The Call of Moses and the Exodus Story: A Redactional-Critical Study in Exodus 3-4 and 5-13 (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161527265, 9783161528415, 3161527267

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe Edited by Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (New York) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen)

60

Jaeyoung Jeon

The Call of Moses and the Exodus Story A Redactional-Critical Study in Exodus 3–4 and 5–13

Mohr Siebeck

Jaeyoung Jeon, born 1972; 2004 MA from Hebrew University, Rothberg School (Jerusalem, Israel); 2012 PhD from Tel-Aviv University (Tel-Aviv, Israel); since 2013 Senior Researcher at the Université de Lausanne (Lausanne, Switzerland).

e-ISBN P > DF 978-3-16-152841-5 ISBN 978-3-16-152726-5 ISSN 1611-4914 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 2013 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Jesus my strength

Acknowledgements This book is a revision of my 2012 Tel-Aviv doctoral dissertation, written under the supervision of Prof. E. L. Greenstein. I was privileged to study Hebrew Bible and carry out research in the wonderful academic atmosphere of Israel, at Tel-Aviv University and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. I greatly appreciate the quality of teaching, instruction, and the insightful scholarly discussions in these institutions. In conducting my research this far, I am indebted to many people; first, to my teacher and doctoral supervisor, Prof. Edward L. Greenstein, now at BarIlan University, who was my mentor throughout the period of research and writing, not only academically, but also in many other aspects of life. He provided considerate support and consistent encouragement to finish this work, and kind guidance to the biblical scholarship. His illuminating insights and broad knowledge of biblical, rabbinic, and ancient Near Eastern texts, as well as modern literary theories, profoundly influenced me in shaping and developing my academic intellect. I am convinced that what I learned from him, both directly and indirectly, will be a valuable source for my future research. I also owe a debt of considerable gratitude to Prof. Konrad Schmid of the University of Zürich for valuable advice, encouragement, and friendship. The publication of this book in the prestigious Forsungen zum Alten Testament series is in large part a result of his generous suggestion and recommendation on my behalf. His comments and suggestions significantly influenced the revision of the dissertation for publication. I am grateful also to Prof. Thomas Römer, now my colleague at the University of Lausanne, for his thoughtful and kind support, discussions, and encouragement. He willingly undertook the laborious task of providing books and articles that significantly enriched the discussion in many parts of this book. I am also grateful to Prof. Alexander Rofé of the Hebrew University for his teaching, valuable comments, and discussions, and to Prof. Erhard Blum of Tübingen University, who kindly explained his model of Pentateuch formation, and to Prof. Bernard Levinson of the University of Minnesota, who

VIII

Acknowledgement

read parts of the dissertation and made insightful comments and provided helpful references. The publication of this book, of course, was enabled and facilitated by the editors of Mohr Siebeck; I especially appreciate the assistance of Dr. Henning Ziebritzki and Nadine Schwemmreiter. I am deeply indebted to my friends in Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv. Their friendship, prayer, and emotional support enabled me to continue my study in Israel. Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my family; to my mother who supported me with her constant prayer and to Eunshim, my wife, who quietly assisted me in completing this work, by relieving me of domestic duties; I deeply appreciate her understanding, patience, and effort to allow me to concentrate on my research. I am also more than grateful to Hajin and Yeju, my children. Although I could not spend enough time with them during the period of study, they have been my enablers providing love and strength. I hope they will understand one day how much I am thankful to them for their being the joy of my spirit and source of my strength. Seoul, June 2013

Jaeyoung Jeon

Contents Acknowledgements …………………………………………..…………. VII

Introduction …………………………………………….……….…….

1

Part One: Methodological Considerations Chapter 1: Redaction Criticism in Recent Pentateuchal Study …………………………………………….………… I. Redaction Criticism of the Pentateuch ………………………………… 1. The Scope and Terminology of Redaction Criticism in This Study …………………………………………………... 2. A Classification of Redaction Criticism according to its Methodological Structure ………………………………… II. Classical Redaction Criticism: Redaction Criticism and the Classical Documentary Hypothesis ………………………….. 1. Development of the Approach ….……………………………... 2. Recent Practitioners …………………………………………… (1) R. E. Friedman ……………………………………………... (2) W. H. C. Propp ……………………………………………... (3) M. Greenberg ………………………………………………. 3. Conclusion ………………………………………………….…. Excursus: Recent Studies that Diminish the Role of the Redactor …..…………………………………………….. III. Redaction Criticism and Form/Tradition Criticism ….………….…... 1. Development of the Approach ……………………………...…. (1) G. von Rad’s Redaction Criticism …………………………. (2) Von Rad’s Formation Model for the Yahwist …………….… (3) Author and Redactor in von Rad’s Works …………………..

7 7 8 11 12 14 19 19 20 21 22 22 23 25 25 27 28

X

Contents

2. Practitioners of the Method …………………………………..... (1) K. Koch ……………………………………………………... (2) O. Steck ……………………………………………………... 3. W. Marxen and New Testament Redaction Criticism ………….. 4. Conclusion ……………………………………………………... VI. Composition of Larger Units and Redaction Criticism ….………….. 1. Development of the Approach …………………………………. (1) R. Rendtorff ………………………………………………… A. Refutation of the Classical Documentary Hypothesis ……………………………………..………. B. The Deuteronomically Stamped Texts and the Final Redaction ……………………………….. C. Rendtorff’s Model for the Formation of the Pentateuch ……………………………………... D. Rendtorff’s Redaction Criticism ………………………. (2) E. Blum ……………………………………………………... A. Blum’s Formation Model ……………………………... B. Blum’s Method ………………………………………... 2. Practitioners and their Divergent Formation Models ………….. (1) K. Schmid …………………………………………………... (2) R. Achenbach ……………………………………………….. (3) E. Otto ………………………………………………………. (4) J. C. Gertz …………………………………………………... (5) D. M. Carr ……………………… …………………………. 3. Conclusion ……………………………………………………... V. The Late Yahwist and Redaction Criticism ……….…………………... 1. Development and Practitioners ……………………………….... (1) C. Levin …………………………………………………….. A. Levin’s Model …………………………………...…….. B. Levin’s Method ………………………………...…….... (2) J. Van Seters …………………………………………...……. A. Van Seters’ Model ………………………………...….... B. Van Seters’ Method ………………………………...….. 2. Conclusion ………………………………………………...…… VI. Summary and the Method of this Study ………………………..….… 1. Summary …………...…………………………………………... 2. The Method of this Study ………………………………….…... Excursus: Van Seters’ Contentions against Redaction Criticism …………………..…………..……………..

32 32 33 34 36 37 39 39 41 42 42 43 44 44 48 49 49 50 51 52 53 56 56 57 57 57 58 59 59 62 63 64 64 65

67

Contents

XI

Part Two: Redaction-Critical Analysis Chapter 2: A Redaction-Critical Analysis of Exodus 3-4 ……..…….…… 73 I. Introductory Remarks ………………………………………...……….. 73 1. The Significance of Exodus 3-4 in Recent Pentateuchal Criticism ……………………………….…….…... 73 2. The Scope of the Narrative ……………………………..…...…. 75 3. Content and Literary Problems………………………….…........ 76 II. The Various Solutions based on Formation Models of the Pentateuch……………………………………………….….…... 77 1. Solutions based on the Classical Documentary Hypothesis ……………………………….……… 77 2. Modifications of the Classical Documentary Hypothesis ….…... 79 (1) P. Weimar …………………………………………….….…... 79 (2) W. H. Schmidt …………………………………………….… 81 (3) A. Graupner ……………………………………………….… 81 (4) W. H. C. Propp ………………………………………….…... 82 (5) M. Greenberg ………………………………………….….… 82 3. Solutions based on the Late Yahwist Models ……..…………... 84 (1) C. Levin ……………………………………………….….… 84 (2) J. Van Seters ……………………………………………...…. 85 4. Solutions based on Recent Redaction-Critical Models ………... 87 (1) E. Blum ……………………………………………………... 87 (2) K. Schmid …………………………………………………... 90 (3) J. C. Gertz …………………………………………………... 91 (4) C. Berner ………………………………………………….... 92 III. Redaction-Critical Analysis of the Call Narrative ….……………….. 93 1. The Doublet and the First Commissioning (3.7-8, 9-10) …….... 93 (1) The doublet and the formulaic ‫ הנה‬and ‫ ועתה‬construction ….. 93 A. Usages of the ‫ ועתה הנה‬clause …………………………. 95 B. The ‫ ועתה הנה‬and ‫ ועתה‬construction ……………….….... 96 (a) Caleb’s plea to Joshua (Josh. 14.6-12) ………... 97 (b) Saul’s speech to David (1Sam. 24.17-21) …….. 97 (c) The Gibeonites’ plea to Joshua (Josh. 9.9-13) ... 98 (d) Rabshakeh’s speech to the people of Jerusalem (2Kgs. 18.19-25) ………………….. 98 (e) Bath-sheba’s plea to David (1Kgs. 1.17-21) …. 99 C. Differences between 2Sam. 7.27f. and Exod. 3.7ff. ………………………………………… 102

XII

Contents

D. An Inclusio? ……………………………………………. 2. Moses’ Commissioning in vv. 9-12……………………..…….… (1) Vv. 9-10….………………………………………………..…. (2) V. 10………………………………………………………..… (3) V. 11………………………………………………………….. (4) V. 12aα………………………………………………...……... (5) V. 12aβb………………………………………………...……. 3. The Revelation of the Name of God (3.13-15) ……………..….. (1) V. 13……………………………………………………...…... (2) Vv. 14-15………………………………………………..….... 4. The Commissioning in Exod. 3.9-15 and the Deuteronomic Law of the False Prophets (Deut. 18.15-22)…………………..... 5. Verses 7-8 and the Second Commissioning (vv. 16-17) ……….. (1) YHWH’s Plan for the Salvation of the People (vv. 7-8) ……. (2) The Second Commissioning (vv. 16-17) ……………………. 6. Prediction of the Exodus Sequence (vv. 18-22) ……...………… (1) V. 18 …………………………………………………………. (2) Vv. 19-20 ………………………………………………….… (3) Vv. 21-22 ………………………………………………….… 7. Moses’ Objections and the Signs (4.1-9) …………………….… (1) V. 1 ………………………………………………………….. (2) Vv. 2-8 …………………………………………………….… (3) V.9 …………………………………………………………… 8. Moses’ Excuse of Lack of Eloquence and the Introduction of Aaron (vv. 10-16) …………………………. (1) The unity of vv. 10-16 ………………………………………. (2) Vv. 4.1-16, a unity? …………………………………………. 9. The Problem of the Staff (vv. 17, 20b) ………….……………… 10. The Narrative Framework (3.1-6; 4.18-20) ………….………... (1) The theophany (Exod. 3.1-6) ………………….…………….. A. Vv. 1-3 …………………………………….…………… B. V. 4 ……………………………….…………………….. C. V. 5 ………….………………………………………….. D. V. 6a ………….………………………………………… E. V. 6b …………………..………………………………... (2) The relationship to the commissioning layers …………..…... 11. Moses’ Return to Egypt (4.18-31) ………………………….….. (1) V. 18 …………………...……………….……………………. (2) V. 19 ………………………………..….…………………….. (3) V. 20a ………………………………..……………………….

103 104 104 106 106 106 107 109 110 111 114 119 120 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 132 133 135 137 137 138 140 141 143 144 145 146 146 147 148

Contents

XIII

(4) The Third Commissioning (4.21-23) ………………..………. (5) The Bridegroom of Blood (vv. 24-26)…….…………..……... (6) Vv. 27-28 ………………………………………..…………... (7) Vv. 29-31 ………………………………………..…………... IV. Provisional Conclusion ……………………………….……………. 1. The Second Commissioning Layer .…………….……………… 2. The First Commissioning Layer .………………….…………… 3. The ‘Festival of Unleavened Bread’ Layer …….….…………… 4. The Aaron Layer .………………………………….…………… 5. The ‘Staff of God’ Layer .……………………….…………..….. 6. The Third Commissioning .…………………...….……………..

148 150 151 152 152 153 154 156 157 157 158

Chapter 3: The Extension of the Layers of the Call Narrative in the Following Narrative of Moses’ Confrontations with Pharaoh (Exodus 5-13) ………………...…………………………

159

I. The Second Commissioning Layer and the Passover Instruction (Exod. 12.21-27) ..………………..………… 1. The Similarity in Scene between 12.21-27 and 4.29-31 ...….….. 2. The Unity of the Passage and the Problem of the Source/Layer ……………...……………….. (1) Literary features of Exod. 12.21-27a ……………..…………. (2) Exod. 12.21-23, 27b ……………………………...……...….. (3) The Literary relationship between Exod. 12.21-23, 27b and the Second Commissioning Layer …………….………… II. The Layer of the Festival of Unleavened Bread …...……..……...….. 1. Exod. 5.1a, 20-6.1 ……………………………….…………….. 2. Exod. 11.1-3 ……………………………….…………………... 3. Exod. 12.34-36, 39 ………………………….…………………. 4. The Laws of the Festival of Unleavened Bread and the Firstborn (Exod. 13.3-16) ………………..…………….. (1) The Connection with Exod. 12.34, 39 …………..…………... (2) The Deuteronomic/stic Character of the Regulation .…....….. (3) Literary Dependence upon Exod. 34.18-20 …………….…… (4) The Pre-Priestly date of the Regulation ……………………... (5) The Problem of Exod. 13.1-2 ………………………….…… III. The layer of Moses’ Staff ……..………………………...…………... 1. The Reworking of the Episode of the Blood Plague ……...……. (1) Reworking in Exod. 7.15b, 17b, 20a…………………….…... (2) The Priestly wonders and emphasis on Moses’ staff ………...

159 159 160 160 164 165 167 169 179 170 171 171 171 173 173 175 175 175 175 177

XIV

Contents

A. The Priestly Wonders Revisited …………………...…... B. The Priestly Sea Narrative as a Conclusion to the Priestly Plagues Account …………………...…… C. The Structure of the Priestly Wonders …………...…….. D. The Priestly wonders and the staff of Moses ……….….. 2. The Reworking of the Episodes of Masah and Meribah (Exod. 17.1-7) and the Battle with Amalek (Exod. 17.8-16) .…... (1) The Wilderness Episode of Masah and Meribah (Exod. 17.1-7) ……………………………..…..... (2) The staff in the episode of the battle with Amalek (17.8-16)…………………………………..…... IV. Summary……………………………………………………...……...

178 180 181 181 182 182 184 186

Chapter 4: The Relationship between the Priestly (Exod. 6.2-7.7) and Non-priestly (Exodus 3-4) Call Narratives ...……………………….. 188 I. Arguments about Exodus 3 ..…………………………...……………... 1. Dependence upon 2.23ab-25? ……………………..…………… 2. Exod. 3.4bα ………………………………………...…………... 3. The Place of Revelation ………………………………...……… II. Arguments about Exodus 4 ……..…………………………………… 1. A Reconsideration of Blum’s ‘Preventive Thematizing’ ……….. 2. The Signs and the Priestly Wonders ……………………….…… 3. The Problem of Aaron …………………………...……………... III. The Dependence of the Priestly Call Account on the Non-Priestly Call and Plagues Narratives …….……………... 1. The Promise of the Land to the Patriarchs and Exodus 3 ……… 2. The Israelites’ Refusal to Listen and the Episode of Exodus 5 ……………………………….…... 3. Moses’ Lack of Eloquence ………………………………..……. 4. The Structural Function of the P Call Account ………….……... IV. Summary ……………………………………………………….…...

190 190 193 193 194 194 195 197 200 200 203 204 205 205

Chapter 5: Layers of the Call Narrative in Relation to the Episode of the First Confrontation (Exodus 5) and the Plagues Story (Exodus 7-11) ………………………………..…. 207 I. The First Confrontation with Pharaoh (Exod. 5.1-6.1) in its Literary Context ….……………………………………...……... 1. Exod. 5.1b-2 and the Redactional Framework of the Plagues Story ……………………………………...……..

207 208

Contents

2. Reflection of the Episode of the First Confrontation (5.3-6.1) in the Compositional Framework of the Plagues Story ………... 3. A Continuation of the First Confrontation Episode in the Plagues Story………………………………………...…... (1) The Relation between the First Confrontation Episode and the Negotiation in 8.21ff. .………………….….. (2) A Literary Discrepancy around 8.21ff. ……………...……… 4. Summary……………………………………………….………. II. The Literary Relationship between the Plagues and Call Narratives…………………………………………..…..….. 1. The Compositional/Redactional Framework of the Plagues Story ………..………………………………..…. 2. Reference to the Present Form of the (non-P) Plagues Story in the Layers of the Call Narrative……………………….. (1) In the First and Second Commissioning……………….……. (2) The Third Commissioning and the Formulaic Command in the Plagues story………………………….…… (3) The Festival of Unleavened Bread Layer and the Plagues Story………………………………….……. A. The Prediction of the Process of the Exodus (Exod. 3.19-22) and the Plagues Story……………..…. B. The Festival of Unleavened Bread Layer and the Announcement of the Last Plague (Exod. 11.4-6) .…… 3. Reference to the Call Narrative in the Framework of the Plagues Story ……………………………………….…… 4. Summary ………………………………………………….…….

XV

210 211 212 213 214 215 215 217 217 218 219 219 220 224 225

Excursus: The Formulaic Compositional/Redactional Framework of the Plagues Story ………………………………………... 227

Conclusions …………………………………………………….……. 235 I. Summary ………………………………………………………..……. II. Assessment of the Formation Models of the Pentateuch ……….…… 1. The Elohist Hypothesis ………………………………….……... 2. The Yahwist Hypothesis (Classical and Late)……………..……. 3. Post-Priestly Redaction ………………………………….……... 4. Deuteronomic/stic Composition ………………………….…….. III. Implications and Tasks for Further Studies……………………..…...

237 240 240 241 243 243 244

XVI

Contents

Abbreviations ………..……...……………………………...…………... 247 Bibliography ……….…….………………...……………….….……….. 249 Hebrew Bible Index …………………………………………..….…….. Index of Authors and Subjects ………………..…………….…………..

265 268

Introduction Many years ago, in his influential article, “Theory and Argument in Biblical Criticism” (1987), E. L. Greenstein pointed out a phenomenon in Pentateuchal scholarship: ...the debate over the composition of the Pentateuch often represents itself as an argument about logic, methodology, and data. As I see it, however, the contest is often between theories or models of composition.1

Over twenty years have passed since Greenstein noted this phenomenon, but the state of Pentateuchal scholarship has only confirmed his observation. Various alternative models for the formation of the Pentateuch have been suggested, since the Classical Documentary Hypothesis was seriously challenged, and the current discussion on the composition of the Pentateuch still revolves around these models. In such a situation, this study aims to review and examine the recently discussed formation models of the Pentateuch, through a redaction-critical analysis of the Call of Moses (Exodus 3-4) and its relationship with the Exodus narrative (Exodus 5-13). This study consists of two parts. The first (Ch. 1) will deal with methodology, together with a review of formation models, while the second (Chs. 2-5) will present a redaction-critical analysis of the test-case text (Exodus 3-13). The methodology part, Chapter 1, examines redaction criticism as a method, and will demonstrate that behind the divergent, and sometimes confusing, uses of this method in recent Pentateuchal scholarship, different methodological presuppositions and structures are in fact at work. Identification of the different presuppositions and methodological structures will also enable us to classify the different types of redaction criticism; differences in method stem from the formation models which each one presupposes, and the models and methods are inseparably related to one another. This chapter will therefore necessarily review the competing formation models of the Pentateuch. The 1 See E. L. Greenstein, “Theory and Argument in Biblical Criticism,” in Essays on Biblical Method and Translation (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 53-68 (quotation from 61). The article is a slightly revised version of an earlier article that appeared in Hebrew Annual Review 10 (1987), 77-93.

2

Introduction

very notions of author, editor, and redactor are also a source of confusion within the field; our discussion will attempt to clarify these notions with regard to the various compositional models. Chapters 2 through 5 will present a redaction analysis of Exodus 3-13, with Ch. 2 and 3 investigating the constituent layers of the Call narrative and their extensions in the following narratives of the confrontation with Pharaoh; based on the results, a relative chronology between the layers of the Call narrative and the Priestly Call account (Exod. 6.2-7.7) will be defined in Ch. 4. The final chapter of this section (Ch. 5) will examine how the layers of the Call narrative relate in literary terms to the narratives which follow it. The issues discussed in each chapter have redaction-critical significance in evaluating the formation models, as will be shown in the above chapters and the Conclusion. Evaluation of the different formation models will be performed mostly in the course of the redaction study of the test-case text, but it will be summarized once again in the conclusion. Before commencing the evaluation, it must be acknowledged that Pentateuchal formation models are highly theoretical or hypothetical in their nature, built on presuppositions and sometimes unprovable conjectures, as we will see. Therefore, evaluating the models based on a different set of presuppositions would not do them justice; the criticism of one model based on another, with a different set of presuppositions is, as Greenstein has said, ‘no criticism’.2 Just as circularity of argument within a model should be avoided, one should be equally cautious about such circularity of criticism, as results when a differing model or hypothesis produces different evidence. As E. D. Hirsch rightly observes: Some of the evidence supporting one hypothesis cannot even exist under the other, since some of the “internal evidence” can be generated only by a particular interpretation. Such incommensurable, dependent evidence cannot of course serve any direct function in comparing interpretations.3 In such cases, criticism between models and hypotheses becomes utterly invalid. In order to produce a valid evaluation of the models, it is necessary to share a common methodological ground with them, which will as far as possible ensure the production and recognition of common evidence. This notion is reflected in the methodological grounds for this study, which will be laid out in Chapter 1. Another criterion for this evaluation might be a philological one; occasionally a redaction analysis can be criticized on the basis of philological See Greenstein, “Theory and Argument,” 65. See E. D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1967), 181. 2 3

Introduction

3

considerations, without regard to the theoretical model employed. For example, a formulaic phrase may be mistakenly divided, or a semantic usage misunderstood. Accordingly, one may analyze and criticize other analyses not only with respect to their internal consistency, but also with respect to their correctness in discerning Biblical Hebrew usage.

Part One

Methodological Considerations

Chapter One

Redaction Criticism in Recent Pentateuchal Study I. Redaction Criticism of the Pentateuch In spite of its increasing importance in recent biblical criticism, and in Pentateuch studies in particular, redaction criticism has become a perplexing term. Although various definitions of redaction criticism have been proposed during the last few decades,1 it is doubtful whether such attempts have been successful in grasping the full diversity of recent practice of the discipline. This methodological confusion arises out of recent complications in the study of the Pentateuch, and the various models for its formation history suggested in the wake of the revisionist movement in the 1970s.2 The revisionists, as we will see later, suggested not only new models and theories 1 See K. Koch, The Growth of the Biblical Tradition: The Form-Critical Method (trans. S. M. Cupitt, New York: Schribner, 1969), 57f.; J. A. Wharton, “Redaction Criticism, OT” IBDSupp, 729-732; G. Fohrer et al., Exegese des Alten Testaments: Einführung in die Methodik (Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer, 1973), 102ff.; W. Richter, Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft; Entwurf einer alttestamentlichen Literaturtheorie und Methodologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 165ff.; M. E. Biddle, “Redaction Crticism, Hebrew Bible,” DBI 2:373-376; E. Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982); W. Stenger, Biblische Methodenlehre (Duesseldorf: Patmos, 1983), 70ff.; J. Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study (Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, 1984), 45ff.; idem, “Redaction Criticism (OT),” ABD 5:644-647; R. Knierim,“Criticism of Literary Features, Form, Tradition, and Redaction”, in D. A. Knight and G. M. Tucker (eds.), The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 123ff.; O. H. Steck, Old Testament Exegesis: A Guide to the Methodology (trans. J. D. Nogalski, 2nd ed., Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998), 75f.; S. L. McKenzie and S. R. Haynes (eds.), To Each Its Own Meaning (Louisville Ky: Westminster John Knox, 1999), 105ff. M. Vervenne, “Current Tendencies and Developments in the Study of the Book of Exodus,” in idem (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception, Interpretation (BETL 126, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 38ff. 2 Major works published in the 70-80s are R. Rendtorff, Das Überliferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1977); English Translation: trans. J. Scullion, The Problem of the Process of Trans-mission in the Pentateuch (JSOTSup 89, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990); H. H. Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976); M. Rose, Deuteronomist und Jahwist: Untersuchungen zu den Berührungspunkten beider Literaturwerke (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1981); Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975); idem, In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983).

8

Part I: Methodological Considerations

for the Pentateuch formation, but also the methodological perspectives entailed in the new models, which exhibit a tendency to confine their scope to the written stages of the formation of the text. This results from the major claims of these new theories which are largely based on the assumption of the late literary formation of the texts, rather than the transmission of an early oral tradition. The renewed focus on the literary stages of text formation calls for a methodology suited to these approaches, and this is the cause of the recent diversity in the practice of redaction criticism. It is therefore important to define redaction criticism and systematically classify the various types of diachronic studies of the written stages of the texts. Some very divergent classifications have already been made by scholars such as, for example, R. Knierim, M. Vervenne, and M. E. Biddle.3 These classifications, however, seem to be conducted based on observation of the external shapes of the approaches, without sufficiently penetrating the methodological structure, or considering the varying theoretical presuppositions entailed by the different approaches. It is my impression, however, that different methodological presuppositions and diverse models for the formation of the Pentateuch play covert, but decisive roles in the current diversity in the methodology of redaction criticism. It is therefore necessary to penetrate into the hidden methodological presuppositions and embedded formation models, in order to achieve a comprehensive grasp of the current diversity of redaction criticism. For this purpose, I will examine the conceptual and methodological structures of the various types of redaction criticism, and classify them according to the constituent elements of their structure. This analysis of the methodological structures will conceptually separate analytical and synthetical parts (or stages) of the methods, and see how each part of a method is distinguished from that of other types.4 1. The Scope and Terminology of Redaction Criticism in this Study Before beginning to classify recent practices of redaction criticism, the scope of the discipline in relation to other interpretive methods should first be elucidated. Redaction criticism, from our perspective, is employed for studies of the literary stages within the entire process of the Pentateuch formation. Purely oral stages, the contents of oral tradition (traditum) or the history of

3 See Knierim, “Criticism of Literary Features, Form, Tradition, and Redaction,” 123ff.; Vervenne, “Current Tendencies and Developments,” 38ff.; Biddle, “Redaction Criticism OT,” 373. 4 A similar conceptual division has been conducted by O. Steck (see Steck, Old Testament Exegesis); but the scope and object of the analysis are different in this study.

Chapter 1: Redaction Criticism of the Pentateuch

9

their transmission (traditio),5 belong to the scope of tradition and form history (criticism), not redaction criticism.6 Recently, D. M. Carr strongly challenged the traditional distinction between oral and written stages, claiming that in ancient scribal realm writing is used in order to support their memory, and therefore a written text always presupposed a parallel oral tradition. Biblical texts as well, according to Carr, were not purely written text but anticipated by “oral-written” tradition or that of more fluid state in the time of their formation and transmission.7 This compelling argument bears potential not only of blurring the methodological borderline between transmission (tradition) history and redaction criticism, as Carr himself develops,8 but also of giving more dynamics to the development of written texts. Therefore, the interaction between written and oral realms should be included in the scope of redaction criticism in this study, as long as the interaction results and is detectable in our given text. At the opposite end, redaction criticism should also be distinguished from canonical criticism or synchronic literary methods, despite its emphasis on the final form of the text. Redaction criticism investigates the final text, but does not reach beyond its final formation stage. Methods such as canonical criticism, which deals with the reception stage of the final text, should be distinguished from redaction criticism in terms of scope. The scope of redaction criticism in this study can be thus defined as the literary stages, from the first writing of a text to its final form, and these fall between (any) oral stages, and the later reception of the text in its final form. Neither should redaction criticism be fused with synchronic literary methods, such as structural, rhetorical, narratological, or reader-response criticism; such synchronic methods begin from the text in its final form, under 5 Tradition history mainly consists of the studies of the content of the tradition (traditum), on the one hand, and history of its transmission (traditio), on the other. For a detailed distinction of the two aspects of tradition history, see D. A. Knight, Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel: the Development of the Traditio-Historical Research of the Old Testament, with Special Consideration of Scandinavian Contributions (Missoula, Mont: SBL; Scholars Press, 1975), 5-20. 6 Similarly, see J. Scharbert, “Das Traditionproblem Im Alten Testament,” TThZ 66 (1957), 321-335, esp., 321; Fohrer at al, Exegese des Alten Testements, 28ff.; H. Barth and O. H. Steck, Exegese Des Alten Testaments: Leitfaden Der Methodik (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1971), 37ff.; Richter, Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft, 152ff.; Wharton, “Redaction Criticism, OT,” 729ff.; G. Coats, “Tradition Criticism, OT,” IDBSup, 912-914, esp., 913; Steck, Old Testament Exegesis, 63ff., 75ff.; Barton, Reading the Old Testament, 45ff.; idem,“Redaction Criticism,” 644ff.; Biddle, “Redaction Criticism,” 373ff. For further discussion of this topic, see Knierim, “Criticism of Literary Features,” 146ff. 7 See D. M. Carr, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 13-150. See also idem, Writing on the Tablet of Heart: Origin of Scripture and Literature (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). 8 See idem, Formation, 13-150.

10

Part I: Methodological Considerations

the presupposition that the text is a complete unity, while the historical question of how the text developed to its present form is not their concern at all.9 Although redaction criticism may borrow insights about the text or emphasize synchronic aspects of a certain text or literary layer/source in it,10 it cannot be methodologically combined or mixed with the synchronic methods, as these work with presuppositions of the text which are incompatible with one another. Since redaction criticism covers all the literary stages of text formation, it has to deal with various types of literary activity, from the first writings to the combinations of written pieces/sources or/and their supplementations. Of course, the types of literary activity involved in the formation of the present text are imagined quite differently, depending on which text formation model is employed, as will be demonstrated throughout this chapter. Yet, since the aim of this study is to review and evaluate the various models within the framework of redaction criticism, such literary activities must be defined in clear terms, so that they can be treated effectively in the methodological scheme of this study. The following are the conceptual stages and types of literary activity that can be defined and investigated within the scheme of redaction criticism. A parallel oral tradition may be in action behind the written text, but the following classification is for what is observable in the surface of written texts. (1) Initial Composition: This is the first writing and thus the earliest literary stage; it may be based on a rigid, fixed oral tradition, or freely written from the author’s imagination, or somewhere between these two poles. In terms of quantity, it can be either a lengthy document or merely a brief literary passage, if it is independent. (2) Expansive Composition: using received written or both written and oral material, one may create a new literary entity to the extent that the received material significantly loses its individual identity, and is no longer distinguishable within the new work. As will be shown below, the literary work of Van Seters’ Yahwist, especially from Exodus on, may belong to this type. 9 Although diachronic methods such as source, form, tradition and redaction criticism all have synchronic ‘aspects’ (see D. Clines, “Beyond Synchronic/Diachronic,” in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967-1998 [Vol. 1, JSOTSupp 292, Shefield: Shefield Academic Press, 1998], 68-87), they should be distinguished from synchronic ‘methods’ of Biblical study, which have different questions, presuppositions, and interests. For in-depth discussions on the subject, see E. L. Greenstein, “On the Genesis of Biblical Prose Narrative,” Prooftext 8 (1986): 77-93. See also J. Baden, “The Tower of Babel: A Case Study in the Competing Methods of Historical and Modern Literary Criticism,” JBL 128 (2009): 209-224; G. Aichele et al., “An Elephant in the Room: Historical-Critical and Postmodern Interpre-tations of the Bible,” JBL 128 (2009): 383-404. 10 See Clines, “Beyond Synchronic/Diachronic.”

Chapter 1: Redaction Criticism of the Pentateuch

11

(3) Compositional Redaction: in this scenario one endeavors to create a new literary whole, using earlier written material but nevertheless maintaining its original shape, such that the source material remains distinct within the newly created text. The literary work of Blum’s KD and C. Levin’s Yahwist might be understood as this type (see below). (4) Combinative Redaction: when the main purpose of a redactor is to combine two or more written texts together, whether mechanically or creatively, it can be defined as combinative redaction. Redaction in the framework of the classical Documentary Hypothesis (CDH in the following) and the major part of Endredaktion of the Exodus story assumed by J. C. Gertz can be defined as this type (see below). (5) Supplementary Redaction: rather than creating a totally new literary work, one may re-work an already existing body of text, by supplementing it with excerpts from other literary sources and/or one’s own additions. This is the type of literary activity, for example, that Rendtorff describes for the development of the ‘promise-oath’ passages in the Patriarchal story.11 Each of these terminological definitions is a theoretical distinction for the possible literary activity that may have been involved in the course of the development of a text; as will be demonstrated throughout this chapter, they appear to be combined together in the actual formation models currently accepted by scholars, in varying degrees of complexity. The above enumeration of the types of literary activity rules out the possibility of the creative production of a literary work totally free from any received tradition, for such a creation seems not to be the rule in ancient literary production including that of the Pentateuch.12 2. A Classification of Redaction Criticism according to its Methodological Structure The process of redaction-critical study conceptually consists of two parts: analysis and synthesis. First one distinguishes separate coherent literary pieces within a text, deciding whether they are sources or layers, through various methods of analysis; in the synthesis one reconstructs the process of the redactor's work by means of hypothesizing, and the redactor’s method, See below. Cf. E. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1990), 1ff. 12 See also D. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 20-21; J-L Ska, “A Plea on Behalf of the Biblical Redactors,” Studia Theologica 59 (2005): 4-18, esp., 7-15. For a further discussion, see the excursus to Chapter 1 below. 11

12

Part I: Methodological Considerations

plan, purpose, and theology by induction from the reconstructed process.13 Of the two methodological areas, the synthetic part is the major concern and focus of redaction criticism, yet the success of this synthetic task is largely dependent on the strength of the analytical part, for the synthesis is conducted based entirely on the prior text analysis. In Pentateuchal redaction criticism in particular, the analytical part is indispensable, due to both the composite nature of the text and the absence of parallel texts; while various traditions, literary layers, or sources are amalgamated through the complicated formation history of the Pentateuchal text, there are no other texts for direct comparison in order to identify the redacted portions.14 Pentateuchal redaction criticism is therefore necessarily dependent upon certain results of text analysis through diachronic methods, such as source criticism, form criticism, and literary criticism in its classical sense, to obtain basic material for the study. Once the redaction criticism is dependent on such analytical methods, however, the latter provide the former with not only an analytical basis, but also fundamental presuppositions of the redaction process, to a certain degree a formation model, and possible synthetic directions; the analytical part thus in fact significantly influences the synthetic one, and further on, the entire form of redaction criticism. This observation provides a useful criterion for the classification of the various current practices of redaction criticism, namely, that they be classified according to the analytical methods they presuppose. With this criterion, we can separate redaction criticism into four categories: redaction criticism that: (1) presupposes the classical Documentary Hypothesis, (2) presupposes form/ tradition-critical studies, (3) is based directly upon diachronic literary criticism, without the process of reconstructing the classical source documents or oral traditions, and (4) presupposes late Yahwist models; each of these categories will be examined in detail in the sub-sections below.

II. Redaction Criticism and the Classical Documentary Hypothesis Redaction criticism may take the classical Documentary Hypothesis (CDH) as its analytical and methodological basis; presupposing the CDH as a given methodological framework, this type of criticism studies the theological or ideological purposes and editorial methods of the redactors, by analyzing the See also Steck, Exegesis, 75ff. There are biblical texts that have parallel texts for comparison: the Books of Chronicles, which have their parallels primarily in the Former Prophets, and the Synoptic Gospels. 13 14

Chapter 1: Redaction Criticism of the Pentateuch

13

way in which they combined and rearranged the putative source documents at their disposal, such as J, E, D, and P. The focus of this method is mainly, if not exclusively, the final form of the text, rather than the formulation of the sources themselves. In terms of its methodological structure, classical redaction criticism uses the CDH in analysis, and then synthesizes its end-result, the reconstructed sources such as J, E, D, and P, for the purpose of studying various aspects of the works of the redactors who combined J and E (the Jehowist or RJE), and JE and P (RP). Even though source criticism (the CDH) itself has both analytic and synthetic parts within its own methodological structure – diachronic literary-critical analysis of the text as the analytical part, and reconstruction of the sources based on the former as its synthetic part –, the CDH as a whole serves here as the analytical basis for the study of redaction. The CDH sharply distinguishes between the authors of the source documents and their redactors who combined them. The reference of the term ‘redaction,’ for this type of redaction criticism, is therefore confined to the combination of already written documents, and other subsidiary literary activity to smooth out the combination, such as the addition of connecting words and the reordering of parts of the source documents. The scope of this approach thus excludes the first writing of the source documents, and is limited only to the subsequent treatment of the documents. This method can be understood as a development of the CDH, stimulated by the shift in scholarly interest from the reconstruction of the sources to the state of the final text. That is to say, this seems to have been the response of source critics to the new trend in Biblical studies, emphasizing the value of the present form of the text.15 Classical source criticism had within itself the potential to develop redaction criticism,16 and such a development, to a certain extent, was a logical consequence of the success of source criticism, as Barton has rightly stated: Once critics had established with a fair degree of confidence what the contents of books like the Pentateuch originally looked like, and how very different they had once been from what they are now, it was only a matter of time before someone would think it worth asking how, then, they came to be changed and combined in such puzzling ways, and what interests and objectives were at work in the process.17

See Barton, Reading, 140ff. As it will be presented in detail later, such development was anticipated among the source critics in earlier periods. See Biddle, “Redaction Criticism,” 374. 17 See Barton, Reading, 46. 15 16

14

Part I: Methodological Considerations

1. Development of the Approach The concept of redactor (and redaction) was normally used in classical source criticism as a deprecatory term; according to the classical notion,18 the redactors merely mechanically combined the source documents (J, E, D, P), by contrast to the documents' authors who showed creativity and originality in their compositions. Only trivial modifications were attributed to the redactors – usually the addition of connecting words or verses on the one hand, and the removal of literary discrepancies and awkward expressions on the other.19 This negative notion of redactor was applied to all the redactors of the various stages in the redaction of the Pentateuch. Wellhausen, for instance, made no distinction between the quality of the Jehovist's works (RJE: J+E),20 RD (JE +D), and RP (JED+P), except to argue that it was RP which gave the Pentateuch its final form. Similarly, although scholars such as S. R. Driver (1897), Carpenter & Harford-Battersby (1900), and Kuenen (1886) suggested more strata in each source, and H. Holzinger (1893) developed a concept of the Yahwistic, Deuteronomistic, and Priestly ‘schools’ for a gradual process of redaction, they did not differentiate between the quality of the multiple stages of redaction. Dillmann (1886) and Kittel (1892) did likewise, though suggesting a different set of redactional stages.21 Smend (1912), Eissfeldt (1965), and Fohrer (1964) as well, though distinguishing other sources such as J1, L, or N respectively, understood the quality of the redaction of the sources to show no difference from that of other classical source critics.22

18 For a summary of Pentateuchal criticism before Graf-Kuenen-Wellhausen, see Biddle, “Redaction Criticism,” 373ff.; T. C. Römer, “The Elusive Yahwist: A Short History of Research,” in T. Dozeman and K. Schmid (eds.), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (SBLSymS 34. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 9-27; Van Seters, The Edited Bible (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 185-243. 19 See O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. P. R. Ackroyd, Oxford: Blackwell, 1974), 239-240; Koch, The Growth, 57. As for the notion of this passive redactor, see H. Donner, Aufsätze zum Alten Testament aus vier Jahrzehnten. Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1994, esp., 259-285. 20 The term Jehovist is used by Wellhausen for indicating the hypothetical document that is the combination of J and E. See Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 8 n. 2. 21 They assumed the first redaction stage Pg + E + J (7th B.C.E.), the second stage PgEJ + D (the Exilic period), and the third stage PgEJD plus most of the Priestly material (the Postexilic period). 22 R. Smend’s (Die Erzählung des Hexateuch, Berlin: G. Reimer, 1912) discovery of a fifth ancient source in addition to J, E, D, and P, which he assigned to siglum J1, influenced later scholars such as O. Eissfeldt and G. Fohrer. Eissfeldt singled out some passages from JE and attributed them to L (Lay source), whereas Fohrer found N (Nomadic source) within JE. See Eissfeldt, Introduction, 194ff.; G. Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament, (trans. D. Green, London: S.P.C.K., 1970), 159ff.

Chapter 1: Redaction Criticism of the Pentateuch

15

This notion is equally applicable to those scholars who assume an earlier date for P than most; led by Y. Kaufmann,23 scholars such as A. Hurvitz,24, M. Weinfeld,25 M. Haran,26 J. Milgrom27 and I. Knohl28 argued for an earlier, preexilic date of P; Milgrom and Knohl, in particular, separated from P a later Priestly stratum, H (of the Holiness School).29 Still, the main focus of this ‘Jerusalem School’ is the further separation of layers within the P source and/ or its dating to an earlier period, rather than the role of the redactor(s). As demonstrated above, the classical source critics, especially those of the 19th through mid-20th centuries, assumed the existence of ‘redactors’ behind the combined sources, and identified sporadic redactional passages. They cannot, however, be said to have developed redaction criticism as an independent method; their primary object was still to distinguish the sources themselves, and the focus had yet to shift to the study of redaction and the redactor.30 It was M. Noth who drew more attention to the Pentateuchal redactors and their redactional activities, rather than source division itself; while Noth’s major contribution was the study of the development and transmission of the

23 See Y. Kaufmann, The History of Israelite Religion (4 vols. Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1937-1956 [Hebrew]); idem, The Religion of Israel : From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (trans. and abridged by M. Greenberg, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960). 24 See, e. g., A. Hurvitz, Relationship between the Priestly Source and the Book of Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem (Paris: Gabalda, 1982); idem, “Dating the Priestly Source in the Light of the Historical Study of Biblical Hebrew A Century after Wellhausen.” ZAW 100 Suppl. (1988): 88–100. 25 See, e.g., M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1-11 (AB 5; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 25ff. 26 See, e.g., M. Haran, "Behind the Scenes of History: Determining the Date of the Priestly Source," JBL 100 (1981): 321-333; idem, Ages and Institutions in the Bible (Tel-Aviv: Am Oved, 1972 [Hebrew]). Haran can be distinguished from other source critics by his extreme documentarian view. Haran argues that the four documents (J, E, D, and P) had been transmitted separately until the exilic period, and combined together at once by one Priestly redactor in that period. Haran therefore denies the stage of RJE, which is admitted by most of other source critics. According to this view, the four sources (especially J and E) should be able to be reconstructed as intact as possible, with fewer verses assigned to the redactors. Haran’s position has been recently reiterated by J. S. Baden (J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). 27 See, e.g., J. Milgrom, “Priestly (‘P’) Source.” ABD 5:454–461; idem, Leviticus 1-16 (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 3ff. 28 See, e.g., I Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: A Study of the Priestly Strata in the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1992 [Hebrew]). 29 See above. See also J. Jeon, “Two Laws in the Passage of Sotah (Num. 5.11-31),” VT 57 (2007): 181-207. 30 It is reported by Biddle that in the 1920s and 1930s the direction for redaction criticism had been suggested by several scholars such as W. Staerk, O Eissfeldt, J. Hempel, and H. Hertzberg. See Biddle, “Redaction Criticism” 374: “Several calls went out for a true history of Hebrew Bible literature that would overcome the deficits of source criticism’s fragmentation of the text by attending to the constructive process of selection, arrangement, and supplementation that produced complete literary works.”

16

Part I: Methodological Considerations

Pentatheucal traditions in oral stages,31 he also emphasized the formation process of the Pentateuch in written stages as the starting point of his tradition historical research.32 Noth’s approach in his study of ‘the literary endproduct’, is in actual fact redaction criticism based on the Classical Documentary Hypothesis; adopting the Wellhausenian notion of two major stages of Pentateuchal redaction, Jehovistic (J+E) and Priestly (JED+P), Noth investigates the profiles of in the two stages of redaction, and the plans they necessarily involve. In investigating the two stages, he begins with the later redactional stage, and works back to the earlier stages, retrospectively. First, Noth examines how the P narrative served as the literary framework of the Pentateuch, and how it was enriched during the final redaction process by supplementation of the already redacted JE document. He then continues to examine the earlier stage in which portions of E were selected and supplemented to J, the literary basis of this redactional stage.33 Noth’s redaction model, emphasizing a supplemental aspect of redaction,34 is therefore a modification of the CDH, viewing the redactors as one who supplemented, rather than simply combined, keeping the source-material used as far as possible intact. Noth himself is well aware of the dissimilarity of his approach from the CDH, as he states: Contrary to the usual view, the redactor responsible for this literary process did not understand it to be his task to combine two formerly separate narratives – in this case the P narrative on the one hand and on the other the narrative combined from old sources in a manner still to be investigated – by simply adding them to one another so that through a more or less successful interweaving of the particular narrative elements, aided by some harmonizing redactional additions, the two narratives could be taken up into the resulting literary synthesis in their entirety. 35

In his tradition-historical study of the Pentateuch, Noth suggested that the Pentateuchal traditions had formed first from several major confessional themes such as Guidance out of Egypt, Guidance into the Arable Land, Promise to the Patriarchs, Guidance in the Wilderness, and Revelation at Sinai, and then, secondly, the given thematic outline was filled out with narrative materials such as the Egyptian plagues, the celebration of Passover, some episodes connected with the occupation, Balaam story, some of patriarchal narratives, suffering and murmuring in the wilderness, Caleb in Hebron, and the narrative elements of mountain of God and the Midianite. See M. Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (trans. B. W. Anderson, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972). 32 Ibid., 1-41. 33 Ibid. Especially for the redaction of the last part of P narrative, see idem., The Chronicler's History (trans. H.G.M. Williamson, JSOTSup 50, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 107-148. 34 See also M. Vervenne, “The ‘P’ Tradition in the Pentateuch: Document and/or Redaction? The ‘Sea Narrative’ (Ex 13,17-14,31) as a Test Case,” in C. Brekelmans and J. Lust (eds.), Pentateuchal and Deuteronomistic Studies (BETL 94. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990), 67–90, esp., 71. 35 Noth, Pentateuch, 11. Original italics. 31

Chapter 1: Redaction Criticism of the Pentateuch

17

He continues to describe his own view of the final redaction process (RP): Instead, he made the P narrative the basis of his work and enriched it by suitably inserting here and there parts of the other narrative. So viewed, his work becomes far clearer and more intelligible... the redactor has selected, arranged and altered the elements taken from that other narrative by referring to this literary basis (Grundlage).36

Similarly, Noth suggests that in the process of the JE redaction, J served as the literary basis, and E was only partly supplemented to it, describing the process as follows: That is to say, one of the sources was used as the basis, and was continuously supplemented and enriched with appropriate elements from the other source. Thus we are in fact dealing with the expansion of one formerly independent literary work by continuous additions, although these accretions were not unconnected items but sections from another literary work which likewise was originally complete in itself.37

In order to maintain this theory, Noth had to reconstruct more complete J narrative strands. He thus attributed to J many of the passages that formerly had been assigned to E.38 This division of sources, however, occasionally produced incoherencies within the J source; whenever Noth encountered such a problem, he resolved it by a diachronic stratification of the J source into earlier and later phases of the tradition-historical development of J. Noth’s redaction model can therefore be defined as a ‘supplementary model' based on the CDH.39 In a ‘combining model’ of the classical source critics, no priority is thought to have been assigned to any of the source documents, and the purpose of the combination was thought to be ‘to incorporate as completely as possible the entire content of the two sources into the new combined narrative’.40 Noth criticizes such a method as ‘unusual’ and ‘not very likely’ to be employed by a redactor.41 In his own framework, especially when it comes to the J and E division, one no more carries the burden of reconstructing two complete versions of Pentateuchal narratives, as had thus far been the general tendency of the classical source critics, probably due to their presupposition of the ‘combining’ model. Ibid., 11-12. Ibid., 24-25. My italics. According to Noth, J and E were independently composed from a common oral tradition G (Grundlage, see, ibid., 38ff.), but he was not the first to assume a common basis for J and E; H. Holzinger (Einleitung in den Hexateuch [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,1893], 219) already claimed that J and E had a common (written) source. See also E. W. Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 14. 38 See ibid., 20ff. 39 But it should be distinguished from the supplementary hypothesis of 19th century, for the latter replaces the sources with ‘supplementary’ literary works. In this point the supplementary hypothesis is similar to recently suggested models of new redaction critics. (See below) 40 See Noth, Pentateuch, 24. 41 See ibid. 36 37

18

Part I: Methodological Considerations

Noth's document-supplementary model accompanies, as a logical consequence, a significant development in the evaluation of the redactors’ role. Noth’s redactors worked more creatively, freely selecting, cutting, and rearranging their source material to formulate the present text. He describes the final redaction thus: … the redactor took the P-narrative as his starting point and worked the older sources into it. Whenever possible, this was done without anything being cut out, but if the need arose the older sources were cut and rearranged in favor of the P-narrative which was being used as the basis.42

Noth thus laid an important stepping-stone for the development of classical redaction criticism, by shifting the focus from mere divisions and reconstructions of the sources to the redactors’ plans and methods.43 His idea of redactors, however, still fundamentally remains within the framework of the CDH; the redactors were still bound to their basic source documents (J and P) when redacting the texts,44 rather than creating a completely new literary whole.45 Noth assigns a very limited role to the authors of the sources, especially the Yahwist and the Elohist. In contrast to the creative writers assumed by the CDH, Noth’s authors (J and E) functioned as mere recorders of an already fixed oral tradition (G) in which the major Pentateuchal themes were already firmly combined, more or less as in the present form of the text. This authorly role is more limited than that of Gunkel’s Yahwist, who was at least credited with collecting and compiling the material according to his own judgment.46 By contrast, another tradition-historian, von Rad, as we will see below, attributed a highly creative role to the redactional work of the Yahwist.47 Ibid, 138. Although Noth’s formation model for the Pentateuch is a modified one, his method is still classical redaction criticism, still based on the CDH. 44 See Noth, Chronicler’s History, 135ff. 45 Noth applies his redaction-critical method in his thorough analysis of P (see, ibid., 107-148). But still here analysis of redaction is not itself the focus of the study but accompanied in process of proving original scope of P which, according to Noth, ends with Moses’ death. 46 Thus Rendtorff points out that ‘he (Noth) never explained in what sense the authors of the later sources, the “real” sources J and E, could be called “authors”, after everything had been shaped before they began to work’. See R. Rendtorff, “The Paradigm is Changing: Hopes and Fears,” BibInt 1 (1993): 34-53, 40. 47 Noth’s concept of the Deuteronomic historian is equivalent to van Rad’s Yahwist. Noth defines that Dtr is not “redaction of a historical narrative that was already more or less complete”; rather, “Dtr. was the author of a comprehensive historical work, scrupulously taking over and quoting the existing tradition but at the same time arranging and articulating all the material independently, and making it clear and systematic by composing summaries which anticipate and recapitulate” (see Noth, Deuteronomistic History [trans. H.G.M. Williamson, JSOTSup. 50. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987], 120.). 42 43

Chapter 1: Redaction Criticism of the Pentateuch

19

2. Recent Practitioners (1) R. E. Friedman R. E. Friedman is one of the recent practitioners of this type of redaction criticism. Slightly modifying the Classical Documentary Hypothesis,48 Friedman makes a sharp distinction between the sources' authors, and the redactors. On this basis, Friedman raises a set of issues typical to this sort of redactioncritical process, such as: the identity of the redactors, the purposes of the redaction, harmony and tension among the sources, the combinative techniques used, and the value of the final product that is more than the sum of its parts.49 His answers to these questions appear in his monograph The Exile and Biblical Narrative (1981);50 in this work he studies synthetic theological aspects of the final redaction (JED + P) by the Exilic Priestly tradent,51 and the linking of the redacted work with the Exilic Deuteronomistic-historical work, making the Book of Deuteronomy an ideological pivot of the entire connected literary work. Through the combination of JE and pre-Exilic P documents, the Exilic Priestly tradent identified by Friedman as Ezra, achieved ‘new exegetical possibilities, which neither of the original documents possessed independently’.52 For instance, according to Friedman, different portrayals of YHWH, the occurrences of His mercy and justice, and His relations with humans featured in each document were united, creating balance 48

In contrast to Wellhausen who claimed a (post-)Exilic date for P, Friedman suggests two stages of priestly work: first, a pre-exilic collection of accounts, lists, and legal materials written as an alternative of JE, but still an incomplete corpus, and, second, an Exilic unifying redaction of JE and P by a Priestly tradent. (See R. E. Friedman The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of the Deuteronomistic and the Priestly Codes [HSM 22. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981], 118-119). In his later work, however, Friedman simplifies his thesis that P was written by an Aaronite priest in Judah at the time of the King Hezekiah (8th c. B.C.E), and redacted with JE by Ezra in the Exilic period (See Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible? 188-206). W. H. C. Propp evaluates Friedman’s position, ‘Friedman thereby mediates in the debate between those who consider P a redactional supplement and those who consider it a coherent source’ (See W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 19-40 [AB 2A. New York: Doubleday, 2006], 730). See also R. E. Friedman, The Bible with Sources Revealed: A New View into the Five Books of Moses (San Francisco: Harper, 2003); idem, The Hidden Book in the Bible (San Francisco: Harper, 1999). 49 . See R. E. Friedman (ed.), The Creation of Sacred Literature: Composition and Redaction of the Biblical Text (Berkeley: University of California Press), 1-2; idem, “An Essay on Method,” in R. E. Friedman and W. H. C. Propp (eds.), Le-David maskil: a birthday tribute for David Noel Freedman, (Winona Lake, Ind. : Eisenbrauns, 2004), 1-15, esp., 9-10. 50 . See R. E. Friedman, Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation of the Deuteronomistic and the Priestly Codes (HSM 22. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981). 51 Friedman employs here the term, ‘priestly tradent’, following F. M. Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973], 293–325), but in later works he consistently uses the term ‘redactor(s)’. 52 See Friedman, Exile, 120; idem, Who Wrote the Bible? 242.

20

Part I: Methodological Considerations

and producing multiple dimensions of interpretation. Friedman pointed out that the portrayal of theophanies was multiplied and emphasized by the JE + P redaction, while YHWH's presence in human affairs is diminished in the Deuteronomistic history. He thus argues that connecting the Tetrateuch with the Deuteronomistic history produced an interesting bond of ‘progressive shift in the divine/human balance of control of events’, namely, the growth of the human role in miraculous events from the Patriarchs and Moses through Joshua and early prophets such as Elijah and Elisha.53 The roles and contributions of the redactors are as a result much more appreciated in Friedman’s redaction criticism than in the CDH; he describes the work of the final redactor, in his opinion the Priestly tradent, as follows: The enterprise of the Priestly tradent thus resulted in a Torah whose theology was neither independent of its sources nor a simple composite of them. That tradent effected a metamorphosis in the representation of the character of YHWH and of the course of his relations with humans.54

According to this account, the final redactor had his own theological plan, and manipulated the sources (JE and P) to achieve it, this in contradiction to the role attributed to the redactors in the CDH, confined to the mechanical combining of sources as they are bound to the ideas and theologies of their source documents. (2) W. H. C. Propp In contrast to Friedman’s larger scale redaction criticism, W. H. C. Propp carries out a very detailed redaction analysis in his commentary on the Book of Exodus.55 On the basis of his modified source division, assigning more verses to E than classical source critics usually do,56 Propp endeavors to discover the redactors’ intentions and skills by examining even minute arrange-ments of verses or words, as well as the narrative structures. However, Propp’s evaluation of the quality of the redaction and the role of the redactor seems not clear; he first explains his notion of redactor, similar to that of the CDH: See idem, Exile, 119-136. See also idem, Who Wrote the Bible? 234-241. See Friedman, Exile, 132. See W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1-18 (AB 2. New York: Doubleday, 1999); idem, Exodus 19-40. For Propp’s position concerning P, see W. H. C. Propp, “The Priestly Source Recovered Intact?” VT 46 (1996): 458–78. 56 Propp admits the CDH as the simplest model that accounts for most of the evidence, and makes it the basis of his source and redaction analyses. Although Propp partly accepts Carr’s opinion (See below) in modifying the classical documentary hypothesis, such as ‘D-like revision’ and E ‘not as a document but as a body of tradition and literature’ (see Propp, Exodus 19-40, 724-730), in the actual redaction analysis he employs the classical model for formation of the Pentateuch virtually without modification. 53 54 55

Chapter 1: Redaction Criticism of the Pentateuch

21

Some regard the final redactor as an artist, even a genius. I do not. He was a writer, i.e., a scribe, but not an author. His raw materials were already highly polished works of art, which he had but to transcribe. As for the arrangement of his text, most of his decisions were dictated by his sources.57

On the contrary, Propp later goes on to say that “nevertheless the end product is art of the highest caliber,”58 and in also his actual text analysis he tends to value highly the artistic style of redaction. In his redaction analysis, Propp attempts to analyze ‘five different levels’ of the entire Book of Exodus: J, E, JE, P and the present form of the text. On the one hand, he attempts to reconstruct the original shape of the sources supposedly used and discarded by the redactors; on the other, he analyzes redactional elements such as what certain passages or even individual words meant in their original contexts, how the meanings were changed by the redactor(s) within the new literary context of their new redactional level, how the redactors (mainly the final redactor) arranged their sources, and what their reasons for such arrangements were. (3) M. Greenberg M. Greenberg’s study of the Book of Exodus could be considered another exemplary redaction-critical study of this type;59 although Greenberg does not fully accept the CDH, his use of the term ‘redaction’ largely corresponds to that of redaction criticism that presupposes the CDH. Greenberg locates two basic narrative strands (A and B), more or less parallel with JE and P respectively; apart from the fact that he does not consider there to be any division between J and E, Greenberg’s source analysis is similar to that of classical source criticism.60 Based on this source analysis, he investigates the work of the final redaction and its artistic values,61 posing redaction-critical questions such as “what did the redactor mean by putting the material together as he

See Propp, Exodus 1-18, 53. Ibid. 59 See, e.g., M. Greenberg, “The Redaction of the Plague Narrative in Exodus,” in H. Goedicke (ed.), Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University press, 1971), 243-252; idem, Understanding Exodus. (New York: Behrman House, 1969). 60 Greenberg regards the classical E passage such as Exod. 3.9-15 as ‘supplements of unknown provenance’. See Greenberg, Exodus, 104-105. 61 See ibid., 5. Here Greenberg notes, “true, there are strong indications that the text is composite, but there is also evidence that the composition was thoughtful and expressive of a viewpoint that merits consideration in its own right. … our effort will be directed primarily toward understanding how the redactor (or a contemporary) might have grasped the text in its wholeness”. 57 58

22

Part I: Methodological Considerations

did?” as he seeks “the values arising out of the redactional work”.62 We will examine Greenberg’s study of Exodus 3-4 carefully in the following chapter. 3. Conclusion This type of redaction criticism uses the CDH as the analytical basis of its methodological structure. The discipline has been developed from the CDH itself, as a logical consequence of the completion of the CDH, rather than from a fundamental methodological change. The features of the classical redaction criticism can be summarized as follows: (1) The discipline adopts the CDH as both a methodological basis and the presupposed underlying formation model for the Pentateuch. (2) Within the conceptual structure of the discipline, the CDH as a whole functions as its analytical part, while the core of the redaction study is the synthetic part, in which the redactor's plans, methods, and skill used in the combining the sources are investigated. (3) Since the method presupposes the CDH, it distinguishes the authors of the sources (J, E, D, and P) and the redactors; thus the term ‘redaction’ in this type of redaction criticism normally indicates the ‘combining’ of the four written sources. (4) The focus of the discipline is on the relatively late literary stages in which the combination of the already existing hypothetical documents is investigated. Because of the inseparable methodological relation between this type of redaction criticism and the CDH, the diminished validity of the latter in recent biblical criticism consequently weakens the persuasiveness of the former; practitioners of this type of redaction criticism need to respond to criticisms of the CDH, and to first prove its validity.63

Excursus: Recent Studies that Diminish the Role of the Redactor Recently, a study of redaction from the opposite direction of the abovementioned studies has been carried out by J. Baden. Baden performs an intensive investigation of the issue of redaction and the redactor of the See ibid., 8. See also R. Rendtorff, “Directions in Pentateuchal Studies,” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 5 (1997): 43-65, esp., 43ff.; idem, “The Paradigm is Changing: Hopes and Fear”; idem, “What Happened to the Yahwist?: Reflections after Thirty Years,” SBL Forum. n.p. [cited June 2006]; Online:http://sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleID=553. 62 63

Chapter 1: Redaction Criticism of the Pentateuch

23

Pentateuch, particularly that of JE, based on the CDH.64 However, the formation model that Baden presupposes is an even more extreme documentarian view than Wellhausen's. Following M. Haran65 and B. J. Schwartz,66 Baden claims that there was no separate redactional stage of the combining of J and E, i.e., the Jehowist (RJE); for him the four documents (J, E, D, and P) “were combined at a single moment in time, in a single redactional effort”.67 He therefore endeavors to disprove the existence of RJE, which had been accepted as a ‘norm’ in the CDH scheme, mainly by reassigning the putative ‘RJE passages’ to either J or E. In Baden’s view, the nature of ‘the redaction’ that produced the present form of the Pentateuch is mostly mere technical compiling of the four documents; it has neither theological purpose nor any creative contribution. Baden’s study of redaction thus runs counter to the abovementioned redaction-critical works which generally approve the literary and theological contributions of the redactors; since Baden’s redaction study aims mainly at disproving the existence of the redactor (RJE) and to reconstruct the sources (J and E) as intact as possible, his study is more source criticism than redaction criticism.

III. Redaction Criticism and Form/Tradition Criticism Redaction criticism that presupposes form or tradition-critical studies for oral tradition can be classified as another category. This type of redaction criticism employs the results of form/tradition-critical analysis of oral tradition/transmission and the first stage of its writing, as if they were its analytical basis; that is to say, in this sort of redaction criticism, distinct blocks of oral tradiSee Baden, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch. See M. Haran, The Biblical Collection: Its Consolidation to the End of the Second Temple Times and Changes of Form to the Middle Ages (3 vols. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2004 [Hebrew]); idem., Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into the Character of Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978); idem, “Behind the Scenes of History: Determining the Date of the Priestly Source.” JBL 100 (1981): 321-333. 66 The above mentioned study by Baden is a Harvard dissertation, but it was in fact conducted under the supervision of B. J. Schwartz at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who was a student of M. Haran. For Schwartz’ position, see, e.g., B. J. Schwartz, “Israel’s Holiness: The Torah Traditions,” in M. Proorthuis and J. Schwartz (eds.), Purity and Holiness: The Heritage of Levicitcus (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 47-59; idem, The Holiness Legislation: Studies in the Priestly Code. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1999 (Hebrew); idem, “The Priestly Acco-unt of the Theophany and Lawgiving at Sinai,” in M. V. Fox, et al. (eds.), Texts Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 103-134. 67 Baden, Redaction of the Pentateuch, 312. 64 65

24

Part I: Methodological Considerations

tion replace the source documents of the CDH in the analytical part. Once the oral tradition units with different origins are separated, this method proceeds to investigate how a redactor – of more or less fixed oral traditions – selected and arranged the (oral) tradition materials and organized them into a coherent literary work. The emphasis of this type of redaction criticism therefore lies in the synthetic part. The scope of this redaction criticism reaches back to the borderline between the oral and written stages, beginning with the results of form/tradition-critical studies of earlier oral stages, and studying the subsequent written stages, from the first writing of the tradition all the way to the final form of the text. In this respect, form/tradition-redaction criticism has a broader methodological scope than redaction criticism developed from the CDH, which focuses only on later literary stages. It can be said that G. von Rad initiated this type of redaction criticism, as we will see below; yet an important stepping-stone for von Rad’s concept of the Yahwist as a creative redactor was laid by Gunkel. Gunkel assessed the Yahwist as a compiler of already fixed oral traditions rather than an author.68 Although this compiling, according to Gunkel, is a mechanical process without any originality or creativity, his understanding of the Yahwist paved the way for understanding the source as a product of a sort of redactional process – the collection and compilation of fixed (oral) material rather than creative writing. A decade after the publication of the first edition of Gunkel’s Genesis,69 Mowinckel first mentioned redaction of (oral) traditions in writing of prophetic books,70 and later von Rad brought forward the subject of redaction in his study of the Yahwist.71 Gunkel’s originally dismissive notion of ‘compiling’ (Zusammenstellung) came to be re-evaluated by von Rad as a creative literary activity, as we will see below.

68 See H. Gunkel, Genesis (trans, by M. E. Biddle, Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1997), lxixff. 69 See H. Gunkel, Genesis (Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901). 70 See S. Mowinckel, Zur Komposition des Buches Jeremiah (Kristiania: Kommission Bei Jacob Dybwad, 1913), 5; idem, “Die Komposition des Jesajabuches, Kap. 1-39,” AcOr 11 (1933), 267-292. See also Koch, The Growth, 65. 71 See e.g., G. von Rad, Das Formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuchs (Beiträge Zur Wissenschaft Vom Alten Und Neuen Testament, Vol. 4, Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1938). English translation: “The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch” in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), 1-78.

Chapter 1: Redaction Criticism of the Pentateuch

25

1. Development of the Approach (1) G. von Rad's Redaction Criticism Gerhard von Rad is regarded as the one who “pioneered”,72 “made the first extensive attempts at”,73 or “made a turning point”74 for the method of redaction criticism; in his groundbreaking work, Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch (1938), von Rad attempted to reveal the way in which the Yahwist arranged separate traditions of different origins, and the theological plan that governed the whole process of his writing. According to von Rad, the Yahwist made the settlement tradition, which emerged out of the cultic milieu of the Feast of Weeks at the Gilgal sanctuary, his basic plan, and incorporated to it other traditions such as the Exodus and Balaam stories that could be easily connected to the settlement tradition “because of their closely related subject-matter”.75 Broadening his theological basis, von Rad’s Yahwist also included ‘less easily harmonized traditions’, such as the Patriarchal stories, the primeval stories, 76 and the Sinai tradition, which stemmed from the Festival of Booths at the Shechem sanctuary.77 Based on such form-critical analysis of the tradition materials, von Rad evaluates the Yahwist’s literary achievement of combining the tradition blocks and making a literarily cohesive whole.78 At the theological level, according to von Rad, the detachment of the traditions from their local sacred cultus and their spiritualization undermined the historical bases of the people’s trust in YHWH. Confronting such a theological challenge, the Yahwist based his entire work upon “the simple historical assertion that not only had the promise 72 See Barton, “Redaction Criticism (OT),” 645. However, here (and in Reading the Old Testament, 45ff.) what Barton is describing seems to be in fact the classical redaction criticism, which should be distinguished from von Rad’s form-redaction criticism. 73 See Biddle, “Redaction Criticism,” 374. 74 See Koch, The Growth, 65. 75 See von Rad, The Problem, 52. 76 According to von Rad, the patriarchal stories had been developed separately but were already connected to each other when they were transmitted to the Yahwist, but the primeval stories were collected and arranged by the Yahwist himself. See ibid., 53. 77 According to von Rad, there is no mention of Sinai in poetical representations of the redemption story (Ps. 73; 105; 135; 136; Ex. 15; 1Sam. 7.8; Josh. 24). ‘Only in the exilic Ps. 106 and Neh. 9 does Sinai appear as an event of the redemption story.’ See ibid, 53. 78 The stages of the Yahwist’s writing of the Patriarchal story is as follows: (1) through ‘the extensive development of the original credal deposit’ and ‘an internal ordering and arrangement of the material’, the Yahwist made Yahweh’s guidance to be ‘manifest both in isolated instances and in the work as a whole’, (2) and integrated the saga material ‘into the traditional notion of the God of the patriarch and his promise of the land’, (3) and by the reorientation of the patriarchal sagas as the introduction to the settlement tradition, now the two traditions stand in a new relation of promise and fulfillment, as the patriarchal covenant and the Sinai covenant also come to have such relation. See ibid., 63.

26

Part I: Methodological Considerations

to give Israel the land of Canaan been fulfilled, but also that God visibly continued his providential care for Israel”.79 Von Rad’s work is, to my knowledge, the first elaborate study focused on the making of a Pentateuchal source itself; until then classical source criticism had mainly pursued the correct division of the source documents and the theological or literary features of each source, while form criticism dealt with forms, origins (Sitz im Leben), and transmissions of smaller independent units, regarding J as a collection of these. Von Rad, however, intensely elaborated the formation of the Yahwistic work itself, on the basis of a combination of the results of the CDH and form criticism: on the one hand the notion of the J document, and on the other, the separation of the different traditions embedded therein. Although von Rad’s redaction criticism relies heavily on form criticism, the former is clearly distinct from the latter, in that he rejects Gunkel’s notion of the Yahwist as a mere ‘collector’, assigning him a more creative role.80 Von Rad’s method also deviates from classical source criticism by shifting the focus back to the earliest literary stages of the process of the Pentateuch formation. It might therefore be incorrect to confine the scope of redaction criticism only to the final form of the text, as scholars usually do, for von Rad’s study, from the very beginning focused on the earliest literary stage.81 The notion that redaction criticism focuses only on the final form of the text is more applicable to redaction criticism that presupposes the CDH, as observed above. The methodological structure of von Rad’s redaction criticism also consists of two parts: analytical tradition division,82 and synthetic study of the redaction of the traditions. In the stage of analyzing the traditions, von Rad studies ‘ancient creeds (Deut 6.20-24; 26.5-9; Josh. 24.2b-13),83 and passages reflecting them (e.g., 1Sam. 12.8ff.; Ps. 136)84 as starting points for the separation of the traditions they represent, and then searches for the origins and shapes of the traditions as the Yahwist received them. In the synthetic stage, See ibid., 70. A reconsideration of Gunkel’s such notion actually was the starting point of von Rad’s study: “One of Gunkel's most significant shortcomings is his almost complete failure to take into account the co-ordinating power of the writer's overall theological purpose, and the gathering of the separate materials around a very small nucleus of basic concepts.” See ibid., 51. 81 It is therefore hardly acceptable to explain that the redaction criticism initiated by von Rad and its major interest is the final form of the text (see, e.g., Barton, Reading, 46f.). The form-redaction criticism of von Rad focus on the current form of a Pentateuchal source (J), but not on the last literary stage of the formation of the Pentateuch. The final form is rather the major concern of the classical redaction criticism. 82 Von Rad relies upon the earlier work of form critics such as Gunkel, Alt, and Pedersen. See von Rad, The Problem, 52, 57, 63. 83 See ibid., 3-8. 84 See ibid., 8-13. 79 80

Chapter 1: Redaction Criticism of the Pentateuch

27

he attempts to isolate the Yahwist's contribution on both the literary and theological levels. (2) von Rad’s Formation Model for the Yahwist As mentioned above, von Rad claimed that the Yahwist formulated J by expanding the Settlement tradition and attaching other separate traditions to it. This process of expansion, however, is rather complicated, for von Rad in fact applies various compositional models for the tradition units. The model for the inclusion of the Sinai tradition is a pure ‘literary insertion’, which rends the Kadesh tradition in two. Thus here, according to von Rad, the Yahwist “fails to achieve complete harmony”.85 The contribution of this inclusion, which von Rad attributed to the Yahwist, is only theological enrichment through the addition of God's righteousness as it appeared in the Sinai tradition, to the generosity revealed in the Settlement tradition. The formation model that von Rad suggests for the Patriarchal stories is more complicated, for there is a slight difference between his earlier and later works; according to his earlier work, the Patriarchal sagas were given to the Yahwist ready formed according to the present genealogical sequence, and were somehow already connected to the Settlement tradition.86 More importantly, he saw the promise of the Land to the Patriarchs, already embedded in the tradition, as a “genuine element of pre-Yahwistic patriarchal religion”.87 The Yahwist’s actual literary contribution here is therefore relatively limited. On the contrary, in his later work von Rad evaluates the Yahwist’s work as “welding the very varied and often unwieldy material of the patriarchal narratives into a great narrative complex” with “the theme of the promise to the

See ibid, 54. Since some ancient creeds (Deut. 26.5ff; Josh. 24.2ff; 1 Sam. 12.8; Ps. 105) have references to the Patriarchal period as their integral parts, according to von Rad, “this was a part of the accepted tradition” for the Yahwist. The patriarchal stories, von Rad claims, were assimilated during the process of growth of a few great sanctuaries, and, accepting Alt’s claim, Beer Sheba “must have given an impetus to this tendency to mutual interpenetration”. See, idem, The Problem, 55, 56, 58. 87 Ibid., 61. Here von Rad follows Alt. 85 86

28

Part I: Methodological Considerations

patriarchs” through “a thorough-going redactional technique”;88 thus a more creative role is allowed to the Yahwist.89 Von Rad attributes the most creative role of the Yahwist to the formation model of the Primeval history; for its composition, according to von Rad, the Yahwist collected originally independent materials, and probably selected from them, arranged them, and attached them to the patriarchal stories. Based on Gunkel’s detailed study, von Rad observes in the primeval stories ‘a high degree of incompatibility’ between the separate tradition materials, and claims that it was the Yahwist who gave them thematic unity: “the growing power of sin in the world”.90 When the primeval stories were connected to the patriarchal stories, according to von Rad, the Yahwist added the expression “all the races on earth” (Gen. 12.3), as a connecting device between the two narrative blocks and, simultaneously, an answer to the problem posed by the earlier history.91 Besides the above three models, von Rad could probably have suggested other models for the composition of the Exodus and Balaam stories, which he, without elaboration, simply regarded as ‘easily included’ traditions.92 Be this as it may, it is noteworthy that von Rad’s model for the overall composition of J is not a simple one, but in fact a complex of various models, suggesting that such diversity of literary activity should be considered within the methodology of redaction criticism. (3) Author and Redactor in von Rad’s Works In spite of the significance of von Rad's work on the redaction criticism methodology, scholars disagree as to the definition of the literary activity he attributed to the Yahwist; J. Barton, Biddle and Van Seters regard von Rad's Yahwist as an ‘author’,93 while others such as K. Koch and E. Otto see him as 88 See G. von Rad, Genesis (OTL trans. J. H. Marks, London: SCM Press, 1972), 22. Thus in the later work more promise passages are attributed to the Yahwist, such as Gen. 18.13; 22.17; 50.24, with Gen. 6.5-8; 12.1-9; 18.17-33 as interludes (see ibid., 22-23); in his earlier work, only Gen. 15; 50.24, and Gen.12.3 were explicitly attributed to the Yahwist (see idem, The Problem, 58, 60). Concerning Gen.15, von Rad is against the view of the classical source criticism according to which vv. 1-6 belong to E, pointing that there are many strange doublets and breaks within the verses. While admitting that vv. 7-18, except for the interpolation of vv. 13-16, belongs to J, von Rad claims that “a satisfactory source analysis seems absolutely impossible” for Gen. 15 (Genesis, 182). 89 It is “development” (The Problem, 54) or “extension” (Gensis, 21) in von Rad’s term. 90 See idem, The Problem, 64. 91 Ibid., 67. 92 Ibid., 52. 93 Von Rad’s Yahwist is defined as an ‘original writer’ by Barton (see, Barton, “Redaction Criticism (OT),” 645), an ‘author/theologian’ by Biddle (see Biddle, “Redaction Criticism,” 374), or author/historian by Van Seters (see Van Seters, The Edited Bible, 256-259).

Chapter 1: Redaction Criticism of the Pentateuch

29

a ‘redactor’.94 The issue of the nature of Yahwist’s literary activity holds a central position in recent debate on the validity of redaction criticism, which has been provoked by Van Seters. Van Seters has recently contended that the term ‘redaction’ is inappropriately used in current Pentateuch study, and casted doubt on the validity of the method ‘redaction criticism’.95 This issue will be discussed again in detail in an excursus to this chapter; here I will focus on the question of the nature of von Rad’s Yahwist. How, then, did von Rad himself define his Yahwist? was the Yahwist a redactor or an author? Interestingly, von Rad himself begins the chapter, ‘The Yahwist,’ in his article, “The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch” with a similar question: There is an old question as to whether we are to regard the work of the Yahwist as that of a collector (Sammler) or as that of an author (Schriftsteller). Gunkel answered the question in one way, and Kittel in another; but nowadays the problem no longer seems quite so simple.96

Von Rad continues to explain that the Yahwist's work has two distinct aspects – collecting material on the one hand, and providing theological unity on the other. Criticizing Gunkel for his “failure to take into account the co-ordinating power of the writer's (Jahwistes in German) overall theological purpose, and the gathering of the separate materials around a very small nucleus of basic concepts”, von Rad claims that the Yahwist is not a mere collector, but one who contributed to shaping the material and directing the theological motivation which runs right through it.97 On the other hand, however, von Rad explicitly delimits the profile of the Yahwist’s work: These basic concepts, which bind together the whole structure, are not, of course, the products of the personal theological genius of the Yahwist, nor do they represent one of many possible formative lines which might have been chosen. They are themselves an extremely ancient traditional deposit, and there was no alternative to using them.98

Furthermore, von Rad elsewhere denies the Yahwist complete authorship of J material: “...as a collector the Yahwist enjoyed none of the liberty accorded to See Koch, The Growth, 65f.; E. Otto, Review of John van Seters, The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the "Editor" in Biblical Criticism” RBL [http://www.bookreviews.org] (2007); Barton, Reading, 47. See also R. Rendtorff, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch (trans. J. Scullion, JSOTSup 89. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 12ff. 95 See Van Seters, “An Ironic Circle: Wellhuasen and the Rise of Redaction Criticism,” ZAW 115 (2003):487-500; idem, Edited Bible. See also the response by E. Otto, Review of John van Seters; J-L. Ska, “A Plea on Behalf of the Biblical Redactors,” Studia Theologica 59 (2005): 4-18. Van Seters’ rebuttal to them appears at idem, “Author or Redactor,” JHS 7 (2007): 2-22. 96 Ibid., 50. Parentheses are mine. 97 Ibid., 51 (quotation), 62-63. The parentheses are mine. 98 Ibid., 51. 94

30

Part I: Methodological Considerations

a modern author (Autor in German original) in his treatment of ready-minted materials.”99 Is the Yahwist then a redactor? The Yahwist is not a ‘redactor’ either, according to von Rad; he uses the term ‘redactor’ in the sense of an editor who combined written document sources, that is the classical notion of the Pentateuchal redactor(s).100 Since von Rad still accepts the CDH for the later written stages of the formation of the Pentateuch, it is natural that he should have such a classical notion in mind.101 Von Rad himself thus never applies the term 'redactor' to the Yahwist; and his Yahwist is neither an author in the modern sense nor a redactor in the sense of the CDH. While von Rad’s Yahwist is far more creative than a (classical) redactor, he still remains more strongly tied to traditions than any (modern) author. A notable phenomenon in the recent scholarly discussion of von Rad’s understanding of the Yahwist is that the claims other scholars make for von Rad actually reflect their own perspectives and models for the Pentateuch. Van Seters, who regards the Yahwist as an exilic ‘author’, understands von Rad’s Yahwist similarly as an author;102 Otto, for instance, whose position is closer to a ‘successive’ redaction model, regards von Rad’s Yahwist as a redactor.103 If this is the case, the choice of terms already presupposes a certain formation model for the Pentateuch. It would then be methodologically beneficial at the outset to employ a term that shows less bias toward any established formation model; according to the definitions of the various literary activities suggested at the beginning of the chapter, the literary character of von Rad’s Yahwist is a mixture of both initial composition and compositional redaction. The former can be applied to the first writing on the basis of the 99 Ibid., 67. The parentheses are mine. See also idem, Genesis, 36: “The measure of freedom that J, E, or P could exercise in their literary modification of the available material was scarcely great. In any case this freedom was much more limited than any modern Western author would be permitted to claim for himself. The Yahwist, in shaping the individual narrative, probably did not go beyond some trimming of the archaic profiles and making definite fine accents.” 100 Ibid., 77. Von Rad says, “the Hexateuch achieved its present form at the hands of redactors (Redaktoren), who received the testimony to the faith contained in each of the source documents at its own valuation, and held it to be binding” (the parentheses are mine). See also Genesis, 24. Therefore Eissfeldt describes, “Pentateuchal criticism has become accustomed to use a unified terminology in so far as it denotes as redactors those who brought the material together, in distinction to the compliers or authors of the individual ‘documents,’ ‘books’ or ‘sources.’” See Eissfeldt, Introduction, 239. 101 Cf. Rendtorff, The Problem, 12ff. Rendtorff claims inadmissibly that von Rad’s Yahwist is not J of the CDH. For criticism of Rendtorff’s claim, see R. N. Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study (JSOTSup 53. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 95. 102 See Van Seters, Edited Bible, 256ff. 103 See Otto, Review of John Van Seters.

Chapter 1: Redaction Criticism of the Pentateuch

31

individual oral traditions; the latter to the subsequent organization of J as a whole and the literary attachment to it of the Sinai pericope.104 This definition is distinguished from the subsequent stages of supplementary redaction and equally from authorship in the modern sense, which von Rad explicitly denied. Von Rad’s Yahwist can more properly be defined as a compositor. Notwithstanding the definition, our classification of von Rad’s method as a sort of redaction criticism can still be justified. Von Rad describes the profile of the Yahwist’s literary activity as follows: The important thing is this: the individuality of the Yahwist, his basic theological conceptions, are much less apparent within the individual narratives than in the character of the composition as a whole. The Yahwist's theology of history is essentially expressed in the way he has linked together the materials, connected and harmonized them with one another.105

Literary activities such as ‘linking, connecting, and harmonizing’ the materials at one’s disposal, although oral, and expressing one’s own theological perspective through such literary activities are the typical profile of redaction we expect to find in redaction criticism. There is no fundamental difference between the literary activities of redactors of the CDH and that of the Yahwist von Rad describes, except that the former had written documents, whereas the latter probably had only oral sources at his disposal.106 Such similarities place not only compositional redaction but also the initial composition of the Yahwist in the realm of redaction criticism.107 104 Similarly Rendtorff, Koch, and Steck employ the term for describing von Rad’s Yahwist. See Rendtorff, The Problem, 12f.; Koch, The Growth, 58. Also Steck calls the first writing from pre-existing oral tradition composition, although he treats this stage within a redaction-historical approach. See Steck, Old Testament Exegesis, 82f. See also Perrin, What is Redaction Criticism?(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973), 66-67. Here Perrin defines the literary activity of the evangelists as composition. Our suggestion of the term composition, however, does not imply acceptance of Blum’s model, in which the terms are adopted for describing KD and KP. See also D. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 20-21. 105 See Von Rad, Genesis, 36. 106 Koch also, while acknowledging the difference between the quality of works by the first writer and subsequent redactors, includes the first written stage into the scope of redaction criticism. His justification is the similarity of approach in dealing with the first written material. Koch says, ‘Of course the work done by the one who collects and writes down traditions, which have hitherto been circulating only orally is greater and more difficult than the work done by those who later revise it. However, the basic approach is similar. Redaction history therefore follows the work of both the first writer and the subsequent redactors.’ See Koch, The Growth, 58. 107 Similarly, Perrin claims for New Testament redaction criticism that ‘the reason that we have stayed with the term redaction criticism’ is that there is no single adequate term for describing various redactional and compositional aspects’. Therefore, according to Perrin, redaction criticism is a valid methodology for studying the writing of the Gospels, before a ‘composition criticism’ will be fully developed up to the point where it can be distinguished from redaction criticism. See Perrin, Redaction Criticism, 66-67.

32

Part I: Methodological Considerations

2. Practitioners of the Method (1) K. Koch Koch suggests a broad and inclusive concept of form criticism, covering every stage of the text's formation, from the emergence of oral traditions through the process of their transmission, to the writing and redaction that produced the final text. Under the name of form criticism, Koch in fact incorporates form criticism in the narrower sense,108 transmission history, and redaction criticism, so that the entire process of the development and formation of the biblical text might be investigated within a single methodological framework. In Koch’s methodological scheme, form criticism and transmission history serve for investigation of the oral stages, and redaction criticism works for the written stages. Redaction criticism is thus the last stage of Koch’s extended form-critical study. Koch recognized von Rad’s study of the Yahwist as the beginning of redaction criticism proper, and, consequently, he included the first writing of the sources within the scope of redaction criticism.109 However, since Koch could not yet free himself of the legacy of the CDH, the subsequent process of redaction meant for him the combining of the source documents. Koch’s redaction criticism thus methodologically combines von Rad’s study of the first writing of the source document (J) and the subsequent redaction of the Pentateuchal sources: “redaction history therefore follows the work of both the first writer and the subsequent redactors. It traces the path the unit has taken from the time it was first written down until the time it achieved its final literary form”.110 In this manner, Koch’s methodologically combined redaction criticism covers the whole process of the diachronic development of written texts.111 However, Koch’s extended concept of form criticism raises some problems in its methodological justification; besides the question of the appropriateness of the title ‘form criticism’ for the combination of the methods, it is also problematic to mechanically combine the various methods of different methodological perspectives simply according to the stages of the development of the material. Rendtorff thus rightly criticizes Koch’s method; he writes: “an The form critical process here, according to Koch, consists of (a) the determination of the literary type, (b) its history, and (c) its setting in life. See Koch, The Growth, 3-37. 109 Ibid., 57ff. 110 Ibid., 58. 111 Koch notes, “subsequent generations of redactors took over the work of the first writer and brought it up to date, just as the first writer had done with the oral tradition” (see The Growth, 58). “By tracing the redaction history of a linguistic unit we follow the changes that take place within it when it was written down, its subsequent redaction, until it reaches its final form” (ibid., 64). 108

Chapter 1: Redaction Criticism of the Pentateuch

33

extension of the methods by means of form criticism” is “in fact not a matter of an extension, but of a fundamental alteration of the statement of the question.”112 A theory of composition and redaction should be formed on the basis of a comprehensive model. (2) O. Steck O. Steck, in his methodological guide Old Testament Exegesis, describes a conceptual structure of redaction criticism similar to that of Koch. Although he does not extend form criticism to embrace all the diachronic methods within it, Steck, too, emphasizes the ‘interdependence’ of such methods, perceiving redaction criticism as one of the continuous ‘methodological steps’.113 Like Koch, Steck separates the redaction-critical approach into two stages: the first writing, and subsequent stages. Since the first written version of the text is supposed to have been the result of fixed oral traditions, any study of it requires both transmission-historical and literary-critical approaches as its analytical basis. But for the study of the subsequent redactional stages, Steck claims, the literary-critical approach alone may serve as the analytical part.114 Steck carefully conceptualizes the methodological stages of redaction criticism, avoiding the use of terms that presuppose certain formation models, such as ‘source’ or ‘layer,’ and endeavors to build a purely “methodologically directed procedure”.115 In a case study of Gen. 28.10-22, he introduces various formation models of the Pentateuch as possible directions that may be taken, without presupposing any one specific model.116 Steck’s position concerning the formation model is unclear – perhaps intentionally so – and seems quite similar to that of von Rad and Koch; he presupposes an analysis of transmission history as a methodological step preceding redaction criticism, ruling out the idea of the ‘creative author’ of the CDH or the Van Seters type from the outset. On the other hand, Steck seems to be still sympathetic to the CDH as a model for the subsequent stages, such that he presupposes the existence of two or more individual texts later interwoven with one another or both included, one after the other.117 Steck defines the task of redaction criticism as an investigation of the development of a text “from its first written form through its expansion, or See Rendtorff, The Problem, 11. See Steck, Exegesis, 85. Ibid., 81ff. 115 Ibid., 182f. 116 Ibid. Here Steck suggests the models of H. H. Schmid, Rendtorff, Blum, and Van Seters, along with CDH, as possible options. 117 Ibid., 84, 191f. In the case study of Gen. 28.10-22, Steck admits CDH as a working hypothesis, and concludes that the present text is the result of Yehowistic (JE) redaction. 112 113 114

34

Part I: Methodological Considerations

related commentary, by means of additions,” and, also, to “trace a text’s history through its incorporation into larger complexes all the way up to its final version”.118 Consequently, the expected result of Steck's redaction criticism is to gain insight into the changes of a text in the stages of written transmission or an actualizing procedure, and the history of Israel’s faith.119Within the process of redaction-critical study, Steck identifies five conceptual stages: (1) the initial recording of an oral transmission (first written version), (2) the incorporation of written texts alongside oral transmissions, (3) the combination of two or more independent texts (or related literary complexes), which already existed in written form, into a larger entity (interweaving or attaching in blocks), (4) the expansion and revision of texts by the redactor’s own formulation, and (5) the reconstruction of entire redactional layers and situating them historically and theologically.120 These stages are described in a neutral way, as mentioned above, without presupposing a certain formation in written stages. In terms of methodological structure, Steck still regards oral stages as a basis for the initial writing of the written pieces, so his presentation of possible methodological steps for this stage presupposes form/tradition criticism, which is similar to that of von Rad. 3. W. Marxen and New Testament Redaction Criticism Another line of the development of redaction criticism that presupposes form criticism can be found in studies of the Synoptic Gospels, from which the term redaction criticism (Redaktionsgeschichte) was first introduced into biblical criticism.121 Though not a part of the Pentateuchal criticism in which the present study is engaged, it has been closely related from the beginning to the redaction criticism of the Pentateuch. Redaction criticism of the Synoptic Gospels is, like that of the Pentateuch, “concerned with the theological motivation of an author as revealed in the collection, arrangement, editing, and modification of traditional material and in a composition of new material or a creation of new forms within the traditions of early Christianity”.122 The method is thought to have reached its full potential in the studies of G. Ibid., 80. Ibid., 96. 120 Ibid., 84. 121 The first appearance of the term ‘redaction criticism’ is found in W. Marxen, Review of H. Conzelman, Die Mitte der Zeit (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1954), Monatsschrift für Pastoralthologie 6 (1954), 254. See also J. R. Donahue, “Redaction Criticism, New Testament,” DBI 2:377-78; idem, “Redaction Criticism: Has the Hauptstrasse Become a Sackgasse?” in E. V. McKnight and E. S. Malbon (eds.), The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994), 27-57; Perrin, Redaction Criticism, 33. 122 See Perrin, Redaction Criticism, 1. 118 119

Chapter 1: Redaction Criticism of the Pentateuch

35

Bornkamm on Matthew,123 H. Conzelmann on Luke,124 and W. Marxen on Mark,125 which were dependent on form-critical studies of the Synoptic Gospels by scholars such as M. Dibelius126 and R. Bultaman.127 The redaction criticism of the Synoptic Gospels shares basic presuppositions and a methodological structure with the type of Pentateuchal redaction criticism we are dealing with. First, the former presupposes that the Synoptic Gospels are the products of redaction (composition) of tradition materials orally transmitted to the Evangelists, and that the materials can be separated out by form-critical methods. This formation model for the Synoptic Gospels is thus very similar to that of von Rad and others such as Koch and Steck. The method of New Testament redaction criticism also consists of two levels: a compositional level (the first writing) and a subsequent redactional one; the first writing stage is especially emphasized in the study of Mark, behind which no written source is assumed. The subsequent redactional stages can be found in Matthew and Luke, which are, according to the so-called ‘two-document hypothesis’,128 redacted from written source documents such as Mark and the hypothetical ‘sayings source’ Q (Quelle). The division between the initial composition and subsequent redaction stages is, as seen above, a characteristic of the redaction criticism that presupposes form criticism. From the similarities between the form-critical type of redaction criticism of the Pentateuch and the New Testament redaction criticism, one may deduce practical relations between them. Koch, for instance, claims that Marxen and Conzelman ‘have taken over for the field of New Testament studies the meth123 See G. Bornkamm et al., Überlieferung und Auslegung im Matthäusevangelium (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1960). 124 See H. Conzelmann, Die Mitte Der Zeit: Studien Zur Theologie Des Lukas (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1954). 125 See W. Marxen, Der Evangelist Markus: Studien Zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Evangeliums (Tübingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956). See also Perrin, Redaction Criticism, 25-39. For further development of the discipline in other regions, see J. R. Donahue, “Redaction Criticism, New Testament,” DBI 2:376-379, especially, 378. 126 See M. Dibelius (ed.), Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Tübingen: Mohr, 1933). 127 See R. K. Bultmann, Die Erforschung der Synoptischen Evangelien (Berlin: A Topelmann, 1966). See also R. H. Lightfoot, History and Interpretation in the Gospels (Vol. Bampton lectures; New York: Harper & brothers, 1935). The dependence of redaction criticism upon results of former form-critical studies is most evident in Marxen’s work. On the two stages of Sitz im Leben of the traditions, life of Jesus and early churches, suggested by form criticism, Marxen added a third stage, situation in life of the Evangelists themselves (see R. H. Stein, “Redaction Criticism (NT),” ABD 5:647-650, esp., 648). Marxen’s redaction criticism can be thus understood as a subsequent stage after form criticism. See Perrin, Redaction Criticism, 13ff.; Stein, “Redaction Criticism,” 647f.; Donahue, “Redaction Criticism,” 377. 128 See Marxen, Introduction to the New Testament: An Approach to Its Problems (trans. G. Buswell, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968), 113ff.; R. T. Fortna, “Redaction Criticism, NT,” IDBSup, 733-735, esp., 734.

36

Part I: Methodological Considerations

ods evolved by von Rad and Noth for the Old Testament’.129 Van Seters, in contrast, argues that recent Pentateuchal redaction criticism stems from redaction criticism of the Synoptic Gospels, which is in fact rooted in Wellhausen’s concept of redactor.130 Yet, the recent redaction criticism that Van Seters criticizes does not stem from New Testament redaction criticism, but is a different sort of redaction-critical method, as will be discussed below.131 In any case, in terms of the terminology, the contribution was from Gospel redaction criticism to Pentateuchal redaction criticism; von Rad’s method later came to be designated as redaction criticism (Redaktionsgeschichte), a terminological invention by the later NT scholar W. Marxen, just as Gunkel’s method has been similarly known by the term form criticism (Formgeschichte), an invention of another NT form critic, M. Dibelius.132 4. Conclusion We have surveyed above the methods of von Rad, K. Koch, and O. Steck, and found that their methods of redaction criticism share common presuppositions, formation models, and methodological structures. The common methodological aspects of their redaction criticism can be summarized as follows: (1) Redaction criticism that presupposes form criticism focuses mainly on the first written stage of the source documents, such that it broadens the methodological scope of redaction criticism to the stage of first writing. (2) The presupposition of a fixed oral tradition behind the first composition, and hence, in terms of methodological structure, the study of the oral traditions through form and tradition criticism as its analytical basis. (3) Based on form/tradition-critical study, this sort of redaction criticism endeavors to demonstrate how the orally transmitted materials were selected, modified, connected, and rearranged in the composition of the sources (especially the Yahwist) and what the theological plan of the composition was; this is the synthetic part of the method. (4) Von Rad and others still posit the CDH as a basic formation model of the Pentateuch. Therefore, with regard to the subsequent redactional process after See Koch, The Growth, 66. Van Seters contends that it is thus an ‘ironic circle’ to dismiss the Wellhausenian notion of redaction (combining of the sources) in recent German scholarship with the same Wellhuasenian notion though New Testament studies. See Van Seters, “An Ironic Circle,” 497. 131 See below the section ‘Composition of Larger Units and Redaction Criticism’. In this methodological scheme, the term ‘redaction’, too, indicates a different type of literary activity. J-L, Ska puts it as ‘semantic alternation’ of the term redaction. See J-L, Ska, “A Plea,” 5 132 . See Dibelius, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums. See also Koch, The Growth, 3. 129 130

Chapter 1: Redaction Criticism of the Pentateuch

37

the composition of the sources, they share the same model with classical redaction criticism. Koch and Steck combine von Rad’s study of the first written stage (the Yahwist) with the CDH, so that in their redaction critical scheme the two redactional models actually co-exist. These two models are, however, incompatible with each other; if J was composed in writing, in which an actual connection between the traditions took place only at the written stage, then it is hardly likely that the Elohist independently produced a similar literary creation, connecting the separate oral traditions just as the Yahwist did. A greater degree of creativity is attributed to the Yahwist, and the notion of E as a parallel document is seen as less probable. Von Rad’s concept of the Yahwist composition therefore significantly undermines the classical notion of E.133 Such a contradiction within von Rad’s model was probably caused by von Rad’s acceptance of the Wellhausenian documentary hypothesis simply as a given theoretical framework, rather than as the subject of a thorough reexamination.

IV. Composition of Larger Units and Redaction Criticism Since the appearance of the new Documentary Hypothesis of Graf-Wellhausen, the idea of the four documents (J, E, D, and P) and the formation of the Pentateuch through their redaction occupied a predominant position in Pentateuchal criticism, persisting despite challenges and modifications. Similarly in the wake of the appearance and scholarly acceptance of other methodological perspectives, such as form and tradition criticisms, which shifted the horizon of scholarly awareness to earlier oral stages, the validity of the CDH as a formation model for written stages nevertheless remained unshaken. Since the 1970s, however, the challenges of the so-called revisionists, represented by scholars such as Rendtorff (1977),134 H. H. Schmid (1976),135 and Van Seters

133 Though von Rad claimed that the tradition had been transmitted to the Yahwist in more or less fixed form, his actual analysis of the inclusion of tradition material support our thesis. The inclusion of the Sinai pericope, for example, was incorporated by the Yahwist at a very late, literary stage. If one does not assume a literary dependence of E on J, the appearance of an E Sinai account is unexpected. 134 R. Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (BZAW 147. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977); English Translation: trans. J. Scullion, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch (JSOTSup 89, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990). 135 H. H. Schmid, Der Sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976).

38

Part I: Methodological Considerations

(1975),136 have gradually succeeded in contradicting the classical notion of the date and scope of J (Schmid, Van Seters) and even the existence of J itself (Rendtorff). The disintegration of the classical notion of the documentary sources has naturally necessitated fundamental modifications of the formation model of the Penta-teuch and of the interpretive methods dependent on this model. The most significant of these modifications in terms of both model and methodology is that initiated by Rendtorff,137 who dismisses the idea of a source document running through the Tetrateuch, such as J. He focuses instead on the literary formation of separate larger tradition units, similar to Noth’s138 notion, through the ‘sedimentation of successive redactional layers’ and the combining of those units by an ‘overarching redaction’ of a Deuteronomic/stic redactor. In Rendtorff’s scheme, the formation of these larger units, thought to be carried out in oral stages, is now understood as the result of a gradual literary expansion, and, it is the process of such literary expansion that becomes the object of his redaction criticism, rather than the combination of the Pentateuchal source documents, . In terms of Rendtorff’s methodological structure, what replaces source criticism is literary criticism, in its classical sense, detached from source criticism. Based on a literary-critical analysis of text, he synthetically reconstructs the process of the successive phases of redaction; this is a new type of redaction criticism, for it banishes from its methodological structure the CDH (especially for non-Priestly text) that functions wholly or partly as an analytical counterpart of the two types of redaction criticism seen above. This new approach has more distinct methodological features; in Rendtorff’s approach, the synthetic process requires a more sophisticated criterion, ‘cross-reference’. When similar linguistic profiles were found in different passages, the classical source critics normally assigned these passages to a specific ‘source’; in this new approach, a linguistic similarity does not necessarily indicate an origin in the same source. It may indicate the literary dependence Especially for Van Seters’ publication in the 70th, see J. Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975). As for his other publications, see below the section about Van Seters. 137 See E. L. Greenstein, “The State of Biblical Studies, or Biblical Studies in a State,” in Essays on Biblical Method and Translation (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 3-28, esp., 16ff. See also A. de Pury “Yahwist (‘J’) Source,” ABD 6:1012-20; T. Römer, “The Elusive Yahwist: A Short History of Research,” in T. B. Dozeman and K. Schmid (eds.), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (SBLSymS 34. Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 9–27. 138 Larger units such as the primeval story, the Patriarchal story, Moses and the Exodus, the Sinai event, the sojourn in the desert, and the occupation of the land. See Rendtorff, The Problem, 41. 136

Chapter 1: Redaction Criticism of the Pentateuch

39

of a later layer on an earlier one. This methodological aspect is justifiable in this type of approach, which mainly concerns diachronic relationship of separate passages; in order to safely attribute two more passages to the same hand, they should contain cross-references to each other. Another feature of this approach is that it focuses mainly on relatively late literary stages; since, according to Rendtorff, the present form of the Pentateuch was formulated by the Dtr and Priestly redactors in later literary stages, the focus tends to be confined to those literary stages. The problem of identifying the first writers is not a cardinal issue for new redaction critics, for, especially in Rendtorff’s view, blocks of narrative units were developed through successive phases of redaction, so the notion of authorship or compositor has less practical significance. Practitioners of this new type of redaction criticism are mostly recent Germanophonic scholars such as E. Blum, E. Otto, R. Achenbach, K. Schmid, and J. Gertz, as well as the American D. Carr. Although each of them suggested his own formation model, as we will see below, this new type of redaction critics have fundamental premises in common; examples of these premises are the rejection of the CDH and a belief in the formation of the present text through successive redactional layers. In the next section, we will first closely review Rendtorff’s model and method and their development in Blum’s theory, for they have significance in understanding new redaction criticism in general. After that, the various models and methods of the practitioners of new redaction criticism will be reviewed. 1. Development of the Approach (1) R. Rendtorff In his methodological study, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch, Rendtorff suggests a new approach, as briefly mentioned above. Choosing the Patriarchal story as a test case, Rendtorff endeavors to demonstrate that the Patriarchal story was transmitted and developed through successive redactional stages. He reconstructs the process of the development as a larger unit in three fundamental stages: (1) “First, the collected Abraham and Jacob stories that had a more markedly narrative form were joined together,” (2) “later, the Isaac story was added to them as a collection of narratives,” and (3) “Coincided with this phase, the final framework of the Abraham story was constructed by means of the promise address at the conclusion of the group of Negev-narratives.”139 The stories, according to Rendtorff, were combined by a series of divine ‘promise addresses’, function139

Ibid, 78, 79.

40

Part I: Methodological Considerations

ing as connecting joints between the stories of each patriarch and providing a theological framework to the whole.140 Leaving aside the transition stage from oral traditions to written texts, Rendtorff simply assumes that the small units of Genesis (12-50) already existed in written form,141 and thus the merging of these smaller units into the larger unit took place in the written stage. The promise addresses, in oath form, are the passages where Rendtorff traces the process of the reworking (Bearbeitung) of the present larger unit; these, he maintains, “have been carefully and consciously made a part of the reworking and theological interpretation of the patriarchal stories”.142 They have, however, “gone through a varied and many-layered process of development”.143

140 Rendtorff maintains that “promise addresses, particularly the promise of guidance and the blessing for others, have been used to frame the individual patriarchal stories and to join them to each other” (see, ibid, 83). In detail, two divine addresses frame the narrative collection in the Isaac story: at the beginning (26.2-5) and at the end (26.24), which have no immediate connection with the narrative context. Also the life of Jacob is framed by three assurances of guidance: at the beginning (flight to Harran, 28.15), at the turning point (returning to father's land, 31.3), and at the end (going down to Egypt, 46.2-4). The story of Abraham is rather complicated, but also here the beginning (journey from Haran, 12.1-3) and the ending (the binding of Isaac, 22.18) are framed with the promise of blessing for others, which appears at the beginnings of Isaac and Jacob stories as well, and ‘brings the traditions about them together into one large unit’. See idem, The Problem, 74-84. 141 Ibid., 31f. 142 Ibid., 83. 143 Ibid., 82f. Rendtorff’s analysis of promises might be summarized as follows. After a comparison of various syntactical combinations of the promises of the land, Rendtorff finds four stages of development of the promise phrase: (1) the promise only for the patriarch, ‘to you’ (Gen. 15.7; 13.17), (2) ‘to you’ + verb + ‘and to your descendants’ (Gen. 28.13; 13.15), (3) to you and your seed (descendants) (Gen. 35.12; 26.3; 17.8; 28.4; 12.7; 24.7; 15.18), (4) ‘to your descendants’ (Gen. 26.4; 48.4). Such phases of development correspond to the two forms of the blessing for others: The Nip‛al form of ‫( ברך‬Gen. 12.3; (18.18); 28.14) is combined with ‘all the clans of the earth’ and the receiver of the promise is the patriarch himself, while in 28.14 ‘your seed’ is added; the Hitpa‛el form is combined with ‘all the nations of the world’, and the receiver of the promise is only ‘your seed’. The Promise of descendants (posterity), which is ‘never pronounced in formalized phrases but always within narratives and in a form determined by the narrative context’, according to Rendtorff, has two groups of tradition which are independent of each other: one group with ‘seed’ or/and images such as star, dust, and sand (seed: Gen. 21.12; 26.24; 16.10; seed with images: 15.5; 26.4; 13.6; 28.14; 32.13; 22.17) and the other group mentioning of 'nation' and 'nations' (‫ )גוים‬of peoples (‫)עמים‬, and of assembly (‫( )קהל‬Gen. 21.13; 12.3; 21.18; 46.3; 18.18; 17.4–6; 17.16; 17.20; 35.11; 28.3; 48.4). In the latter, 'seed' or images is missing, and ‫פרה‬ appears instead of ‫רבה‬. Rendtorff claims that the 'blessing' (‫ )ברך‬is “not an independent promise theme, but occurs always in combination with other themes, and in the very large majority of cases with the promise of numerous posterity” (ibid., 65). Yet the combination with the promise of posterity, Rendtorff observes, is “on a different level in the process of the history of tradition” (ibid.), for the blessing is combined with both groups, as we saw above, i.e., with the group with ‘seed’ (22.17; 26.24) and the group without it (12.2; 17.16, 10; 28.3).

Chapter 1: Redaction Criticism of the Pentateuch

41

A. Refutation of the Classical Documentary Hypothesis The notion of the multi-layered promise addresses is the critical juncture at which Rendtorff departs from the classical concept of the J source and, especially, from that of von Rad’s Yahwist. For von Rad, as discussed above, the series of divine promises linking the individual Patriarchal narratives is decisive evidence for the presence of the theological redaction of the Patriarchal story by the Yahwist. Rendtorff, however, claims that though there was ‘a very intensive theological reworking and interpretation’ in the Patriarchal story, this reworking ‘did not take place at one stroke, but … show(s) different stages and layers’.144 Neither from a literary-critical point of view does Rendtorff find any “solid criteria capable of indicating” characteristics of the Yahwist; there is thus a “lack of a literary basis for establishing the theology of the Yahwist”.145 Moreover, Rendtorff finds “no discernible links between the Patriarchal stories and the following complexes of tradition (ExodusWilderness tradition) in the Pentateuch”.146 He consequently concludes that “a Yahwist, who shaped and handed on the Patriarchal stories and the complexes of tradition that follow them, does not exist”.147 Rendtorff also challenges the classical notion of the Priestly source by imposing his ‘sedimentation’ model on the Priestly promise passages; among the alleged P promise passages such as Gen. 17; 28.3-4; 35.11-12; 48.3-4, for instance, that of Gen. 35.11 chronologically precedes the one in Gen. 48.3-4,

Rendtorff attributes the original setting of the ‘stylized’, ‘lapidary’ promise of guidance (Gen. 26.3; 31.3; 26.24; 28.15; 28.20; 35.3; 3.42; 48.21; 32.10; 32.13) to the Abraham tradition (Gen. 12.1), based on a presupposition that the idea of Abraham’s journeys (12.1; 26.2) under divine instructions passed on to the other patriarchs with the stylized expression, ‘I am with you’. Then Rendtorff turns to the combination of the individual promise themes. In some cases, the promise of land is firmly embedded in the context and the promise of posterity is attached to it ‘by means of the key-word ‘seed’, as it is in Gen. 13.15-16; 28.13-14. In other cases, the former was attached to the latter without any linguistic link (Gen. 17; 28.3-4; 35.11-12; 48.3-4). In this reversed combination the promise of posterity is earlier than that of land ‘in the process of the formation of tradition’. The former cases are a ‘gradual expansion of the promise’ but the latter cases are ‘the fitting together of two completely self-contained and independent elements.’ Rendtorff sees similar growth of tradition by later reworking in Gen. 13.15-17 (here including v.17) and 26.3-5. The promise of guidance combines with the two promise themes above in various ways. See idem, The Problem, 43-74. 144 Ibid, 134. The parentheses are mine. This ‘sediment model’ is what von Rad had explicitly opposed. See von Rad, The Problem, 52. 145 See Rendtorff, The Problem, 111. 146 Ibid, 135. The parenthesis are mine. For Rendtorff’s intense discussion of it, see, The Problem, 84-94. 147 Ibid, 136.

42

Part I: Methodological Considerations

while Gen. 28.3-4 exhibits a different style of combination from the others.148 He therefore concludes that P is not an independent source document, but probably “layer(s) of reworking” into which “different types of priestly texts” were incorporated.149 B. The Deuteronomically Stamped Texts and the Final Redaction According to Rendtorff, “the first and the only” layer of reworking which “unambiguously views the Pentateuch as a whole” is a “series of texts stamped with Deuteronomic language”, in which the promises of the land are given in the form of a divine oath.150 These Deuteronomically stamped texts, according to Rendtorff, extend over the whole Pentateuch occurring in every large unit or complex of traditions and connecting the critical junctures of Israelite history, from the Patriarchal narratives to the settlement.151 Since, however, the Dtr passages appear in a from of ‘post-scripts’ to their literary context, which leaves “the texts at hand essentially unchanged”,152 this Dtr layer cannot be the final redaction that shaped the Pentateuch into its present form; Rendtorff leaves the final redaction as an open question, calling for new theories. With this reservation, he emphasizes that “the share of Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic circles in the arrangement of the Pentateuch as a whole appears to have been considerable”.153 C. Rendtorff’s Model for the Formation of the Pentateuch As we have seen above, Rendtorff’s formation model for the larger units is the ‘sedimentation of successive redactional layers’, and he claims that it suits not only the formation and cohesion of the individual patriarchal stories, but Gen. 48.3-4 directly refers to Gen. 35.11, but exhibits a more compact style and shift of interest to ‘your seed’ (see The Problem, 69). Rendtorff explicitly denotes that this passage reflects ‘a more developed stage of the combination of promises’. 149 Ibid., 170. Rendtorff further observes that (1) there is no ‘coherent P-narrative’ in the patriarchal story, (2) that linguistic form in P is diverse, (3) and that there is no clear connection between the chronological notes and theological passages. See, The Problem, 163. 150 Ibid., 194f. 151 Ibid., 94ff. According to Rendtorff, such Dtr passages appear in the Patriarchal story (Gen 50.24), the Exodus (Exod. 13.5, 11), the Sinai event (Exod. 32.13; 33,1-3a), the desert (Num. 11.12; 14.23), the occupation of the land east of the Jordan (Num. 32.11) 152 Ibid., 99, 100. What Rendtorff is describing here is supplementary redaction according to our definition. See above. 153 See Rendtorff, The Problem, 200. In addition to the above promise-oath passages with Deuteronomic stamp, Rendtorff adds a Deuteronomistic contribution to the arrangement of the Pentateuch: (1) similar literary style of Exod. 1.6, 8 and Judg. 2.8, 10, (2) and an important role of the Deuteronomistic elements in the interrelations between the last chapters of the of the book of Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the ‘Deuteronomistic’ tradition of the occupation of the land. See Rendtorff, The Problem, 198-200. 148

Chapter 1: Redaction Criticism of the Pentateuch

43

also the over-arching redactional layers such as the Deuteronomic/stic layers and the Priestly texts. Rendtorff’s model, in particular of the patriarchal stories, is therefore summarized in the following several successive stages: (1) Formation of individual Patriarchal stories (small units) and their development; neither an author nor a compositor is assumed; (2) Continuous development in written stages and gradual merging with one another forming larger units; (3) Multiple stages of reworking (Bearbeitungen) of the larger unit with the theme of divine promises; (4) Multiple stages of over-arching reworking with a Dtr stamp, which, again, are followed by multiple stages of Priestly reworking. This model is in fact derived from Noth’s formation model of the Deuteronomistic history; as Rendtorff himself asserts, a “similar methodological treatment” of the study of Deuteronomic history, especially of Noth’s method, is applied to the analysis of the Pentateuch.154 According to Noth’s DtrH model, larger narrative complexes gradually formed from individual narratives, and the complexes were subsequently combined by the Deuteronomistic historian. Rendtorff adopted this model and applied it to the formation history of the Pentateuch, as demonstrated above. In Rendtorff’s model, therefore, ‘larger units’ replace ‘sources’. This model is thus by its very nature incompatible with the CDH. Rendtorff’s model is also incompatible with von Rad’s notion of the Yahwist; in von Rad’s model, the Yahwist's primary contribution is the connection of the distinct narratives of Genesis-Numbers with the theme of the promise to the patriarchs. Rendtorff, however, by suggesting that the promise theme underwent multiple stages of development, and that this theological reworking is limited only to the Patriarchal stories,155 dismantles the basis of the Yahwist's major contribution, according to von Rad. D. Rendtorff’s Redaction Criticism Rendtorff accepts the fundamental presuppositions of tradition history, such as the idea of separate narrative blocks (larger units) and gradual oral development, employing this model for his study of the development process of the traditions in written stages. He criticizes Noth's approach for its fusion of source criticism and tradition history, which are, according to Rendtorff, “opposed to each other in their starting point and in their statement of the 154 155

Ibid., 201. Ibid., 177f.

44

Part I: Methodological Considerations

question”.156 He then describes his own task as to logically extend Noth’s tradition-historical model to the written stages, so that no Pentateuchal source is necessarily hypothesized. His focus is therefore the literary development of the larger units; in our methodological perspective, this is no longer tradition history, but redaction criticism.157 Rendtorff himself, however, intentionally avoids the term ‘redaction criticism (Redaktionsgeschichte)’, for in his opinion the term ‘redaction’ and ‘redactor’ are “too closely bound with the putting together of “sources’’” in classical source criticism.158 He thus employs another word, reworking (Bearbeitung), for the process of literary development.159 Interestingly, however, recent changes in Pentateuch study, initiated by Rendtorff himself, brought a sort of semantic progress of the term redaction, from the meaning of combination of sources to that of various type of literary development and expansion. In current situation, therefore, Rendtorff’s once legitimate reluctance to use the term redaction is no more necessary; we can safely designate Rendtorff’s method as a new type of redaction criticism.160 (2) E. Blum A. Blum’s Formation Model Beginning with Rendtorff’s basic methodological scheme, E. Blum develops his own model of the formation of the Pentateuch. He suggests a more comprehensive model covering from the Patriarchal story to the Wilderness Ibid., 11. See also D. A. Knight, Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel the Development of the Traditio-Historical Research of the Old Testament, With Special Consideration of Scandinavian Contributions (Missoula, Mont: SBL; Scholars Press, 1975), 10; W. McKane, Review of R. Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch, VT 28 (1978): 371-382, esp., 378; G. E. Coats, “The Yahwist as Theologian? A Critical Reflection,” JSOT 3 (1977): 28-32, esp., 29; Nicholson, Pentateuch, 118; Van Seters, “Recent Studies on the Pentateuch: A Crisis in Method.” JAOS 99 (1979): 663–673, esp., 666; idem, “The Yahwist as Theologian? A Response,” JSOT 3 (1977): 15–19; idem, Edited Bible, 275. 158 See Rendtorff, The Problem, 191. 159 Rendtorff borrows the term from Noth who defined the writer of Joshua 1-12 as a collector and reworker (see The Problem, 191). Rendtorff himself defines this concept of Bearbeitung as follows: “this ‘editing’ (Bearbeitung) could consist simply in the arrangement and composition of the material. … redactors (Bearbeiter) were not satisfied with that kind of compositional activity. Rather, they disclosed their particular theological outlook unmistakably. So we have to ask whether we can recognize in the Pentateuch clear traces of planned, theological editing.” See R. Rendtoff, “Yahwist’ as Theologian?” JSOT 3 (1977): 2-10, esp., 6. 160 In fact, Rendtorff himself is not so consistent in distinction of redaction (Redaktion) and reworking (Bearbeitung). He indiscriminately uses the two terms in many places. See, e.g., Rendtorff, The Problem, 196; idem, “‘Yahwist’ as Theologian?” 8. 156 157

Chapter 1: Redaction Criticism of the Pentateuch

45

story in his two major volumes, Die Komposition der Vätersgeschichte161 and Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch,162 followed by recent modification of his theory.163 The following is a brief summary of his formation model. For the formation of the Patriarchal stories (Gen. 12-50), Blum assumes two major phases of literary composition and expansion: Vg1 (Vätersgeschichte 1) and Vg2 (Vätersgeschichte 2) – although later given up, this theory164 is worthy of mention as an influential formation model for the Patriarchs' story. In the first stage (Vg1), the basic framework of the current form of the Patriarchal narratives was formed; the stories of Jacob, written in 9th B.C.E,165 were attached to the originally independent Joseph narrative (8th B.C.E), forming an expanded Jacob narrative (Die Jakobgeschichte, Gen. 25-50) in northern Israel around 8th B.C.E. This larger narrative was in turn joined with the Abraham narratives,166 which, composed as a self-contained unit based on southern folk-history, had already been combined by means of the promises in 161 E. Blum, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte (WMANT 57. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984). 162 Idem, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW 189. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990). 163 See E. Blum, “Die Literarische Verbindung Von Erzvätern und Exodus: Ein Gespräch mit neueren Endredaktionshzpothesen.” in K. Schmid et al. (eds.), Abschied Vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2002), 119-156; idem, “The Literary Connection Between the Books of Genesis and Exodus and the End of the Book of Joshua.” in T. B. Dozeman and K. Schmid (eds.), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (SBLSymS 34. Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 89-106; idem, “The Connection between the Books of Genesis and Exodus and the End of the Book of Joshua (Hebrew),” in Z. Talshir and D. Amara (eds.) On the Borderline: Textual Meets Literary Criticism. Proceedings of a Conference in Honor of Alexander Rofè on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (Jerusalem: Ben Gurion University of Negev Press, 2005), 13-32; idem, “Pentateuch – Hexateuch – Enneateuch? Oder: Woran Erkennt Man Ein Literarisches Werk in Der Hebräischen Bibel?” in T. Römer and K. Schmid (eds.), Les dernières Rèdactions du Pentaque, de l'Hexateuaue et de l'Ennèateuque (Leuven: Leuven University Press; Peeters, 2007), 67-97. For critical reviews and assessments of Blum’s theory, see G. I. Davies, “KD in Exodus: An Assessment of E. Blum’s Proposal,” in M. Vervenne and J. Lust (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C. H. W. Brekelmans. (BETL 133. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997), 407–20; P. R. Davies, “The Composition of the Book of Exodus: Reflections on the Theses of Erhard Blum,” in M. V. Fox et al. (eds.), Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 71-85; Nicholson, Pentateuch, 171-181; D. J. Wynn-Williams, The State of the Pentateuch: A Comparison of the Approaches of M. Noth and E. Blum (BZAW 249. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1997). 164 See Blum, Pentateuch, p. 214 n. 35. 165 The etiological story of Bethel (Gen. 28.10-19*) was first literarily composed, and combined with the Jacob-Esau-Laban story, which has its own evolution from smaller units, by means of the vows (28.20-22). This written Jacob story (Die Jakoberzählung, Gen. 25-33*) was used as political propaganda by Jeroboam I, as a legitimization of the state sanctuary of Bethel. 166 Especially the stories of Abraham-Lot and Isaac’s birth (Gen. 13*, 18-19*) belong to this phase.

46

Part I: Methodological Considerations

Gen. 13, 14-17, and 28. The overall combination occurred sometime between the destruction of Samaria (721 B.C.E.) and the fall of Judah (586 B.C.E.). In the second phase (Vg2), the narrative underwent major revision and expansion in the exilic context; independent narrative traditions concerning Abraham and Isaac were added,167 together with the expansion of the theme of the promises to the Fathers throughout the whole corpus. This more or less present form of the Patriarchal story again underwent both Deuteronomistic and Priestly redactions/revisions.168 According to Blum’s modified model, however, some of the passages formerly regarded as products of a pre-Priestly D-redaction, such as Genesis 15 and 24, are now assigned to a post-Priestly layer. Other passages including God’s promise in oath form, or citation of the promise in Genesis 15, such as 22, 15-18; 26.3bb-5; 50.24f,169 also belong to this layer. In his study of Exodus-Numbers, Blum focuses more on the role of the last two phases of the literary development, the Deuteronomistic composition (KD: Deuteronomistiche Komposition) and the Priestly composition (KP: Priesterliche Komposition). The Moses story, from birth through the Exodus and the wandering in the wilderness to his death, was literarily composed after the fall of Northern Kingdom (721 B.C.E.), and existed independently of the Patriarchal narratives until the exilic period; later in the exilic period, KD took this literary bulk and some other independent wilderness traditions in its own revision, and composed an exodus-wilderness narrative more or less similar to the present form. The Sinai/Horeb pericope (Ex. 19-34*) is also a literary product of KD, though some independent traditions are traceable within it;170 though influenced by D and DtrH, KD is an independent work. According to Blum’s modified model, it was KP that produced the basic form of the Pentateuch, connecting the KD work of the Exodus and Wilderness narratives with the Patriarchal narrative, which had existed separately, and attaching the primeval history and D at the beginning and the end of the Pentateuch, respectively.171

Narratives such as Gen. 12.10-20; 16; 21.8-21; 22, and 26 were added in this phase. A Deuteronomistic redactor added portions such as Gen. 15; 18.17-19, 22b-32; 24, followed by the later additions of Gen. 20; 21.22-34. Still later, as the last phase of revisions, the text again underwent a Priestly revision, which gave the text the toledot framework, the El-Shaddai passages, and the chronological statements. 169 See Blum, “Verbindung,” 140ff. 170 Blum assigns the following passages to KD: Exod. 3.1-4.18; 4.29-31; 5.22-6.1; 11.1-3; 12.21-27; 13.3-16; 14*; 19.3-8; 20.22; 32. 7-14; 33-34*; Num. 11*; 12*; 14.11-25; 31. 4-9, 12-18, 33-35; Deut. 31.14-15, 23; 34.10. 171 See Blum, “Verbindung,” 145ff. 167 168

Chapter 1: Redaction Criticism of the Pentateuch

47

The Priestly composition (KP) is also multi-layered;172 in some places the Priestly tradents use the traditional Priestly material, and in others they add their own compositions in accordance with the context.173 In this manner KP revises, corrects, and expands the pre-Priestly literary works; KP, as well as KD, is thus neither a source nor a redaction – neither redactional supplement (redaktionelle Ergänzung) nor redactional combination (redaktionelle Verknüpfung) – but a composition involving various kinds of literary activity. Even later than the Priestly composition (KP), two kinds of post-Priestly material were added: Hexateuch-redaction,174 a group of texts related to Exod. 4.1-17, 27ff., and Genesis 15,175 the chronological order of which is hardly definable. The Pentateuch as Torah was promulgated in the Persian period, stimulated by Persian policy.176 It is noteworthy that Blum in fact establishes two different models for the Patriarchal and Exodus-Wilderness stories: a relatively autonomous development of literary Patriarchal traditions through multiple stages, and the Deuteronomic and Priestly ‘compositions’ of Exodus-Numbers, to which a more creative role is attributed. Such a divergence has been amplified by Blum’s recent modification that invalidates KD in the Patriarchal story.177 For instance, according to Blum, the primary composition is limited to the Pentateuch, ending with Numbers 28ff., and P in Joshua is a more recent extension. Blum finds multiple layers in KP also within the Pentateuch. See, for example, his discussion about the insertion of the genealogy in Exodus 6. See, Blum, Pentateuch, 232ff. 173 Examples of such compositions Blum provides are the Priestly call of Moses (Exodus 6), the Plagues cycle (Exodus 7ff.), the Reed Sea narrative (Exodus 14), the Korah pericope (Numbers 16), the episode of Meriba-Kadesh (Num. 20.1-13), and the Primeval history (Genesis 1-11) (see Blum, Pentateuch, 229-286). 174 Blum assigns the following text to the Hexateuch redaction: Gen. 31. 21ab; 33.17-7*; 48.21f.; 50.24-26; Exod. 1.5b, 6, 8; 13.19; Josh. 24.1-32. See Blum, “Verbindung,” 153f. 175 Blum regards the following texts as being related to Exod. 4.1-17, 27ff.: Exod. 7.7.15b, 17b, 20abb; 12.21-27; 14.31b; 18.1-12 (13-27); 19.9. The promise texts, especially those related to Genesis 15, are: Gen. 22.15-18; 26.3b-5. (24b*); Ex. 32.9-13; oath for the land: Gen. 24, Ex. 13. 5, 11; 33.1b. See ibid. 176 See Blum, Pentateuch, 333ff. 177 Even though Blum’s model is largely in agreement with Rendtorff’s one in rejecting the CDH and in emphasizing the role of Dtr in the formation process of the Pentateuch, it deviates significantly from Rendtorff’s in several aspects. First, in the study of the patriarchal narrative, Blum’s model is closer to that of Gunkel’s model of the formation of narrative cycle, while Rendtorff focuses on the promise passages in his actual literary analysis, following the analytical strategy of von Rad for small credos. Blum himself notes, ‘Meine eigene Analyse wurde methodisch nicht von (dem frühen) v. Rad und Noth angeregt, sondern von H. Gunkels Beobachtungen zu den Erzählkreisen in der Genesis. Gunkel – dem Anspruch nach – "vom Kopf auf die Füße gestellt" führt nicht in eine mündliche Vorgeschichte der Sagenüberlieferung, sondern auf die Literargeschichte narrativer Kompositionen’ (see Blum, “Verbindung,” 120). Furthermore, Blum now assigns a number of promise passages in Genesis to a post-Priestly redaction, against Rendtorff’s reconstruction of the development process of the themes of the divine promise. The difference between the models of Blum and Rendtorff turns out to be obvious in Blum’s modified model. By confining of the scope of KD 172

48

Part I: Methodological Considerations

B. Blum’s Method We have observed above that Blum focuses more on the diachronic development of the patriarchal narrative, identifying five successive phases of the literary development of the text.178 Yet for the formation of Exodus-Numbers, he mainly investigates the later stages of the compositions (KD and KP) with emphasis on their synchronic profiles. The method used here is thus redaction criticism combined with synchronic structural analysis, which Blum himself defines as composition criticism. The addition of a synchronic dimension represents a significant methodological departure from Rendtorff’s method. the conceptual structure of Blum’s methodology can be thus understood as follows: (1) Separation of tradition units and literary-critical study of the text as the analytical part; (2) Distinguishing layers (diachrone Reliefbeschreibung) based on the analytical basis; (3) Reconstruction of the composition layers (Komposition Schicht), finding synchronic structural coherence in the layers based on (1) and (2). The first and part of the second stage are the analytical parts of the method, and the later ones are its synthetic parts. The method Blum himself defines for (3), revealing the distinctive quality of ‘composition criticism’, is to identify a ‘reference net of cross-reference and correspondence’ (Bezugsnetz von Querverweisen und Entsprechungen).179 The concept of composition in Blum’s methodological scheme is a creation of a textual unity from pieces of written material transmitted to the writer. The nature of this composition is thus positioned somewhere between Rendtorff’s D-redactor and Van Seters’ author (the Yahwist).180

to only Exodus on, Blum in fact refutes the notion that the patriarchal and the exoduswilderness stories are conjoined by an ‘overarching D redaction’, which is a pivotal claim in Rendtorff’s model. 178 See above. 179 Blum himself defines it as follows: ‘Hinzu kommt, daß die betreffenden Komponenten nicht nur, wie aus der synchronen Strukturskizze erhellt, thematisch-skopisch gleichsinning sind, sondern auch ihrem >>traditionsgeschichtlichen Profil