synthesis. the gradual collecting of the narratives about the individual patriarchs. 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.2. a survey of the material gathered together in the Pentateuch. Hence. . the larger units within the Pentateuch. under this point of view. 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. and finally. the formation of individual 'cycles of stories'. the putting together of the stories about the patriarchs so as to form a larger unit. and how this relates to the composition of coherent written 'sources' whose existence is generally accepted. This makes clear the means used in the course of formation of the individual stories and the comprehensive 1 See above.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 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. and before all. 1. 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. must be presented so as to acquire. and in brief. The patriarchal stories of Genesis will be chosen as the example. on the other hand. forming a new unit. The different stages of the process of the formation of the tradition can be clearly discerned in them: the independent individual narratives. of texts which form-critically and because of their origin are often to be judged very differently. the methodological pre-requisites must first be broadly established and developed. so far as they have been worked out hitherto. The peculiar nature of these larger units has already been outlined in the presentation of von Rad's study. It requires very thorough special studies for the individual complexes of tradition/larger units. the intent of what follows is twofold: on the one hand.
2 In both cases Gen. in Probleme biblischer Theologie.7 All interpreters try likewise to work out the inner connection between these narratives within the framework of the 1 'The Form-critical Problem'. p. One can put the division between the two after Gen.p. 2. And finally. the last group stands under the heading 'Crime and Punishment'.64. which once more lead back to the basic question that this work puts. Festschrift. cit.H. of achievements. and of revolts and their consequences'. The Documentary Hypothesis 33 larger units and the theolological intentions at work in the process of assembling and reworking them.p. . they are in rough sequence or are in complete contradiction'. The primeval story forms the first larger unit. 562 3 O.3 As for the matter of the primeval story in detail. von Rad. 2 Genesis 1-11. 5 Op.6 But he speaks also of the 'apparently unconnected block(s) in the primeval story which are heaped together*. 12.26 (Westermann). p. von Rad distinguishes a 'series of cycles of material originally independent'. 12. 566. Gunkel writes: The passages begin almost always quite abruptly. The current stage of exegesis sees a clear link between the primeval story and the patriarchal story at the beginning of the Abraham story.4 Following Gunkel. p. there is broad agreement that the passages stand side by side with no intrinsic link between them. 4 Genesis. 65. some reflections are added on the relationship of the larger units so formed to other units. 7 Op.1-3 (von Rad)1 or after Gen. 1971.1-3 is regarded as 'a clamp between the primeval event and the patriarchal story'.1-3 und die Urgeschichte des Jahwisten'. G. pp. 6 Genesis 1-11. and the literature is broadly at one in accepting this self-delimitation. In the table on the same page.5 Westermann tries to arrange the texts into three narrative groups: 'narratives of creation. Steck. For the most part they delimit themselves.. 525-54.. 'Genesis 12. p.64.1. 11. cit. Something must be said first of all about the larger units within the Pentateuch. It comprises Genesis 1-11.
Gunkel speaks of a 'thread as the last collector will have conceived it'.. rather must it be said 'that the style of the narratives in Genesis 1-11 is basically different from that in Genesis 12-50. The patriarchal story (Gen. is immediately obvious so that very different answers are given.1 von Rad sees in the composition 'the directing of the individual pieces of material towards a goal'. the two types belong to two fundamentally different styles and lines of tradition'. 12-50) forms the next larger 1 2 3 4 Genesis. an arrangement which derives from the primeval story as a whole and keeps this whole always in sight'.3 Two things become clear from this first of the larger units: the individual pieces and their narrative shape have preserved a great deal of independence with respect to each other. over-arching.64. Neither. 1. .2 and Westermann puts the question whether these apparently unconnected texts are 'somehow. when and at what stage of the formation of the tradition these very different complexes were joined together.. and to what extent a common. nevertheless. so that despite this disparity in the individual elements. they seem to have been put together as if by one who wanted to impose a unified form. 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. Op. p.34 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch present composition.4 So then. Interpreters try now to work out the intention of the composition and the means used to give it its shape. of course. joined with each other in a much more profound arrangement than appears at first sight. Ibid. the whole has the effect of a tightly closed unit. Genesis 1-11. reworking can be discerned.p. 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. cit..
p. 387.. see below under 2. it is only in the patriarchal story that they are found in this form. The Documentary Haypothesis 35 unit.. Mose und seine Zeit. The second half of the Moses story portrays as its general theme the departure of Israel from Sinai for the promised land.388. Each of the patriarchal stories in itself exhibits such a synthesizing reworking: each of the Abraham. . 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'. However. cif. cit. ZAW 52 (1934) 161-75. Op. 386. The stories from the birth of Moses to the arrival of Israel at Sinai3 form a coherent unit up to a point. Jacob.2 But Gressmann did not himself divide this large narrative complex further. Op.6 He understands the 1 2 3 4 5 6 For further detail.5. Apart from some smaller cycles of stories within this larger framework. cit. synthetic shaping of the narrative materials into larger complexes. but after this the contours fade'. The dominant intentions and the way in which they have been arranged are clearly evident.1 Various suggestions have been made for the delineation of larger units in the following books of the Pentateuch. Op. pp. And more—the first three have been further joined together to form a larger unit.4 Let us turn then to the first part of the Moses story. this group of stories in the Moses narrative 'splits into two loose halves'. Gressmann writes: 'The cycle of stories of Exodus 1. p. it will be dealt with in detail in the second chapter. p. 387-88.21 can be followed clearly.1. and Joseph stories are the result of the juxtaposition and collection of single narratives.5 Pedersen brought a completely new approach to Exodus 1—15 when he considered it as a coherent larger unit.1-15. and on the other a clearly recognizable. Isaac.. 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.
51-52. it considers the history of the growth of larger units within the Pentateuch not only from the point of view of narrative. he divides the material into a great 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Op.1 And so an entirely new statement of the question arises here. cit. 1-15). he brings chs.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. confined to the narrative of the plagues of Egypt'. Further. growth and formation of larger units presents itself in a radically altered form.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.6 Fohrer too has analysed the way in which Exodus 1-15 cohere.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'.. Noth deals with the traditions of the birth and call of Moses. Op. p. See in particular S. 156ff.. 19.3 Noth also accepts the validity of Pedersen's thesis. 167. 51-52. pp. It is clear that with such presuppositions the question of the origin. which have been at work in the process of assembling the individual pieces of material.. constructed according to a definite plan'. 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'. cit. 'Die vermeintliche 'Passah- . In particular. in a quite different place. Despite all unevennesses and secondary additions. 1-15 together again under the heading The leading out from Egypt'. Op. 66. The Form-critical Problem'. the intentions and the method of arrangement.. p. but also from that of the history of cult and liturgy. pp. Exodus heading on p. the legend forms a well articulated whole from beginning to end (Exod. however 'in a somewhat more narrowly drawn framework. must be judged quite differently than from a purely narrative point of view. as they have taken form in Exodus 14.7 On the one side. Mowinckel.5 But in the division of the book of Exodus in his commentary. cit. pp. A History. 201ff. including in his approach the criticism by exegetes of Pedersen.
Besides the difference.1.e. but on the other. the firm alliance with Yahweh on Sinai. The Documentary Hypothesis 37 37 number of smaller narrative 'elements'. the exodus. 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. the further wandering right up to the entrance into the territory of east Jordan.1964. Eine Analyse von Ex 115. and finally. 'Ex 1-15 in Bezug auf die Frage: Literarkritik und Traditionskritik'. between a predominantly narrative approach and a cultic approach. 121. i. 2 Op.6. 122. then the death of the charismatic leader Moses. he regards it as a 'cult legend'... and originally too the settlement in east Jordan'. On the contrary. cit. 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. 3 See below under 2.. in particular of Exodus 19-24. this would require an entirely new approach. 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. already mentioned. p.?. That larger whole was the occupation of the land by Moses' host which comprised the tradition of how the exodus came about. 1 Uberlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus. (the exodus is 'not an isolated event to be evaluated separately and by itself). and continues: In reality. Following Mowinckel. Exodus 1-15 is directed to a continuation of and forms a part of a more comprehensive historical narrative.3 Von Rad has laid special emphasis on the independence of the Sinai passage. STL 5 (1952) 66-88.2 It is obvious that very different methods and statements of the question clash in this discussion of Exodus 1-15. Within the framework of our statement of the question.1 He rejects 'the fiction of a deep cleft that has made it possible to accept an isolated exodus tradition'. . he brings into legende'. 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.
20. cultic. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der Wiistenuberlieferung des Jahwisten. 11. According to him they 1 Cf.1 The criticism is concerned primarily with the question—do the different complexes of tradition just mentioned belong together or not. 20. Beyerlin. A. 81. 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.14-21 the transition to the theme 'leading into the land' (A History. The relatively self-contained independence of the Sinai pericope has scarcely been contested. p. V. nor can it be.3 Gressmann accepted as a basis for all these narratives a collection of stories connected with the sanctuary at Kadesh. 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. But it is just this discussion that has stood in the way of further study of the formation and structure of the Sinai pericope. Noth sees in Num. 156-238. and Num. 'further sojourn in the wilderness'. 206). 1969. separated out certain blocks of material. Hence. and was joined with them only at a relatively later stage.14-36. Introduction to the Old Testament. 20 and 21. Fritz represents an opposite view: Israel in der Wiiste. 11-20).2 It lies before us in a form that reflects a wild growth. But as to how all this came together into a whole. Perlitt. this question has still not really been put. as it is so obvious.13. 3 There are differences in the delimitation of the ending of this complex of tradition.13. W. esp. there have been scarcely any studies of the question of how the extremely different elements within the Sinai pericope came together. and so in his commentary on Numbers he makes the division: Num. This opinion has been frequently criticised. Exodus 19 through to Numbers 10 contains an assortment of narrative. chs. Num. and legal material which has been thrown together. 1970. and whether there were any guiding principles of arrangement or discernable intent at work in the process. liturgical function of this collection. Herkunft und Geschichte der altesten Sinaitraditionen. Weiser. 16-18. . 'Preparation for and beginning of the "conquest"' (Numbers. to be sure. 148).1-20. 2 Further pointers in this direction may be found in L. Scholarship has.38 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch relief once more the cultic. pp. in particular different codes of law. pp. Bundestheologie im Alien Testament.
. The reason for this is that it is not possible to arrive at internally coherent complexes for each of the accepted continuous narrative threads'. Das Buck Josua. 1953 (2nd edn). Noth. And so one spoke of the 'Hexateuch'. That is. A History. pp. of particular interest is the discussion of the traditions about the Israelites' occupation of the land.3 But in all this.2 while others have accepted and elaborated it. 164-65. 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. cit. the question of how the narratives came together in their present arrangement has remained undiscussed. The Documentary Hypothesis 39 were only separated from each other by the inset Sinai passages in the course of the traditio-historical development. 8. It is surely not due to chance that this occurred in 1 2 3 4 5 6 Gressmann. cit. are not valid for the book of Joshua in the same enlightening way.1. Fritz. and traditio-historical questions. 12.. op. in his analysis of the book of Joshua.6 This means nothing else than that Noth here regarded the occupation of the land traditions in Joshua as an independent larger unit. he discerned a 'collector' at work. 386-87. especially with the question of whether Kadesh was ever a cultic centre for some or for all the Israelite tribes. 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. Cf. cit.. op.1 This question is in turn linked with historical. p. 165ff. Mose und seine Zeit. p. came to the conclusion 'the literary-critical theses. The reason for this was that the texts in Joshua were regarded as belonging to the pentateuchal 'sources'. pp.5 Instead of continuous 'sources' in the narrative parts of Joshua. Beyerlin. who gathered together older traditions which had already been partly joined together and shaped them into a 'very old whole unit'. religio-historical. . demonstrated above all for Genesis. Noth has contested this thesis very strongly.4 Finally. 25. Op. p. pp.
hence. 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'. And so he makes use of a redactor who has simply left out' the postulated. 'its description would have ended with the reports of the death of Miriam. texts. p. or will not. and Moses'. Noth thinks that this original description of the occupation of the land in the older pentateuchal sources has Tbeen lost'. the reason being that the priestly writing is not interested in the theme of the occupation of the land. on the basis of his analysis of the book of Joshua. On the one hand Noth. However. . namely to submit the source theory itself to critical examination. draw the consequence of this. and hence any talk of the *Hexateuch'. he cannot. but not extant.1 Further. It seemed certain to him that the old pentateuchal sources originally ended up with a narrative of the occupation of the land. One of the main reasons for this surmise is the 'repeated promises right throughout the patriarchal story that the descendants are ultimately to possess the land of Palestine'.2 One can only say that this is an extremely precarious way of arguing. on the other. 16. and has been accepted by various scholars. cannot maintain the thesis of continuous sources which end up with the description of the occupation of the land.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. requires a continuation in the account of the occupation of west Jordan. 1 A History. in Noth's opinion. there is the fact that the book of Numbers begins with the account of the occupation of east Jordan which. 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. again without the consequences for the source theory as a whole being drawn. Noth's thesis has subsequently undergone lively discussion. 2 Ibid. this raised a new difficulty for Noth. Aaron.
a large unit consisting of traditions about the occupation of the land has been clearly discerned in the book of Joshua. As a consequence. occupation of the land. to someone called the *Yahwist'. however. anything else than an independent complex of tradition within the Pentateuch. Each of these units has its own characteristic profile. each is assembled from various elements of tradition and presents itself now as a more or less self-contained unit. and there are already many individual studies. sojourn in the desert. 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'. plays no role. in essence. The question whether it belongs to a broader context is to be put only at a later stage. Sinai. From the traditio-historical point of view the question. there . The Documentary Hypothesis 41 41 It must be stated that. or whether the occupation traditions in the book of Numbers can be considered as an indeendent larger unit which has had its own history of tradition. the patriarchal story. together with other 'theological' reworkings. 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. try consistently to show that the present unity is a constituent part of a larger context. namely the pentateuchal 'sources'. there is no ground for regarding this larger unit as. Research so far has acknowledged the independent character of most of these units. the question of the independence is not dealt with. to what pentateuchal 'source' does it belong.1. But for the Pentateuch itself there would be the further question. for our context. 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. Hence. 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. Moses and exodus. One is often content to designate a reworking as 'theological' so as to ascribe it. These works.
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'. .
397.1 The stories of Joseph. but also for literary arrangements. not only to describe a collection of originally independent stories. we must call it a Novelle'.p. cit. he describes it as 'a well arranged whole'.2 Consequently. he continues: 'However.. the constituent parts of which are not appropriately designated as stories (Sagen). The special place of the Joseph story (Gen. p. 2 Op. It is scarcely possible to separate the individual stories from each other.1 After describing the characteristics of the style and the manner of presentation in further detail. rather 'the boundaries between the passages are very fluid'. Gunkel has already described appositely its peculiar character. it marks itself off. as in other places.. he shows himself remarkably uncertain in his choice of form-critical terminology. . from the other cycles of stories by its very tight structure'. we can scarcely call this narrative a story (Sage). Jacob. and Isaac Within the patriarchal story several independent narrative complexes delineate themselves clearly. 37-50) stands out most clearly of all. Its special character within the patriarchal story 1 Genesis. Nevertheless. 396.. he says finally: 'After all this. The notion 'Novelle' has prevailed by and large for the Joseph story. It is clear that here.Chapter 2 THE PATRIARCHAL STORIES AS EXAMPLES OF A 'LARGER UNIT' WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE PENTATEUCH 2. However. hence. one must go further and say: the Joseph story is not a cycle of stories. First of all he writes: The Joseph story is a cycle of stories (Sagenkranz)'. Gunkel uses the notion 'cycle of stories' in a very undefined sense.
1966 (German 1953).44 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch has been generally acknowledged.1-28. 32-3G2) and the Jacob-Laban stories (Gen.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. 5 Ibid. cit. is dependent on many a stimulus of Egyptian origin'. in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Von Rad has added a further dimension with his thesis: 'the Joseph story is a didactic wisdom narrative which.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). He specifies the arrangement that has thus arisen in the following way: This Jacob—Esau-Laban cycle is..23-33 [22-32]) in particular play an important role in the overall arrangement. . binds the whole together into a unit'. 292. p. Penuel. 3 Op.19-34. It is a question here of the cult stories of Bethel. 28. 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'. He has shown that it consists in essence of two large narrative complexes: the Jacob-Esau stories (Gen.6 Von Rad has taken Gunkel's observations further at this point by showing that the two cultic stories of Bethel (Gen. 27. p. p.10-22) and Penuel (Gen. both in the ideal that it presents and in its basic theological thinking. cit. 25. Mahanaim.. cit. however. 2 Gunkel. 368.9. pp.. 6 Op. 4 Op. not a loose juxtaposition from the hand of a redactor.17 onwards under the heading 'Jacob in Canaan'. deals with the passages from 33. and Shechem which *have been distributed along the trail of Jacob's travels'. accordingly. but an artistic arrangement: a sequence of cross references forwards and backwards. 291. and especially the conclusion which reverts to the beginning. Gunkel has also made the most important observations on the Jacob story. 292. p. They stand at the two turning points of Jacob's journey: 1 The Joseph Narrative and Ancient Wisdom'. 32... 292-300. 29—31).
p. 9-91.2 He says of this group that 'in the way in which they are arranged they stand somewhere between the type of short. 6 Op.. Looking at the entire block of the Jacob-EsauLaban cycle of stories. pp. on the other.1 Westermann too has arrived at essentially the same division and designation of the constituent parts of the Jacob narrative.3 There is an independent Isaac story in Genesis 26. 39. cit. The Patriarchal Stories 45 the flight from Esau and the retreat from Laban. 291. 2 'Arten der Erzahlung in der Genesis'. These two narrative blocks are clearly markers indicating the guiding theological thinking*. 12-33) which have been incorporated into the broad arrangement of the Jacob stories'. by a later hand'. pp. 270.. 26. 1972. 1964. The Jacob story then is supported by these two narratives 'as a bridge is supported by two pylons.4 Von Rad writes: 'There are only two stories about Isaac (Gen. 5 'The Form-critical Problem'. 7 Op.7 1 Genesis. 4 Op. but looks at it within the frame of the Jacob story. cit.. p. also Noth.2.. however. A History. he speaks of a 'group of coherent narratives dominating the whole which can be called one large narrative'. On the one hand it is fitted more firmly into the 'units of tradition'. 87. self-contained Abraham narratives and the Joseph narrative which forms a much larger and more complex unit'. in Forschung am Alien Testament. 'inserted.. and so surmised that the chapter liad been taken from another related book of stories and inserted here'. 98ff. . p. it is in brackets with the additional note.. esp. p.5 In his Genesis commentary.6 Gunkel too felt that the Isaac story had its own character over against the other patriarchal stories. The literature for the most part does not evaluate this chapter as an independent section. cit.6-11.. Gunkel puts it under the heading 'Survey of the arrangement of the JE Jacob stories'. 57. 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'. it is different. 3 Ibid. p.
300.108. 1 and 6. Genesis.4 We must pursue this question somewhat more closely. Kessler. 6 Op. all that the narrative tradition known to him about Isaac was aware of. p. 360. 5 A History.7 Verses 1 Franz Delitzsch. 21. Two divine addresses stand out which have no immediate connection with the narrative context (w.. The remaining parts of the chapter are of a very different type. Noth stated that the author (for him. the second by w. 1972.46 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch The independence of Genesis 26 with respect to the context is well underscored. 26-31).3 Kessler. Genesis. Uberlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der expliziten Querverbindungen innerhalb des vorpriestlichen Pentateuchs. 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. p. 29. He describes the chapter as a 'string of units of tradition that are in part only sketchy and in themselves not tightly knit'. 103ff. comes finally to the conclusion that 'Genesis 26 presents a narrative cluster that can be described as "the Isaac cluster"'. proposed convincing reasons arguing that each of the Isaac variants are. 1887. theol.10-20 and 20.22-32).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'. Noth has. in my opinion. p. 4 R. 2 Gunkel. the first divine address is linked to the context by w. 12. Die Querverweise im Pentateuch. J) *has assembled here. p. from the traditio-historical standpoint. 23 and 25. 7 However.5 In fact. 7-11) and the making of the treaty with Abimelech of Gerar (w. 24). The chapter is described as a 'mosaic'. pp. 3 Von Rad. Neuer Commentar fiber die Genesis.6 Both are linked as narrative by the cross reference in v.. . cit. Genesis 26 contains only two detailed narratives: 'the betrayal of the ancestress' (w. on the basis of his study of the cross references within the chapter.1-18. Heidelberg. as it were in a compendium and with the help of a continuous narrative thread. 104. Diss. Both have their parallels in the Abraham story (Gen. 2-4. older.1 a passage which 'has not become a completely self-contained composition'.
21. Abimelech's men took the wells by force. and there is a reference back to this in v. and about the consequent envy of the Philistines. v. 302. p. Wellhausen admits that new statements are being made here which are not taken from other narratives. Perhaps we can go further if we point to similar short communications. 3 Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bttcher des Alten Testaments. According to Gunkel. RJ) or to a later hand (von Rad). in a rather infantile manner. The remainder has to do entirely with wells. But why should these verses come from a 'later hand'? They give certain pieces of information and are quite comprehensible in themselves.1 (Verse 28 refers back expressly to this. and it is a question only of passages that have not been elaborated in narrative fashion.3 Wellhausen was consistent in this: 'After all.2. They lack only the usual narrative shaping. 1899 (3rd edn). How are they to be evaluated? Verses 15 and 18 report that the Philistines had blocked up the wells that Abraham had dug earlier. It is easy to discern here the concern to form a unified whole. 2 Genesis. Rather in the place to which reference is made (Gen. Since Wellhausen it has been common to attribute these verses to a redactor (Gunkel. Hence. 21.) Verses 16-17 report quite undramatically Isaac's 'expulsion' from the Gerar territory. the 'insertion betrays itself *by referring back to an earlier story'. They have the very obvious function of giving the prerequisites for the subsequent narratives about the disputes over the wells. and that Isaac had dug them again and given them their old names. which actually amounts to something different. p. which is described as a result of God's blessing.25). wants to put Abraham's wells out of action by blocking them up so that Isaac can dig them again'. The Patriarchal Stories 47 12-14 provide some very general information about Isaac's wealth. It is amazing how woolly the arguments for this are. 'Die Arten'. 18 is a harmonizing insertion referring back to 21. not developed in narrative form.22ff which. namely that in this version they wanted to use the wells themselves. 27. . in other 1 Westermann.2 But no story about the Philistines blocking up the wells dug by Abraham exists.
19-20) and Sitnah (v. for the Isaac story. von Rad. about the dispute over the newly dug wells at Esek (w.22). 'Beobachtungen zur altisraelitischen Geschichtsschreibung anhand der Geschichte vom Aufstieg Davids'. side by side with developed narratives. 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). 2.25b.1 One must conceive of these as the work of a collector or author of a particular group of texts who. . for example. Festschrift G. with the naming of each well on each occasion. They have been fitted into the framework of the other Isaac traditions in such a way that the synthesis. and so by means of short communications he was able to pass on the relevant information. In the story of David's rise (1 Sam. but which. 5). pp. despite the variety of the material. Further. and finally about the naming of the newly dug well at Beersheba in association with the treaty between Isaac and Abimelech (w. 15. gives the impression of a relatively self-contained piece. esp. This would mean that. he wanted to take into his work. 1971. it is form-critically misguided to say that 'an etymological story has been spun' out of the names of the wells.302. there are a number of brief passages with self-contained pieces of information which have not been developed into narratives. and the undisputed use of the well Rehoboth (v.2 What typifies these short communications is precisely that they have not been turned into story. pp. There is no reason for considering the tradition in w. 432ff. R.18). Genesis. 2 Gunkel.48 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch places in the Old Testament. p. 428-39. made use as well of information which had not been formed into narrative. nevertheless. in Probleme biblischer Theologie. 32-33). 21). 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. faced with these short communictions. 16—2 Sam.2 The story of Abraham The interpreter of the Abraham traditions is faced with a 1 Cf. Rendtorff. 15 and 18 very differently.
2 As. writes: The narrative has little concrete about it and can scarcely be called a 'story' (Geschichte)'.1-8.On the other hand. in its present form it must be considered late. what are the characteristics of this larger unit. . is appropriate only for a part of the texts mentioned.1-16aa. is the case in the Jacob-Esau and the Jacob-Laban stories. Gunkel has already spoken of an Abraham-Lot cycle to which he reckons the following texts: Gen. 12. and what are the means used to arrange these originally independent smaller units. there are many independent units of tradition in the Abraham stories which have no explicit relationship to their context.3038j1 but he has seen also that the expression 'cycle' is not entirely appropriate here. 19.2. as Gunkel himself has explained.2.1-8.1 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. 13. into a larger unit? 2. still recognizable as such today. 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. individual stories (Sagen} which had been woven into a certain unity. The Patriarchal Stories 49 unique situation. for example. 18. summing it up. 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. 12. 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.2 The term story (Sage) however. This notion is clearly not applicable to the passage Gen. 19. He developed this 'information' into a sort of story (Geschichte) which he has set 1 Genesis. of which Gunkel. p. On the one hand. He describes it in the form-critical context as a collection of originally independent. There is scarcely any other area in the Pentateuch where the individual narratives stand out as such self-contained and independent literary units. 159.1-28.
1-8 in the collection when he described it as the 'signature tune' (Motto) of the Abraham stories as a whole. and consequently the one blessed'. 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. 19. 22-34) are joined together 1 Genesis. op. he gives chs.1 Accordingly. . 167. But this broader context which Gunkel established covers only a small part of the Abraham tradition. 176.1-28) only after these had been brought together to balance each other. and so one must consider it a later and new formation. 3 Kessler. Kessler has described them as the 'Negev group' because their common scene of action is in the Negev. and especially by the geographical references in 18. p.50 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch as it were as a 'signature-tune' (Motto) at the beginning of the Abraham stories.1-16) and Sodom (19. not with an original story (Sage) or narrative. as are the means used to arrange and bind together the individual elements. a shoot grafted on to an older branch'. so as to form a larger unit with Genesis 13 (and 19. Gunkel himself limited the function of 12.2 Hence Genesis 13 would have been placed before the two narratives of Mamre (18. These for their part have been joined together by means of the intermediary passage 18. Gunkel maintains that the same holds for Genesis 13.17-33.. p.30-38).27-28.. 22. Hence we are to regard Abraham as the believer. the obedient one. Of particular importance here is Kessler's demonstration that the four 'scenes' (Gen. 19 the title 'Narrative groups'. 69ff. 20. 13. 2 Genesis. pp.. Gunkel considers that we are dealing here with something belonging to the collection and the reworking. A further group of narratives that belong together is readily discernible in Genesis 20-22.16. 18. cit.3 the intention of which is quite clear. This narrative is not constructed for itself but is rather a preparation for the two narratives about Abraham and Lot at Mamre and Sodom.1-7. 21. 8-21. 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.
22. 22 to the 'Negev-group'. 17. nn.6 23.1.8 refers back to the preceding passage which tells of Isaac's birth. ad loc.. 87. 22. Ill..30 cannot be alleged against this. cit. 221f.1.2 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).1.5 17. cit. 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. . 6 Here. 21. 16. op. apart from the fact that the actors in them are the same. compare too 18.9.1. 24. 253.1. 3-4 in a remarkably elaborate way by 'resuming7 geographical details. however. p. 23. the birth of Ishmael is presupposed. the narrative in 12. so that it cannot be taken in itself to be a typical sign of a particular layer of reworking. presuppose the whole context of the Abra1 Kessler. and Genesis.1.2. likewise self-contained which. 8. This is the case with Genesis 14. 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... 22-23) without a knowledge of Genesis 20'. It has. 590. 59. op. p. Further. A History. for a link with the context: 13. however.1 The note about Isaac's growing up in 21. "The Form-critical Problem'.1. 4 Gen. pp. 7 And so there are no grounds whatever for any claim that this 'resumption' belongs to the Yahwist: this is against Noth. von Rad.1. 6. 20. 5 The mention of Sarah's barrenness in Gen. n.1.1. 80-87.1 (Then Abraham set out from there') joining it with the preceding narrative(s).10-20 is self-contained and has no explicit references to the rest of the Abraham traditions.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. p. the passage about the treaty between Abraham and Abimelech at Beersheba in 21. 11. 12. 13.22-34 'is unintelligible in its beginning (w. 611. Kessler. 16. On the other hand. 14. 3 For the relationship of Gen. The Patriarchal Stories 51 by cross-references. 2 Op. 15. cf.10. But this procedure is without parallel within the patriarchal story.7 There are some further narratives. 92. cit.1. pp. been joined to the context in 12. cf.1-2.
2. therefore. the chapter stands in the middle of a context with which it not only has no link. both in content and formulation. cit. allows the impression of a self-contained unity to emerge. so 1 Cf. but over against which it exhibits clear tensions. what is the overarching element which. to that stage of the reworking which was bringing the Abraham tradition together. Kessler.2. If one asks. 7-21). pp. 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. L. therefore.1-8 has been arranged with a view to the overall complex of the Abraham tradition in its present form. see above under 1. 1-6. then the answer must without doubt be: the divine promises to Abraham. 92ff. from the literary standpoint. 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.2 The promises in the divine addresses in the Abraham story The Abraham traditions present.1 It presupposes the whole life-story of Abraham. the narrative about the winning of a bride for Isaac. a picture that is very uneven and many-layered. reveals that the element of promise appears in a bewildering variety of forms. come together. again in contrast to the two chapters already mentioned. It presents a unique. Closer examination. The situation is much more difficult in Genesis 15. however. it has already been noted that the passage 12.52 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch ham traditions to such an extent that they can scarcely have existed without it. On the other hand. This is true in particular of Genesis 24.2 In contrast to Genesis 24. Finally. It belongs. it cannot have been formulated with a view to the present context..4. 1-6). of which we have spoken above. despite this. 2 Cf. Periltt. and each in a different way. independent exposition of the basic themes of the Abraham tradition. 7-21) presuppose as a whole. . as well as the departure from the original homeland (Ur-Kasdim) and the promise of the possession of the land (w. for the most part. op. Both parts of the chapter (w.
19. The structure of the whole passage is multi-layered and. pp. . 2 Op.6 According to Westermann's analysis.1-6. The promise of a son is the central narrative element here. in 15. 7 Op. Rather. 33. the promise of the son is closely joined to the promise of numerous descendants. 11-34.. the promise of the possession of the land is an essential part of the narrative. see above under 2. 6 Op. very difficult to penetrate. It is notable that both narratives contain as well elements of a place etiology. 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...2. 4 Op.1. and there is no way in which it can be detached. p. we must undertake the task because it is possible that this may give access to the problems of the composition of the Abraham traditions. 21ff. 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. cit. p. The promise motif belongs predominantly to that stage when the old narratives were brought together to form larger units'. The Patriarchal Stories 53 that at first glance it seems impossible to arrive at criteria for the collection and arrangement of the Abraham traditions. 5 Op. cit. p.2 His statement of the question must be taken up and developed here.. He has dealt with the theme of the promises to the fathers above all in his work The Types of Narrative in Genesis'. pp. cit. in all other cases the element of the promise does not belong to the oldest constituent part of the narrative..5 Finally. p. cit. 33. Westermann has made an important step in this direction. He came to the conclusion that only very few of the individual narratives can be described as 'promise narratives'.7 Investigation must 1 Cf.. cit.1 Nevertheless.3 Genesis 18 is a very obvious example of a promise narrative. Westermann however surmises that the narrative does not lie before us in its original form. cit.4 In 15. 29.7-21. from the traditio-historical standpoint. 3 Op. Westermann.
the promise element is in the foreground. There is a divine command at the beginning of Genesis 22.12. . 24.54 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch carry on from here. as there is in 21. Rather. Then YHWH appeared'. does not allow an immediate analysis of the text. 19.1 In the remaining cases YHWH only speaks without intervening in the action. However. 17. The first result of this is negative: however significant the role of the divine address is in many places. constituent part of the narrative.9 to do a particular thing. as in Genesis 18 and 19. but which contains no explicit promise (v. 2 Despite Gen. Genesis. cf. 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. Gunkel. even though unrecognized at first. 15.4. 14. it is by no means present in all the Abraham narratives. In Genesis 18.10-20. And the formula.30-38. already referred to.22-34. in a second group of narratives.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. cf. and speaks directly to people. 21. In these cases. Hence. the divine address is a direct.3 There is a command from YHWH to Abraham in Gen. 2). further inquiry commends itself so as to broaden the investigation and to inquire about the function of the divine addresses in the Abraham stories.22. The promises occur almost exclusively in divine addresses or in citations from them. 200. On the other hand. This is the case particularly when the divinity itself is present.2 But the divine address can also be used as an integral part of the narrative in such a way as to initiate a particular event. there is a striking number of narratives in which there is no divine address at all: 12. 23. On the other hand. remains opaque. p. 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. below under 2. the divine address forms a constituent element. 3 On the element of guidance in the promise addresses. which Abraham carries out. for the complicated situation.3.
15. This is a clear indication that the promise emerges into sharper relief particularly in the later stages of the history of tradition. the promise address carries its own weight in the context. The same is true for Genesis 20 where the address is directed to Abimelech only. the divine address is predominantly promise. . 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.1-6 too. in contrast. though does not at all have to be joined always to the promise element.1-3.14-17.3 The promises to the patriarchs And so we return once more to the promise addresses in the narrower sense. But it has no influence on Abraham's conduct. the action recedes completely behind the promise address. that the late narrative form in Gen. the divine address occurs as an independent and clearly denned piece in 13. On the one hand. 24 is an expressly 'pious' narrative!—and on the other. It is clear. 23-27). 24 contains no direct divine address.13-16. The Patriarchal Stories 55 any divine address to Abraham.2. There are some cases where the divine address is so dominant that one can hardly speak of a narrative. the development of the increasing use of the divine promise address as an element of reworking. In 15. that when the divine address dominates the context or stands independently over against the context.1 2. nor does the Joseph story. it becomes more and more exclusively a promise address. only at a later stage is a promise addressed to Hagar. Finally. which is an example of a very advanced stage of narrative art. 22.15-18. in each case added to or inserted into the context. therefore. These examples show that the divine address can be employed in different ways as a narrative device. We have mentioned already the difficulties to which this inquiry gives rise. There is therefore a basic difference between the development of the narrative on the one hand. where the direct divine address yields more and more in favour of an indirect divine action—Gen. Each is pure promise address. joined here with covenant obligation. a great number of different promise themes occur in the promise addresses 1 It is of interest. Likewise in 12.
in the independent promise addresses in 35. He writes: 'the combination or addition of a great deal of promise material can be considered with complete certainty as a late stage'. . In the Jacob story. cit. further.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. Hence. especially in P and the later expansions of the old narratives'.1) and 32. 24).2 But the synthesis of his results leaves the question open.2-5. it seems that each promise element can be joined to any other in any sequence whatever..23. 31. p.13-15. 32. Westermann has studied both the individual promise elements and the links between them and has gained important insights. the practice is somewhat more varied: the divine address occurs in the poetic passage which has been taken up in 25.1 but they are completely absent from the Joseph story. he writes: 'At the end. again when referring to the divine address in 31.24. it is very necessary to extend the study across the patriarchal stories as a whole. finally. then in narrative context. divine addresses occur only in two independent promise addresses without any immediate connection with the context (26. 32. pp. these individual promise addresses are inter-twined with each other in very different ways without there being at first glance any definite principle. 4 Op. Setting side by side the various possibilities in which the promise elements can appear. to be sure: This late stage however is evident too in J.13-15 (cross reference in 35. 11-34.9-12 and 46. cit.4 He adds. and 1 In the Isaac story. in undoubtedly older narrative passages in 28. p. 2 'Arten'. 33. 3 Op.1113. we are left with the cumulative combination of a great deal of promise material.2-4 and in the account of a promise address in 48. On the other hand.27-30. cf. Though promise addresses are incomparably more frequent in the Abraham story..3-4. And Westermann has not really succeeded in progressing beyond this situation.3 (more of this later) and 31. they occur nevertheless in the Isaac and Jacob stories in the same or similar form. in passages like 28.56 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. also the synthesis on p.
in the addition in ch.8 28.2 It is this task that we now undertake. 3 In this and the following tables. In accordance with the methodological principle already mentioned. to which the following table should help. the principle established by Westermann is of particular importance: 'One must go behind the late combinations which contain a number of promises. 2. that is.15 35.3 17. Hence. 2 Ibid.2. and inquire about their individual elements and the particular history of each in the course of tradition'. * It is obviously a question of a relatively late stage.17 28. we will begin with an analysis of the individual elements and so postpone for the time the question of their joining or combination. texts which are not in direct divine addresses are placed in round brackets. That means that where we find different promise elements joined together.3. The Patriarchal Stories 57 in E.3 15.4) 1 Ibid. In so doing. And so we must try to make it more perspicuous by a careful analysis of the individual promise elements. we will first deal with each of them separately and compare them with the other texts that contain the same promise material. The situation is obviously very complicated. one cannot avoid extending the analysis across a relatively wide area. without thereby making any pronouncement about its absolute age. .1 The promise of the land We begin with the promise of the land which occurs in a variety of formulations.12 26. 22'.7 13. a stage which in the process of tradition is to be subordinated to the appearance of individual promise elements.13 13. We will try to throw light on the history of the traditions of these formulations.
the words 'and to your descendants' are added to 'to you'.7) 15.18 26.3 17.18 26. to you and to your descendants with you.4) 15. lit.4 (Translator's note: (1) the personal pronouns and the personal possessive adjectives 'you' and 'your' are always in the singular in the Hebrew.7 24.13.4 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 some cases God's address to Abraham runs: 'to you will I give it (the land)' (13.) The table tries to trace a definite line of development in the formalized phrases within the promises of the land.7 is clearly outside the pattern). That it is a question of an addition here will be readily discernible from the fact that in some cases 'and to your descendants' has been inserted only after the verb (28. 13. the formulation in 15.15 35.7 13. in a number of other cases which occur in addresses to all three patriarchs. 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. 'seed'. .8 (28.4 (48. 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 26.7.7 (24.13 13.12).17 28. (2) the word 'descendants' renders the singular Hebrew word zera'. 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.15).7 15. that you may possess the land of your sojournings.4 48.58 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 12.
18 26. 24. 28.2. 28. 15.) What is important for our perspective is that in the first group the receiver of the promise. from whom the effectiveness of the blessing proceeds.4 12.16.18 takes an intermediate position.18).8.3. Finally.18. The development corresponds exactly to that in the . This holds particularly for the promise of the effectiveness of the blessing for others.14 'and in your descendants' is attached.3.14 18.18 in him will all the nations of the world find blessing) 22. Finally. 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 (26.7. we must take up and anticipate briefly other promise themes which leave themselves open to similar observations. 26.4. in the first group the effectiveness of the blessing is directed to 'all the clans of the earth'. which may be regarded as the latest stage in the process of formation. while in 28. the verb is in the Nip'al (12. 26. 17.3 28.4). 18. in the second group. The Patriarchal Stories 59 In other cases.18 in your descendants will all the nations of the world find blessing 26. that this is a subsequent addition is as clear here as in the corresponding formulations of the promises of the land. in the other it is in the Hitpa'el (22.4).14 in you will all the clans of the earth find blessing and in your descendants (18. Before pursuing further the development of this formula. the personal element has receded entirely into the background so that the 'descendants' alone appear as the recipients of the promise (12. in the second to 'all the nations of the world'.14).3.18) 22. the descendants alone are the receiver. is the patriarch himself (12. 48. 18.4).18.3 in you will all the clans of the earth find blessing 28. in which the verb is in the Hitpa'el. (18. 12.4 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.7.
1967. I will give it to you' 1 See below under 2. because I will give it to you' (13. are more obviously related to the context than those formulas which we regard as later in the process of tradition. I will give it to you' (13. the other on the contrary does not. 0.. . . the situation in 13. 'assembly* and others.15. and likewise with a juxtaposed 'and to your seed'. 'descendants') also plays a notable role in the promises of numerous posterity. 65. 2 On the deuteronomistic character of 15. 'up. these too regularly speak of 'seed'. Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Genesis 15'. These are also expressions in which the image of dust or sand is used. one of which links the 'promise of increase' (so Westermann) with the key-word 'seed'. ZAW 70 (1958) 107-26. On the one hand there are formulations in which a multiplication of the 'seed' is promised without the use of any image of comparison.7.2 However.3.15). It is surprising that the expression 'seed' is never employed in these. p. but on each occasion has a clear purpose.2. 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. Ploger. the most important of which is the following: the formulations with 'to you'. walk through the land. J. On the other hand there are sentences in which the promise of numerous posterity is expressed by the concept of 'nation' . Let us return to the promise of the land! The question might arise whether the line of development accepted above (2.17).7 out of consideration. clear indications in favour of this. in which the expression 'to you will I give the land' stands at the beginning. Kaiser..G. 'the land upon which you are lying. And so we will have to leave the formulation in 15. this is obviously part of a fixed deuteronomistic formula.1). formengeschichtliche und stilkritische Untersuchungen zum Deuteronomium.60 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch promise of the land. There are. The key-word 'seed' (Heb zera'. in my opinion. Literarkritische.17 and 28.13 is clear.1 This means therefore that we are dealing with two different lines of tradition. cf.3. which has not yet been inserted firmly into the formula. is to be understood simply in this way. This is a further proof that the use or non-use of the word 'seed' is neither accidental nor arbitrary.
and after the promise of increase. 39-59. The Patriarchal Stories 61 (28. the suffix referring to the land about which the narrative is actually speaking.1. pp. it is similar in Jacob's address in 48.18 the formula is part of the note about the striking of the covenant which clearly stands apart from the narrative itself. It is similar again in 35.4. the promise of increase) occurs in a variety of forms. Finally. 1 (1961.2. similarly Westermann. These occur particularly in short formalized sentences without any immediate relationship to a narrative context: In 12. but the land is described as 'the land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac'. esp.4 is part of a complex divine address with a number of promise elements. 2 Cf. 'Arten'. 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.41ff. pp.3. and the words 'I will give it to you'.2.7 the formula is set within the 'note'1 about Abraham's foundation of an altar in Shechem. 1970 [4th edn]) = Gesammelte Studien zum Alien Testament. This is the case particu1 See above under 2.7 is a formalized cross reference to the promise of the land pronounced earlier in Abraham's address. RendtorfF. 2. On each occasion ('I will give it') is found in the Hebrew text. refers to it. KuD Beih.. where it is set in conjunction with the preceding promise of increase.12: here the promise of the land is set within an independent divine address. 'Die Offenbarungsvorstellungen im Alten Israel'.2 In 15. with the same suffix form as in the passages already mentioned. R. p. First of all. 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. the formula in 26.13).2 The promise of descendants The promise of descendants (posterity. . 28. in Offenbarung als Geschichte. which can scarcely be described as narrative. The phrase in 24. At the other end of the scale there are formulations in which the receiver of the promise of the land is the 'seed' only. the author is rather using the basic elements of the cult etiology in a very formalized way. 1975.
22. 10. with the resumption of Abraham's hesitant utterances in v. originally.13 13.10 21. Finally. was certainly independent (w.12 because after Isaac will your seed be named 26.16 28.16. 19 show no formalized elements such as are found in the remaining promises of increase. the announcement of the birth of a son to Hagar is made by taking up a poetic piece which. 11-12).12 26.5 26.62 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. 21. In 15.16 I will make your seed like the dust of the earth 28.3.4 15. the formulations with which the birth of a son is promised in 17.10 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. In Genesis 16. In the promises of increase.5 26. so will your seed be I will increase your seed like the stars of heaven. dust and sand. 13. then.4 too the formulation of the assurance of the birth of a son is determined entirely by the context.4 count the stars! .24 I will increase your seed 16. the stars.24 16.13 I will make your seed like the sand of the sea which cannot be counted for number) finally.14 your seed will be like the dust of the earth (32.14). 15. a combination of both..17 .14 32.. there are first of all a group of expressions which speak simply of the increase of the 'seed' without using further images or metaphors.
20 35. 17. there stands another group in which the word 'seed' does not appear.3) 48. very fruitful.5 because I will make you father of a number of nations 17.16 may they increase in number over the earth) For the rest.18 because I will make him into a great nation 46. entirely without comparative images. The assurance of the great increase of descendants is. and of 'assembly' and 21.6 I will make you very.11 28.13 12.16 17.16) 17. The Patriarchal Stories 63 22.2 I will increase you very.4 17. and kings will come forth from you 17.3 18.16 she will become peoples. kings of nations will come from her .3 because I will make you into a great nation there 18.4 you will become father of a number of nations 17. the talk is of a 'nation' and 'nations' of 'peoples' . and I will make you into nations.18 he will indeed become a great and strong nation 17. incidentally.3 21.13 I will make you into a nation 12.18 46.2 I will make you into a great nation 21.17 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.5 17.2 48.6 17.2.18 17.4) 21. very greatly (48.
and hence it is not the object of a promise which will only find fulfilment in the future. This too makes clear that we are dealing with traditions that are independent of each other. . he blessed me 1 Westermann. the verb 'to be/make fruitful' qal/hip'il) is found only in the second group in combination with the notions of 'nation' etc. and I will make him a great nation 35. There is no doubt that the idea behind this is that the blessing becomes effective at the instant that it is pronounced. In 48. and kings will come forth from your loins (28. On one occasion in the patriarchal story there is a report about the actual blessing-event and then the appropriate blessing formulas are pronounced (48.3-4 Jacob says: *E1 sadday appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan. cf.64 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 17. There is a further terminological difference: the verb 'to increase' hip'il) is used predominantly in the first group.3 may he make you fruitful and increase 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. At times the statement about the blessing precedes the divine address so that the address itself as a whole appears as blessing.1-4). 25-26.15-16.20 I will make him fruitful and increase him very.1 When blessing is assumed into the realm of promise where it did not belong originally. he will beget twelve princes.11 be fruitful and increase! A nation and an assembly of nations will come from you. very much. Westermann has pointed out that blessing cannot really be the object of promise.3. on the other hand. also 28. 2.3 The blessing The declarations of increase are frequently joined with the assurance of blessing. and you will become an assembly of peoples) (48. 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. then some uncertainty or vagueness accompanies its use. though it occurs also in the second. 'Arten'. pp. as already noted.4 see.
p. the precedence that Westermann1 established of the promise of blessing before the promise of increase holds: 17.17.. 12 nor in v. 32. the whole divine address (consisting of two parts) in 35.4 the possession of the land is described as the immediate consequence of 'the blessing of Abraham'. 20.3 it is linked with the assurance of guidance ('I will be with you and bless you')..18.. the idea of blessing (or the act of blessing) appears within the divine address. for the rest. it is preceded by an assurance of increase: 12.2. independent development of both these sequences of pronouncements. In 28. 22. In 26. as well as with the others in which it is missing (12.24. I will make you fruitful.4.2 the promise of increase stands immediately before the blessing ('I will make you a great nation and bless you').' Likewise. 20. 18. 25.24).3 1 Op. op.. 2 These are the correct references.3).' Further. which use the expression 'seed' (22.. 26. 25-26. This combination therefore is on a different level in the process of the history of tradition from the individual.16. 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. 26. The obvious conclusion from all this is that the 'blessing' is not an independent promise theme. 17.3. 28.17..9-12 is introduced as blessing: Then God appeared to Jacob again when he came from Paddan-aram and blessed him.16. 28. and in the very large majority of cases with the promise of numerous posterity. and God said to him: Your name is Jacob. The Patriarchal Stories 65 and said to me: See. . In 12. 22. and the promise of the land follows it.17-18. cit.2. Westermann.2-3. 26. 13. with or without the mention of the 'seed'.12 does not belong here because the word occurs neither in v. Here too there is no difference with respect to the formulations. 28. 3 Cf. but occurs always in combination with other themes. pp. cit.14.2 It should be noted further that the pronouncements of blessing begin with both combinations of the groups of promises of increase mentioned above.
4: 'I will go down with you into Egypt and I will bring you back again'.66 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 2.5 below. 'Return to the land of your fathers and your kinsmen' (31. Preuss. but not in the Abraham story.24. cf.3. the brief formulations already mentioned are almost always there in a corresponding context: 'I will protect you everywhere you go. Isaac) there on one of the mountains that I will 1 On the formula: H. ZAW 80 (1968) 139-73.20. There is too a clear connection with the words in 22. It is striking that these stylized.10).13). 31. but stay in this land which I bid you' (26. Jacob's words to Joseph and his sons: 'God will be with you' 48. even though the phrase 'I am with you' is missing.42). 1971. also 50.5. Talk of : in 26.' (28. For example in 12. This formulation is obviously very close to 31.1 One must include here as well: 'I will prosper you' 32.3. . there are addresses there which are very close in content to these.24. Also. namely the assurance of guidance which includes YHWH's presence or Taeing-with' the patriarch. 31. This promise is formulated in very brief and lapidary wise: 'I will be with you' 26.e. presents a problem of its own in connection with the formula.3.1: 'Go forth from your country and your kinsmen and your father's house to the country that I will show you'..5. finally.. lapidary promises of guidance occur in the Jacob and Isaac stories.3) or 'I am with you' 26. 28. D..24). ich will mit dir sein'.21).D. there is yet another independent element in the promise material. Vetter. 42. and will bring you back to this land. 2.15. 32. is the reference to 'the land that I will show you'.. Jahwes Mit-Sein—ein Ausdruck des Segens. which has links with the promises of guidance. cf.3.10. 32.4 The guidance Finally.13.2). A further element. For example in 46. or in a kind of reverse process: T)o not go down into Egypt. However. similarly 31. 28. 31.3. it recalls the command to Isaac to remain 'in the land which I bid you' (26. This promise often occurs as someone is about to set out on a journey for which guidance is assured. it occurs too in the form of a report: 'the God of my fathers has been with me' 31. cf. '. 35.2: 'Go forth to the land of Moriah and offer him (i.2).15). cf.
2. in the opinion of the narrators.1 . Clearly.13 46.24 28. your father.7 17. The Patriarchal Stories 67 show you'.24 28. 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 . the God of your father I am Ha-El.13) 15. but there are pronouncements which. show that Abraham set out and undertook a particular journey under divine instructions. the God of Abraham. it should be further mentioned that a number of promise addresses are introduced by formulas in which the divinity presents itself.1 and 26. and the reference to the 'mountain that I will show you' recalls both 12. thence it would have found its way into the other patriarchal stories in its stylized. then.1] 26. One must mention further in this context God's command to Abraham: 'Up.17).11 15. 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.1 35. lapidary form.1 [15. The command to go uses the same language as in 12. it contains a divine command which requires Abraham to make a particular journey in trust.3 (31.13 46. of Beth-El) I am YHWH. and the God of Isaac I am Ha-El. there are no explicit assurances of guidance in lapidary formulations in the Abraham story. 26. then the basic element in the promise of guidance would have its original setting in the Abraham tradition. If this is so. go through the length and breadth of the land' (13. your father I am YHWH.7 17. therefore.2. One can ask. They are brought together here.3 15.3 31.1 I am the God of Abraham.
the word 'seed' now stands in an emphatic position at the end of the promise of the land. 35. 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'. 'I will give it to you and to your seed for ever*. In 13. The promise of the land is found relatively seldom by itself. 13. The theme of guidance—given the overall frequency of its occurrence—is found alone for the most part: 31. 18. 2. above 2.1) and in 15. 15. 13 (cf.3. 42.3.3. 'and I will make your seed like the dust of the earth'.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.18.10. 16.10. There is in some cases a characteristic combination of the promises of land and increase. 17.3. This situation is even more characteristic in 28.5 The combination of individual promise themes Among the individual themes of promise whose different formulations and variations we have examined and noted. we will begin again with the promise of the land.12. independent promise themes. 48.21). cf.15-16. it is only the promise of blessing (above 2. 31. it is resumed immediately at the beginning of the promise of increase. In our investigation of the combinations of different.2. each of the other promise themes occurs also by itself within a divine address. 21. the promise of the land. Consequently.7.3.5. and only in that group which belong together in the process of the formation of the tradition (12.3. 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. 24. 28.7. for the most part it is joined to the theme of numerous posterity (promise of increase).5.13-14. is followed immediately by the promise of increase.1 The keyword 'seed' occurs in both sentences.20. The promise of increase follows immediately.3) that occurs always with other promise themes. The promise of increase occurs more often without other promises: 15. with the word 'seed' again in an 1 . 32.
It must be mentioned further that in both cases the promise of increase is formulated with the image of 'dust of the earth'. And so one can speak here of a gradual expansion of the promise. there is only 'to your seed'. instead of the two-fold 'to you .3-4 too the promise of increase is at the beginning with the same terminology.3-4. 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'. In this respect therefore there is no immediate connection between the formulations of the promise of increase and the promise of the land. that the presuppositions here are different in many ways. We are dealing here with those formulations of the promise of increase in which the key. 12. and kings will go forth from your loins'. in 28. It is immediately clear. there are the notions of 'nation' and 'assembly' as well as the verbs 'to be fruitful' and 'to increase'. and certainly not 1 . The Patriarchal Stories 69 emphatic position at the beginning: 'And your seed will be like the dust of the earth'. the parallelism therefore is clearly discernible. The text by and large is somewhat more compact and shows in addition an interesting shift of emphasis. . the promise of the land follows at the end with the key. however. Finally. Firstly. It follows without any explicit link in v. instead. and to your seed'. in 35. The sequence and the theme correspond in 48. a sort of link by association.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. the only two places where that image occurs.2. 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.1 The link appears even more clearly here as an explicit resumption of the key-word 'seed'. the word 'seed' is at the very end without any reference to the promise of increase. The combination is reversed when the promise of increase precedes the promise of the land.word 'seed' is not used.11-12. . In these cases therefore we are dealing not with a gradual expansion of the promise. where explicit reference is made to the promise in 35.word 'seed' binding the two.
One might describe this situation. and linked also with a promise of increase. Vorarbeiten zu einem Vergleich zwischen Priesterschrift und deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk. then as the unfolding of the change of name (w. 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. in the other case. then. . 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.15 and 28. The theme is unfolded in several layers: first. and finally. as object of the divine 'covenant' with Abraham (v. though the real theme is the promise of increase. One gets the impression that the promise of the land was felt to be necessary here for completion. G. So ends the long divine address with the combination of different promise themes. Genesis 17 belongs here too. without any immediate linguistic link. The reason is rather that these two promise themes were now regarded as belonging together. It is obvious that we are dealing here with a later stage 1 On Gen. where a change of name from Jacob to Israel occurs likewise in a divine address. 35. Habilitationsschrift.13. 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. 8) where.9-12. cf. 5-6). Macholz. 2). 1969. pp. it stands at the very beginning of the (more detailed) formulation. 7).70 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch with the resumption of a particular element by association. the 'seed' offers the key-word for attaching the promise of the land (v.1 the real theme of this extensive promise address is the promise of increase. but rather with the fitting together of two completely self-contained and independent elements. 42ff. also Gen.2 the key-word 'covenant' is taken up anew and developed by bringing it into explicit relationship with the 'seed' (v. 17. the promise of the land is attached to it. 2 Cf. Heidelberg. in contrast to the former. in contrast to 13. There are therefore two clearly separate ways of combining the promise of the land and the promise of increase: in the one case. Israel und das Land. Ch.
28. There is a sentence in v. We must certainly ascribe the addition of these two promise themes to an overarching reworking of the patriarchal story. Now if the view expounded above is correct. In this text too. Genesis 13 and 28. When we approach the text with the insights gained from Genesis 28. 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. then it is clear here as well that the relationship of v. 13). In the face of this assurance of guidance. 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. and then drew with it the promise of increase. We must now go back again to the first group of texts. 17). after the combination of the promise of the land and the promise of increase (w. namely that the promise of the land drew the promise of increase with it. In both cases. it is concerned yet again with the promise of the land. Finally. 18) which he must reach for the further continuation of the narrative. there is a further passage in the divine address (v. The Patriarchal Stories 71 where promise themes have been simply added. 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. In addition. 17 presents the earliest stage of the promise of the land in the process . crossing is a much more immediate and concrete way of taking possession than seeing (v. taking up the key-word 'seed'. (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) was the earliest part of the present context.2. 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. (3) that this was expanded. 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. The situation is very similar in Genesis 13. Let us begin with ch. then we must assume: (1) that the assurance of guidance (v. 15-16). in contrast to the gradual growth and development of the themes in the course of the process of their being passed on. 15).
Even though the situation here is not quite as clearly discernible as in Genesis 28. It is striking that the promise is directed to 'all these lands'. The two-fold promise of the land is striking. only the 'seed' appears as the receiver of the promise.1 A promise of increase follows (v. it is quite unusual for the promise of the land to be traced back to an 'oath' of God to Abraham.3b) in the form in which 'you and your seed' are brought together in immediate succession and not separated by the verb. following our reflections.3 where the promise holds 'for you and your seed'. it may be explained as follows: First. the procedure is to be reck1 On the oath formula. 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. 4ad) according to which the 'seed' is to be like 'the stars in the sky*. but this time it is a promise to *your seed' only. 4b. basing it in detail on Abraham's conduct (w. represents a later stage in the process of tradition than v. Finally.72 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch of the history of the tradition. the promise of increase was understood as a consequence of the promise of the land.25. representing an intermediate stage in the history of the process of the development of the tradition. Then comes a promise of the land (v. inasmuch as the key-word 'seed' has not yet been added: 'I will give it to you'. again with the plural reference to 'all these lands'. 2. 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. a formulation which elsewhere is all prevailing in deuteronomistic usage. plural. there. 5). yet another promise of the land is attached (v.3a). then. the passage concludes with the promise of blessing for others. the plural occurs only here and in v.13-15. it is made to follow yet again. The promise address begins with the assurance of guidance on which the promise of blessing follows immediately (w. nevertheless we can presume a similar process of growth for 13. see 2. In any case. 4a). Finally. namely 26. 4 in the promise of the land in the patriarchal story. 4 would also favour this. . The passage contains therefore a series of unusual elements. The version in v. Further.7 below. and this. hence.14-17 as for 28.
the 'blessing' in the form of wealth in herds is the consequence of the presence (31. in 46. p. 42).17 the promise of the land follows it.13-15 too. Indeed. despite great variety. especially in short. the addition of the promise of the land (v. then in 12. 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. We will return to this again. definite contours stand out. There are then a number of possible combinations with the assurance of guidance.24 the divine address contains only these two promise elements. 1 Westermann. 32. In the accounts of the divine guidance or the divine presence with Jacob. The promise of blessing is not an independent promise element. according to our earlier observations. where there is talk of God's 'prospering* Jacob and the visible expression which this finds in the increase of his possessions.2 the promise of increase again follows the assurance of guidance.1 The promise of the land can occur alone. If we include here the non-stylized statements of the Abraham story. 'Arten'. the unusual formulations point to a stage of reworking which is not identical with most of the other promise addresses. likewise in 31. In some cases it is clearly linked with the promise of increase. Synthesizing the results of our study of the combination of the different promise elements we see that. the blessing does not appear as a separate element in his table of possible promise types.5.2. In 28. . In 26. Finally. 13b) to the assurance of guidance (v. Further. in 26. as Westermann has already shown.3 the promise of increase is worked into the assurance of guidance: Tor there I will make you into a great nation'.3. 15) is the first step in the expansion of the promise address. and the promise of the land is linked with these by an emphatic *because'. and in 13. the promise of blessing follows at once on the assurance of guidance.10-11. 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. The Patriarchal Stories 73 oned as involving several stages.
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. 15. the promise of the land combines in a characteristic way with the assurance of guidance.4 The function of the promise addresses in the composition of the patriarchal story The question now arises whether. which now speak of the 'seed' as the receiver of the promise. the other. the promise of the land is not linked with other promise elements. nothing of importance is attached to it. in such cases.74 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch stylized phrases as in 12. Even when it is combined with the promise of blessing. in the relationships of the promise themes and formulations to each other. more can be said about the function of the promise addresses in the patriarchal story. It is scarcely by chance that we are concerned here with these brief formulations. grows out of it. it is in a context stamped by deuteronomistic language. Finally. 2. that it grows out of the promise of the land.7: 'to your seed will I give this land'. formulated differently. admits of two possibilities: the one. The promise of increase occurs rather frequently without the addition of other promise elements. cf. For the rest.7. relatively late in the process of the formation of the tradition. The promise of increase is also combined with the assurance of guidance in particular ways. the promise of increase is earlier in the process of the formation of the tradition than the promise of the land. Likewise in 15. on the one hand. so as to round off the general theme of promise. 24. on the other hand. in combination with the promise of the land. it is the reverse—the promise of the land is attached to the promise of increase. the promise of the land is the older in the process of the formation of the tradition. associated with it by the key-word 'seed'. in such cases.7. 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 combined with the promise of increase in such a way that the latter. In each of these cases the context is exclusively that of the promise of the land. in some cases.18. The promise of increase.
Neither has any immediate connection with the narrative context. that besides the guidance. Both divine addresses begin with the phrase *YHWH appeared to him'.15. In contrast. The theme appears yet again at the very end of the Jacob story: in 46.1 even though the language in which it is expressed takes a somewhat different form. the promise of the land stands underscored as the centrepiece. but serves the theological interpretation of the Jacob story in the context. 2-5 present. It contains only two divine addresses. 4-5 with the words from v. p.4.24) of the collection of Isaac traditions. the other at the end (26.2-4. 24.2. Jacob is the subject of a divine address before he sets out 1 in 26. in the closing address in v. i is the place whence Abraham set out. 2. It appears a second time and is underscored at the next turning point: in 31. we find that w. op. 12. as already noted in detail. let us consider the Isaac story. First. When we look at the content of the two addresses. the emphatic end-point of the theological interpretation of the Isaac story. 31. The element of guidance plays an important role in the Jacob story as well. It marks the first decisive intervention in the life-story of Jacob—the flight to Haran. only the promise of increase is there with the guidance. 3) breaks the narrative thread which i resumed again in w.3 is not used of the whole land as in Gen. 'I am with you'. then.2-5). It is obvious here that the divine address with the theme 'guidance' is not part of the narrative. hence. The Patriarchal Stories 75 reworking. They form. 3 It is to be noted that the term in Gen. 2 Cf. Both contain the element of the assurance of guidance.3 could also be understood in a future sense. 140. It is clear. 13). a very complex and many layered picture..3. Kessler.3 It is particularly striking here that the divine address (v. they can well be elements of the theological reworking of the collection. Jacob receives the divine command to return to the land of his fathers. one at the beginning (26. though it be from Abraham's .2 It is there with all its force in the first divine address to Jacob in 28. cit. 7. 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.1 and 24. here it is the goal to which Jacob will return. however.
which becomes divine guidance because of Abraham's obedience. More exactly. obviously did not take place at one stroke. Following our observations so far. for example. to the land that I will show you' (12. 22).12) with (17. our analysis shows that the promise of the land is in the foreground in the first of the divine addresses (28. and the end of his 'journey'. the Abraham story too begins with a narrative of guidance or. rather it exhibits several stages or layers. the turning point. There is a parallel to the Isaac story here.13). to which again 1 a promise of the land has been attached. framed as it is by divine addresses. the theme of 'guidance'.9-12). it is only the promise of increase that has been interwoven into the assurance of guidance (46. Here.. the second begins with the extensively elaborated promise of increase. Of the promise elements. The instruction.2 here too there are obvious linguistic links with Genesis 17. 12. The framework of the Jacob story. The Jacob story. stands at the beginning and the end of the Abraham narrative. At the conclusion. therefore. the promise of the land stands at 1 In v.3). . more accurately. are each marked out by a divine promise address. is framed by these three assurances of guidance.1). as we have already seen. 2 Compare. 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. and the theological interpretation that goes with it. Let us turn finally to the Abraham story. the beginning. (35. has double conclusion. Yet another detailed divine address stands before the broadly developed Joseph story (35. Nevertheless. with a divine address in which the element of guidance occupies a central place: 'Go forth from your country.19).. its main content is the assurance of guidance on the journey.76 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch for Egypt. is not as fixed and formalized as with Isaac and Jacob. and was elaborated first out of the promise of guidance. 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. The Jacob story. With regard to the content. however.
15. We spoke earlier of the different linguistic formulas of the promise of blessing for others. 16.3) and in the Jacob story (28. A further element in the closing address must be mentioned here: the promise of blessing for others (22. further.18.12. which clearly extends beyond the limits of the narrative of the offering of Isaac.10. and it is found yet again at the close of the Abraham story (22.7.2-5).18.15-18 is of special importance for our purpose. 13. 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. This promise.18).17.1).16. For the rest. The promise of increase also occurs at the very beginning: 'I will make you into a great nation (12. It appears first with an introductory function in the Abraham story (12.1 As in the other collections.20. . with formulations which have been taken up again in the introductory passages of the Isaac story (26. 21.7. The function of the divine addresses as framework and interpreters are once more clearly recognizable in this promise element. and then throughout the whole Abraham narrative. 13. 28. in the first divine address to each of the patriarchs (26. These verses underscore the close of the Abraham story. is obviously one of those passages of the framework such as we have encountered already in the Isaac and Jacob stories.18.5. 15. 17.14).2).13.2. it is developed further as an 'oath' of YHWH. though not in the fixed and formalized form. brings the traditions about them together into one large unit. The passage 22. here too the promise of increase is emphasized at the conclusion. 17 (passim).8). 17. it is repeated in the citation in 18. the promise of the land is found particularly in the early chapters of the narrative (12. This 'addition'.2). and then no more.4. that each of the three patriarchs is to be a blessing for the whole human race. it is applied to Ishmael. and notably at the beginning.14). The nip'al form is found at the beginning of the Abraham story (12. It occurs once in each of the Isaac and Jacob stories. 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. 21.18). 15. The Patriarchal Stories 77 the very beginning. when Abraham is to set out 'to the land that I will show you' (12.
3 and the promise described as the fulfilment ('maintenance') of the oath. the formulations in 12.16 is introduced by a solemn oath formula.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. The whole of the divine address to Abraham in 22. Later. the Isaac story was added to them as a collection in its own right. and which is rare in the Old Testament and is found only in these two places in Genesis. the divine 1 Talk of possessing the gate of one's enemies' in 22.18 and 26.14 speak of'all the clans of the earth'. 2 See also the phrase 'because of Abraham my servant' in 26.18) and in the Isaac story (26. Each of the patriarchal stories had its own antecedent history. older from the point of view of the history of traditions than those in 22. this oath is taken up explicitly in 26.24. Corresponding to this.3. . A second phase saw the same promise element of blessing used to bind the Isaac tradition as well to the Abraham tradition. this statement is expanded in the deuteronomistic style.16-18 and 26. 'in that'. Considering this from the point of view of the process of formation of the tradition.2 in 26.18 and 26. introduced by a phrase which one might render by 'that is why9. And so the very tight link both in language and content between 22.3-5 is quite clear.4.5. The reason is that Abraham listened to the voice of God. especially between the conclusion of the Abraham and the Isaac stories. In contrast to the two other collections of narratives.17 does not occur in 26.14 are. 22.78 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch form on the contrary at the conclusion of the Abraham story (22. and another reason was added which in both language and thought is close to that of Deuteronomy. there. following our observations. 12.3 and 28. In both cases the promise address comprises the promise of increase—using largely the same terminology1—and the promise of blessing for others. But there is more in common. the following emerges: a first phase saw the Abraham and Jacob stories bound together by means of the promise of blessing for others. First. The assembling of the patriarchal stories therefore to form a larger unit took place in different stages.4 of'all nations of the world'. the gift of'all these lands' is assured. In both cases the reason is given.4).
The different promise elements were taken up into these speeches. in which the Isaac story was brought in. With regard to Isaac. whereas there is no talk here of numerous posterity. In the Isaac story. there is no reference at all to a promise of increase in the sense of numerous posterity. This phase. there is only the brief remark in 21. There are promise addresses here of broader compass whose function is more than constructing a framework. 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. The promise of the son occurs first in narrative form. First. the narrative of the promise of a son was not included in it. because one can discern readily definite layers of tradition and reworking. In Genesis 18. which plays an important role in the Jacob story. As for the narrative account of the tradition of the birth of Ishmael. even though. This means therefore that when the promise of posterity was developed further in the form of the promise of increase. here too one can always discern typical links with the other patriarchal stories. And so the talk of the increase of . promise addresses occur and serve only to construct the framework described. The key-word 'seed' is used here. 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. This must be investigated in further detail. and in the process the element of guidance. but the primary purpose is to emphasize the legitimate line of the posterity through Isaac in contrast to Ishmael.12: 'because your seed shall be named after Isaac'. in the narrative of the promise of the birth of a son to Abraham and Sarah. the situation is somewhat different.2. we must take up an observation mentioned earlier. However. The Patriarchal Stories 79 promise addresses were not yet inserted into the narrative context but stood by themselves as independent speeches. their use is to be understood basically in the same way. the promise of increase only became part of it at a later stage in the reworking. In the Jacob story too. up to a point. they have been brought somewhat more into the narrative context. We begin with the promise of posterity. acquired a prominent place. In the Abraham story. there is talk only of the one son.
so that it is in this that one must look for the purpose of the text of 15. the promise of the son and the promise o increase are clearly separated.3. though it does in the Jacob story in 28. . as a single statement.13.18.2. 17).18 (where it is expanded). There is another group of texts in which an increase to 'peoples' is promised. there is the single statement about a great nation in 12. and repeated.2 and 18. This statement is heavily underscored in the framework of the alteration of 'Abram's' name to 'Abraham'. in the framework of the extension of the promise of the land to the promise of increase. The promise of the son therefore is developed further towards the promise of increase. in 21.1-6. a text which is traditio-historically parallel. This formulation does not occur again in the rest of the Abraham story.1 Finally.2 The groupings here are again clearly different. that the posterity will become a nation.14. The situation is somewhat different in 15. a great nation. where the new name is explained in a word play as 'the father of a host Cab-hamon) of nations' (17. First.5. But it then moves on to speak of the abundance of posterity. 22. for the rest. there is no doubt that Isaac is in mind. therefore.4. Ishmael is to become a (great) nation. This text too begins with the promise of a son as an answer to Abraham's hesitant questions (w.10 stands in a quite isolated divine address. 2 See above under 2.13. The image of the stars is found again in the Abraham story only in the closing passage.1-6 as it now lies before us.18). or nations. at the conclusion of the Jacob story. occurs again in 46. it is 1 See above under 2. from which the word 'seed' is missing.15-18 (v. A further expression of the promise of increase appears in 13. making use of the image of the stars.16 where.3. the same occurs in a very different sort of context in 17. It is also said. the multiplication of the 'seed' is to be like the dust of the earth. that Ishmael is to become a (great) nation (21. It is noteworthy that this formulation.20. Given the context of the Abraham story.4-5).80 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch descendants (seed) in 16. it occurs in the Isaac story in 26. By and large. 2-4).3. there is the rather frequent statement.
6. The plural occurs twice more in Genesis 17 (w. 17. We must again begin with a text in which the promise is an immediate constituent part of the context.912).14-17.1 The promise of increase has certainly not been developed at one stroke in the course of the reworking of the Abraham story. fits nicely into this context. 48. 3 See above under 2.3. one must note carefully that this verse is formulated in quite obvious parallelism to 11.13-15.5.31. where a corresponding assurance is given to Jacob. 12. Once again we must refer to the parallel texts in 28.7-21.31 15. where Abraham is ordered to journey to the land which YHWH will show him.16. it is the original announcement of the occupation of the land where Abraham is already living. where there is an accumulation of ideas. namely 15. while the possession of the land is assured to the 'seed' as well. 16). 2. Here it is a matter of the assurance of the possession of the land after the separation from Lot.2. The Patriarchal Stories 81 conceivable that the plural form 'nations' had its origin in this word play.1.3.7 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. We will have to reckon here with a gradual growth of the tradition. besides also D'D. 11. in part. outside the divine address in the form in 28. It is similar in the case of the promise of the land. II). and then in the passage that frames the Jacob story (35.31 15. 2 So with the Sam and LXX. .4.3 There is a further series of texts in which the promise of the land is likewise the consequence of the promise of increase. have had scarcely any connection with each other. BHS.7 11. First. 'nation and an assembly of nations' (v. The orientation of the promise of the land is different in 13. cf. there has been a series of stages which. rather. 1 Gen.
3. Finally. characteristic of these is that the promise is addressed only to the 'seed'.3) where there is talk of the blessing.7. this is underscored by the brief to your seed will I give this land'. 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.4. then again at the very end (48. in the Jacob story. let us add a few remarks on the promise of blessing. This is the case in 17.3. and certainly not by chance. cf. 35. in a series of passages where the real interest is the promise of increase. When Abraham takes possession of Shechem as a place of cult. with the same wording. For the rest. 24).20). Let us summarize: we have seen that the promise addresses have on the one hand gone through a varied and many-lay- . The same formula confirms the striking of the covenant in 15. the formulation is notably different from 15.4.7 and belongs without doubt to a quite different stage in the process of formation.7 holds a similar emphatic position. Here too one can recognize clearly a deliberate intention in the placing of the promise elements.18.2) and at the end (22. the promise of the land occurs in brief. one must always keep in mind that one is dealing here with a late stage in the process of formation of the tradition. In conclusion. 48. the promise of the land itself is not the real theme.16) and Ishmael (17.12. the place where it occurs is not without significance. also 26. In the Abraham story it occurs.3. However. We have discovered that it always occurs in combination with other promise elements. One could say then that the promise of the land in 12. belongs here also. 35. formalized sentences without any link with other promise elements. in parallel passages about Sarah (17. and outside the Abraham story in 28. We can reckon therefore with a stage in the process of the history of tradition in which.82 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch We have already referred to this combination of the promises of increase and land. at the beginning (12. it is found twice more in the Abraham story in conjunction with the promise of increase.9). the promise of the land has been added. and in precisely in the same places in the Isaac story (26. Here. The citation of a divine address in 24.8. Likewise. before and after the journey to Haran (28.17).
24).20. 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. the intention and careful planning which have directed the process are in many cases clearly discernible. in the course of the process of its formation. and the divine promise addresses dominate both the reworking and the interpretation. In these last two. 28.34).3. These were obviously the two elements which had established themselves as stamping and covering comprehensively the patriarchal stories.1 The blessing for others is a second promise element which joins together all three patriarchal stories. In the Isaac story. however.3) and at the end (22. It pervades and stamps the Jacob story also. 31. there is a close link between the guidance and the blessing for others. It stands at the beginning (12. but on the other hand have been carefully and consciously made a part of the reworking and theological interpretation of the patriarchal stories.15.10-11).2.4. posterity. 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. 46.2.1. Likewise. 32. The Abraham story too is determined by it. . but shows signs of different stages and layers. and blessing.2-3. 31. the element of guidance is in an emphatic position at the beginning of the two divine addresses which frame it (26. there are still further passages to mention in which the divine guidance appears as a determining element (28. The reworking did not take place at one stroke. 12. The Patriarchal Stories 83 ered process of development.5. here.14). and at the beginning of each of the Isaac and Jacob stories (26. by means. of a variety of links with the other promise themes—land. a clearly stamped guidance narrative stands at the beginning (12.1-3) and the end (ch. see above under 2. Certain elements are particularly prominent. 42.1-9. besides the divine addresses (28. 22). There can be no doubt therefore that the patriarchal stories present an independent larger unit which. has been reworked in different stages and provided with theological interpretations.18) of the Abraham story.
holds for the whole of the patriarchal story. in both its individual parts and as a whole. but there is no reference at all1 to the constantly repeated promise of increase 1 In the very redundant Exod. 22. 28. 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. while in the Isaac story it appears only in the two divine addresses without any reference to the context. The direct divine address is used far less often than in the patriarchal story. it is clear that the reworking has fitted these three collections together so as to form one composite whole. . A first result is a negative conclusion: the promise addresses.18 (Abraham). and that once again by means of the promise address. But before all else. This is clear at once in the passages where themes occur which.5 The absence of any definite reworking in Exodus-Numbers It has been shown that the patriarchal stories represent a selfcontained larger unit which.4 (Isaac). for the rest of the Pentateuch as well. Thus one can see that this promise. 26. 2. there are but two terms. in the patriarchal story. are not found in the traditions of the book of Exodus.7. referring to the increase of the Israelites. 12. has undergone intensive reworking and theological interpretation. not very specific. 1. And this suggests that we direct the question first to the continuation of the patriarchal story in the book of Exodus.84 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch effect in the narratives. which stands as a signature tune (Motto) at the beginning of the Abraham story. in the Jacob story it shows itself as an element of the composition. which have already occurred in the promise of increase in the book of Genesis. the contents of the promise addresses of Genesis scarcely occur and are not at all the centre point.7). in particular.3.14 (Jacob). The prolific increase in numbers of the Israelites is mentioned in the very first verses of Exodus (1. The question now arises whether one can demonstrate a reworking. belong to the content of the promise addresses. determined by the same purposes and using the same means. as a determining and characteristic element.
2. the home of the Canaanites. 124f. they are to return to the land promised them. It is not. 50.2. One would expect that this promise would be taken up in Exodus 3. 1 Cf. and more. as a land that is the home of foreign nations.3. 2 Cf. 'Arten'. the land is introduced as something entirely new. 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. and the Jebusites' (3. And so the silence about these links in Exodus 3 is all the more striking. the Hittites. the Hivites. p. and instead. the Perizzites. This text stands in splendid isolation within the patriarchal story. The land is introduced here as an unknown land. 15.24. The Patriarchal Stories 85 addressed to the fathers. Westermann.1 of which the author is obviously not aware. The text reads: 'I will lead you into a good. nevertheless. at a time determined by God. 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. . Introduction to the Old Testament. In Gen. and Jacob'. into a land that flows with milk and honey. the Israelites are to journey after they have been rescued from slavery in Egypt. The situation is even more striking with the first mention of the land into which it has been proclaimed.13-16. Isaac. Fohrer-Sellin. 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. those addressed here would be the 'seed' for whom the promise holds good. the Amorites. references to the patriarchal story are not the verbs and see above under 2. 27.8). broad land. In Gen. pp. However. 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. 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.2 Following the terminology of the promise of the land in Genesis. But they are not spoken to as such.
than a concrete promise. The text reads: Then God remembered the covenant with Abraham. Macholz. the assurance of God's presence has been taken up from 17. In Exod. and with Jacob' (v.86 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch entirely lacking.1 At the end of the divine address. belong to the latest in the process of the formation of the tradition.2-9. it is once more stated expressly that God will lead the Israelites into the land that he has solemnly promised to give to Abraham. 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. it is rather by mention of the 'covenant' that God made with the patriarchs. there is a transition piece between the story of Moses' youth and the following traditions about his call and the leading out of Egypt.5. nothing is said about the content of the covenant obligation.24. but not by way of resuming one of the promise elements. Only in Genesis 15 and 17 is there talk of this 'covenant'. and moreover. there is a very extensive divine address. The formulation corresponds to that in Gen. it is the land that is mentioned as the content of the divine self-obligation (15. 6.7. and with the addition of the assurance 'to be your God and the God of your descendants after you' (17.18). 17.1). 8). it is a matter of a resumption of those formulations which. where there is likewise reference back to the promises to the patriarchs.3. Ch. see above under 2. 3.23-25. rather like Gen. and Jacob (v. 2. 2. In Exod. 6. cf. with the whole range of promises sounding. which has no immediate connection with the narrative context. 17. Further. within the patriarchal stories. This is a reference back to the patriarchal story.4). but only in explicit relationship to the promise of the land. with Isaac. the theme 'covenant' is developed extensively. in the latter. The word 'covenant' is there again. 24). n. The land is described as the 'land of Canaan' and 'the land of sojourning(s)' (Exod. . 7). 141a.8. In Exod. . it stands outside the narrative context in an independent narrative address. n. However. In the former.7 in a somewhat adapted formulation (v. Isaac. one might perhaps conclude that the author had in mind some sort of general statement. The reference back to the patriarchal story is obvious.
There are some further places. where there are references to the promises to the patriarchs. 24. God's oath is joined with the promise of the land. however. and the whole of this land of which I have spoken to you I will give to your seed.24).1 reads: TJp. In the prayer of Moses. the citation of the divine address to that in Gen. go on your way from here. 33. 3. The address of YHWH to Moses in Exod. 50. to the land of which I swore to Abraham.7. The address corresponds almost word for word to that of Joseph in Gen. 24.7. is added here. The prescriptions in both cases refer to the period after YHWH will have led the Israelites into the land. you and your people whom you have lead out of the land of Egypt. with certain differences in the formulation. There is a clear echo of Gen. There is talk here of the oath which is found in the patriarchal stories in Gen. The Patriarchal Stories 87 process. 22. Isaac. missing in Genesis 22. Isaac.3. . Exodus 13 contains cultic prescriptions about the eating of the unleavened bread and the offering of the firstborn.8. especially to the promise of the land. 50. your servants to whom you swore by yourself and to whom you spoke: I will increase your seed like the stars of heaven. and they will take possession of it for ever' (32. 22. in the patriarchal story.11).2 The reference therefore is to a layer of tradition in the patriarchal story which is relatively late and by no means central. and Jacob: to your seed I will give it'. the promise of the land. though quite sporadic. and Israel.* In these places.7. 2 Further detail see below under 2.24. whereas it occurs in connection with the promise of the land only twice outside the divine address (Gen.16-17 with the oath that YHWH swore by himself and the promise of increase under the image of the stars.16 and 26. And so it is a matter of the two passages in which.13).7. that it is that which YHWH swore to the patriarchs to give to the Israelites (w. see below under 2.2. it refers not to the promise of the land but to the promise of increase. In each case it is said of the land. 5. there is extensive reference to the promises to the patriarchs: 'Remember Abraham. after the people had sinned by making the golden calf. One can recognize again 1 For the connection with the tradition in Exod.
This latter question plays no explicit role in the patriarchal stories. Then. 16). has appeared to me. Instead. It is a question of continuity. the God of Abraham. the God of Isaac. Isaac. and the God of Jacob. has appeared to you' (4. and the contents of the promises are not mentioned. the God of Abraham. And finally. and he is to bear the good news of YHWH to the Israelites with the opening words: *YHWH. when Moses has to justify himself before the Israelites. he is to do so 'in order that they may believe that YHWH. Both are here brought into relationship with each other in a new way and with a new posing of the question. when Moses has to justify himself by signs. the question of the identity of the God who appeared to Moses with the God of the patriarchs. God's presentation of himself as the God of the father . the God of your fathers. as one would expect from the patriarchal stories. But the reworking did not find its way into the narrative substance. the God of the patriarchs takes the central position. it is a continuity of God's revelation. The very first of YHWH's addresses to Moses reads: 'I am the God of your father.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 identity of YHWH with the God of the fathers is the central question here. The consequence of this is an entirely new relationship between the Moses tradition and the tradition of the patriarchs. There was clearly a layer of reworking which joined the two complexes of tradition together. Isaac. They are stacked together in Exodus 3 and following. and the God of Jacob' (3. 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 Abraham. 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.5). 15). he refers to 'the God of your fathers [who] has sent me to you' (v. The patriarchs are not now spoken of as receivers of the promise. rather it has the mark of a relatively late layer in the process of formation. and Jacob. and none other than the God of the patriarchs Abraham. more precisely. and Jacob' (v. the God of Isaac. the God of their fathers.6). But it is not a continuity of the contents of the promises.
2.3. the God of the patriarch (Jacob) presents himself as "?«n. 29.. 42. within which the author or redactor wants the questions to be understood. The Patriarchal Stories 89 or fathers occurs once in connection with the promise of the land to Jacob (Gen. besides the divine address. 1..2 It is of particular importance to have established that there are here other questions than those in the patriarchal stories which are determinative. these two traditions obviously did not belong together. 46. there is no reference at all to the corresponding promise themes in the patriarchal stories.10).5. In the basic stage of their formation and reworking. and Jacob.3 Hence. This goes together with the observation that with the information about the prolific increase of the people (Exod. Accordingly. when taking up this episode in 32. 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. 2 Cf. and that likewise almost entirely in connection with statements about the guidance of Jacob by YHWH (31.8). talk of the God of the fathers. 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. 32. this reference back to the patriarchal stories is not something that arose out of the stories themselves. further Exod. . rather it looks back to the patriarchal stories with a different formulation of the question. 28. and does not take up a topic already at hand there.4. 1 It is only here that the divine name YHWH occurs when God is addressing himself to one of the patriarchs.5 (beginning).7) and with the first mention of the land into which YHWH will lead the Israelites (3. In Exodus 3-4. 9). 18.13)1 and twice in connection with the formula 'Fear not' together with an assurance of guidance (26.10 (Eng. 15. In 46. in the Jacob story there is. the inevitable conclusion: the Moses tradition has been reworked and interpreted from entirely different points of view than the patriarchal stories.3 to Jacob). 3 See above under 2. Further.24 to Isaac. says. talk of the God of the fathers has acquired a new function which it did not have in the patriarchal stories.2.
then it takes up the statement that God 'saw' (2.583. pp. First. . 'the tight inner coherence of the narrative in Ex 1-14'4 is striking.. the basic element of the divine addresses does not appear in the Moses tradition. the methodological criteria would have to be worked out. Iff. and they would have to be quite different because. p. who speaks of a 'tighter arrangement of events' with regard to Exod. Von Rad has indicated briefly1 that one can scarcely speak of stories (Sagen) in the proper sense in the Moses-tradition.. EvTh 28 (1968) 301-28. 5.3 In contrast. 192-93 = pp. Hermann. 326).. as we have seen. 9): 'the people believed'.90 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 2. Their belief is no longer based merely on the proclamation of rescue by Moses. they bow down in worship.25) the Israelites and their distress. Finally. 582. of 'developed narrative units'. 193 = p. The verses 2. cit. pp. It is clear that Exodus 1—4 has been composed as a relatively self-contained unit. 'Mose'.5 Just a few remarks may now be made on the composition of the Moses narratives. EvTh 31 (1971) 579-88 = Gesammelte Studien zum Alien Testament 2. also S. p. 4 Op.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. the presuppositions are essentially other. cit.31.1.27b). 3 Op. 582-83. 1973. cit. 5 Cf. it brings to a close the question whether the Israelites will "believe' Moses 4. And more. by and large. rather we have to do at most with 'motifs' (Sagenmotiven). 8. as we have tried to do for the patriarchal stories. 2 Op. 18998.31 has clearly several functions: first. 192 = p. The conclusion in 4. (p. the statement of the "belief of the Israelites is taken up by way of conclusion in 14.2 This is in accord with the absence.2325 mark the decisive turning point: God hears the cry of the oppressed Israelites and takes heed of it. Now they experience this themselves. 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. but on the Israelites 1 'Beobachtungen an der Moseerzahlung Exodus 1-14'.
There is only a very general reference here to the event of the Exodus.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. 13). 4. go on from here. op. that brought you out from Egypt' (w. Express cross references to the preceding complexes of tradition occur only in isolation. On the problem of the difference between these two verbs in the 'formula of leading out'. 19. 198 = p. 4 See above under 2. 12 the verb (Hip'il) is used instead of (hip'il). . II). ZAW 86 (1974) 425-53. the people you brought out from the land of Egypt' (v. 2 Account is not taken here of references which occur within the legal material and the uncontestably priestly layer of the Sinai passage. the situation in Exod.5 The link with the promises to the patriarchs 1 Cf. to kill them on the mountains and to wipe them from the face of the earth?' Then. YHWH says to Moses: 'your people. 32. Israel. 3 Here and in v. 23). YHWH commands Moses to set out with the words: 'Up.. Here. cit. comes the broad reference to the promises to the patriarchs (v.2.4). it is a matter throughout of fixed and formalized formulas which on each occasion have been joined by as relative sentences for further precision.1-3 is interesting. Moses uses the same formulation about YHWH (v. 12 that this reference back to the leading out from Egypt is used as an argument: 'Why let the Egyptians say: He had evil intent when he led them out.5. The references in Exodus 32 are more concrete. One can discern then a clear connection between the composition of Exodus 1-4 and the overall composition of Exodus 1—14. you and your people whom you have brought out of the land of Egypt'. 1. It is only in v. attached to this.7. 8). No particular demonstration is needed to show that the Sinai passage is an independent larger unit. p. 'Die Herausfuhrungsformel—Zum Verhaltnis von Formel und Syntax'. 5 Cf. Exod. 588. who brought us out of the land of Egypt' (w. The Israelites say: 'As for this fellow Moses. W. The Patriarchal Stories 91 having 'seen' what YHWH has done. 7). 3 of the image of the golden calf they say: 'these are your gods.4 Finally.1 But these questions must be pursued further. 33. Gross. cf. von Rad.
and YHWH announces the expulsion of the nations living there. 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. In the narratives about Israel's stay in the desert." . 3 On the question whether ch. It must be said that in general. 14. 16. dangerous situation in the desert and the comparatively much better position in Egypt. 32]. 20. the leading out from Egypt is mentioned often in connection with the 'murmuring' of the people.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. The land is described as 'the land that flows with milk and honey' (v. there is more about the land into which Moses is to lead the Israelites.2 The passage is characterized by a striking mingling of traditions. to set in relief the contrast between the present. only the sequence 'Amorites. 17. and with that striking absence of any connection with the patriarchal story. Apart from the mere reference back to the better situation in Egypt. this holds too for the references to the patriarchal story. Num. Its function is.6. 21.3. enumerating them in almost the same terms as in Exod. One rather gets the impression that the tradition of the 'murmuring' of the Israelites contained this element right from the beginning.4-5.5.1 Then. 3).5. 3. 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. it is spoken of in the same way as we have known it from the beginning of the Moses narrative.8.4. 16. Isaac. This does not in any way mean that the two complexes of tradition must have been related to each other originally. 18. see above under 1. 3. w. 21 belongs to the desert or occupation of the land tradition. Hittites' is the reverse of Exod. 11.53). and so bring to the fore the accusations against Moses (and Aaron) (Exod.2-4.8. and Jacob: to your seed will I give it'. the content of these texts shows no further connections with the traditions about the leading out from Egypt.13. 2 Verse 2. primarily.3 [cf. 20. It is clearly something more than mere passing references or after-thoughts.
19.8. The Egyptians treated us and our fathers badly. Num.22). But it is just this rare mention of the patriarchs that makes us aware yet again that there has been no far-reaching connection between the different complexes of tradition. The Patriarchal Stories 93 the Israelites. as a whole. The reference to the leading out from Egypt serves only as a contrast to the present situation.23). 14.1 There are only two places in this complex of tradition where there are references to the patriarchal stories. that in a limited sense. 18. 14. The first occurs without any links within an address of Moses to YHWH. 14 with reference to the 'ill-treatment' that 'befell' the Israelites. 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. 14. There has. and he heard our voice and sent an angel and led us out from Egypt' (Num. the 'signs' which he had done in Egypt and in the desert (!) are referred to (Num.6. 20. Then we cried out to YHWH.2. been brought into an inner harmony with the traditions preceding them. whereas its real significance as a historical and saving action of YHWH for Israel is scarcely mentioned. in an address of YHWH. the leading out from Egypt is mentioned 1 On the other hand. In the narratives of the occupation of the land in the book of Numbers. at the same time been a notable shift of emphasis. 11. as well as Exod. 22. so resuming a formulation already used in Exod. It is scarcely possible to glean from the texts that the leading out was a saving action of YHWH for Israel. 16a). . 2 Moses' message opens in v. The narratives of Israel's stay in the desert have not.15. The second combines the traditions: immediately before. 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. 16.12. 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. however. Exod. and hence. cf.13. there is some dependence in the process of the formation of the tradition.2 Here. 18. In both cases the reference is to the 'oath' that YHWH swore to the patriarchs that he would give them the land (Num.
8. And so only isolated references to the exodus tradition and to the patriarchal stories occur in this context. one cannot speak of any real connection with the larger units of tradition that have preceded. there are two further places. Jacob. are to see the land which I swore to Abraham. introductions to lists. do not as a rule belong to the real narrative substance of the individual units. But here too. 2. though there is nothing more precise as to who is meant by the 'fathers' who went down into Egypt.11). In Num. The relationship to the different traditions is clearly quite disjointed in this chapter. and Isaac' (32. where the leading out from Egypt is mentioned: in Num. making any concrete narrative connection. 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. And further. 32. These are mentioned explicitly within the same context and by name: 'None of the men who came up out of Egypt. This passage joins together the traditions of the promise of the land to the patriarchs and of the leading out from Egypt.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'.. Finally.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. 33. The cross references. in the context of the leading out from Egypt. it evokes no association at all with the patriarchs of whom Genesis speaks. 26.94 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch together with the history that preceded it. 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 notion of 'fathers' has shifted. however. and in Num. which appear everywhere. But no comprehensive reworking which shapes the whole into a unit is immediately .4 the lists of the tribes and clans is introduced: 'These are the Israelites who came out from Egypt'. the passage speaks of an angel and not of Moses..
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. they are all concerned with one thing—that YHWH swore to the patriarchs that he would give the land to them. however.31. It appears. 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. . however. Gen. see also Exod.3. 26. 3. which encompasses the different larger units.e. 1967. This is all the more striking because the patriarchal stories which we have examined closely as examples. The reworking and arrangement of the remaining units requires still more careful study. 50. 15. 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. Talk of YHWH's oath is not very deeply anchored in the patriarchal stories.16 does not appear in a fixed formula as in the majority of other cases. Gen. 4.2 here. there emerges one particular group of texts to which we must give somewhat more careful attention. would be in no wise discernible. but it has already become quite obvious that it will have to be of a different kind from that of the patriarchal stories. It is noteworthy that the mention of YHWH's oath in 22. Die Landverheissung als Eid. in two texts which are important for the composition of the patriarchal story as a whole. YHWH's address (i. 2 See below. But this theological intent is not discernible in the same way for the Pentateuch as a whole. Rather. that an over-arching reworking of the Pentateuch. show a very thorough reworking in which a theological intent arranging them was clearly at work. through the mal'ak 1 For . and Jacob'. also N.2. 22.24 anticipates the exodus story. Among the cross-references mentioned.16.16. This does not mean. Isaac. p. In other words: the theological arrangement of the patriarchal stories is not to be equated with the theological arrangement of the Pentateuch. The Patriarchal Stories 95 evident. cf.
there is talk of YHWH's oath.7. 22. can refer only to 22. and which has obviously been added subsequently to the body of the Abraham stories. 22.16 is the only attestation of in the book of Genesis. 50. it is completely absent from Exod. The formulation of Gen. 1 . a fourth passage needs to be mentioned. The passage of course is linked with 22. It occurs in the context of a narrative which is relatively late. and 11 x in Ezek.24. 50. linked with (as in Isa. Gen. but without any connection with the promise of the land. elsewhere only in Jer. 49. 2 See above under 2. so important for the composition of the Abraham story as a whole.96 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch YHWH) is introduced by the phrase: *By my own self I swear*. the God of heaven . namely Abraham's comportment in the preceding story of the offering of Isaac..17. 3b and 4a ). Finally. who spoke to me and swore to me: to your seed will I give this land'. it is followed immediately by the promise of increase and the image of the stars in the sky which appears only here and in 22.16 in the process of formation of the tradition. and appears again only in Num. One can scarcely see here a connection with the promise of the land where the formulations are quite different. 14.1 The reason for this is then given. But what is most important is that it has the function of a transition piece in the place in which it stands. and Lev.220.127.116.11.3. The situation is not entirely clear in 26. 22. The formulation is close to that in Gen. Gen. One can see here a step in the direction of the formulation in Gen. 24. It joins the patriarchal story to the following traditions.4.24.. 50..24 therefore has not developed immediately out of the Abraham story as it lies before us. 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'.). We can only conclude that in this passage. 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.2 The words 'I will fulfil the oath that I swore to your father Abraham'. Jer. The passage about the oath is framed by the double promise of the land (w.16. where there is a clear connection between YHWH's oath and the promise of the land: *YHWH.
first occurrence). to the land which I swore to Abraham. 1. therefore. 95 n.19) with express reference back to Gen. The formulation therefore presupposes both traditions. 13 is concerned in content with the prescriptions about the unleavened bread.24 is beginning to be fulfilled. 'which he swore to your fathers to give you'.1-3a: Then YHWH spoke to Moses: Up. which. 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. as we have seen. to give any grounds for thinking that it has a corresponding function in the over-arching composition. and had to be made.2. .51). What follows in ch. And I will 1 On see above. and Jacob: to your seed I will give it.8. one must remember that the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt has been mentioned immediately beforehand (12. 50. and with the description of it as a land flowing with milk and honey'. so that what is said reaches far beyond the ambit of ritual prescriptions. 50. 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. 5. It provides a link. The Patriarchal Stories 97 in particular to the narrative of the leading out from Egypt. nevertheless. an intent directing the composition.5. the formalized description of the land. 33. In v. you and the people you have led out from the land of Egypt. 3. In Exodus 13. is not present in the two units of tradition themselves. The command to Moses to set out is given in Exod. each time with explicit reference to the promise of the land. It could then very well be that one can detect in the express mention of the promise of the land in this place. depart from here. The next example does not appear. Seen from this point of view. As for their function. p. there is much talk in w. at first sight.1 This then is the obvious place where the link with the last words of Joseph could. Isaac. namely that what was announced in Gen. 13) in the prescriptions about the unleavened bread. 3-10 about the leading out from Egypt and of the imminent leading into the land promised by YHWH.25. is joined with the enumeration of the foreign nations who now occupy it (Exod. the oath of YHWH to the patriarchs is mentioned twice (w.
the promise of the land is again mentioned and confirmed when the journey is resumed. in the context of the promise of increase. YHWH's oath is mentioned here. 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.15. So then.2 The function of this cross reference at this place could be that. the realization of the promise is put in question: YHWH declares that not one of the desert generation is to see the promised land. 24. as the God who made the promise of the land. Moses gives expression to his doubts. the Amorites. 22. These two passages then complement each other. the Hittites.16). so Moses intercedes and counters YHWH with his very own promises. (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.10 to annihilate the people. The reference to the promise of the land in the prayer of Moses in Exod. After Moses' intervention in Exod.11-15. after a break in the journey by a stop at Sinai.1-3). YHWH himself resumes the promise of the land to the patriarchs in his command to journey on (33.22-24).11-14. with YHWH's express decision in Exod. 2 On (Gen. 22. The links with the oath in Gen. the Hivites. 23). In the prayer in Num.13 is also to be seen in this context. 32. 'the stars of heaven' are mentioned. and the Jebusites—to a land flowing with milk and honey'. whom he describes.16-17 are once again clear. 14-15). besides. 11. and once again YHWH's oath is recalled in the same concise form (v. 32. 22.98 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch send an angel before you.7. We find the same traditions joined together here as in Exod. 32. where Abraham requests that YHWH. 13. In the episode of the scouts in Numbers 13-14 also. at the same time it is said that this journey to the land constitutes the realization of this promise. would send his angel before Eliezer. the fulfilment of the promises to the patriarchs would have become impossible. . in however concise a form ('the land which you swore to their fathers'). among many other things. with the exception of Caleb (14.1 and I will drive out the Canaanites. 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. Gen. the Perizzites. as in Gen.
strange. It 1 K.2. that the patriarchs had already lived there for a long time and that YHWH had promised them possession of it—of all this.24 that YHWH will bring the Israelites back into the land promised to the patriarchs. one can scarcely avoid the impression of a very deliberate intent in the composition and interpretation of the Pentateuch as a whole. 32.24: (Exod. and dangerous. there is not a word [except in Num. it must be first explored.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. it is a matter of a reworking which in its ideas and language is closely related to Deuteronomy.. Two passages are of particular importance for the composition as a whole: the announcement by Joseph in Gen. 1.. 50.10.1-3a at which the real journey into the promised land begins.3 In any case. Finally. 67. 3 J.23!]). Lohfink. 33. op. p. cit. esp. They appear throughout in their present context as 'post-scripts'. cit. It has been shown that this reworking has left the texts at hand essentially unchanged and has inserted interpretative additions at definite places. pp. Both passages join the patriarchal stories with the traditions which tell of the journey of the Israelites from Egypt back into the promised land. The land is described as quite unknown. 50. 30. The Patriarchal Stories 99 the promise of the land to thw patriarchs. they belong to a layer of reworking which has not penetrated into the substance of the narratives themselves. but have merely made clear at certain decisive places the guiding point of view under which the whole is to be understood. 17-18 with n. 2. 445. Ploger.2): "Sich des Landes bemachtigen"?. One usually calls the layer of reworking of which we are speaking here 'deuteronomistic' or more recently 'early deuteronomic'2 or 'protodeuteronomic'. .1 and at the same time clamp together all Pentateuch traditions under one allembracing theme: YHWH has given the land to the Israelites. these words of YHWH are cited again in Num. and the command of YHWH to Moses in Exod. op. 14. Hos. Rupprecht also supports this function for Gen. ZAW 82 (1970) 442-46. that is. 2 N.
.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 Hence. recent pentateuchal research puts the question of the 'sources' in the sense of the documentary hypothesis. 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. 1 See above under 1.3. 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. right up to its present and final stage. 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. . 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. the individual. this is the place to ask if this assumption is justified. and their interest in the most precise understanding of the nature and theological purposes of the individual written sources seems undisturbed. across the larger literary complexes. take the documentary hypothesis as the virtually uncontested point of departure for their work. apart from this reworking with its deuteronomic stamp. At the same time. 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.Chapter 3 CRITICISM OF PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM The question now arises whether.
3 Fohrer represents the view noted in the parenthesis. 1975). comprehensive 'Introduction' by Otto Eissfeldt. and calls the second of them the 'nomad source'. p. 4 Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 1984. 107 n. Sellin-G.2 The reader must pause here: Is the question. accepted by Kaiser and many others.4 he likewise divides the Tahwist'. The sentence. the Yahwist. Introduction to the Old Testament (London: SPCK. 2 Emphasis added. completely revised and rewritten. David Green. English version of Introduction to the Old Testament. i. The sources are. Fohrer. 1970) trans. 1969. 3 E.'1 This sounds like the final result of a long development. contains a parenthesis. and the author obviously wants it to be understood as such. of a first and second Yahwist. . namely that the texts which Kaiser and others claim for the Yahwist are to be divided into two sources. however.. 1970 (2nd edn). English. discussed earlier.. 1970 edn (and incorporating further revisions by the author to 1973 (Oxford: Blackwell. There is also the standard. but calls the second source the 'lay course'. on the whole definitively separated'. 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. of the theological significance of the Yahwist depend on it? There is. 48. see below p. 1969 (llth edn).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 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. 1964 (3rd edn) English. does the chief source of the Pentateuch. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. circulating in German and contemporaneous with Kaiser's book an 'Introduction' by Georg Fohrer. 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.102 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 3. p. 5. not yet finally explained. on the whole definitively separated. actually exist or must two sources in fact be accepted in its place. prescinding from the problem.e. 44. after all. 5th edn. the 3rd edition of which is not much older than the two mentioned.
p. from the time that Wellhausen formulated the now widely accepted documentary hypothesis. 5 Exodus. 124-25. Wolff. pp. 223-24.9. 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'. for the 'Elohist'. source criticism has not led to a definitive conclusion. cit. par.H. German edn. 23. Kaiser. The situation is still more complex here inasmuch as not a few scholars contest the existence of an independent 'elohistic' source. 91ff. Introduction. As an example.5 When considering the first part of the book. great uncertainty dominates the separation of these two or three sources. See op. there have been distinguished scholars who have constantly supported the division of this oldest pentateuchal source.2 One must say then that in one decisive and basic question. But one cannot thereby get rid of the fact that. 4 Fohrsr. 152. as Eissfeldt puts it: the latest documentary hypothesis'. The same holds. 'The Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch' in Interpretation 26 (1972) 158-73. but is preserved only in fragments (so that it is better to speak of 'elohistic fragments').3. 1974. 2 German edn. Introduction. p. with the appropriate adaptations. Criticism of Pentaieuchal Criticism 103 division.. Schmidt cites C. 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. pp. 3 still others think that one should consider the 'Elohist' 'as an originally independent and for the most part preserved source layer'. though he prefers to speak of 'source-layers' rather than of 'sources'. .W. Schmidt. 190 = p. while others on the contrary maintain that it once existed as an independent work. Steuer1 Fohrer is one of these. one may cite the most recent commentary on the book of Exodus by W.4 Here too the methodology used is inadequate to arrive at a final explanation. 580. the first fascicule of which appeared in 1974. 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.
trans. p.. 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. On the contrary. J.5 He writes: 'A characteristic of the content of P is the tight link between historical narrative and law. 2 Op. 53). 146. 59. 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'. Engnell has expressed in withering words how this situation is to be judged: 'In reality.2 Nothing essential then has changed in this uncertainty for half a century. 4 Op. pp. 1912. It is certainly true that there is broad agreement in working out a layer of tradition within the Pentateuch which. p. cit. Willis from Swedish. amounts to a complete dissolution of the entire system by the very scholars who defend it' (Critical Essays on the Old Testament. p. 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. The survey that follows therefore claims only a limited degree of probability.. Even so passionate an opponent of classical source criticism as Engnell acknowledges this.. op. in style and content. cit.4 But there are basic differences of opinion when it comes to determining further the nature of this layer and establishing its intent. 5 Fohrer..T. cit. 3 I.1 Schmidt observes that this characterizes 'the state of research into the book of Exodus which remains basically unaltered up to the present da/. and many a time one has to renounce completely any separation of J and E as too uncertain'. can be described as 'priestly'.104 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch nagel who wrote: 'Complete certainty has been reached in separating out P. The two are bound together inseparably'. 1970. p. the development of the literary-critical approach in the period following Wellhausen's classical formulation . one can only describe such a statement as wishful thinking. cit. 183 . there is often great uncertainty in separating J from E. p. 183 6 Op.6 Noth represents an opinion which is the complete opposite of 1 Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 8..3 But further..
which legal texts are to be regarded as original constituent parts of the 'priestly writing* and. There is a variety of views on the question. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 105 this. Hence. s = secondary). n. 15. Noth will have the symbol used only for additions to the P-narrative. They should be given some sort of neutral sign. cit. each provided with yet another letter qualifying P. 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.4 For the rest.3. The most popular view distinguishes a *basic narrative' or the like (Pg) from parts added later (P8. in Fohrer's opinion. Between these two extreme positions there is an abundance of attempts to make distinctions within the P material. can be assigned to P 'with broad unanimity'. cit. p. the literature offers a veritable host of designations for these legal parts. . p. p.3 while Kaiser wants to use it for the legislative material' which has been attached secondarily to the basic narrative. p. though with some further precision. what is to be understood under T8>. 4 Op. Faced with this. A survey of the present state of pentateuchal study leads to the conclusion that adherents to the documentary hypothesis generally acknowledge only two things. One must prescind entirely from these passages when dealing with the P narrative'. one can scarcely maintain that the symbol T' really means the same in both cases. 2 Op. 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. very different answers are given to the question. He wants to separate the legal components completely from the narrative... 10. However. of course. there can be no talk at all of unanimity here. by necessity also a variety of views on the nature and intent of this source or layer. cit. 1 A History.. 10.1 This can only mean that Noth contests that a notable amount of material which. 10 3 Op. 103.2 belongs to this source or layer.
col. i. in fact. no agreement as to its more precise purpose nor as to which texts are to be assigned to its basic content. In face of this. the 'priestly document' has normally been regarded as the latest of the pentateuchal sources. which reckons not with sources extending from the beginning to the end of the Pentateuch. however.e. Tentateuque'.e. the 'documentary hypothesis' has been supported almost exclusively. Gazelles. besides. 791. i. there is a priestly layer in the Pentateuch. 1893. . but since the end of the previous century. 2. Holzinger1 in 1893 are still represented today by individual exegetes. Pentateuchal research. VII. more or less extensive. the other hypotheses proposed in the course of the 19th century have receded into the background: the 'fragmentary hypothesis'. What is often presented as the 'triumph' of the documentary hypothesis since Wellhausen is basically but two things: (1) since then. (2) Since Wellhausen. There have certainly been new positions in addition. There has been no essential change in the arguments and counter-arguments for the delimitation of the sources not O0nly since 1912. however. according to which there was one basic document which was complemented by all sorts of other material. long before Wellhausen. and the 'complementary hypothesis'. one or several more sources or layers. 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. and their relationship to each other. but nogreement as to their number. quoted by H. One must add. therefore. and a glance over its history shows that it was ever so. fragments. Most of the positions assembled by H. that these two hypotheses have had virtually no support since the middle of the 19th century. the 1 Einleitung in das Hexateuch. it is accepted that the Pentateuch is assembled from several continuous 'documents' or 'sources'. 1966. but only with individual. and certain scholars or groups of scholars have shifted the emphasis in their statement of the question. there is. their delimitation.106 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 1. as W. DBS. there still remains a variety of different opinions.H. there is. Schmidt has noted. is far less unanimous than is often maintained. but looking across the broad spectrum of current OT scholarship.
This is because lie sees that the very question which he himself felt to be central. and abr. 106 a. 1981. 5 'Die alttestamentliche Wissensehaft'. pp. U. Kaufmann. esp. Y. 9. has taken the narrative material in essence from the Yahwist. 2 See above p. but assumes that the redactor has used the priestly document as a frame.E.. Let us cite only such a brilliant interpreter of pentateuchal research as H. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism s 107 Eeuss-Graf-Kuenen~Wellhausen-hypothesis' has prevailed to such an extent that.. The Religion of Israel from the Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile.3. 3 Caselles then speaks of the 'present malaise in pentateuehal criticism. namely concerning the Yahwist. p. Engnell. which necessarily has repercussions on the theological analysis'. sections III. There is an increasing number of voices today which question the apparent consensus or doubt whether it exists at all. I. and Conclusion.. M. 13-19(15). Creenberg from Hebrew.. 1960. Haha.5 As an example of the younger German 1 E. thus. Moth has in fact renounced to a very large extent complete reconstruction of the original sources which as a whole exist only in the theory of his system.SOff. esp.. 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. 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'.. op. in Wissenschaftlicht Theologie im Uberblick. Cassuto. Kaiser maintains that pentateuchal research is really on the move again. ed. . Wagner presented his views: "Pentateuchal Criticism: No Clear Future"'. 4 Ibid. W. dt. 1.g.. 1974. since then. LohfET. The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch. trans. pp. 3 BibThB 2 (1972) 3-24.4 O. and has added the Elohist by way of complement only to a limited extent. 153ff. Gazelles^ who wrote not so long ago: 'The present state would justify the title under which N. Others go farther.t pp. 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. IV.
If one does not succeed in demonstrating this chief source convincingly. that it can be demonstrated that it is complete from beginning to end. one may cite F. i. then the current.1 Literary analysis of the Yahwist Has the current Pentateuch research a clear picture of the Yahwist? First. widespread method of explaining the Pentateuch theologically is in danger. let us put the question of the literary analysis.108 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch OT scholars. judgment about the Yahwist constitutes as it were the key to the whole problem of the documentary hypothesis.3 (von Rad's view of the Yahwist). 2 See above under 1. 36.2 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. to be sure. from the creation right down 1 Das Alte Testament. In any case. (2) More recently.. To what extent does it see itself in the position to delimit clearly the texts to be ascribed to the Yahwist. p. Stolz whose writings reflect a widespread view. Certain demands must at least be put to the Yahwist which. 1974. the other sources are dealt with and characterized in comparison with him. If this source is no longer clearly discernible. hold in fact for all sources: namely.e.2 3. also the citation above from Gazelles (3. essential parts of the narrative material derive from it. the theological meaning of the Pentateuch has to a large extent been built on the interpretation of the Yahwist. reckon with a Yahwist whose character is as complex as can be imagined. then the hypothesis as a whole can scarcely be maintained. he writes: With a conception such as this one must. it is in no wise a rounded picture'.2.1 3.. . according to the basic principles of the documentary hypothesis. In fact. After assessing the difficulties under which the hypothesis of a *Yahwist' labour today.1 above). and that for two reasons: (1) the Yahwist is the only older source accepted by all supporters of the documentary hypothesis.
in that it has worked out the earlier constituent parts. added an appendix in which he took account of these doubts. A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 3750). in an extensive block of 1 See above under 1. the documentary hypothesis claims to be the best and most convincing (and so. 1967. Redford. Eng. Von Rad. n.2 This at least puts a large question mark over the documentary hypothesis as the method which is to explain the whole Pentateuch if. 440. The majority of exegetes reckon with only two sources for the primeval story. 3. O. 2nd edn 1972) p. . voices have increased which doubt if the source theory is applicable to the Joseph story (Gen. the correct) explanation of the origin of the present form of the text. J and P (or three: L/N. according to the respective views. inasmuch as there could be the most diverse explanations of this.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. 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. 2 Genesis (German 9th edn 1972.3. Rather. the Elohist has no part in the primeval story according to the prevailing view. or four sources. Die Landnahme der israelitischen Stamme in der neuren wissenschaftlichen Diskussion.e. Steck. also D. and it only makes sense as an answer to this question. three.2. p. VTSupp. in the last edition of his Genesis commentary. 37—50). and has also traced the path from them to the present final form. 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.B. i. At first glance no particular problems appear to arise in the analysis. and that the texts attributed to it constitute a clearly recognizable coherent whole. namely the 'sources'. J and P). Recently. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 109 to the occupation of the land. among two. in the opinion of its subsequent supporters. 20 (1970). Only then can the Yahwist stand as a 'source' in the sense of the documentary hypothesis. The rest of Genesis is shared out. Cf. 92. But it is not enough to demonstrate the lack of unity in the text. Ein kritischer Bericht.
Whybray.5 This citation shows that one can establish that a text is not a unity.1. inserting them into their original context. is assembled out of J and E. There is often a twofold problem: (1) the assigning of these pieces to each other. p.? co live contents cohere. op. but in explaining these unevennesses./' but that a generation of work has not succeeded in determining which individual passages belong to the different sources.3 The difficulties of delimiting the sources in the first half of the m:ck of Exodus have already been mentioned. 6 Cf.N. A History. p. 4 See above under 3.4 Let us cite furl.e. VT 18 (1988) 522-28. axcgetes are more or less divided. 2 Redford and ¥/eippert. the assignment of texts remains an extremely doubtful matter.2 This means yet a deeper breach in the validity of the documentary hypothesis. here as elsewhere.Story and Pentateuchal Criticism'. 1974. breaks. the tensions and unevennesses which are present in the text have to be explained in another way. Where does a source really begin. 1899 [3rd edn].her from the commentary of W. After weighing thoroughly all 1 Sfcesk. Testaments.110 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch the tradition. 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. Noth. because this large passage of text drops completely out of the conventional framework of explanation. Accordingly. 82-83. One surmises that this work.H. 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. R. and (2) the precise delimitation of the units. i. cit. 5 Exodus. . It is relatively easy to perform the task of sorting out roughly the passages whose r or. Also. Schmidt in this matter: There is often agreement in registering the tensions. and gaps in the text. 52). 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. 20. 'The Joseph. pp.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.
111 arguments. to whom one earlier and without exception assigned the main part. the preference is for the Yahwist because of general considerations. even if the redaction has almost completely altered the original text. can be assigned to several sources. there has been no success in providing precise data for the continuous course of the Yahwistic narrative thread. Eine Analyse von Ex 1~ 15. 3 It is at the same time clear that. assigning it to J remains questionable. Wellhausen was rightly reserved in the judgment that he pronounced on Exodus 2: "the separation cannot be carried through"'.3 1 Exodus. E. by means of them he can often discern elements of the sources.1964.3. 64. namely the question of an explanation of the breaks and repetitions ascertainable in the present text. nevertheless they speak more in favour of the Elohist. for example. The available clues 'speak in favour" of one source. Fohrer solves the problems differently. there are few concrete clues for assigning the text to any literary source. Criticism of Pentafouchai Criticism. Despite intensive efforts.. Schmidt assigns Exod. though there 'is a preference for the other'. p. 2. unified passages of texts also.. 2 Uberlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus. J.2 Therefore. and N'. 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. Decisive in this is that there are no solid criteria capable of indicating which passages are to be assigned to which sources. in such a procedure.11-22 'presents a narrative which has been moulded almost to a perfect unity from elements of the source layers J. Recently. which in themselves offer no cause for literary-critical operations.1-10 as follows: Though. So for Fohrer. and by means of an in-built system . Such statements show clearly that the exegete. 2. even though he has no criteria for doing so. one has abandoned the point of departure of classical pentateuchal criticism. sees himself compelled to assign the texts to one of the accepted sources. and indeed to several sources at the same time! It is clear that in this way it is very much easier to point out the continuity of the presentation in the different sources.1 There is therefore great uncertainty of method in delimiting the sources. p. Nevertheless.. 26. Exod. on the basis of the available source hypothesis.
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'. pp. .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 'One must renounce any literary critical analysis of Exodus 33. p.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. 3 Op.17) as a 'secondary element'. not only in the process of the formation of the tradition. has. 115. 1 A History. 6 Op. 32-34). n.. but also from the literary standpoint'. the problems do not become easier. 2 Op. which deals with the ceremony of the *blood of the covenant'. 31. already within the old pentateuchal material (Exod. which seems 'to have been interpolated only secondarily into the work of the Yahwist'. p. n. but only verified the hypothetical solution given earlier. namely by concluding that the criteria for source criticism have proved unsuitable to explain the literary problems of the Sinai pericope! Going into detail.3-8.. 115. 4 Noth. 30. Noth finds problems in Exodus 3—4. L. It seems here to be a matter of a conglomeration of seconda/y growths'. 31. by expansions and interpolations. ibid. eft. 19-24. Noth carries out some negative delimitations: the story of the golden calf is 'a secondary element within J. 5 Op.549.3 One could also describe this situation in another way.p.. p. Noth maintains that the narrative of the Sinai event. p. 103. 3.5 And the passage Exod.1-4.. 24. n. cit. Bundestheologie im Alien Testament. eft. 1969. n. cf. been given such a complicated literary arrangement that a plausible analysis is now no longer possible'. 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. n.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.2Q3. 31. cit. has not been included in the list. Perlitt. 114. 156ff.1 in so far as he does not hold it to be elohistic.
. Op. p. 89. Moses appears no more'. Ibid. age. Ibid.1 And a little later: In the second half of the book of Numbers. Noth is of the opinion that one should not isolate the book of Numbers. 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'.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. Noth writes: The very fragile ch.. the old pentateuchal sources begin again. Introduction. n. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 113 more difficult. all sorts of supplements have been inserted towards the end of the Moses tradition in the different literary stages. according to the prevailing view.5 Nevertheless. p. there has also been a literary working together of the Pentateuch and the deuteronomistic history. Immediately after dealing with the Sinai pericope where. and character ('fragment hypothesis')'.. 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. 4.6 As for the 'results of pentateuchal analysis gained elsewhere'.p. Numbers.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. 126. one should call to mind 1 2 3 4 5 6 Op.32. the situation in the 4th book of Moses does not of itself lead at once to these conclusions'. then one would not easily come to the idea of 'continuous sources'. cit. In his rehearsing of the Yahwistic work he writes: *We feel our way through the fragments of the Yahwistic narrative. 12 of Numbers is one of the most despairing cases in pentateuchal analysis. .. but rather to that of an unsystematic arrangement of numerous pieces of tradition of very different content. I simply give up any attempt to dismember it'. n. as already said. pp. 120. In the last available pieces in Numbers 32. 32f.5. cit. p.3.
even if one does not 'renounce completely as too uncertain5 the assignment of texts to particular sources. But the citations given here indicate that there is in any case widespread uncertainty. 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. One must not pass over the fact that there are also exegetes who place more confidence in the trustworthiness of source analysis. and in addition. with the Yahwist.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'.. 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.4. even though one cannot discern them there. n.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. 2 See above under 1. Hence.5 There is no more talk of the death of Moses. been 'contracted to a secondary narrative trait'. and the results have 'often only a limited degree of probability*. but thinks that the conclusion *has been lost' in the course of the redaction. cit. 'great uncertainty' reigns in the source division in the first part of the book of Exodus. 4 Ibid. Interpretation 20 (1966) 131-58. . Noth is in basic agreement. from Steuernagel to Schmidt. 5 Op. 22-24).114 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch once more that already. 37.1.1 It must remain doubtful if this is a basis from which one can expect 'sources' in the book of Numbers. 3 'The Kerygma of the Yahwist'.4 Wolff then is satisfied to conclude the Yahwistic work with the Balaam narrative (Num. it cannot in any way be said that there is a broad and well founded consensus today among supporters of the documentary hypothesis about the precise course of the Yahwistic work. the analyses of Noth must be counted as truly representative of the present day.
Kaiser.1 But for these also the difficulty remains that in the Yahwistic work there is no information about the death of Moses. they want to retain a small bit of 'Hexateuch'. given as starting point the kerygma (of the Yahwist}? The nations which 1 E.3 He is of the opinion that this is 'thoroughly comprehensible in view of what is narrated here'. n. p.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. p. Introduction. . rather. 791). Biblische Zeug"Jsse. Many would like to find it in Deuteronomy 34.g. and the 'law'-giving has obviously given occasion for all sorts of subsequent expansions and statements'. 86-87. but do not draw the consequences from it.. but here too. 1967. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 115 chapter of the book of Judges as the conclusion of the Yahwistic work. Smend. But this is not due to redactional alteration of the text. the making of the covenant. Wolff thinks otherwise: He maintains that the Yahwist is 'taciturn' on the Sinai theme. 6 Exodus. 34. col.Literatur des alien Israel. 13. pp. 1966. n. 4 Ibid. what is the significance of the Sinai periocope for him. 31. 2 Gazelles finds the opinion which ascribes Deut. great uncertainty reigns. Noth has maintained that the account cf the events at Sinai 'have been given such a complicated literary arrangement that a plausible analysis is no longer passible5.3.1b-6 to the Yahwist as 'tenant' (DBS VII. Noth has already spoken against this view (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. rather: 'How can it be otherwise. 3 A History.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. p. 127).. 33. pp. 78ff. They acknowledge thereby Noth's separation of the book of Joshua from the Pentateuch. also S.5 Noth is clearly of the opinion that the Yahwist too originally had a considerable and discernible share in this central passage. 115.
. both themes are at the very centre of the theological conception of the Yahwist.4 There are still further opinions in the different monographs on the theology of the Yahwist.116 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch preoccupied him in the primeval story.2 The tradition of the occupation of the land attests Yahweh's merciful will. He could not of course by-pass it. the selection of which can only be more or less random. p. Coppens. 5 Jahwist und Priesterschrift. Von Rad has emphasized that the 'inset of the Sinai tradition' was one of the decisive theological accomplishments of the Yahwist. 34-57 (50). 'Positions actuelles dans l'ex£gese du Pentateuque'. 19. It was 'a free and daring act of the Yahwist' and signifies theologically 'a considerable enrichment'. The Form-critical Problem'. 53-54. 1. pp. Over against this there should be set other opinions. Zwei Glaubenszeugnisse des Alien Testaments. Ellis writes: The Sinai covenant may rightly be termed the climax of the Yahwist's saga'. 1969. 181. pp. themes which for Wolff have no further independent significance.3 For von Rad. 1969. having grown up together with the other themes'. Op. Gazelles says of the Sinai theme: the Yahwist 'knows the Sinai [theme] and is more interested in it than one thinks'. 1969. cit. According to Marie—Louise Henry 'the Yahwist makes the event at Sinai the climax of his presentation'. 6 The Yahwist. and whom he saw both in the Joseph story and then in the exodus tradition in the form of the shackling might of Egypt. have no place at all in the Sinai theme. in De Mart a Qumr&n. Festschrift J. in the centre of the Sinai tradition stands Yahweh's will that demands justice. the simple and basic soteriological idea of the tradition of the occupation of the land acquired a powerful and beneficial substructure'. . because it was already there before him. pp. By taking to itself the Sinai tradition.F.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'. 53-54.5 P. p.1 And so Wolffs conception of the Yahwistic work allows no significance worth mentioning to the Sinai theme. on whose account the patriarchal theme was so fruitful for him. The Bible's First Theologian.
p. also A. apart from the distinction 'Canaanites/Amorites' and 'Sinai/Horeb'. 5. 93 (emphasis in original). 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' . One reads: 'One can speak of a characteristic Lexikon oftT. 29. but little has remained from Holzinger's comprehensive lists.4 He therefore gives place to the argument of the frequent occurrence of narratives. But as soon as one comes to refinements. Op.1 1 There follow no less than fourteen pages of Yahwistic vocabulary. 183. It is generally emphasized that the language of the priestly document is clearly recognizable. argument by means of differences in linguistic usage has receded completely into the background.2 again with further details on grammar and style. p. cit. 1922 = 1962 (2nd edn). Synopse. 6 Introduction.45. by another to E. cit.. 181-89. Bentzen. narrative motifs. The same narrative is not infrequently assigned by one author to J. and tries. and notes. pp. A classical example of this are the tables of 'linguistic characteristics' of the sources in Holzinger's Introduction. 5 Op. Op. p. The uncertainty becomes still greater when it is a question of the marks that characterize the Yahwist's way of presentation and style. pp. confusion begins. . 'in the current abandonment of other arguments to make use of this one alone to solve the problems of the Hexateuch'. Eissfeldt writes: *Even for J and E a whole list of statements have been made which are of permanent value. Introduction to the Old Testament. pp. all that is left is that the slave woman is called in the J-layer and in the Elayer.3 Since then. 1959 (5th edn). Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 117 to be regarded as specifically and characteristically Yahwistic.3. 5. cit. likewise for (T)' and) P. 1893. 11. p. then some more on grammar and style.. Hexateuch. Older generations applied much ingenuity to working out the linguistic peculiarities of the penta-(hexa-) teuchal sources. There is a corresponding 'Lexikon' of E (9 pages). each time on the basis of language'. 283-90..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.339-48.
203. 21. Das alte Testament.7 Reference to tables in older literature without con1 Introduction. Stolz. is not due to chance but coheres with other distinguishing marks'. persons.118 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch usage is reduced to a tiny crumb. also F.. 4 A History. but in detail cannot be more sharply defined. must be questionable. something like Eissfeldt. 2 Whether the summary details given by Steuernagel in his Lehrbuch—4see above under p. 115. 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. Jepsen's discussion.5 consensus about the acknowledgment of the documentary hypothesis. 1) pp. 6 Cf. 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. and these words and phrases occur too seldom to be of any real service in classifying the material as a whole'. 1913) and Steuernagel (1912). p.1 However. but only to state that the consensus consists only in a basic conviction. however illdefined. arguments are often taken over and repeated on the basis of a general. p.4 One thing becomes very clear from this example: in the present state of pentateuchal study. he does not produce any examples but refers merely to the tables in Driver (1891.6 it can only be due to the principle of inertia that this argument is still used at all. 3 Introduction..2 Kaiser refers to Holzinger (1912) and mentions a few examples. 'Amah . 5 The German word used is 'diffus'. 31. 214-15. however. When the claim that the sources J and E differ from each other in their use of language. p. 233-34. 1974. Further examination shows that the change in the designation of places. p. can be described as 'detailed' (so Fohrer). is reduced after all to the statement that there are two (or three!) different designations for the slave woman. 7 And this all the more so in view of A. it is not used in any polemical sense. 93. objects etc. 104 n. these arguments scarcely carry conviction and the individual exegete has scarcely been able to substantiate them with concrete content. Fohrer speaks confidently: The linguistic usage is different in the individual source layers.3 Noth.
first an older (G1) and then a later (G2)'. 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}.IS.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.1 Fohrer extended the thesis. A History. VT 8 (1958) 293-97: 'It would be far better to exclude the two words and from the arguments for source division'. Since then further intermediary steps have been introduced into the discussion. so that one must reckon with two basic narratives. what part did the Yahwist and the other older authors of the sources play in the shaping of the texts ascribed to them. one finds a very divided answer. p.. it has something to do with the question of oral and written tradition. p. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 119 crete details about what is considered still valid in them. Op. Their committment to and Schiphchah'. It is not a matter of alternatives as opponents of the documentary hypothesis have developed it under the catch cry 'oral tradition'. 3. p. Introduction. 39. First.3. 'G has been worked over in different ways 2 . cif.p. The collection of stories had already begun in the oral tradition'.!29. One generally insists today that the Yahwist's work had a long pre-history. 1 2 3 4 ..2. serves scarcely more than to function as an alibi..3 But this only makes the question more urgent.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. There are various aspects to this question. 297. 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.
Op. What preceded them? For Gunkel. Ixxx. Op. See above under 1. cit.. in his discussion of this whole group of questions. p.3 Koch. 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. took place in a long process in which one can distinguish "two periods". cit. Op. cit. as they are found from Genesis to Samuel.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.5 He surmises that 'the popular narratives. 128-32. as we have seen. 131.. 85. p. The written collection of stories. the formation of the written sources meant the transition from oral to written tradition. 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'.. and indeed for each literary unit'.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'. were written down only relatively late.8 There is then only an apparent contradiction to the opinions of Gunkel and Fohrer already cited. 85. pp.120 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch writing 'will have followed at a time which lent itself rather to writers'. The written sources/layers therefore are in essence unanimously considered to be written works. and answered differently.4 insists that the question of the transition from the oral to the written stage 'must be put anew for each type of literature.. . Op.. Op. cit. p.. to the older of which we owe "the collections of the Yahwist (J) and the Elohist (E)"'. p. 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. Ibid.2 Fohrer's judgment is similar: 'In accordance with the literary promises available to Israel.
8 And Fohrer very similarly: 'Apart from their individual characteristic. 229. be it oral or written'. the basic outline for his narrative'. Noth writes: 'the ancient sources clearly kept substantially to the narrative tradition given to them both as a whole and in detail'. Die Entstehung der Geschichtsschreibung im Alien Israel. Ixxx. had a distinct form. at the division of the kingdom after the death of Solomon.lSOt 4 Kaiser. Ixxxiii. 7 Genesis. 6 For von Rad's view.3.. the authors of the ancient source layers kept in general and in detail to the tradition that they 1 A History.1 Kaiser speaks similarly of a 'moulded tradition (G). 5 Differently.7 meaning here by 'collectors' expressly J and E. He insists 'that this common basis for J and E must already have had a fixed form'. however. 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. pp.2 Fohrer is of a different opinion here: 'It is to be presumed that G1 circulated only in oral tradition. 74. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 121 and maintains that it cannot be decided.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. whereas G2. 39. 229..4 There is no unanimity therefore on the question whether the Yahwist used written sources which were available to him. Despite this agreement with Gunkel. Schulte. 84f. H. 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'. Gunkel had already insisted that the stories were taken over by the collectors essentially as they found them. p. p. 8 A History. see above under 1. be it oral or written. Introduction. pp.5 For the rest. p. it is emphasized that the material available. was probably available in a written version'. pp. 2 Introduction. 1972. p. there is a recognizable tendency to give an affirmative answer. from which 'the Yah wist took over. .1. he was much more strongly bound to what lay before him. Noth rejects G's opinion of the sources as 'schools of narrators'.8L 3 Introduction.
p. 2 Genesis. cit.. p.1 Is there anything then such as a Tahwistic style' or a Tahwistic language'? Gunkel replies affirmatively: 'On the other hand. so that the ancient sources could not have yet become formal. which gives one readily to reflect that all sorts of modes of expression and stylistic characteristics had already been given with the old tradition. for one cannot seriously bring together under the common term 'Yahwistic style' texts in the "brief narrative style of Gen. has been preserved. 4 Op. n. without any attempt to balance the individual narratives. p. p. 1 Introduction. Ixxxv. in the final written form'. .6 Thus he has basically denied the existence of a peculiar Yahwistic style.5 Noth makes the explicit point that 'the brief/detailed narrative style. units'. tightly selfcontained. 143. They have allowed the stories to penetrate their being. 603. 229. 144 5 A History. their uniform use of language is a clear sign that the stuff of the stories has passed through the mould'. there are collectors who are far removed from passing on material transmitted without any alteration. each in the style transmitted. 12.122 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch used'. rather the very difference in style would be judged as evidence against common authorship. p.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.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.. Ought other standards hold for the Pentateuch? Or can other common and convincing stylistic marks be found which. the source layers rest on the activity of individual writers who show differences in both language and style'.2 Likewise Fohrer: 'In any case. 6 Ibid.4 Noth's judgment is more reserved: 'The work of J and E consisted largely in simply giving formulation to the narratives transmitted. 3 Introduction.
27. Exodus. 1967. Literatur des alien Israel. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 123 despite these fundamental differences.2 Smend writes on the question: We must think of the Yahwist as first and foremost a loyal collector of popular tradition. which is not on firm grounds reckoned to another source or layer of reworking.6 If one 1 2 3 4 5 Genesis (9th edn German.3.. there is no unanimity: did the Yahwist not even so much as formulate or remodel the texts passed on. considered as certain. Biblische Zeugnisse. 26. is ascribed to the Yahwist. (He) has for the most part been content to pass on what was available to him'. Eng 2nd edn) p.p. or did he 'mould' them into another form. if need be. 136.1 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'. p. 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'.3. to the Elohist. p. 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'. then in what does this stamp consist.5 We have already spoken of a sort of method of subtraction which is used today whereby everything. that the documentary hypothesis holds and that consequently everything that is not ascribed to the priestly writing or. must be considered Yahwistic. 6 See above under 1. cit.. . p. 37.. 64. also W.4 And so in this question as well. 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. or did he rework their language and style so that they now bear his own characteristic stamp? If yes. given the fundamental differences in form and style between the individual narratives? If no. Op. Schmidt.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'. The Kerygma'.
is really nothing else than a description of the 'art form of the stories (Sagen)' as Gunkel had already provided for Genesis. 136. However. DBS. However. 1969. in his outline. that the Yahwist likewise disposed of a variety of stylistic forms. . 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. Hence. VII. 113ff. in which he allows the large blocks of tradition belonging to the preliterary stage to give expression to themselves. there is no reliable evidence here. as with the patriarchal tradition. then one can quite well argue. But we have already seen. 792-93. and so above all are the contents of the great forecourt known as the primeval story which is generally regarded as his literary accomplishment'. in my opinion. And what is offered to him. But the outline is as a whole independent of this. pp. 1 Tentateuque'. The presentations by Gazelles1 and Ellis2 can serve as recent examples of this. 1966. is left without a concrete answer. sometimes extensively. 3 The Kerygma'. inasmuch as he holds the assumptions described above to be not all that certain. that the actual work of the Yahwist as a composer has been reduced quite notably. p. The Bible's First Theologian. 2 The Yahwist. And so Wolff writes: *What the Yahwist himself has to say becomes clearer in his arranging of the material handed on. sometimes sparsely. on the basis of the variety of forms in the traditions used by him. with Noth's qualifications. as representations of the variety of styles in the Yahwist. One asks then not. This was the fundamental idea in von Rad's plan. one can understand why the statements on this point in the literature are mostly very vague. how does one recognize the work of the Yahwist?—but. cols. because we cannot see clearly what was sacrificed when the material was worked together with the Elohist and later with the priestly writing.124 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch accepts this assumption as certain. as with the Sinai tradition. how an argument is maintained. now here now there. 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.3 It is quite clear here.
namely 'the contents of the great forecourt known as the primeval story*. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 125 although it has lost its essential basis and thereby its power of conviction: for von Had. 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. Wolff holds to this idea and underscores it heavily.2. p.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. . 12. Op. 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'. 150 (with reference to Weiser). 8. the 'self-expression' of the Yahwist becomes very clear. Another characteristic mark of the present discussion is in evidence here: the arguments for identifying the Yahwist (for his theology. 84.3) are taken predominantly. Introduction.3 (The other nations can and so ought to share in its blessing?3).p. But Wolff has to qualify this immediately and say in the very next sentence that there is 'no reliable evidence here'. According to Kaiser the Yahwist has 'in the traditions available to him undoubtedly moved the action of Yahweh firmly into the foreground'.3.2 As proofs are alleged Gen.. 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. from Genesis! It is not mentioned if the 'special emphasis' of J is demonstrable in other places as well. and how 'history' (Geschichte) is shaped out of individual stories (Geschichten).21 and (without explicit citation) Gen. while in this 'arranging the material passed on'.!50. Ibid. see below under 3. p. 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'. often almost exclusively. the arrangement of the larger blocks was the decisive accomplishment of the Yahwist. ci*. The picture is similar with Fohrer.1 He continues further: 'Striking here is the mingling of national (already noted) and universal concepts'.
5 See further R. 'Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte'.17-18.2 And more—two sentences before we read 'that besides the basic plan linking together the different cycles of themes.4).2. 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. 6.1 (towards the end). 4 Wolff (op.126 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch clearly in the versions taken over by the Yahwist.1 Here too there is the undemonstrated claim about the 'linking together of the ancient traditions' and the intention inherent in it.) 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..3-2. 2 As shown above (2.3 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.!36ff.2.3 The theology of the Yahwist But we have not yet mentioned a crucial matter of discussion 1 Ibid. one can discern clearly yet again how the overall conception has been maintained. 3 See above under 3. there can be no talk of a promise motif or motifs being passed on to the Yahwist. pp. it does not occur to them to doubt it.5-8. 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. T3y giving shape to the promise motifs handed on and by linking together the ancient traditions he achieved furthermore a theologizing*.5 3. 12. larger complexes of traditions were already available (to the Yahwist)'. 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. . even though one cannot exactly prove it). even though so many individual supporting arguments have been shown to be no longer tenable.21-22.1-4a. 18. cit. Rendtorff. EvTh 27 (1967) 138-53.23b-33. 8. in my opinion.
Besides a few sentences in the primeval story (especially 6.'. It has already been noted that von Rad saw the theological achievement of the Yahwist above all in the theological composition. i.22b-33.5 and 8. 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.1 This text has been explained often and in detail. 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.. 66.22b-33.21-22).1-3 and 18. The selection of texts has generally remained the same. It is striking that this text is missing from the presentation of the Yahwist's theology in the Introduction of Fohrer and Kaiser. . on the contrary plays no role at all in von Rad's presentation of the Yahwist's theology. 12. has put it at the centre of the theology of the Yahwist. in the arrangement of the hitherto independent large complexes of tr&dition of the Pentateuch/Hexateuch. 2 The Kerygma'.. 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. p. they are in their whole pattern of thought incomparably closer to him 1 The Form Critical Problem'. We have already referred to the basic shift of emphasis which judgment about the Yahwist as a theologian has undergone through Noth. Wolff. Criticism of Peniateuchal Criticism 127 which dominates to a large extent the current literature: the theology of the Yahwist.2 The second text. He did not mention in it his The Formcritical Problem.3. 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. 18. there are mainly two places: Gen. pp. in his commentary on Genesis he writes of both passages: If they do not stem precisely from his (the Yahwist's) pen. Gen. with the heaviest emphasis.e.!37ff. In their presentation of the Yahwist. it is 'the clamp between the primeval story and the story of salvation' and 'the etiology of all etiologies of Israel'. Moth's opinion has prevailed by and large.
627. cit. 5 Introduction. in any case one would like very much to ascribe so lapidary a piece of theology to this great theologian. in his Theology of the Old Testament he has this to say about the second piece (18. .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 immediately suggests itself to many exegetes that the piece is to be ascribed to the Yahwist. 84-85. For him this piece is 'an independent contribution of J'3 and 'in the analysis of the theology of J deserves especially careful attention'. 239. for von Rad.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. 7 Introduction. pp. Noth sees it differently.128 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch than the really ancient narratives'. p. 395. 214-15. Eng. without any doubt.5 Smend writes: 'Only once. it seems. 4 Op. 2nd edn). pp. 9th edn.6 And this is the only passage outside the primeval story that Fohrer expressly cites in his presentation of the theology of the Yahwist. p. 3 A History.p. op.2. it has never had a constitutive function for the understanding of the Yahwist.1 However. is to be reckoned only to a stage in the process of tradition when reworking and reflection were at work.239.. 1 Genesis (German. As this is beyond dispute.. 238. but stands in solitary isolation.2 Hence.1. I. 151 8 Cf. 6 See above under 3. p. and so only the Yahwist remains. Nothing. only the 'addition' in 18. speaks in favour of one of the other sources. cit. apparently.20-33): The passage stands quite isolated and it is scarcely possible for us to classify it in the historical-theological process'. 1972.19 is deuteronomistic. It is obviously a matter here not of a piece of ancient story tradition.8 such refined theological reflection ought not be confided to a 'redactor*. 2 Theology of the Old Testament. Noth. p. but of a theological reflection which. 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'. n. 1972.
1 Noth points out that in Sodom. And further.. 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': '. according to Abraham's view implicitly confirmed by Yahweh. and he is of the opinion that thus 'the human being of the Yahwistic primeval story stands before us. op. towards a world where righteousness is missing or hopelessness seems to lie at its base'.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. that the 'righteous action' of the 'judge of the whole earth' (v. Kaiser. 239.239.. The statement of Noth (and Kaiser) that the human person 1 2 3 4 5 Cf... Ibid. cit.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. there were not even the 'ten just' of v. such reflections do not appear 'in other parts of the Yahwistic work' (Smend). 25) would. consist in this. namely that the individual 'just' would be taken up into the judgment that befalls the 'godless". op.3.p. ..32. Cf.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. not through some sort of righteousness of their own by which they might be able to protect themselves and others before the divine judgment'. p. Op. it becomes clear that people in this world can only be rescued through the free action of God himself... 239. cit. 23 n. 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.. Introduction. 2. p. Noth. that he would not as it were number off the 'just' over against the 'godless'. Noth. ci*. the "judge of all the world".. p. described as unambiguously and consistently as anywhere else in the Old Testament'. probably there would not even be one'.
3.4-6 where it is said expressly 'not because of your own righteousness'. Introduction.6. cit. p. 395.. And so it is difficult to find in Gen. pp. . 2 For the claim that 20. 9. 9.14. 8. 4 Fohrer. there is no intercession. 151 5 Theology of the Old Testament. I. but rather Ezek.29).7). 12. when the firstborn of Egypt are destined to death. op. 1 'The Kerygma'. 20.7. One may leave it an open question whether the view in the text is 'still far from the later. 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. The answer is: in the tireless intervention of Abraham-Israel on behalf of those who are destined to death'. in place of the old notion of collectivity. that Pharaoh acknowledge that YHWH alone is God and has the power (Exod. 17!2 The intercession of the Tahwistic' Moses for the Egyptians is.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 18.130 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.10)'.22b-33 evidence of a theology that is characteristic of the work of the Yahwist. p. On the contrary.3.7 belongs to the 'Elohist'. the plagues also serve the same goal (8.18. op. 11. 147f. how blessing can come to those threatened with death in Abraham-Israel.4 For von Rad it is 'a unique breakthrough which. and finally. 9. cit. individualistic solution* of the question.1 But the closest parallel to Abraham as intercessor would be the 'elohistic' passage in Gen.. Wolff wants to see in this passage an initial development of the Yahwistic theme of Gen.3 or is already 'on the way from corporate to individual responsibility and liability as formulated in Ezekiel'. 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. see Wolff. in many ways doctrinaire. 3 Noth. on the contrary. 238. 18. 53. p.
Die Composition. if need be. the talk here is first.3. 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.14. But Ezekiel denies this: men so exemplary and just as Noah. has broken away from the literary critical problems of the documentary hypothesis and become independent. 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.1 in any case it is clear that the theological reflections in Gen. 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. might take its 1 Verses 22-23! 2 On this. Daniel. they alone would be saved (Ezek. Theology. and Job could not effect that. Wellhausen. However. 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'. whether a few just can save a whole community. It must remain open here whether Ezekiel holds this thesis to be utterly false theologically. Von Rad. 18. I. Criticism of Pentate uchal Criticism 131 14. 16. 14.12-20 which. He holds Gen. 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. 1899 (3rd edn). von Rad passes over too quickly. 18. in the question of the 'theology*. 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.12-20 belong to a common context in the process of the history of tradition. in my opinion. . p.22b-33 and Ezek. 20). 25. 395.22b-33 to be an 'insertion'. What. 10. underscores the closeness to Isa. cf. One could say somewhat subtly: Ezekiel's contemporaries also know the problem dealt with in Genesis 18. 53.2 What remains of the 'theology of the Yahwist'? First. in the methodologically strictest sense. Rather.3. p. 14. 18. of the Yahwist as a 'source' or 'source layer' as understood by the documentary hypothesis.
. And so even Wolff in his approach to Gen. Language and style he took for the most part from what was available to him. O. . p. p. Old Testament Theology in Outline. When he describes 12. p. pp. Here again.1-3 has to explain that the promise of the land. in its present narrative con1 Wolff. 25-35. 1971. But they are not of the kind out of which one can develop a theology of the Yahwist.3 And as for the Abraham-Lot narrative in Genesis 13. but not with von Rad. Rost. Yet it is clearly evident that there is in them a very concentrated form of theological reflection and speech. 233. 60. Gen.* or limited almost entirely to the primeval story. Individual passages had for the most part already been formed. 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. Festschrift G. 140.2 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. 1965. On the contrary: they present almost an embarrassment. cit. in Probleme biblischer Theologie. in which. 'Genesis 12.). is 'contracted to a secondary narrative feature' and 'is not in the area of his particular interest'. can no longer be claimed for him. von Rad. 3 Op. the element of the divine promise addressed to the patriarchs plays an astonishingly small role. It is entirely in accord with the present state of scholarship when the theology of the Yahwist is developed out of one programmatic passage. 2 Thus Zimmerli. 167-72. ZThK 53 (1956) 1-10 = Das kleine Credo und andere Studien zum Alien Testament.H. L.1-3. is a later question.132 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch place. he is in agreement with Noth.1-3 und die Urgeschichte des Jahwisten'. which so clearly runs through the whole patriarchal tradition. Steck. 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. pp.7 as 'tradition' (ibid. A History. 12. The Form Critical'. attention must be drawn to a peculiar situation: although attempts to present a theology of the Yahwist proceed almost entirely from Genesis. 12. 'Zum geschichtlichen Ort der Pentateuchquellen'. 52554. pp. The Kerygma'.
p. for that not contained in it. . that the uncertainties coming to light show a very obvious weakness in the whole theory which. the assurance of the land to Abraham plays a central role. whereas.1-3 the *Yahwistic' theme of blessing.16-17: This is a guide to understanding passages. taking out of 12. we came to the conclusion that the agreement in essential basic questions was very much less than is generally maintained. cit.p.1.2. 3 Cf.2 There is obviously in Genesis a large area of quite expressly theological statements which cannot. This is true in a special way for the Yahwist. the promise of the land. Wolff writes: The one blessed becomes a source of blessing inasmuch as he freely leaves to the other fertile land'. In his case. be taken into consideration when one inquires about the 'theology' of the 'sources'.1 And so he exchanges the theme expressly mentioned in the text.4 Reasons against the acceptance of a Yahwistic work We return then to the place where the reflections of this chapter began. 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. And when these themselves are the subject of a theme. so as to be able to interpret the text within the frame of the Yahwistic theology. 1 Op. this theology often has to be tapped from very indirect hints. 133 on Gen. the weight of tradition has not yet allowed to penetrate consciousness.3. as is the case with Westermann. this question is *but touched on in passing'. in the intent of the Yahwist'. op. ci*. so the question must now be put. Wolff.l4a 2 See above under 2.. But other authors as well scarcely mention the promises in this context.3 3. in many cases. 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. the 'sources' on the contrary play no role. or can scarcely. Criticism of Pentate uchal Criticism 133 tent. in which the theme (namely. 22. blessing) is not directly sounded. We had put the question.. in reverse.
Gen. therefore. as we have seen. the promise addresses of the patriarchal stories play a remarkably minor role. incompatible contradictions arise. .4). this promise appears in a further developed form in which it is not the patriarch himself. Now we have already seen that in the different attempts to set out the theology of the Yahwist. Verse 3. then the question must be put.18.134 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch there are certain general basic presuppositions which. 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. represents one stage within the history of the theological reworking and interpretation of the patriarchal story. 12. 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. But this is not the final stage of the process of formation of the tradition. 22. 12. the element of blessing is not an independent promise theme. 26. which make it clear that the fundamental unanimity claimed does not in fact exist to any extent.3.3) and Jacob (28. If our reflections are correct.14) are to be a blessing for all the clans of the earth. 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. but his 'seed' that is to be the mediator of the blessing to the 'nations' (Gen. but that they show different stages and layers.1-3. as Westermann has shown. namely that one can discern in them a very intensive theological reworking and interpretation which did not take place at one stroke. without exception. And attempts to work out the 'theology of the Yahwist' are not in the end touched by this. belongs to a stage in the process of tradition which links the stories of the three individual patriarchs with each other: Abraham (12. which is generally held to be the central statement of the Yahwist. but in the concrete application of the general framework. but not the last. when the Abraham and Isaac stories are joined together. of the guiding theological ideas that compass the Pentateuch as a whole. are acknowledged as valid.
13-15. Noth to J.18. 103. where all three assign 28. pp.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. A History. 1922 = 1962 (2nd edn).2-4. Noth. attributes Gen.5. 4 See the respective passages in Eissfeldt.3 to L/N. a verse which is judged entirely differently in the allocation to sources.1 are assigned to different sources. cit.3.p.14-17 to the Yahwist. into which YHWH will bring the Israelites after leading them out of Egypt. which have so much in common. that it is only with a layer of reworking that bears the deuteronomic stamp that explicit cross references have been inset.3 are assigned to different sources. Fohrer. the same wording of the formulation is found in Gen. which obviously belong together. 31.15. 13. 5 Op. for example. 28. Gen. Gen.15 to J.13-15 to J. Eissfeldt assigns 46.8 the land. 161. 31. Fohrer. and Noth. Introduction. pp. 12. but in brackets. n. Fohrer to E..3.4. 2 Eissfeldt and Fohrer assign Gen. displays the later form of the promise of the land in which the 'seed' is the bearer of the promise.52-53. the assurances of guidance to Jacob in Gen. is described as an unknown land.30. 3.7.3. 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.11. 13. 13.2 This is true also in other places: for example.147. 28. Particularly remarkable is the fact that in Exod. Eissfeldt. Hexateuch-Synopse.14-17 and 28. also.2-4 to E/J. 46. and there is no mention at all that the patriarchs had already lived there for a 1 See above under 2.13 also belong here. for example. p. Other promise addresses have several layers. 21. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 135 Other texts which are ascribed to the Yahwist belong to other stages in the process. inhabited by foreign nations. Eissfeldt and Fohrer assign 31. so that it is not very plausible when these texts. . 3 See above under 2. Noth to J. 15.14-17 to L/N and Gen. The incompatibility becomes all the more clear when we take up once more the question. 28.
and in my opinion compelling. how one delimits his work and determines his method and intention. These facts. 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. i. about whose delimitation there is apparent agreement. have but one explanation: a *Yahwist'.e. the fact nevertheless remains: in the rest of the Pentateuch there is not a single text that mentions the patriarchs and the promises made to them which is assigned to the Yahwist (or to any one of the 'old' sources!) by the ruling pentateuchal criticism. It is utterly inconceivable that the Yahwist has now suddenly forgotten. 3.3 The problem of a priestly narrative in the patriarchal story Before we draw the final conclusions from the reflections on the Tahwist'. in my opinion. Noth represents the most extreme position inasmuch as he will include under the symbol P only the narrative sections. the 'priestly document'. does not exist. we want to turn our attention first to the question of the status of the other chief source of the Pentateuch. or has consciously chosen to remain silent about.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. but it is clear also that there are weighty. as does Noth. who shaped and handed on the patriarchal stories and the complexes of tradition that follow them. reasons against the acceptance of a Yahwistic work in the sense of the documentary hypothesis. of a coherent narrative work covering the whole Pentateuch. This conclusion best supplements the uncertainties and incompatibilities in the current discussions described in detail above. It is clear that today it is not only difficult or almost impossible to agree about which details are to be assigned to the Yahwist. Even when one makes way for sources to which one may assign passages in this synthesis of texts. all the theological concerns that preoccupied him with the divine promises to the patriarchs in their various forms. He requires that one 'prescind completely' from all non-narrative passages with a .
that Noth carries through his opinion consistently by excluding all the material that is opposed to it.p.l7. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 137 cultic-ritual interest 'when dealing with the P narrative'. There is another of Noth's theses that has found wide agreement. 10. coherent account of events from the creation on.p.3 What. Op.3. cit.l2.. Op. This is all the more important inasmuch as it follows therefrom 'that only in this (i.2 An astounding closed circle! When one excludes all the non-narrative material. the P-narrative).4 And he sees himself compelled at once to call in question his own basic principles. about this 'coherent (story) without gaps' in the P-narrative? Let us examine the question in the patriarchal stories! Here. 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'. 1 2 3 4 A History. cit. or whether parts of the traditions of the occupation of the land in the book of Joshua belong to it. Ibid. ... Noth accepts that the redactor who put the pentateuchal sources together used P as a basis and framework and inserted the narrative material of the older sources into this framework. This includes the opinion that P provides an originally independent.. the opinion that the priestly document is a narrative work is today almost universally shared. only the question of its ending is in dispute: whether the work ends with the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34. p.e. however that may be.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. But. the rest 'stands out more clearly and clear-cut as narrative. What 'stands out' here? Only this. Noth himself must be content with a 'very meagre P-content'. For our statement of the question it is important that the document being discussed is a coherent P narrative with but few gaps. then.
. op. 2. There must be such— because P has presented a coherent account without gaps. pp.1. 4 'Aufbau und Struktur der priesterschriftlichen Jakobsgeschichte'. Introduction. 6 Op.lflOl 2 'Sinn und Ursprung der priestlichen Geschichtserzahlung'. p. 177). p.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. n. but that nevertheless they postulate the existence of an originally independent coherent narrative. p. Genesis. ZThK 49 (1952) 121-43 (esp. p. 124) = Kleine Schriften zum Alien Testament. 37. He discovered the gap.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'. cit.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.. in P 'the primeval and patriarchal stories. This once more is a clear case of a circular argument. We have rather. cit. cit. 174-75. DBS VII. Weimar has dealt with this text recently.. 292. cit. 41. 831. 5 Op.46a of the summary synthesis of the presupposed P-narrative of the Joseph story'. *besides the introduction in Gen. 1964.138 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 3.. it only wants to explain why Jacob went down into Egypt'. 3 Op.A. however sparse it may be. 1966. According to Fohrer. Joseph makes himself the object of his brothers' hatred.. H. Speiser.46a is not included in Fohrer's synthesis of the P source layer. even though in his view 'it was not all that extensive'. 86. 1966. p. only the brief note in Gen. 195.2 When one looks for proof of the 'sold into Egypt' in the table provided by Elliger himself. 181). pp. p.1 The stories of Joseph and Jacob Let us begin with the Joseph story. According to him 'it is (here) no more than the notification of what is absolutely necessary. 195. Cf. are reduced to an introduction to the revelation on Sinai' (Introduction. 174-98 (p. is sold into Egypt. Obviously it has not been preserved 'without gaps'.. ZAW86 (1974) 174-203 (p.3 one finds only a gap! P. Gazelles. 41.3. 121-22 = pp. 195). E.. and is elevated by Pharaoh'. 14.1 K Elliger has largely disregarded the fragmentary character of this tradition. col. The possibility that perhaps there might not be such a coherent 1 Noth. 'Pentateuque'. p.
though it would explain the situation without trouble. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Genesis erkl&rt. according to v. and the whole of v.3.46a an 'unnecessary and pedantic addition' that is 'characteristic' of P. and this is entirely the work of imagination. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 139 narrative is not considered. 2. p.3.4 He discovers. 321-22).3 Gunkel has less scruple: '37. followed by Gunkel. . sees in the attachment of the words 'king of Egypt' to 'Pharaoh' in Gen. What are the reasons for ascribing Gen. the reason for the enmity is Jacob's preference for Joseph. without any criteria for them ever being given.1 Such valuations—or better. But there are still further reasons.. But that the verse for that reason belongs to P. Gunkel. comes to the conclusion: 'then only P is left to take 26'. p. Bib 49 (1968) 321-44 (spec.6 But this is very surprising. 'Jakob der Mann des Segens.46a to P? First the details about his age: on each occasion the age of Joseph at the time is given. is difficult to prove. he knows too the reasons why P introduced changes in face of the older source. Op.5 Unfortunately. See below under 3. whose beginning is allegedly here. Holzinger. Genesis. 1898.2. devaluations—of the writer P are common. 3ff. According to w. and the prevailing opinion is that details of this kind are characteristic of P. such does not exist. Ibid. 2. things seem clear: There is no separate Isaac story in the priestly history'.2 belongs entirely to P. Genesis..p.2 and 41. Holzinger. 3. 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. Joseph himself has given cause for it. 37. For the Isaac story. See W. a whole narrative. this narrative no longer exists. p. after discovering the tension.2 It is maintained that in 37. 492. Zur Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie der priesterschriftlichen Jakobsuberlieferungen'. cit. nevertheless they serve as generally accepted signs of P-passages. 492. One must then in all sobriety conclude that for the exegete who is not convinced beforehand that there must be a P-Joseph story. 41. 219.3. is a unity and a possibility for P.224. pp. Gross. after the exclusion of secondary elements.
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. knew the older sources. 2 I cannot understand how Weimar (op. this accords with the image of P as a second rate writer. obliged to talk. and so to put in a column for Isaac and fill it out'. 25. which has made its home in much exegesis. This surprising shift has come about because P had nothing appropriate to say about Isaac. 'had nothing appropriate to say about Isaac'! He is given credit. But nevertheless. 25. for at least 'feeling himself obliged to preserve due order'. then one gets into insoluble difficulties.2 The Jacob Story What is the situation with the Jacob story? Weimar writes: 'The Jacob story begins with the Toledot of Ishmael Gen. 3 See above under 3. p.12-17'. 4 Genesis. p. .3. 25. In other words: there is no discernible beginning to the P-Jacob narrative. but felt himself obliged to preserve due order.4 When one wants to understand the Toledot' headings attributed to P as structural signs in a coherent and continuous P-narrative. 385.19 as 'having been prefaced by Pg to the whole Isaac story as heading and structure-signal (?). p.2 3. 385. although he had already on p.1 It is curious enough that P who.12-17 explicitly as the 'Ishmael story' without solving the contradiction. 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. the sentence only raises again the dilemma described by Gunkel. And what next? Earlier. 175 established the absence of the Isaac story in P. rather condescendingly. there is no Isaac story.. cit. 185) can speak of the Toledot-formula in Gen.3.140 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.1. one attributed many fragments of 1 Genesis. according to the prevailing opinion.
3 See above under 3. 43ff.18ap. According to P Isaac.1. one invokes Elliger among others: 'Omitting Jacob's stay in Paddan-aram.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'. 183.5). 183. but to find one to go to Paddan-aram. would have required Jacob not to take a wife from 'the daughters of Canaan'. 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. p. see above under 3. p.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. if one 1 See the divisions of P in Eissfeldt.3. p. Fohrer's table.. 6 See above under 3.7 However. p. .18ap.b). Introduction. and would have sent him on his way with a blessing extending far afield (Gen. 182 2 Weimar. 27.1. not to mention a report on the successful outcome of the commission to marry. Pg only takes up again with Jacob's departure from there (31.3.6 But why is the piece ascribed to P? Here the arguments are taken almost exclusively from language.3 He thus hushes up the fact that nothing at all is reported of the execution of the commission.46—28. 4. 4 Op.1 but now. he would have been satisfied with a note about his departure from there.2 Now this is a remarkable and unreasonable demand on the reader. 31. Elliger plays down this dilemma when he writes: 'Jacob obeys by looking around for a wife among his mother's relations'. pp.1.3. Eissfeldt. the word is generally regarded as characteristic of P.. Introduction. 7 Cf. cit. in an unusually detailed speech and with the most pressing of reasons.3. n. First. 14.3. 5 See above under 3. But P would not have considered it necessary so much as to register Jacob's arrival in Paddan-aram. But what of the quite isolated verse Gen. the land of his mother's family to find one.4 One recalls that for Noth only for the P-narrative 'is there to be expected the complete preservation of the original content'. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 141 texts in the story of Jacob and Esau to P. Hexateuch-Synopse.
35. .3. 16. 13-16).11). It is found later in the Pentateuch within the "Holiness Code' (Lev. which is closer to the priestly pentateuchal layer. 1924.5. as far as I know. First it must be stated that the only attestation which uses simply the designation Taddan' (Gen. there is the designation of the land from which Jacob departs. is attributed to P only by Procksch. once in a text (34. although immediately beforehand there is a text so reckoned. Finally. within the reflection on the theology of history (w. Taddan-aram'. Weimar tries to explain why P does not report the birth of the sons there. 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.22b-36. 11.142 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch opens the concordance. 36. 48. p.23) which no one ascribes to P. and that with reservation.14.6. add Num. in which Paddan-aram occurs.32b (a piece almost universally not ascribed to P!) and 35.1 There is a further attestation in Gen. where one would expect it.7. The verb need not be dealt with here as it occurs in more or less immediate context with the noun. 46. The word 2 serves as the next 'proof (Gunkel) for P.7) is not generally reckoned to P.16 [2x].6. It occurs three times in the book of Genesis. on the contrary. p.15. 2 Genesis. in the form of a 1 Die Genesis Ubersetzt und erkldrt. In 46. even though this involves difficulties. 501. is. 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. The list of Jacob's sons in Gen.. however its usage is quite different. the closed circle of argumentation appears once more. which likewise is not ascribed to P. 388. It too is held to be characteristic of P. 12. 15. In the attestations that remain. regarded as an addition to P. 13. but only 'makes up for it.. 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. 22. 21). which among recent exegetes. The places in question in the book of Genesis are 12. at any rate. ascribed to P. And so one can scarcely say that this word can make a contribution to source criticism.
the expression Paddan-aram is found in the chronological note on the marriage of Isaac in Gen. Gen.1 Others have experienced greater difficulties here. Eissfeldt. this thesis is maintained. 368. although they are in no way a bother or offensive.lTft .1. p. There is often talk merely of the city of Haran—generally too in texts that are usually ascribed to P. p. Hence. cit. pp.3. even though all assertions about the completeness and integrity of the P-narrative are clearly contradictory. 33. cf. Fohrer. p. Hexateuch-Synopse. p. 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.4 The classical solution is to take out v. Gunkel is not entirely consistent when he claims for P on one occasion the words cited. Introduction. 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. 69. nevertheless acquiring thereby and at the same time criteria for determining other texts.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.. 553. when he came from Paddan-aram' are ascribed to P. op.. 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. 'to the city of Shechem'. 7). inasmuch as the argument from linguistic usage enables the texts ascribed to P to give each other mutual support.31. e. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 143 list'.9. op. 45.. 11. op. 384. cit. 5. 35. Procksch. It should be further noted that. 25.18a is assigned to P because of the expression Paddan-aram. So too the text fragment Gen.20. Composition.2. 12. cit. But not by Wellhausen. in the introductory piece to the divine address to Jacob in Gen. Gunkel.5! The last mentioned 1 2 3 4 5 See above under 3. and four times in the narrative of Isaac's sending of Jacob (28. 388. with the expression Paddanaram.6. But the P-context must be established! Finally.3 And so.2 or ends up after the Toledot of Jacob in Genesis 37. and on another the preceding words as well. p.g. the list is either given preference so as to substitute for the missing account of the birth of the sons of Jacob.3.
but Haran. Ga.2 Gunkel says more exactly why this is a sign of P: 'the superfluous and precise determination of the place'.5 46. according to Eissfeldt. E. 2 Holzinger. But what is meant by this 'certain sign of P'? The concordance provides the following information: about half of the attestations of in the book of Genesis are in the Joseph story. and in Genesis 50 in passages quite close to each other by J (v.3 We have already noted earlier these typical judgments about P. nevertheless. though not Paddan-aram. A 'certain sign of P? Further. This is without doubt a pointer to a particular layer in the tradition.g. or the like. this is ascribed to P together with the other attestations with reference to 'characteristic' linguistic usage. 6a where is a certain sign of P'. this is now lodged in v. 5) and P (v. 25. 99-100 n. cit.387. 19. 7.3). 13 which exegetes divide variously between J and E. 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.5. The next piece ascribed to P is again a fragmentary sentence. 184. the concordance shows that there is no other so to speak 'geographical' designation of the land in the patriarchal stories. or rather in Luz. like so many other examples. p. 35. 3 Op. .12). by P again (48.7. and nobody ascribes them to P. cit. The expression Paddan-aram then occurs only in the context of Jacob (with the exception of the note in Gen. But the opinion is 1 Once again it is to be noted that Wellhausen does not ascribe this fragment to P. e. pp. 36.4 Noth. but scarcely has anything to do with 'sources' in the sense of the documentary hypothesis. namely Gen. the only other descriptions used of it are 'the land of sojournings' (generally to *P'!). which now bears the name of Bethel.p.144 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch has also the word . p. Holzinger's reason is: T naturally narrated as well the arrival in Bethel. 5 A History. Genesis erklart. 4 Cf. in Gen. op... 'he and all the people with him' stands unrelated. 42. by secondary pieces (48. Within the story this designation is used in all 'sources' and layers. 'the land of the fathers'.1 One accepts that the second half of the sentence.20 relating to Isaac). 13).
the change of name from Luz to Bethel had already taken place earlier in the other sources. it is said several times of the field in which the cave was situated that Abraham bought.27-29 does not say that Isaac was buried in the cave.2 This is a bold statement as the two names occur together only here! The association of Kiriath-arba and Hebron. 3 Ibid.30-31 and though it is said of Abraham (25.). When we survey the texts in the Jacob story which are supposed to belong to P. had taken into account the findings in the concordance. that it lay > (Gen. There can be no question at all here of a standardized linguistic usage characteristic of a single source. 35. 1893. we find very fragmentary and incoherent 1 Holzinger in Einleitung in den Hexateuch.13) (translated each time by 'east of Mamre' in NEB. trans. 13. cit. 35. The repetition is apparently a sign of the same source and not of another.27-29 is reckoned as P's.18 it is said of Abraham that Tie settled by the terebinths of Mamre which are in (near) Hebron'.22b-26. while Mamre for its part is associated with Hebron in 23. 35. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 145 clearly laid to rest by the concordance material without more ado.3. . It is remarkable that Gen.p. Further.13). It is curious that 35. though this is presupposed in 49. v. 'the names Mamre and Kiriath-arba' are.18.1 After the divine address in Gen.14 is ascribed to E although/because it reports again the erection and anointing of the massebah which E has described already in 28. occurs in 23. In Gen..17) or (23. 35. He maintains there that the 'occurrence of (is) an almost certain mark of P'. namely in 28. 49. 25. For Gunkel.389.19. characteristic of P.9. but with the limitation that it 'however occurs also in JE'.2 (but without mention of Mamre). There has already been talk of the problem of the list of Jacob's sons in Gen.9-13. this is scarcely evidence of the studied and 'pedantic' style alleged against the source P. 23. which is found in Gen.3 But in any case. 50.19. 'why not. But that is obviously using a double standard.9) and Jacob (50.19. 340.30. p. 2 Op. The account of Jacob's return home to Isaac and of the latter^ death in 35. is not clear'. 15 is also to be accounted to P.27. among other things.
Such comprehensive and self-contained passages of a priestly character occur only rarely in the rest of the Pentateuch.1.10-17). Questions begin again with the latter text. Noth has concluded 1 This makes no difference to Weimar's construction. 2 S.4. 9.1—2. First. it must be said that there is no coherent Jacob story from P. McEvenue. 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. Genesis 17 stands out as an entity that is sui generis. following on the genealogy of Shem (Gen. 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. the special nature of the passage must be considered carefully. The passages ascribed to P in the Abraham story. In addition. . 145. are for the most part small or very small textual units. see under 3. p. 1. 23 which is to be dealt with later.3. 1971. and more.2 Nowhere in the patriarchal stories is there a passage so extensively laid out.2.4-5).31-32).3.4a or Gen. 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. are not as free compositions as seems to be the case here. The few examples. such as Gen. It is the freest composition' within the whole P-narrative. 11.E. starting from their own assumptions.1-17.3 The Abraham story Let us now turn to the Abraham story \ It seems to offer the clearest and most convincing narrative complex. First. many exegetes have felt themselves compelled to rearrange the texts freely at their discretion so as to construct some sort of reasonably continuous text. so self-contained. 3.146 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch pieces which can be attributed to this source for the most part only on very dubious grounds. apart from ch.1 3. The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer. then the migration of Abraham from Haran to the land of Canaan (12. and as a whole bearing the marks of the priestly layer of the Pentateuch.
the verb-form as in Gen. 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. cf. it is the most natural and obvious way to state that somebody is departing and that he is taking others with him.23 (Eng. 3 See above tinder 3. is not in the problem area inasmuch as it would hardly have suppressed a corresponding statement in another source. i as well. this. while there is no occasion at all to take it out of its context.23. 22. In v. 14. 1 Genesis. 12. 11. would be a mark of P.10. however.1 further.1.31.4b-5. and elsewhere. It is meaningless to claim as a mark of P.3. it is the chronological note about Abraham's age at the time of his migration in v.3. p. This is 'in the interest of retaining as fully as possible' the content of P. it need only be said that the chronological note in v. 2 See above under 3. We have already experienced the whole area of problems that this last argument raises.21. here the opposite is assumed. Noth himself mentions them expressly a few sentences later. 4b. 12. Ixxxv. The balance of tfsu meaning 'persons' and i referring to the rest of one's possessions occurs again in Gen.3.3. 32. 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. Gunkel): and i and according to Holzinger. 22). 4b is to be seen in conjunction with other like notes. Why? First. hence outside of the passages ascribed to P. which is ascribed to P.2. 5 we meet again an argument already well known: linguistic usage 'proves' that it belongs to P (Holzinger. As for Gen. Gen. But such assertions are not untypical of the method. here'. 5. because in this way different P-passages give each other mutual support. . 24. 31. The passage Gen.4b. 61. But whereas in the Jacob and Joseph stories P-passages are supposed to have been suppressed by the older sources. 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 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.
while the 'cities of the valley' are mentioned as the place where Lot is to establish his future home. 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. 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 2.4 This type of argument is characteristic. 6 is superfluous in the context of the story. 9. Gunkel writes: 'v. This is a remarkable statement. further. while reckoning v.1 In what follows. Gab to P. Gunkel writes: '12a also. 12.2. . less clearly. p. 13. (v. Genesis erkl&rt.2 Criticisms are made here about the quality of the writing. lib. But there are a number of other arguments in addition. This becomes even clearer in v. 12ab should belong to P. Genesis. 7 and becomes entirely clear from 8. one can hardly find reasons for attributing anything in Genesis 13 to the P-narrative. 263. and then looks for proofs for them.p. Genesis. 140. which assumes the presence of several sources already. 5. 140.. Op. 6). 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. 174.5 When one does not want to engage in this sort of argument. which can be dispensed with more easily in J than in P.148 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 12. it makes clear that the necessity of source division is not based on contradictions or tensions in the text. cit. The arguments are again: (v. Gen. a conflict is seen between the expressions the 'Jordan valley* (w. p.1. 12). 10-11) and the 'cities of the valley*.1-9 shows every sign of being very composite indeed. The absence of an explicit basis for the conflict between the herdsmen of Abraham and Lot disturbs him. the 'Jordan valley' describes the fertile area that Lot chooses.6. p. good narrative does not say everything explicitly'. and 12a come from F. that a lack of space is the cause of the quarrel is to be read out of 2. 6b to 'the other source'.3 But in another place he says: 'A part of 6 is indispensable for the context'. so he disects a little more and assigns only v. But Holzinger sees things differently. 124.
4 See n.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. 16. 174). 124. Wellhausen. . la. 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. 5 A History. a mark of P is to be found in v. there is not a sign'. 14. 13.3. 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.la. but without precise dating. What are the arguments? According to Holzinger and Gunkel.2 Elliger exalts still further the literary intentions of P: The main facts are communicated soberly. 15. 15-16 are assigned to the P-narrative. and of the mood of malicious joy ringing in the story. 264.1 under Q (= P). He writes: *Here too P has taken merely the bare facts from the story. as well as Abraham's readiness for a peaceful settlement. as Abraham's nephew and erstwhile companion in the caravan. According to the basic principles of source division. the 'pedantic addition' of 'Abraham's wife'. 12. p. Gen. cit.4 3. everything concrete. p. 124.3 Does this mean the other narrators who report vividly. Gunkel. 12bp is attributed to another source! [author]). it is a matter here of real and reliable history'. Characteristic also is the general nature of the statement that Lot settles in the area round about. p.6 A glance at 1 Ibid.1.1(a). p.. especially the dispute between the herdsmen and Lot's self-interest. 16'.5 This means therefore that what remains of the 'old Hagar story' is incomplete without these pieces. Gunkel has on the whole a poor opinion of P. is a half saint who must remain free from any suspicion that he went to live among the people of Sodom out of sympathy'. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 149 is judged and evaluated. 121 (= p. Die Composition. always with precise dating. 3. are less concerned with 'real and reliable history'? Or ought one not ask this question? Further. Genesis. does not include 16. is missing. 6 Genesis. thus it would appear that Lot.3. 3 See above under 3. 2 Op. 16.B. nothing is said of his living in Sodom (N.: because v.p.
'. 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.17. is a chronological note which must be seen in the context of other chronological notes. The second address in particular presupposes that Ishmael grew up in the desert. 13. Only v. as is well known. a piece regularly attributed to *E'. Perhaps there was originally nothing more than the tribal saying about Ishmael and the place etiology in v. 3 A History. 12. Many exegetes have followed this view.2 The words of the mal'ak YHWH in v. 15. the very basic principles of source division forbid that it be assigned to P. The same holds for v. But it remains an open question for Noth how the original conclusion of the 'old Hagar story' may have looked. again. prescinding from the sweeping judgment. as Wellhausen has already shown in detail. 19-20.8ff. if there is anything missing. 14? Verse 15 could also be a 'redactional addition with attention to Gen. p. p. pp. 10 11-12.3 where it is presupposed that Ishmael is present as a member of Abraham's family. Verse 3. it is not in competition with the expected statements of other 'sources'. but 'with attention to Gen. . 28. 21. n. a classical 'J-'piece. and in 20. 86. i. that Hagar did not go back to Abraham. And as it is indispensable in the context of the narrative.150 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch the concordance shows that this pedantic addition appears as well in Gen. 16. it is a note that Hagar went back to Abraham.' What shows that it is part of a P-narrative? According to Holzinger. One could use this material better as a certain proof that this part of the verse does not belong to P. are more complex. 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. 2 Die Composition.8ff.1 But this is a very unsatisfactory piece of information. which is ascribed to P. 'the utterly pedantic 1 A History.18.e. But there is nothing about this in v. the 'old Hagar story' has been 'pruned at the end' in favour of P. For Noth also v. 9 is a 'redactional addition'. 15 remains! According to Noth. 9 require Hagar's return to Abraham. 21.
Genesis. But.11.1 Now everyone who has ever been concerned with the matter knows how difficult it is to answer the question. But this holds as well for v. p. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 151 awkwardness of the verse'. 9. 25. because this verse should have followed immediately on Gen. 4 Noth. 57. it is 'the giving of the name by the father*. 13. It is beyond dispute that the conclusion of Genesis 16 is not a unity and leaves questions open.29 to the P-narrative. are exclusively from linguistic usage. Genesis 38. ibid. p. Ex 2. 15. 2 Verses 3.. is a mark of P. And there is no tenable argument that v.28'. 3 Genesis. p. and how un-unified are the texts in this regard.17. 5 and 29. 263. 13.25-26. 25. 4. 30. not to speak of the conjectures of the exegetes! That it is only in P that the father gives the name is untenable. 19.22'. 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. 6 Holzinger.4 The verse is undoubtedly a *brief summary note about the rescue of Lot'. p. according to the prevailing opinion. 'destroy'. Genesis.3 The list of exceptions is far too long for one to draw a definite criterion from it for source division.6 Reference is made to Gen. 5 Holzinger.3. 4. Gunkel.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 or in Gen. 264: T records the whole act like a registry clerk'. (5. who usually named the new born child in ancient Israel. and others. 6. Gunkel. Holzinger. what argues for P? The arguments which are advanced by the commentators.119.29). it is clear also that v. One usually reckons Gen. Gunkel. One has the impression that none of these 1 Genesis. 15 belongs to a continuous P-narrative.. 18. 132. Holzinger himself confirms this for Gen.6. But this is a sign of embarrassment. lib.5 the function of which is not immediately discernible. 12ab . A History. p. According to Dillmann. the use of the verb in the pi'el. p. . 124. following Dillmann.25f. 9 which nobody attributes to P. One need only look at the tensions and lack of clarity in the single chapter. but in the final redaction it could 'only be accommodated to the continuation of the narrative Gen.
32.11. 21. which is attributed to P. also Deut. A further argument is the use of the divine name elohim. 19. For the rest. he remembers Abraham and rescues Lot because of him. is ignored. It would be more appropriate to make a comparison with the sentence in the prayer of Moses in Exod. 13. mention is made of clearly a stereotyped phrase. 8. 13.12. on the other hand. 19. 13.29 is to be compared with the apparently corresponding expression in Gen. must be brought in to support the priestly character of Gen. God 'remembers' immediately the one he will rescue. One text only will be referred to: in Amos 4. according to Gen.29. Gen. cit. Isaac. Holzinger gives voice to the dilemma: 'Something in 21. 19.2 must belong to F.29.27. is not all that is to be said on the question. 19. The verb is used immediately beforehand in Gen. ..13.1-5 has provided the exegetes with a headache because the sources do not readily allow separation. the expression is used with reference to Rachel whose prayer for fertility God hears.1.152 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch commentators has taken the trouble to consult the concordance. and Israel. there1 Op. your servants'. 132. 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. This. But there are problems here. 8. which bears the deuteronomistic stamp: 'Remember Abraham. 9. One can hardly draw an argument out of all this for assigning a passage to a particular 'source'. however.1. p. The account of the birth of Isaac in Gen. and the expression 'cities of the plain' in the allegedly priestly verse.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. a further note: the phrase 'then God thought of Abraham' ("ori) in Gen. Gen. cf.13 in the J-narrative as well as in the 'J'-text of Gen.10. in Gen.1. First. in the middle of an address by YHWH about the destruction of Sodom in which the divine name YHWH is used four times.1 It must belong. This sort of argument becomes all the more contradictory when the *Yahwistic' verse.
P has not had a chance to speak fully and his wording has even been altered'. 2b is a sign of P. 'and especially the rambling nature of the whole piece' (Gunkel). and this is seldom enough the case. 21. 17.4 What reasons he has for disregarding the reflections of Holzinger and others.: but was not brevity. cit. but has mixed them. continuous P-narrative has occasioned exegetes to assign elements to P even when there are serious reasons against. 4 A History.. It is clear once again that. 13. under the influence of in v. the 'pedantic detail' (Holzinger).2 because it is 'colourless'. no longer holds! But it is almost too easy to criticise manipulations of this sort by which many exegetes discredit their own methodology.v. Again.p. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism.7-10. It is the common and prevailing opinion that the Abraham story concludes with the account of Abraham's death and burial in Gen. 25. make' occurs 2600 times in the Old Testament.3. the search for elements of an assumed. 18. by and large. Further. it becomes a mark of P.1b-5 by leaving out the corresponding statement of the old sources'. a special mark of P?).1-5 is one of those cases where R has not simply juxtaposed the elements from his sources. p. 153 fore arguments must be found for it! For example: 'the colourless in v.B. but R.1 The word . even when the consequence is that one of the most certain signs of P. cit. s. so important for the context. 2 KBL.21—but is it to be insinuated that the reader has passed over or already forgotten the same expression in Gen. la.. . We will come back to this later. the reader does not learn.3 Noth's judgment is different: in his opinion 'the mention of the birth of Isaac. has inserted this divine name into P. la looks like P. 2b and 4 elohim is of course once more a mark of P. 3 Op.p. 'do. the astonished reader learns that in v.14 in VF? Holzinger's overall judgment is: '21. thus. comes about exclusively through Gen. 133. reference is made to Gen. the use of the divine name elohim. are to the fore (N. the chronological data. 133. even paucity of presentation. And in w. 1 Op.
See above under 2.8 but notes: 'the chatty. 1. A further argument is 'the juridical exactness' (cf. 4 G. 6 Introduction. . 7 Genesis.154 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 3.. 9 Op.2). 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. verses of this kind are freed from any control by their context precisely because of their assumed P-character. 1875 (3rd edn). p. p. When Dillmann speaks further of the 'artistic detail of the presentation'. 5 Die Genesis. w. is relatively quite fresh... 2 Ibid. though rather ancient in origin.1 but this holds only from v.3.2 For the same reason he should also reckon the extensive narrative of Genesis 24 to P. p. Ch.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.6 Speiser sees in it a passage from J going back to an older tradition in which only the introductory note belongs to P.3. 309. colloquial.. 8 See above under 3. Gunkel mentions further 'the many repetitions in the narrative'.. since Dillmann who based himself on Knobel (1852/1860!).5 According to Fohrer the narrative 'is of material of Palestinian origin'. a new example that P has used older material available'. The first argument is the chronological data in v. 273. 17 onwards. not for the body proper of the narrative. c#. style of Genesis 23 seems untypical of F. 526 (see above under 3.3. In many other cases.9 According to von Rad. 17-18)'. esp. 23: 'the alleged "P-characteristics" have their basis in the subject-matter of the text rather than in its "author"'.5.22. Procksch writes: This narrative. 173.4 Even today the special character of Genesis 23 within the Pnarrative is underscored. The arguments have been passed on.p. 3 Die Genesis. 1 Genesis. here.3. 1964.7 McEvenue does not follow this entirely. it has 'the appearance as if P.4 Genesis 23 One of the strangest phenomena in this area is that exegetes almost unanimously attribute Genesis 23 to P. p. Macholz has written appositely of the style of Gen. and concludes from this that one must assume older material available. unaltered in essence.
).5 but what this in fact means for Genesis 23. p. who had left everything behind them for the sake of the promise.7.3 can hardly be maintained today in this form.). that the possession of the land was promised to the patriarchs. The question for von Rad is: *What theological interest— and it is this alone that is of concern—has given it (i.2 In any case it has become clear that Holzinger's decision: 'there is no possible doubt that this passage belongs to P*. p.e. theological statement. He says several times: the patriarchs live "in the land of their sojournings" chs. but that this promise was not yet fulfilled. 182. it is due to the pressure of traditional opinion. as von Rad alleges.8. to reckon this chapter to P? Once again. 36. he does not say. 23. Introduction. one must bear clearly in mind the methodological procedure: the general opinion is that one recognizes P first and foremost by the style. 17. 249.1 The narrative 'is thus rather a puzzle for us from the traditio-historical standpoint'. Genesis 1972 (2nd edn Eng. Op. From this standpoint Genesis 23 cannot belong to P. the land'. For the whole of ch. .4. remain without any share at all? No. Genesis.4 Fohrer says: *But everything is entirely ordered to and subordinated to the personal leanings of P.9). 47.. often very heavy. there is not a trace of this in Genesis 23.1. replies our narrative: in death they were already "heirs" and 1 2 3 4 5 Genesis. But a question arises here: did the patriarchs. A second characteristic mark of the P-passages is the strong. Macholz. 28. it is because of the chronological note in the introduction. 1972 (2nd edn Eng. 133. 37. nevertheless. and 'precise chronology* is the real mark of P. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 155 against customary practice. 246. p. has built in an older narrative almost unaltered. p. because the freshness and liveliness of thrust and counter-thrust is unique within this source'. So why then is it reckoned to P? Without doubt. cf. the narrative) such a prominent place in the priestly document?' His answer: 'the typical broken relationship to the material of the promise of course. What then has given occasion. cit. all this 'could not remain unformulated by such a precise and conceptual theologian as P.3.
of P being the real author). in my opinion. without throwing even the slightest theological light on it. We will add just a few remarks about the fragmentary nature of the narrative and about the arguments with which one usually disregards them.p. But God is not even mentioned in the whole of Genesis 23! It is. of accounts of an action or an address of God. not even a hint. in my opinion. and further. It is obvious that no 1 Op. but numerous reasons against. more or less entirely. effectively contradicted. And there is a further. When all is said and done. 3.156 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch no longer "sojourners".4 The priestly layer in the patriarchal story It is clear that a coherent P-narrative in the patriarchal story cannot be demonstrated. 6. in my opinion but one basic error: from what we know elsewhere of this 'precise theologian'. And so the opinion that there is a P-narrative running through the Pentateuch is. A large part of the texts or text fragments. . It would be beyond the limits of this book to advance in like detail the corresponding proofs for the remainder of the Pentateuch. there is a series of cases in which the material in the concordance contradicts the alleged linguistic criteria. I see no valid reasons for accepting that Genesis 23 is a part of a P-narrative. inconceivable that the author of texts like Genesis 17 and Exod.250. In particular. 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. which are claimed to establish an even tenuous. coherent narrative. complementary. about these theological connections. continuous. in my opinion. There is not a word. point of view: all the more detailed texts that are elsewhere ascribed to P consist. unaltered (there can be no question at all. he would certainly have expressed this in such a way that the reader could not but understand it. cit. cannot withstand critical examination..28 should have departed so far from his own style as to have taken over this purely 'profane' story.'1 This very impressive interpretation has.
4. and how from this assumption obvious facts which speak against it are ignored or overlooked. they are obviously linked with each other. And so once more.41. Elliger writes: *NB: the departure itself is simply recorded with a single sentence Ex 12. A further example: an account of the departure from Egypt is obviously missing in the assumed Pnarrative. the well known pre-emptive judgment about P serves to hush up the fact that the story lacks continuity. Wellhausen writes on this: To expect that Moses be first introduced before he appears as a well known person. coherent narrative.2-8). as in 6.1 But this only means: in the case of so poor a writer as P. rather.1 Chronological notes First. 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. Q = P).2. the absence of an indispensable piece of narrative is exalted to a particularly profound theological interpretation. 2 See above under 3. 62 (for Wellhausen. there is no introduction of Moses: he is suddenly there and receives assurance that the Israelites will be led out of Egypt (Exod. A simple chronological note is encumbered with a narrative function. 6. one ought not expect such banalities as that a leading person be first introduced. Some further reflections may be added to these. First. . is not justified in Q'. 3.1. They are not meant as a polemic against particular authors.3. they serve to show how widespread is the assumption that there must be a coherent P-narrative. But this is typical of wide areas of current pentateuchal research. as has become clear. They do not form a continuous. A new critical scrutiny of the arguments will only be possible when this assumption is brought into the discussion. so trouble-free and with such nightly stealth and security does it take place!'2 And so here. at the same time. 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.3. p. there is a group of chronological texts which stands out 1 Die Composition.
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.
26 diverges from the other texts in that 1 Here only with instead of 2 In 25. Gen. somewhat shorter in the case of Isaac (35.7 expanded with .28a and which occurs often in the primeval story. This suggests that one consider a subsequent expansion. the subordinate sentence is formulated in greater detail: 'then Isaac expired and died and was gathered to his kin. whereas it did not in the Isaac story.1 but concludes only in 49. and Jacob come from the same layer of reworking. It is clear then that the information about the deaths of Abraham. it begins in the same way in Gen. The same detailed formulation occurs several times. otherwise it would remain incomprehensible why the reference is missing in the case of Isaac. old and fulfilled in life. presupposes that he was buried there. here. Ishmael. 26. but also the burial of Rebekah and Leah. 47. the reworking has separated them from each other so as to insert between them the last words and instructions of Jacob. This is more easily explained if. 49. 47. not only is the burial of Isaac in the cave reported by way of supplement.28b. With Jacob. 49.12-14 also belongs to this layer of reworking.22. i. and his sons Jacob and Esau buried him'. 50.17 (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. belong together. The execution of Jacob's instructions in Gen. after the insertion of Genesis 23 in the Abraham story.28). Isaac. but these two pieces. 50.162 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch begins with the words followed by the age.30f. 22) which we have already met in Gen.7 (Abraham's death) and 25. although Gen. The remaining texts show other marks. The subordinate sentence too in v.33b.e. This is true too of Gen. The introductory (v. a corresponding assimilation took place. like the closing verse of Genesis 23. occurs again here.29-32 presents a further stage in the formation of the tradition. following the parallels. Two further texts belong immediately in this context: Gen. The formula is expanded in Abraham's case by mention of the burial place in the 'cave at Machpelah' which is awkwardly formulated. who are nowhere else mentioned. 25.
the first main part of the history of Ishmael' (p. Gen. it is clear that there has been no uniform and consistent reworking. 'narrative'. in the synthesis on p. 'report'. seem to me to point much more to a particular system of reworking an available narrative than to an independent 'history' (Geschichte).2) has erected an imposing structure on these formulas. Here again another layer of reworking is discernible.2. This then would be the only place where the older sources would have given such information about the life-span. All in all. in the table on p. it is surprising that this verse is without exception reckoned to E. e. and with the prefixed . The main difficulty which I see in his work is the fact that he works with notions of 'history' (Geschichte. But this is form-critically quite incomprehensible. It is remarkable that there is nothing about Jacob in the first group. for example. I do not understand how a list can be a 'phase in the life'. which I cannot comprehend. trans.1 Looked at as a whole. 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. 179).).. . There are no discernible links between the two groups.. His understanding of 'narrative' is displayed. (2) information about the entire lifespan in the context of the report of the death. n. Let me pick out a sentence at random: 'And thus the list of Ishmaelites formed.g. 182. etc. Fohrer). the chronological data in the patriarchal story shows a variety of marks. where the two chronological notes.17 and 26. on the other hand.).3. story.3. though they contain some correct observations. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 163 it repeats again the age with the information about the death. 183. 25. Weimar often puts 'narrative' for 'history*. story. but there is something about Esau.4.. But perhaps these notions are not to be understood as form-critical precisions? But how else could they be understood? Weimar's constructions.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. Weimar (see above under 3. No reasons at all are given why this is considered to be the case here. A little later he writes that the list of Ishmaelites 'presents only a phase in the life of Ishmael'. 2 The problem of the toledot-formulas still remains opaque.34 are classified respectively as 'heading' and 'narrative'. there is no mention of Esau's death. trans. How can a list be a main part of a 'history' (Geschichte. or divided between J and E (Procksch.2 3.
4. 11-12. They are Gen.2 One can discern readily that these texts are related to each other. there is further a link between 48.3. The texts stand in pairs: 28. 48. 11) and possession of the land (v.1 is introduced as Isaac's blessing of Jacob. the content is again fertility and increase as well as possession of the land (v. 27. In 35. but that the passages run in parallel lines. . which occurs in these two places only in conection with the promise of the land. the possession of the land in v. This is very remarkable in view of the fact that the content of the promise in 17.3-4 (5-6).5-6 to P. it would be conceivable that the author of Genesis 17 wanted to have the promises that he mentioned. with reference back to the latter. In 48. 17.6-7 (cf. 20) is described expressly as blessing.11-12.8 in the phrase (an eternal possession). and further. in 28. and is again fertility and increase (v. *E1 sadday*.9-13. 17.3-4 to 35. which correspond to the other texts. one should note the repetition in 28.11 it occurs in the form of the formula of self-presentation 'I am El sadday' as introduction to a divine address. the content of the blessing however follows only in the second address.3.5. w.3.6-9 belong here as well. 16) and for Ishmael (v.164 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch sages. It is noticeable that the cross reference does not cite literally. 12). in 17. A number of different explanations present themselves: first.6-9! 2 There is scarcely any argument in the literature for assigning 48. The objects of the blessing are fertility and increase in v. also v.3 28. though with numerous variations in the choice of words.4 and 17.3 there is the actual blessing formula and in v. with reference back to it. understood as blessing without 1 26.1 35. 48. In Genesis 17 the promise address is not introduced as blessing. in v.1 and 35.9 the two-fold divine address is again introduced as blessing. it is said that El sadday appeared to Jacob and blessed him.3-4. 3 See above under 2.3 and 48. A further link is that the talk in these texts is of blessing. the promise of fertility and increase for Sarah (v. 2) corresponds exactly to what is described as blessing in the texts just mentioned. 4). First.1-4 refers back to ch. one notes that they all use the divine name.46-28. 4 a reference back to the 'blessing of Abraham'.3.34-35 and 28.
8. as well as in the cross references). Whatever the case may be. and would only have been supplied later (in 17. The formulation 'to you.1 the land promise in second place testifies to a later stage of the tradition. And so these text do not stand out from the other promises of the land as a self-contained group (see above under 2. 4. 19b. 20) and the covenant with Abraham and Isaac (w. 28. 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. 20. very fruitful. 21!). this is a peculiarity of this text group. 48. 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..3.4) is added to 'seed'..12. 35..' in v. Finally. 11-12. 16. despite the notable differences. which obviously forms the point of departure for the whole group of texts. It was shown earlier that therein lies the peculiarity of these texts against others in which the sequence is reversed.5 and 2. once the verb stands between them...8. .9 the word ^bless' has been put in front of the whole complex of divine addresses.3.8. table of beginning). both expressions follow immediately on each other twice (Gen. 17. 6 is nothing other than a pronouncement of blessing.1. the latter is not formulated as a divine address and shows some peculiarities). 35. but that this idea has been eclipsed and suppressed (w. and your seed' is found in three texts promising the land. Some further observations may be made on the position of this group of texts with the remaining promise addresses in the patriarchal story. Criticism of Pentate uchal Criticism 165 saying so explicitly.12).4. as well as already mentioned (17. and one could also argue that in Gen.) by the idea of 'covenant' in any case a clear distinction is made between the blessing for Sarah and Ishmael (vv. the connections between these four texts are clear. In three cases 'after you' 17. 17.3.2.. once. 1 See above under 2.4).4. 7. and once it is repeated after them (35. there is only 'to your seed' (48.16. one could argue that the assurance 'I will make you very.. there could be a third possibility: that originally there was talk of blessing at the beginning of ch.
therefore.4. these texts belong to the group which does not use 'seed' in this context (see above under 2. Their intention is obviously to point in a definite theological direction.9-12 involve a change of name of the patriarch concerned.4). They show how the blessing of God (more accurately.23-26.5) and Jacob (35. There are the same main stages which in another layer of theological reworking are characterized by the theme 'guidance'. are synthesized in a characteristic way. the different promise elements. 27. It is remarkable. that circumcision as sign has not been carried further. in particular the notion of God's 'covenant' with Abraham. As for the promise of increase. On the one side.2.3. his return from there (35.5). The special place of the texts then is apparent.4. 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.9-13). 12 There is no account of any other circumcisions in the patriarchal story. tables). It is notable that the plural form 'nations' and 'peoples' occur only in this group. yet another link is that the two divine addresses in Genesis 17 and 35. in particular to v. that these four texts are related to each other.5 for more on Gen.3. but rather to anchor the prescription about circumcision in God's covenant with Abraham. 17. Abraham (17. 2 See above under 2.166 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 48. 21. but the group is not to be detached entirely from the historical process of tradition of the promise addresses. and the males who belonged to the *house' of Abraham in Gen. the only other note about circumcision concerns Isaac in Gen. where there is reference back to Gen. The remaining passages are all concerned with Jacob. And this parallel is clearly intended.10).46-28. which are found in various forms in the patriarchal story. of El sadday) accompanies him on his way. however. and circumcision as the visible expression of the covenant relationship.1 while on the other new elements have taken their place. Ishmael. . 17. 17. There can scarcely be any doubt. after the account of the actual circumcision of Abraham. and the 1 See above under 2.2 his departure for Haran (Gen. Finally.
they are introduced with .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. 3. and the last mention of blessing looks back. new interpretation which takes its place by the earlier one. are not reckoned to P. Neither the assurance of guidance.1 At the same time it is evident this layer of reworking has a quite characteristic interest in the figure and journey of Jacob. the second blessing is given only after the return to the ground of the promised land. . Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 167 end of the journey in Egypt (48. 2 See above under 18.104.22.168. presupposing the journey down to Egypt. But this does not touch the many promise addresses to Abraham which belong to other layers of tradition and reworking.2 nor the assurance of mediatorship of the 1 See above under 3. An important direction is given in the Abraham story in Genesis 17.4. These texts give the Jacob story a separate. like the divine addresses to Abraham (Gen. generally. The impression that arises from this is that of a complement and a new emphasis of an already existing narrative. But it is notable even so that. there are many details in Gen.9).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. The departure for Haran is already under the blessing. 17. 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. But these questions require farther study. The emphases in detail lie in a different direction from those in the 'guidance' layer.1) and Jacob (35. 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. It has already been shown that these texts cannot be part of a continuous priestly Jacob story. 26. And further.3-4).4. But this exhausts their contribution to the shaping and interpretation of the patriarchal story as a whole. which runs through all three patriarchal stories.
4. However. With these two texts then a deliberate tie of the patriarchal and exodus traditions is achieved. Cf. and in addition it does not share in the overall arrangement of the story. 7.3 there is reference back to God's 'covenant' with Abraham. in the divine address in Exod. Erkenntnis Gottes nach dem Buche Ezechiel. 2.7. Also. and Jacob (v. The 'priestly' texts then stand out in relief within the patriarchal story as an independent group with a number of peculiarities. Gesammelte Aufs&tze. But it is by no means the dominant interpretation within the patriarchal story. W. in a link piece. The exodus event 1 2 3 4 5 6 See above under 2. 1954 = Gottes Offenbarung. See above under 2. 41-119. are found in these texts.4 one can recognize clear echoes of Gen.168 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch blessing for others. Zimmerli.23-25.2 Beside the texts formulated in the deuteronomic style. We had concluded earlier that on the one hand the lack of connection between the individual complexes of tradition is striking. 6. because it embraces only a partial aspect (primarily the Jacob stories).7. it strikes one immediately that in the further course of the narrative there is no cross-reference of this sort to be found. there are again those which are generally reckoned to the priestly document: In Exod. A few further remarks may be added here about the combination of the patriarchal story with the traditions that follow.2-9. with the broad expansion of the formula 'I am YHWH' and with the 'recognition statement'6 in v. See above under 2. 17. pp. Isaac. At the same time one can discern a definite line of interpretation in this group as a whole. 24) We had earlier expressed the conjecture that one might see here a link with Gen. which in the present context indicates the change of fortune pointing toward the imminent rescue of the Israelites.5. 1963. however.1 which has proved itself in a special way to be an element binding the arrangement together. Ibid. See above under 2.5 For the rest.5 and 2. 17. but that on the other hand there are isolated references back to the patriarchal story in the exodus tradition.5. a quite unique type of theme is evident. .7-8.
the wandering in the desert. give no indication that it is the land.3-4). new interpretation of the patriarchal story. though they do not use the idea 'covenant'. while the others all have to do with Jacob (Gen. 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. 48. 35. 3. the goal of the journey. There are no discernible connections between these groups. there is a considerable number of assertions which a simple glance at the . one of which synthesizes the divine promises to Abraham in a new way and puts them under the key word 'covenant' (Gen. 1. so that the result is a continuous. We find in these priestly texts therefore no reworking covering the whole of the Pentateuch. 24) and Ishmael (v. a small group of'theological' texts stand out.9-13. Further. either stylistic or in content or in their particular setting in the present text.5. beside the episodic. 25) at the time of their circumcision is mentioned. withstand critical examination. 27. but only. The texts generally claimed for this narrative thread are to be judged very differently. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 169 itself.3. coherent narrative. they are linked with Genesis 17 in a particular way. Nor are there connections between the chronological notes and the theological texts. that YHWH had assured to the patriarchs. and the occupation of the land. only that in Genesis 17 the age of Abraham (w. there are several groups of chronological notes. 17). First. They mention partly the age of a person at the time of a particular event. in the majority of cases.4. a single tie of the patriarchal and exodus traditions under the aspect of YHWH's covenant with the fathers. partly the total life-span with the information about the death of the person concerned. indeed.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.46-28. Study of these texts demonstrates that the arguments for assigning them to P (arguments which are almost entirely absent in more recent literature) cannot.
critical examination shows cogently that these connecting pieces are not to be claimed for P. This pulls the mat from under any assumption of a coherent P-narrative. which is found also in the immediately related 'J' piece in 18.e. we are faced with the question.18. i.13 as well as in the J-text in 13. But no proof is forthcoming that they are constituent parts of a 'source' within the meaning of the documentary hypothesis.10. The refutation of arguments such as these sets up a sort of chain reaction. which are claimed for P. 'destroy* in Gen. but which occurs also in the 'J-passage' 12. there have been different reworkings of the patriarchal story which are consistent and of theological significance. because the texts. 3.170 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch concordance proves to be false.29 which is used in the immediately preceding J-narrative in 19. hence. I underscore once again as typical examples: the appendage 'Abraham's wife' in Gen.17 and in the 'E-passage' 20. on the one hand. In my opinion. of a continuous narrative which once existed independently on its own. Examples could be multiplied at will. to a large extent support each other. the alleged P use of the verb in the pi'el.2b. 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 .5 Synthesis It has been demonstrated that. despite the lack of any discernible relationship to each other. and of the Moses and exodus traditions on the other. 21. At most. 16. 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. the claim for P of the expression 'at the particular time' in Gen. and further.14. and that on the grounds of 'proofs' from linguistic usage. they still do not produce a coherent narrative. Even when one assumes that the remaining groups of texts mentioned are all to be reckoned to one 'source'. 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. 19.
and the persuasive power of its arguments. namely the Tahwist'. The endeavour to establish these sources as accurately as possible and to work out what was peculiar to each. The deci sive causes of this uncertainty are the fact that certain basic theses are maintained. and of a redaction that fitted them together. closer attention reveals very soon that there is no such basic agreement among the majority of exegetes in any single essential question. generally regarded as the most important. different religious and moral concepts. it is on this that the larger units'. one could divide among these different sources individual narratives which occurred several times. The assumption of several parallel and originally independent sources. even though their presuppositions are no longer correct. there were several older sources. and the arguments by which they were supported in the first place have lost their tenability. side by side with a later priestly source. we have subjected current pentateuchal study to critical questioning directed to the tenability of its arguments. it seemed convincing that. It proved almost impossible to acquire from current study any sort of clear picture of that source. Though the thesis is almost universally maintained that there is basically general agreement about the delimitation of his work. i. It is because our studies hitherto have not led to such outlines that we have undertaken the 'crosscheck'. different historical presuppositions. its unity. hence. revealed .e. The examination of the reasons for these divergences and differences of opinions shows that they arise out of a profound methodological uncertainty. In particular. build and are brought together into larger outlines which cover the whole theme of the Pentateuch. themselves collections of very different kinds of material. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 171 this sort appear as the next logical stage in the formation of the tradition.3. and so on. seemed to answer plausibly the greater part of the literary questions. the determination of his character and his intention. The attempt to carry through this 'crosscheck' ran into a serious difficulty very soon. differences in the use of the divine name and other linguistic usage. its *built-in system'. 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.
2 The problems of source division have intensified notably with the rise of form-criticism and the discipline arising out of it. or ascribe relatively large sections of texts to redactors.172 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch very quickly the difficulties and the problem area of this undertaking. Wolff. And even when today one has largely renounced any wish to reconstruct the Elohist completely. . cit.1 That the doublets or complements at various places in the Pentateuch could be independent of each other is thus not given serious consideration. then they must also belong to a 'source'. 'growths' or whatever. 2 Those who contest the Elohist are the exceptions here.. 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. because since Wellhausen the 'fragmentary* hypothesis has been superceded. p. The question whether the individual sources have been fully preserved has played a special role in these discussions. 136. 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. namely the study of the process of formation of the tradition.1. When it is recognized that individual texts belong together. Even though many exegetes have clearly not 1 H. 'glosses'.W. but never to be able to distribute the entire material of the Pentateuch among them. 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. The changing fate of the TDlohist' is a clear example of the problem. 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'. see above under 3. 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. op. or to reduce by virtue of necessity the demands of the criteria for source division.
been many an alteration in the presuppositions. this means that the authors of the individual written sources made use by and large of material already given shape. Von Rad 1 So Fohrer. pentateuchal study and documentary hypothesis have become so inseparable. One usually reckons with a stage of oral tradition in which the texts to a large degree more or less acquired their form. . 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'. Thus. but not a question addressed to it. After von Rad had demonstrated the independence of the individual complexes of tradition within the Pentateuch and their general independence of each other.3. what part did the authors of the sources play in the composition of the present whole. p.lll.e. a much greater self-sufficiency is attached to the individual narrative or tradition. 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.1 But when the question is put in the context of the process of the formation of the tradition. the question arose. quite new questions arise of which classical pentateuchal criticism was not aware in this form: what part did the authors of the sources play in the shaping of these texts? did they simply take them over? work them over? reshape them? formulate them anew in their own language? are they really writers at all? or only collectors? It is evident that the understanding of the authors of the sources has run into a severe crisis. Many exegetes are not aware of this and it has not left any discernible trace in the literature. But because one can speak of 'sources' only from the earliest time when the text was fixed in writing. nevertheless. Introduction. The first basic alteration is that the Pentateuch is no longer regarded primarily as a literary product. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 173 become conscious of this. the only explanation is that. First. 'None of the views mentioned [i. further problems come into the perspective. at least for Old Testament scholarship in the German-speaking area. that alterations in the statement of the question are felt to be merely problems within this theory. there has.
even with von Rad. but to 'G'. But Noth. a remarkable imbalance in evaluating the Yahwist. for example. On the contrary. and there is very often talk there of the Yahwist without his part in the development becoming readily discernible. yet in the summarizing 'epilogue' to the preceding cult story of Mamre. On the one hand he ascribed to the Yahwist the final arrangement of the complexes of tradition.' still discernible. and consequently the 'fulfillment and penetration of that ancient story material by the Yahweh faith. This process of the transition of the material at one time stamped by the cult into new literary' arrangements is then described in detail.. only as the work of the Yahwist'... as for the literary arrangement.. which were available to him. clearly standing out from the narrative context. 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. He writes of the two cultic stories of Bethel (Gen. pp. Kaiser and others had already assigned these not to the Yahwist. in the exegesis of 18. essentially self-contained. he speaks of'connecting pieces. of other cult stories it is said expressly that 'we can regard the blending of [the] sacral traditions with the Yahweh faith'. 32) that 'the part of the Yahwist in [their] composition...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. .. "The Form Critical Problem'.g. which the Yahwist has inserted between the old narrative passages'. 53ff.2233.. 2 See above under 1. is very probably. And so once again other criteria must be sought for discerning and characterizing the Yahwist. Fohrer. 18ff. the Yahwist is not mentioned.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. the Yahwist has 1 Von Rad. Gen. he is occasionally claimed for narrative details: e.1: Thus. in one most vivid sentence about place and time.1 and many exegetes have more or less followed him expressly.1. There is evident here. 67f.. 28) and Penuel (Gen. 18. 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'.
3. 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). 1 See above under 1. 569ff.Jl It becomes quite clear from all this. I see numerous important reasons which..1 and 3. across the larger units or the complexes of tradition. 2 See also Westermann's critical survey.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. to the present synthetic whole. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 175 brought us right into the picture.2. however. speak against the currently reigning view of pentateuchal sources within the meaning of the documentary hypothesis. . I think. from such a statement of the question. Genesis 1-11. pp. examining seriously and reflecting methodically on their compatibility with the assumptions and statements of the question of the 'classical' documentary hypothesis. 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. On the contrary. .
This page intentionally left blank .
Above all.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. He has shown that the Pentateuch consists of a number of complexes of tradition which are clearly separate from each other. . each of which has obviously had its own pre-history.1 We might take then some observations of von Rad as our point of departure.2. then one cannot acquire a coherent view of the history of its growth. to which the essential arrangement of the Pentateuch is ascribed. A result of our study is that the mutual independence of these complexes is considerably greater than has been generally accepted to date. there is a notable absence of cross-references between these larger units'. 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. These 'sources' are for the most part regarded as theological works. it must appear very remarkable that a very intensive and varied theological reworking can be discerned in the patriarchal stories which we have chosen as examples of such a larger unit. but that this is not continued in the following larger units which deal with the stay in Egypt. Hence. It is precisely this that is the express goal of the traditio-historical method since it appeared. 1 See above under 1. This is particularly remarkable at the level of the generally accepted 'older sources' of current pentateuchal study.
178 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch the exodus. ill-defined consensus about him. is another aspect of the same problem. and the wandering in the desert. each with its own profile and own thought pattern. there is a characteristic lack of continuity. and which have scarcely been reflected at all. 4. undertaking. and in many respects. a first answer is given to the question raised in the introduction to this study. must be regarded as. however. according to which the Pentateuch is assembled out of several parallel. to which there is no agreement among the exegetes in any single. But this check was rendered extraordinarily difficult. Our observations are scarcely in harmony with this. We tried to establish by means of a 'crosscheck' of the documentary hypothesis whether. That the continuity of the 'priestly document' is greatly overestimated and often supported by arguments which cannot withstand critical scrutiny. namely. continuous. 'sources'. 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. concrete detail. the documentary hypothesis proves itself to be extremely contradictory.1 Dissent from the documentary hypothesis Hence. directing the question in this way. 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. On the contrary. There is today scarcely anything more than a general. On the contrary. especially in wha concerns its chief source. Sinai. a quite anachronistic. important. a highly problematic. and especially the picture which it presently presents of the *Yahwist'. and especially of over-arching interpretative evidence. the *Yahwist'. the result is that for the critical observer. methodologically. the documentary hypothesis. how do the literary-critical method in the form of the documentary hypothesis as it reigns . we might perhaps gain better insights into the connections between the individual larger units within the Pentateuch. These remarks must of necessity be understood as critical questions addressed to the currently reigning 'documentary hypothesis'. a consensus. In particular.
pp.4. and when one tries to allege the currently reigning notion of 'sources' to answer the questions raised by traditio-historical study. . and quite obviously even when there are no clear criteria favouring one source or the other. 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. W. This conclusion must be protected from possible misunderstanding. and it must be repeated again here. in recent pentateuchal study. a particular hypothesis. 63-64. Many of the observations made about the texts since the rise of the literary-critical method retain their validity and still require an answer. means an alteration in the methodological approach. 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. What is to be questioned rather is a particular conclusion of the literary-critical work on the Pentateuch. However. then there is no answer. see above under 3.H. Literary criticism of different passages of the Pentateuch has separated out individual units of text. cf.2. as an (unintentional) example. Exodus. while maintaining the literary-critical position. and the traditio-historical method. Conclusions and Consequences 179 today. one does not encounter the 'sources' in the sense of the documentary hypothesis. 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'. so that the difference between the two must again be expressly brought to mind.1 In any case. On the contrary. Schmidt. this hypothesis has almost been identified with the literary-critical method as such. 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. It has already been underscored.1. that it is not at all a question of contesting in any way the legitimacy of literary-critical statements of the question. namely what is known as the 'documentary hypothesis'. Fohrer expresses 1 The terminology of the discipline is significant: one assigns the text to a source. dissent from the documentary hypothesis.
. 1973. namely.3.180 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.3 And even if one might hope to come to convincing 1 Uberlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus. 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). has in fact long since lost its force because 'to start with'. But. be it that the basic principle cited agrees with exegetical practice or not. and put the question of belonging to one of the 'sources' only at a later stage of the exegesis. must stand'. one must in many cases concentrate on individual narratives and other such 'smallest units'. it is to be flatly denied. is no longer to be gained. that the Hexateuch contains more material that does not belong to a source and that the narrative threads contain more disconnected narrative . at the end of the path of the traditio-historical inquiry. 189-98: 'So as things stand today. in my opinion. that from the traditio-historical point of view. and especially the 'crosscheck' of the documentary hypothesis. Similarly Fohrer: 'Indeed. The basic principle already mentioned earlier must be set against it. it is long since clear. 1964. 'Beobachtungen an der Moseerz&hlung Ex 1-14'. 4.. to start with. the literary-critical separation of the different strands. p. 2 See above under 1. from a form-critical or a traditio-historical point of view. it presents itself as the most plausible answer to the questions which the final form of the text raises. It too. although it has long since become clear that a self-contained picture of the 'sources'. EvTh 31 (1971) 579-88 = Gesammelte Studien zum Alien Testament 2. has shown that this is not the case. A great amount of exegetical ingenuity is still being spent on the problem of source division. as the documentary hypothesis demands. the assumption of continuous 'sources' in the Pentateuch is only justified when.2 But our inquiry. 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. 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.1 But it is legitimate to contest even this basic principle. pp. 3 Von Rad has seen this clearly.
Diebner/H.Wagner. Isaac. and that very obviously.. 4. Schult. And the newly enkindled discussion about the dating of the sources of the Pentateuch. .4.1 only shifts these concerns on to another plane. 'Die Ehen der Erzvater'. Tentateuchal Criticism: No Clear Future'.. this is no longer possible from the Sinai pericope on at the very latest. Schmid has also argued for a late dating of the Yahwist (May 1975: Fachgruppe Altes Testament in der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft fur Theologie).5. but in my opinion it is chasing after a phantom. especially of the 'Yahwist'. however. 'Confessional Reformulation in the Exilic Period'. Van Seters. CanJT 13 (1967) 225-32. as an example of a 'larger unit' within the Pentateuch we have subjected to detailed analysis. 23-34. N. H. The conclusions remain to be sketched briefly and the consequences to be pondered. VT 22 (1972) 448-59. B. it is evident yet again that the Abraham. Das grosse Schweigen als Folge der "alten Pentateuchquellen"'. DBAT Beiheft 1. DBAT 8 (1975) 11-17. DBAT 8 (1975) 2-10. and Jacob stories each has its own history of formation and its own independent profile. 'Edom in alttestamentlichen Texten der Makkabaerzeit'.E.2. 6 n.1975. First. 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. 2). 1 J. Rendtorff zum 10. 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. in Festschrift fur R. 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. 'Argumenta e Silentio.H. is not to refute the documentary hypothesis.' (see p.2 The 'larger units' in the Pentateuch The main purpose of this study. Conclusions and Consequences 181 conclusions in Genesis or in the first half of the book of Exodus. proves to be a complex and at the same time a rounded unit. 4.1 The patriarchal story The patriarchal story which.
3. 22. But now that the independence and complexity of the patriarchal story has become so evident. But here too the function of a framework is clearly recognizable.4) and to Jacob (28.4.18). Only a few problems will be indicated here which present themselves anew.3. to Isaac (26.15-18. 26.2 In both cases the promise of the land is emphasized at the beginning. See above tinder 2. for example.14).14) and. The promise of the blessing for others dominates here. See above under 2.3 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. First. the different formulations show that the Abraham and Jacob stories were first joined together (12. and the assurance of abundant descendants at the end. In the Jacob story. in the framework of the Isaac story with the two divine promise addresses in Gen. the Abraham and Isaac stories (22.4. rather a way has been opened to deal with them more intensively.4. 26. This is evident. study can apply itself to the numerous individual questions without having to reflect constantly on the supposed connections with the other complexes of tradition in the Pentateuch. 28. the assurance of blessing which accompanies him on his way has been added in another layer of tradition. The traditio-historical problems of the patriarchal story are not thereby finally solved. the genre 'Sage' undoubtedly needs a renewed and more nuanced study.4. It must be more carefully taken into account that the stories (Sagen) in the patriarchal story are of an entirely different kind and have a different pre-history from the texts of the primeval story on 1 2 3 4 See above under 2.4 This belongs as well to the passages which bind the three patriarchal stories with one another and fit them together into a whole. See above tinder 3.2-5 and 26. especially in the closing promise address in Gen. .4).182 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch intact.18.2. 22.241 and in the arrangement of the Jacob story as a 'guidance' narrative. It is given to Abraham (12. only at a later stage of the reworking and arrangement.
4 thereby leaving the way open for as unprejudiced analysis as possible. like Genesis 14 and 23. 14. A new beginning may be made here. 20-22. and it can. but I am very conscious that my own insights are only a beginning. the work of R.2. Kessler on the 'cross references' offers further pointers 1 Cf. but in such a way that he was forced to span certain texts.1020 and Genesis 24 without being forced to look for proofs which would assign them to sources. In particular.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. 17 were not there. pp.3 They were added anyway by a redactor. 22 among the narratives designated by him as 'Yahwistic' (Theology of the Old Testament. Genesis 1-11. pp. In the case of the *Yahwistic' Abraham story. 2 See above under 3. In doing so. and likewise again chs. 3 Von Rad has included Gen. can be simply studied and evaluated in their own right. 1. The reflections presented above still leave many questions open in this regard. 12. he had to carry on as if chs. one would pursue more precisely the connections between the divine promise addresses and their context. particular groups of texts were not assigned to the priestly layer. Conclusions and Consequences 183 the one hand and the complex of traditions with which the book of Exodus begins on the other. 15.4. 4 And thus.2 set into relief the profound differences between texts like Gen.2. . And further. Finally. I have deliberately tried to avoid preliminary decisions about whether individual texts belong to particular 'sources'. 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. to take up an example already mentioned. one must investigate in more precise detail than has been possible within the limits of this study. 18fF. the collection and arrangement of the patriarchal stories. 170f). study can turn itself to the questions of the structure of the patriarchal story under different presuppositions. in dealing with the promise addresses in ch. 2. Westermann. And texts which are difficult to classify. In this area. and so did not merit any thorough consideration.
are concerned with specific problems in the patriarchal story. step by step. put this side by side with other narratives in which. 4. To give but two examples: how is one to understand the following: the narrative in Gen.1. whereas the event at Pnuel (Gen. which do not arise in the same way for other larger units within the Pentateuch. Hence. 12. 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. . This is especially the case with 1 See above under 2. 32. in their present form.2.2 The other 'larger units' Something corresponding holds for the other larger units within the Pentateuch. 28. 2 See above under 2.1. without more ado.1 a question of course which is linked with those already mentioned.3-4) with an emphasis to which there is no parallel in the patriarchal story? Can one. 22-32]) has remained quite untouched? Can one simply maintain the interpretation of von Rad. the divine promise addresses carry such weight. so plausible at first sight. answers to them would first promote a better understanding of the patriarchal story as an entity. and so allow one to discern the guiding principles and methods of reworking.10-20 ('the ancestress in danger*) has no divine address and so no mention of the divine promises to Abraham. but have not been tied to the context in any comparable way? And how does one evaluate this: the cult etiology of Bethel (Gen.184 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch and suggestions. from the smallest units to this larger unit.1. to which others could be added. throw light on the path.23-33 [Eng. 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.10-22) has undergone a very varied and multi-faceted interpretation by means of the divine promises. yet they are mentioned in an insertion into its context (13.
g. 2-11 is. Wolff has unintentionally shown this in 'The Kerygma of the Yahwist'. and interpret it accordingly as a unit in itself.W. pp. 4 So Westermann. 12) v.g. but further reflection is required about its connection with the other units. If this is correct. then it means that.3b. 3 E. 2 E. on the basis of Gen. the primeval story has indeed been tied to the patriarchal story. yet another aspect becomes clear: many studies on the primeval story limit themselves entirely to it. 5 Steck. which is meant to encompass all that is typical of the human condition. in 'Genesis 12. rather the opposite. with all the possibilities and depreciation of human existence. according to our reflections. . Genesis 1-11. Num. Genesis 1-11. cit. 12. 1-11 alone.3a (despite the notable change of the verbs) but not so to the words of 12. 1971.9. pp. because Gen. 12. can certainly be related to Gen.3b and is in fact not a continuation of the promise given there. in the intent of the Yahwist. they take it for granted that the layers of tradition discernible there must be regarded as constituent parts of the pentateuchal sources.1-3 und die Urgeschichte des Jahwisten'.1-3. 550.6 This could be a clue to the simultaneous growth of 1 Cf. 549). 24. underscore its internal coherence.3 or not at all. Festschrift von Rad. Steck: 'Gen. but only with it. Conclusions and Consequences 185 the primeval story. 549-50. also Westermann. about which Wolff insists 'the real message of the Yahwist is to be seen only in 12. 12. 3'5 is often alleged as a reference back to the patriarchal story to the primeval story. p.4 The independence of the primeval story as a larger unit has long since been recognized and stressed. Steck. 1972.K. p.1 it has always been the object of studies which have focussed entirely on the problems in these chapters.. cf.32 shows no connection with Gen. 6 I think that H.3 is one of those passages which bring the patriarchal stories together as a whole. 525-54 (esp. op. Genesis 1-11. At the same time. pp.3b'.'. the only occurrence of the key-word 'blessing' in the whole of the book of Exodus in Exod. however. Westermann. And a further remark: 'the universal perspective of the primeval story which the Abraham story achieves in (Gen. a whole.. 7. And the single occurrence in the book of Numbers within the Balaam oracles. but which has no counterpart in the larger units that follow. The express connection is made merely by a few remarks about Gen. p. 12.. O. Ertrage der Forschung.2 nevertheless. Probleme biblischer Theologie. 12.4.64ff.
arranging. which has given this passage its own stamp. 2 Cf. planning.31 the Israelites 'believe' the message that Moses has received and bow before it—just as later.3 Exod. This notion. 3 See above under 3. Pentateuchal study takes for granted that the Sinai pericope is an entity in itself.27b) and they finally see this rescue with their own eyes (14. 326). nevertheless its peculiar literary character and relative internal coherence is continually underscored. exclusion of the parts belonging to the 'priestly document'. The analysis of the Sinai periocope usually begins with the speedy.2 Once again we may take up the reflections on a deliberate. pp. arrangement of the unit. 1973. when the definitive rescue is announced to them (12. though from the most divergent points of view. cramped together into a few chapters. is then studied again. Even if the supposition that the unit is in essence a liturgical text has receded into the background. . In 4.1 Since Pedersen. G.2. S. mainly in respect of assigning passages to their sources. There is obviously a mind at work here. God takes heed of the Israelites. theologically interpretative. von Rad. 189-98. (hip'il).31). 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. "Mose'.186 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch these two larger units independently of their connection with the following units. EvTh 28 (1968) 301-28 (esp. interpreting.1. 'Beobachtungen an der Moseerzghlung Exodus 1—14'. The remaining 'nucleus'. and thereby further cut 1 See above under 1. Herrmann. With regard to the other larger units.23-25 marks the turning point in the first section of the call of Moses. and unanimous. EvTh 31 (1971) 579-88 = Gesammelte Studien zum Alien Testament 2. we can for the most part latch on to what has already been said.4 And so it is evident once more that the reflections made here have no counterpart in other larger units. the question of the special character of Exodus 1-14(15) has been there. borrowed from the liturgical realm. But this question needs further careful attention. occurs only seldom elsewhere in the Pentateuch. 4 It is remarkable that the verb used in these passages.4.
L. 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. V. This brings up a partial aspect of the question. 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. 1969. been torn apart again. how the larger units have been brought together and finally assembled into the whole which is the present Pentateuch.4.4 and 2.2 Here too there are indications that this group of texts is to be understood as an independent larger unit. 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. see above under 1. This holds particularly for the still quite open question. But the notion of larger units' must not be overdrawn. 2 See above tinder 1. and to put the question. pp. and that many exegetes would not find it all that difficult to renounce it in this area. how does one explain the process by which these texts came together.6. 157-58. The problems of the narratives of Israel's stay in the desert have already been outlined. The advantage of this could well be that source division (prescinding from T') has thus exhausted itself.4. Conclusions and Consequences 187 up. what were the intentions and ideas at work. and what systems of arrangement are discernible. Bundestheologie im Alien Testament.3 It must be emphasized. The task that now lies before us is to put the question more concretely of the texts in the Sinai pericope. the attempt to work out an isolated 'Yahwistic' desert tradition must of necessity cover over more problems than it can solve. These 1 Cf. . Here.g. 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. 3 E. over against recent attempts. Perlitt. 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. Fritz.
and that this work did not take place at one stroke.1 The traditions of the occupation of the land in the book of Joshua do not in any case suggest that they must be understood as some sort of continuation of preceding texts. They are much more readily recognizable as an independent larger unit with its own particular profile. the continuation is to be sought. if at all. One must examine the corresponding texts in the book of Numbers independently of these to see if they belong together. that most of the texts of the Pentateuch were united into 'larger units' before these were brought together to form the present whole. or at the final redaction of the Pentateuch. 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. On the one hand there is the question whether they were at one time bound together as an independent larger unit.188 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch questions then must be examined very carefully and without previous commitment. 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. . which have not belonged to such larger contexts. whether they were conceived as part of a comprehensive presentation of the occupation of the land and where. One must always be ready to grant that single pieces of material. It is similar with other larger units: the 1 See above under 1. however. on the other hand there is the problem. 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.4. requiring further discussion. The narratives about the occupation of the land in east Jordan also contain a double problem. but that this collection has undergone work of arrangement and interpretation. but shows several stages and layers. The study of the patriarchal story has shown that it is not only a collection of texts that belong together thematically. It is clear. have only been taken up at one of the stages of a synthesizing redaction.
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. One can then trace a 'theology of the primeval story'. It goes without saying that the attempt to present a 'theology' of the individual 'sources' of the Pentateuch is incompatible with this. it needs no further demonstration for the primeval story and the Sinai pericope. in my opinion. The documentary hypothesis . one must look again at the question of the synthesizing. the Sinai pericope. sufficiently apparent for Exodus 1-15. find its appropriate expression in the description of a 'theology* of the individual larger units. methodologically justified and necessary. even though not with the same clarity. so that one can maintain the same for this larger unit as well.4. Conclusions and Consequences 189 primeval story. This concerns first the concept of 'redaction' or 'redactor'. The present study has expounded this in the case of the patriarchal story. Work on the Pentateuch has long since taken this path.3 The problem of the synthesizing. Rather the concern. it is. must. and. a 'theology of the Sinai pericope'. I think. in my opinion. is set out. namely that each of these theological outlines. a 'theology of the Moses and exodus narratives'—each of them with several layers. and at first with no connection with one or several of the others. to discover the theological plans which precede and underlie the present Pentateuch. each with its own complexity. a 'theology of the patriarchal story'. And so what is remarkable and characteristic is this. final arrangement of the Pentateuch. entirely self-contained. final arrangement of the Pentateuch Finally. our reflections and considerations mean a basic shift from the view hitherto taken. and. In this regard too. the Moses and exodus narratives of Exodus 1-15. What stands out above all in this is that clearly defined theological intentions were at work in the arrangement and interpretation of these larger units. 4.
JCYahwist). There will have to be further reflection however on the extent of this work and on the legitimacy of literary-critical judgments in detail. He saw the chronological sequence of the constituent parts of the Pentateuch as follows: L(lay source). . have thereby become untenable. there persists.1 Hence. when one designates each of the Redactors with an index letter indicating the source that was added. Not even the question of the sequence in which the source layers were joined together can be answered with certainty'. that to contest the documentary hypothesis is not to question the right and necessity of the work of literary criticism. The presuppositions of this assumption have collapsed with the renunciation of the documentary hypothesis. 191. Fohrer supports in essence this view of the growth of the Pentateuch to its final form but without any further precisions: 'In the interim. it is not possible to describe in detail the redaction history of the Pentateuch. p. But this does not at all mean that all the literary-critical observations made so far. 239ff. 2 Introduction. H(Holiness Code). however. 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'. the basic notion that the individual written sources were joined together by redactors.2 Even when one can discern here a loss of confidence in the possibility of explaining the history of the redaction of the Pentateuch. P(Priestly document). one has the sequence RJ RE RB RD RH Rp. Here too. D(Deuteronomy). E(Elohist). and which have led to the assumption of redactors at work. The consequence of the change in viewpoint of the formation of the Pentateuch is that literary-critical reflections must be adapted to other contexts.190 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch assumes that the individual written sources were joined together by redactors. Rather. pp. B([Bundesbuch] Book of the Covenant). the earlier statement must be repeated here yet again. Eissfeldt carried through his view of the situation consistently and in detail to the end. A new area of study is opened here 1 Introduction. These reflections must look in part for their answers within the history of the formation of the individual larger units.
Thus. Conclusions and Consequences 191 because it is no longer a matter of assigning individual texts to different sources. However.4. but of outlining more exactly the process by which the single narratives came to form the larger units. on the one hand for the independent process of growth of each of the stories of Abraham. but should point primarily to the necessity of arriving at a further clarification. it is better not to retain the expression 'priestly document' because it is 1 However. The notions of 'redaction' and 'redactor* are too closely bound with the putting together of 'sources' in pentateuchal study. And to this end various reflections from earlier chapters of this work may be taken up. there must be renewed discussion of the sign of this work of collecting and reworking and of those who were responsible for it. 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'. standardization of ideas. and so more refined distinctions commend themselves. 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. one must make further distinctions here. it must be emphasized that the only layer that can be discovered within the Pentateuch that is comparable to the 'sources'.4. . New criteria must also be reclaimed for the process of putting together the larger units to form the Pentateuch as a whole. This should not result in imposing a fixed terminology. it has become evident that the assumption of a continuous 'priestly' narrative cannot stand critical examination.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. However. is a cohesive group of 'priestly' texts.2 Hence the suggestion that similar terminology be used with them. First. and Jacob. 2 See above under 1. so far as is possible. 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. For this reason Noth introduced other notions into the study of the book of Joshua. Hence. refinement. Isaac. and.
2-9. whether different types of priestly texts belong together.23-25 and 6. The first part of the divine address in Gen. 5 See above under 3.4. 9.4. there must be renewed examination of the question. but do not cover the whole Pentateuch. These texts reach beyond the limits of the larger units.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. Rendtorff. 2.2. and Exodus 6. 3 The refinements necessary here within the priestly layer cannot be carried out in this study. Likewise the retrospective linking of these texts with the primeval story is obvious: the divine address in 9. 6-7. which are generally reckoned to 1 Cf. 4 A corresponding connection with the flood story is less clearly demonstrable. It commends itself to speak of *priestly texts'. 6. In addition. We had discovered that with Exod.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. 2 See above under 3. We have seen that the 'theological' priestly texts in patriarchal story find their clear continuation in Exod. The chronological details. pp. Studien zur Geschichte des Opfers im Alien Israel.12 as well as to the terminology where there is talk of fertility and increase as consequences of the blessing.4 It should immediately be called to mind that these 'theological' priestly texts do not occur throughout the whole of the Pentateuch. disputed in current pentateuchal study.1-7 is introduced as blessing and thus corresponds to the other theological priestly texts in the patriarchal story. 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. R.192 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch too heavily impressed with the stamp of a continuous narrative. the patriarchal story.2-9 the priestly cross-references to the patriarchs cease. .4. It is evident that the priestly texts are not restricted to one of the larger units of the Pentateuch.3 There are also obvious connections with the creation account in Genesis 1. 1967.
manifest likewise some connections between the different larger units. data about the death is missing. 11.32 corresponds to the basic pattern in the patriarchal story. a text which is quite outside the pattern. Num. 3 The information about the death of Moses in Deut. 34. 31) and the notification of the death of Noah in 9.12 There is only one sentence that corresponds to this pattern in the larger units that follow the patriarchal story. whereas in Gen. 11. which give details of the entire life-span in connection with the notification about the death.4.17. 20. 7.6). it has already been pointed out that the note about the death of Terah in Gen. 2. 20. it is in Exod. 2 See above under 3. and at the beginning of the flood (7. or departure from the land of Egypt. This holds too for the corresponding data in Genesis 5 (w.1 and 19.32).4 The remaining chronological remarks in Exod. 16.7 is formulated in a unique way. 12. 11. to which there is no parallel in the rest of the Pentateuch.40.7 in the note on the age of Moses and Aaron 'when they spoke to Pharaoh'. Some. there are clear connections between the patriarchal story and the preceding 1 Ibid. Conclusions and Consequences 193 the *F texts. And so. 4 One could see a connection in that the specific time is on each occasion given in relation to another event. however are close to it: the note on the age of Shem when he begot Arphacsad (Gen. Ham. 16. With the texts of the second main group. . There is no text at all in the primeval story which corresponds exactly to the pattern of the group mentioned above.4. on the age of Noah when he begot Shem. ll.3.11. and Japhet (5. 14. 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.8. one might put Exod. 27.10).1 in some sort of relationship to Gen. in respect of the chronological notes.lOff. namely the beginning of residence in the land of Canaan.3 Of the other chronological notes. these texts are formulated according to a fixed pattern.1 show no linguistic relationship to the chronological texts of the patriarchal story. and that this other event is on each occasion in the infinitive with a preceding lamed. except in the case of Terah.29. 10.
3 This means that we are dealing here with a layer of reworking which extends beyond the limits of the individual larger units. which is not present in the same way with Abraham. to which we have already drawn attention. they show a clear connection with the pronouncements of the creation account. has not held and so must be abandoned.1.3. 17. The earlier surmise expressed from time to time that *P might be identical with the end redaction of the Pentateuch. both verbs appear next to each other in Gen. In the patriarchal story the main emphasis is on the divine covenant struck with Abraham. 4 Rendtorff. 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. 2 The characteristic formula. The pronouncements about Jacob form a further central point. but after it. but does not cover the whole Pentateuch. 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. 20. 28. at the beginning of the Moses story. but only in the promise about Ishmael in v.11. the link with the patriarchal story is once again underscored emphatically and the name of YHWH is introduced. 48. 'be fruitful and multiply* echoes clearly in Gen. .4. and the beginning of the occupation of the land which refer 1 See above tinder 4.7.194 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch and following larger units. The same picture is evident in the following units as in the theological' texts.4 It is different however with the layer of reworking which bears the deuteronomic stamp.12 Finally. 5 See above under 2. 35. The Moses story shows a further tie with the patriarchal story. 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.3. Sinai. The connections with the primeval story are also rather marked. there is no further sign of the priestly layer in the Pentateuch. see above under 1. they consist partly in rather short promise addresses. After this.5 It is evident that there is a whole series of texts dealing with the events of the exodus from Egypt.3. though there is no complete agreement. no more.
and YHWH orders the departure for the land which he swore to the patriarchs that he would give to their descendants (Exod. Thus. there is Gen.24 where. 15. 2 In Exod. p. In Exod. the exodus.1-3a). 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. Sinai. 11. reminding him of his oath (v. In Numbers 11 there is yet another critical situation in which Israel's journey into the promised land appears in danger.18. Gen.7. Conclusions and Consequences 195 hack to the patriarchal story. 33.7. and Jacob'. 33. 12. It is the same immediately before the next departure. immediately before the departure from Egypt.12 both are set side by side in almost identical formulations.1. at the end of the patriarchal story.23).13-16. 32. Kessler. 32. 13. It is similar in Numbers 1314 where YHWH himself recalls his oath as he withdraws. 50. the desert. his decision to annihilate the people (14. Moses prays to YHWH. cit. The formulation is very close to that used in Gen. op.4. 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. 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. is added: 'to your descendants (seed) will I give it'. 15. the occupation of the land in east Jordan.. 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. . partially. at the 1 Except in the isolated passage.24 and Exod. 12). 33.13). 24.5. to the formula 'the land which I swore to Abraham. 340. Isaac. and are stamped with deuteronomic language. and especially to the promise of the land to the patriarchs. there is reference back to the promise of the land to the patriarchs. 50. The connection between the promise of the land to the patriarchs and the leading out of Egypt is particularly underscored: in Gen. from Sinai. First.11). cf.
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. But this certainly does not solve the problem of the final redaction of the Pentateuch. according to our examination so far. But there should be a brief sketch of the consequences and the questions thus raised. 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). the only one which unambiguously views the Pentateuch as a whole and will have it understood as one great coherent complex. or is it a matter of a predominantly interpretative reworking. 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. and the ^priestly document' has shown that it likewise can not establish itself as a coherent whole.1). I have described these texts as 'deuteronomically stamped' so as to avoid a premature conclusion as to what . 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'. a qualifying statement: the texts advanced show clearly that the layer of reworking to which they belong views the Pentateuch as one great complex. First. 33. or which can definitively be made responsible for it.196 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch same time. But nothing is thereby said of the part that this layer had in the final arrangement of the whole Pentateuch. There is another question which is relative to the more precise designation of this layer and its pertinence to texts in other areas. And so this deuteronomically stamped layer of reworking is the first and. 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. This is significant because our inquiries hitherto have found no text or no layer of reworking about which this can be said. and this is pronounced at the departure from Sinai (Exod.
There exists here a fundamental difference between the 'Credo' formulations of Deut. all-embracing. in Exod. e. 26. but this does not necessarily mean that this text belongs. .2 and in the deuteronomistic history only in Judg.1. 50. 17-18). a 'land flowing with milk and honey'. In Deut. w. there is no mention of the promise of the land to the patriarchs. It would be cause for concern if premature. 3 See above under 2.g.4. but requires careful scrutiny.23). 2. In Gen. to mention just one other example. 6. I have already referred to the discussion whether one ought speak rather of 'early deuteronomic' or 'proto-deuteronomic'. 26. 24. 6. therefore. Neither is the promise of the land to the patriarchs mentioned in Josh. a quite different sort of theme occurs. the heavily 'deuteronomistically stamped' Genesis 153 contains nothing about YHWH's oath which is so frequent in Deuteronomy.3. It would be methodologically inadmissible. is by no means excluded.23 the verb is used instead of. It occurs in Deuteronomy only in the 'Credo' text (6. 18.20-24 and Deut. The texts do not contain just current deuteronomic or deuteronomistic statements. of course. 3.7 (end). new theories were to replace hypotheses now outgrown.1.11-14 (cf.19.5-9.24 and Exod.8. Conclusions and Consequences 197 their place might be within the concept 'deuteronomic'. or how 'deuteronomic' is to be discerned in this area. 33. Rather. For example. have not yet been adequately worked out. but the formula found elsewhere. 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. is used. 1 See above under 2. inadequately based. with the group of texts already mentioned. of Gen. This.1 But here too there would be a definite conclusion which it would be better to avoid at first. This is necessary because criteria for what is 'deuteronomic'. it belongs to the broad realm of deuteronomic-deuteronomistic language and theology.1. to one layer of reworking and redaction. 2 In Deut. to combine this group of texts with other 'deuteronomistic' texts in the first four books of the Pentateuch and attribute them to a 'deuteronomistic' redaction. without examining more closely and basing more firmly their connection.
1 'Exodusstudien Exodus 1'.. under the influence of the source theory. convincingly I think. a few further observations and reflections may be added. and refers to 'the dtn. crt... It is hardly likely.. And so again we encounter the deuteronomic-deuteronomistic circle. that these two texts *belong to the same literary pattern'.p.. .6.. belonged to the same circles.4 This fits very well into our picture of the history of the formation of the Pentateuch. 1.6..... which is used in the historical literature at the transition from one epoch to another*.. 3 Ibid.3 Vriezen reflects further and interestingly 'that the author (of Exod. 1. 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. 4 Op. is of the opinion that here there 'was an older and a later' example available for this pattern. who I which did not know Joseph/YHWH. and all that generation.2 He sees in them 'two clear examples . who used this pattern in Exodus 1 and Judges 2. in my opinion.1 The texts of Exod..343. idiom' in Judg. 2. cit. rather we must assume that the reworkers.. 2. of the same phraseology.339. 2 Op. VT 17 (1967) 334-53.198 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch With this reservation..' Vriezen has shown. 10 show much in common both in structure and in formulation: 'Then Joseph/Joshua died. and there rose up a new king/another generation.8.. Vriezen has drawn attention to the striking parallelism between the beginning of the exodus story and the beginning of the story of the judges.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. 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*... 8 and Judg. 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. Vriezen.. however convinced he may have been of the continuity of the two periods and have arrived at his formulation in this conviction'.
. 2 Op. 145.3 This manner of argument would in any case carry little conviction because of the assumption of an independent Pnarrative. In any case. especially in chs. be separated from the books that follow. 3 Op. because they show too many common features. 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. the fact that it is not *P* but 'Dtr' who dominates in the account of Moses' death in Deuteronomy 34. favours the opinion that it must be a matter of later redaction here. that this link was made in the context of the great work of the redaction of the Pentateuch'. The delimitation and canonization of the Pentateuch certainly presents a problem for our present view of the literary history of its formation. But this argument is rendered irrelevant when one does not reckon with such a tightly outlined 'P'-narrative. only becomes really comprehensible if it already existed within the limits set by the P-narrative and enjoyed special esteem'. Conclusions and Consequences 199 This gives new weight to the fact that towards the end of the book of Numbers.. 25. 32-35. The book of Deuteronomy in its turn cannot... 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. cit. the deuteronomistic element appears clearly. The announcement of the death of Moses in Num. Noth dealt with this problem in detail1 and expressed the view that 'one. Finally. p. 143. p. But it can hardly be explained by the conjecture of a 'special esteem' for a fictitious earlier 1 The Chronicler's History.. And so in Noth's view. . it is also clear that the last sections of the book of Numbers are not comprehensible when detached from this overall complex. (could) consider here.2 Noth. in its present form. because of his presuppositions. came to reject this conjecture.4. cit. it is clear that the book of Deuteronomy cannot be sharply separated from the remaining Tetrateuch'.12-23 and the account of it in Deuteronomy 34 show that the link between the two is intended. 27. p..
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
One must tackle it.1 1 Genesis (German 9th edn. 2nd 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'. . The problem of the process of tradition in the Pentateuch lies deeper. p. That would be to pour new wine into old skins.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. Eng. 440.
5 148 13.30 11.1-2 51.6 8.10.2-3 65 12. 63. 71. 60. 148. 77 62.30 5. 83. 130.3a 185n6 185n6 12. 182. 134. 50.3 59. 148 13. 150.4b-5 147 142. 135. 170 13.12a 148 13.20 5.2 65. 185 12.1-3 15.4a 1 4.29 5.12 148.1-8 12.21 9.11 5.3-4 51. 59. 52 12.11-26 11.6 142.3b 12.1 66.31 5. 77. 184 13. 132n3. 77 . 78. 151 13.7 58.16 12. 75n3. 84.15 12. 70.8 5.9 51. 58. 61. 34 11.10-20 46. 77 13.1-17 9. 73.26 5.17 57.3. 135.5 6. 135n2 13. 73 12. 160 12.21-22 8. 183. 67.12.17 11. 77. 152 13. 33.29 11. 150.7 58.1 8.15 57. 193 34 12-50 83nl 12.12b 149 13.1 13. 151 13. 60. 54.6b 148 13.17 7.11 9.16 13.4-5 146 12. 161.INDEXES INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES Genesis 1-11 1.10 152. 77 12. 51. 148 51n4 13.10-11 148 13.17 12.17 5. 143 12.32 146 192 151 193 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 146 147 158.5 12.10.14 5. 159 195n2 12.31-32 11. 184 13. 68. 81. 150 12. 55. 71 13.l1b 148.19 13 150 51n4 49 150 150 170 161 50.13 12.2 148 13. 82.31 32. 74. 70.26 11. 71.1-9 49.8 148 148 13.10 12. 76.32 6.15-16 68.15 9. 72. 184 12. 132. 122.2 5.27 5. 125.12 12.14-17 55.9 13.1-7 9.10 11. 185 12.4 158.
55 20.7 70. 82. 77.19b 165 17.16 62. 80.3 16.1 86. 82.19 128. 130n 2 20. 164.15 16. 170 18. 197 52.11-12 16. 81 57. 68.1a 159 17. 74.1-6 158. 165 17.16 50 18.12 166 17. 82. 146. 167. 80 51n4. 131. 65. 77. 67 80 62 62 62. 81nl. 74.18 16 16. 183. 197 18. 170 19. 54.la 153 21. 86. 193 151 62. 170 149 149.12 14.208 13.14 15. 170 19. 165 17. 70.1-18 46 20.1-19. 50 51n4. 18. 85.5-6 70 17. 86. 165 17.18 14 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 71.12 161 20. 65. 183.4-5 80 17.1 14. 165 17. 170 . 160 51. 53.10 62 18.32 129 19 54 19. 68. 192 51n4.23-27 55 17. 131n2. 156. 70. 53.30-38 49.18 150. 17.20-23 128 18. 55.21 165 17. 67. 164.16 14.9 15.22 50 18. 70nl. 82.21 15 15. 183 51n4 142 142 142 142.25 129 18. 77 52. 152. 169 17. 168 57. 165. 160. 54 20-22 50. 195n2 51. 161.8 70. 170 21. 145 51.24 169 17 17.3 15.15-16 16.25 18 14. 68. 135. 169 53. 165. 62. 81.1 15. 80 62 149 151 158. 86. 63.22 54n3 17. 54.16 18.13 152. 59. 76.2 63. 61. 181 15.17 130 20. 151 54n4. 81.1 16.22b33 127. 174 18. 86. 77. 174 18. 159.13-16 15. 81. 195nl 142 58.1 159.7-21 15. 62. 80 18.1-5 21. 67.23-26 166 158-60. 77. 63. 51n4 20.6 63. 169.20 63. 77.6-7 164 17. 68. 55. 78. 164. 77. 17.5 15.1-7 50 152 21.11 14. 142. 54. 183 20 50. 60. 155. 53.7 130. 58. 164.4 63.14 62.5 63.116aa 49. 509 19.29 151. 16467. 165 17.10 16. 130. 166 17.7 15.2-4 15.7-8 168 17.2b 153.17-33 50 18.27-28 50 19. 50. 28 151 18.1 51. 17.9 16. 75n5 17. 51. 164.19 62.4 15. 158n2. 59.la 16.1-28 49. 77. 147 52. 149n2 17. 82 54 55.18 59. 65.
78.19-34 25.1-4 141.9 25. 87.22 21. 72. 159. 96 59. 78. 162n2 145 140 162. 21.2-5 26. 163n2 44 22. 98n2 65 62.2 26.13 21. 52.15-18 22.4b-5 26. 63.22-34 21.5 28 28. 48 48 48 48 46. 77nl.18 26. 146.22-23 21. 78.25 22 209 78.16-18 22. 72. 68.61 24. 68. 26.Index of Biblical References 21. 159 78 57.1 22. 166. 78nl. 96.25-26 25.10 24. 83. 80 51. 84.7-11 26. 54nl. 89. 75nl. 161 145 154 145.18 23 153.4 24. 6567.29 26. 84.18 21.4 26. 66 147 96 96 55. 133n3 59.2 23.4ad 26.12-14 26.4a 22. 59. 77.2-4 26. 78n2. 61. 154 145 52. 134. 158. 160 56nl. 59. 59.5 26.128. 65. 77nl. 182 72 72 72 78 45 46 45 46 75n4 47.26 26 26.17-18 23.1 24. 77.2 22. 65.16-17 22. 163n2 44 140n 2 143. 169 71. 75. 154. 72. 54.19 25.22-32 21.5 21. 51 51n4 47 51n3.23 25. 82.9 27. 51n4 54.19-20 26. 68.4 21. 159. 182 78 87. 161 56nl 151 158.24 26.12-33 26. 47 50. 77. 134. 122. 159 45.34-35 26. 183 51n4 75n3 58. 162. 96 72 58. 183 23. 95.22 26. 195n2 147 147 161 153 162.25b 26. 54 46.16-17 26.3 51n4.8ff.5f.4a 26. 77. 78nl. 80 63. 21. 83. 73.15 26. 68. 174 64.8 21.67 25. 77. 95. 79 63.3-5 26.17 22.28 26.4628.2-3a 26.3b 22. 54. 82.34 27. 160. 55nl. 87.12 21.16 22. 182 51.56n l. 164.12 26.19 24 24. 57. 166 158 160 150 50 51. 164 .8-21 21. 77.1 23. 83. 54. 87 51n4 54. 167.7 24. 80. 61.7-10 25. 66. 74.20 25.26-31 26. 65. 62. 82. 80.6-11 26. 82. 98. 62. 72.17-18 22. 77.7 25. 160.17 23.17 25.3 22.32-33 26.21 26. 182 48 46 47 46 48 164nl 159. 48 47 47. 80. 75.2-3 26. 15456. 96nl.3b 26. 76. 182 46 83 72 66. 46.12-17 25. 144.
81n1. 82. 3ff. 83 30. 81.10 32. 31.23 35.3 35. 165.3 46. 67.9 47.13 57.18abp 31. 66 44 164 69 143 63. 81. 76. 161 162 158 161. 194n2 28.9 161 31. 135n2 28. 68 144 145. 71.11 63.4 46. 75.12 57. 164. 135 63. 59. 138nl. 67. 75 141 147 56nl 89 66. 69.18 145 28.42 32-36 32 32.4 57. 159 139 139 151 161 158.13-15 56. 145 145 145 161.2 75 56nl. 155. 73. 70.13 46.24 31. 164. 164. 89 73 56nl 66-68. 68. 162 56nl. 81. 167 35. 82.5 164nl 28. 139 144 144 144 56nl. 83. 82.29 31. 63.4 34.2 28. 37. 68. 135n4 28.28a 47. 58.13 32.2 37. 22b36 35. 164. 73.4 48. 162 155 43 143 38 155 139. 58. 61.5 42. 44. 166 35. 75n5.10-11 32. 83.9-13 66.11-12 69. 71.27-30 33. 56nl. 184 28.13-14 68 28. 75n3.27-29 35. 68.10-22 15. 167.26 47. 84. 77.3 68. 166. 76. 89 28.3 38 38. 66. 65.1 35.210 28.3-4 48. 164. 164 58. 64. 162 161.23-33 (22-32) 32.2-4 46. 83.18a 34.5 31.23 (22) 32. 65.3 48.10 166 35.9 82.160 138.9 161 28. 89 44 174 83 66.9-12 56nl. 165 42.2 34.10-11 31.12 46. 164.1 37.15 47. 61. 73.6 46. 80. 83. 80. 73. 65. 59. 73.14 41.7 42. 194n2 164n2 . 81nl.28 47.6-9 28. 89 65 n 2 62. 169 35. 89 66 142 144 142 158. 165 143 28.7 143 28.12 32.3 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 31. 70n2.13 31. 135. 82.3-4 161 30. 75.14 35.13b 73 28. 62. 82. 65.7 37-50 37 37. 194n2 35. 165.46 41. 69. 76. 75.27 35.6 143 28. 135 35. 61.20 66.3-4 28.6a 35.28 36.15 35. 59.1-21 37.46a 145 145 147 56nl 143 161 161 161 142 56nl 66. 135.14 59. 83. 165 35. 68. 67. 134 28.1 28.15 66. 60.8 34. 28b 48. 78.11-13 31. 72. 164. 169 144. 164.19 145 28.23 31.5-6 142.
2-8 6.10 2 2.7 130 12. 195 91 112 91. 91 90n5 198 161n3.24 2.10(9) 32.Index of Biblical References 48.115. 97.25 3ff. 192 156.41 157 12.7 160nl.14.1 32. 98 97. 90.2 16-18 16.8 86.21 1-14 1-4 Iff. 145 158n3.30 49.17 3 3. 913n5 91 89nl.7 86 6. 89.19 14 14. 1 1.25 50. 161. 198 84.11-14 32. 90 4. 186 36. 162 66.3-10 97 87.13 50. 98 98 91 91 87. 95nl 3.14 130 9.7 1. 91.6 16. 99.7 32. 87.1 90 4. 91. 195.7 48.3 .40 193 12.31 90.3-8 32-34 32 32. 186 192 6 6.11 13. 93nl 93 92 93nl 89n3 93n2 38 37. 97.21 49. 99nl.51 97 87.32 17.18 192 9.24 211 87. 168.1-10 2.5 88.12 32. 196.3 32. 193 8. 3–4 3.8 32.49-32 49. 195n2.30-31 49. 197n2 111 89 50. 36n7.11 50.8 86 7.1-3 33.3 18 184 18. 111 91 112 112 91 91 92 91 91.2 157 6.13 32.11 32.23-25 2. 9597. 195.8 19-Num 10 19-24 19. 98. 162 35.5 50. 68 162 162 145 145 162 144 158 162 144.16 48.32 185n6 12. 37nl.9 90 4. 158n3.20 50.23 33 33.8 90 4. 186.8-17 9. 112 Exodus 1-15 1. 195 97 98 97 36 80.12-14 50.3 16.6 1. 152.6 3. 37.1 16. 36.4 86 6. 90. 186 12. 85nl. 30f.8 1.21 198 99nl 111 111 111 151 112 85 88 85. 84nl.1 37 46. 197n2 3. 13.1-3a 33. 97 13 13. 92.6 130 130 8.31 15. 87nl.29 130 11.27b 90.2-9 86. 168.11-22 2. 192 86. 197n2 97 158.5 195 13.15 88 88. 33b 50.15-16 48. 189 35 36. 168 90 88 89. 90. 186 89n3 38 193 92 92. 99. 89 2. 85.26 142.4 24. 157 6. 144 64 63 66.13 13. 195 87. 49.15 13.4 32.16 4. 135.
11-15 11.3 53. 99.5 11.15 20. 195 94 94 142 1 Samuel 1.5 53.10 Jeremiah 22.12-20 14.22 14.19 14. 137.16 14.18 14.1 198.24 Hosea 2.1 161n3 Isaiah 49.12 11.23 197n2 9.13 14.14 14.13 38n3 93 20.32b 142 20. 99.1 35.18 53.20-24 197n2 197.7 193n3 Joshua 1-12 13-21 24.12-23 32-35 32 32.20 13-14 14.212 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch 24.11 11. 6.162.5 48 25.3 185n6 94 199 199 113 94 94.14-21 38n3 20.5 114 22-24 86nl 131n2 130 130.27 152 197n2 25.20 18 33.13 16.4-6 130 9.1436.11-14 24.1 193 92 20. 131n2 Deuteronomy 6.9 26.4 27.2 Amos 4.16a 93 92 21.11 32. 199 34.14 33. 198n3 197 152 .5 22.13 11-20 11.120.11 130 131 131 131 131 131 130 204 99nl 2. 195 92 93nl 93nl 98 93nl 98.18 11.17-18 Judges 2 191 191 197n2 197n2 Ezekiel 14 14.5-9 34 115.2-4 14.22-24 14.24 96nl 96nl Leviticus 22.4-5 20.23 913 38 n 3 38 92 98 195 92 92 98.11 142 Numbers 10. 195 96nl 14.28 92 16.8 32.
153. 39n4. 118n2. 121n8. 191. M. 137. W. 17. 154. 116n4 Delitzsch. 138n6 Coppens. 103n4. 161nl Henry. 45n3. 128n8. 153. 143. 143n5. F.W. 13. 21. 17. 18. 115nl. 46n2. 113. 174. 15. 95n2. 155 Jepsen. 18nnl. 121n8. 11. I. 124. 106. 17n3. B.l81n2 Dillmann. G. 181nl.D. 17n3. H. 99 Plöger. 174. A. 22. 38n3. 154n5. 35. 151. 38n3.2.-H. 144. 141. 154 Koch. 142. 38. O. 119-21. 143n5. 118. 38n2. 107. S. 22. 75n2. 144. S. 39n3 Cassuto. 46.4. A. G. H. 14. 125. 203n4 Kaufmann. 46nl Diebner.C. 43. 120 Lohfink. 36n7. 121. 104n3. 24. 144. 90n5. 138nl. 199. 157 Ellis. A. 52nl. 50. 86nl. 39nl Gross. 139. 19. 103. 50. 17n2. 129. 24. K.4. 107. 20. J. 23n2 Preuss. 139n6 Gunkel.-L.6.INDEX OF AUTHORS Bentzen. 36. B. 202 Diebner. 16n2. 20. M. 36. 13nl.-E. 18n3. 25n2. Kautzsch 158nl Gressmann. 47. V. 121n4. 122.R. 35. 135nn2. 33. 19. 151. 18. 107nl Kessler. L. 118n7 Kaiser. 28-30. 27. 120-22. 37 Noth. 39. 147-49. 60. 138nl. S. 91n3. 22. 112n3. 16. 143n3. 187nl Ploger. 128. 19nl. 163nl Rad. 102. 46n4. K 138. 49. 102. 203nl Fritz.4. 195nl Kilian. 201 Pedersen. 174. 45. 105. 51n7. 12n3. 22nl. 107. 121 Gesenius. 115n2. 128. 16. O. H. O. R. 117. 190 Elliger. 104. 40. 147. 142. 15n3.F. 129. R. 163nl. 122. von 12.50nnl. 66nl Procksch. 18n3. 60n2. 145. 14n5. 117. H. 119-21. 51nnl. 12n2. 13. 155n2 Mowinckel. 186 Perlitt.112.7. G. 124. 186n2 Holzinger.3.2. 27. 44. 136.4. 116.J. 127. 179. llnnl. 154. 112. 149. 203n3 Macholz. 103n4.107nl Fohrer. 11. 132n3. 125. 13. 128. 135nn2. 110n6. 141nl. 18nn2. 111. 118. W. P. 139. 150. N. 154. 107nl Gazelles. 31n3. 21. 14n3. A. 147-53. 117n6 Beyerlin. 14. 105. 118 Eissfeldt. . 140. W. 139nl. 115nl. 116 Hermann. 155. 190. 24. 144.G. 124 Engnell. 151nl. 30nl. 112n4. 135nn2. 14nn2. 48n2. U. 52n2. 20n3.3. 145nl. 105. 70nl. H. F. 173nl. 99n2. 154 Driver. 113-15. J. 15. 46. 121 Knobel. 14. Schult. 143n5. O. Y. 50n3. 44n2. 151n4. 141nnl.
van 181n2. 116. 110. 130. 11.1 77. 182nl. 123. O. 25nl. 163 Weiser.A. 132n2. 64nl. 168n6 22. 47nl. 109n2. 172nl. P. 46n3. 109n2. 186n2. 155. 146nl. 108. 48nl. 102n3 Seters. 37. 91nl. 125. 144nl. F. 33. 114-116. E-G. 103n3. 57. 149n4. 138n6. W. 126n5.126n4.H.H. 138. 198. 109. 173. R. 60. 45. Fohrer 31n3. 61n2. 203n2 Zimmerli. K. 103n3. 106. 73nl. 11. 118. 110n2 Wolff. L. 183nl. R.130. 66nl Vriezen. 53nl. 142n2.132. 103. 111. 25. 132n3. 85n2. 38nl Wellhausen. 16nl. 23n2. 131. 112. 128. 181n2 Schmidt. N. 99nl Schmid. 172 Westermann. 111. 157. 127. 175n2. 106. C. 185nl. 36. 131n2. 53. 114. 123n6. 154 Steck. J. 185n2 . 44. 154. 206 Redfern. H. 133n3. 26n7. 133.C. 26.130n2. 56. 45.2 Whybray. 12nl. 132.N. 47. D.W. E. 140. H. 90. 174. 65n3. 185n6. 123. 132n2 Rupprecht. 114. 183n3. 103. 133. D. W.214 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch Steuernagel. 150. 123125. 179nl SeUin.E. 47. 131n2. R.B. T. H. 134. 121n6. 107 Weimar.H. 114. 110n2 Rendtorff. 143n4. 27-29. J.184 184n2. 132n2. 118n6 Vetter. C. 32-34.127. 16nl Rost. 61n2. 194n5 Ringgren. 21n7. 181nl. 204n2 Smend. 142. 34. 23n2 Speiser. 103. 118n2 Stolz.. 51n7. 65. A. 198n3 Wagner. 85nl. 33n3. 64.
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 listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.