1. 4.1 An Introduction Source Criticism & History of Traditions: OT/HB Hermeneutics - 2006

2. Source Critical Studies 1. Older Documentary Hypothesis: Witter (1711); Astruc (1756); Eichhorn (1780) –J and E Source based on the two divine names in Genesis. This was then applied to the whole Pentateuch.

3. Source Critical Studies 2. The Fragmentary/Story- Cycle/Block Model: (Geddes, Vater, De Witte; ) –"The work might have been compiled by a single editor who joined together into a single but somewhat jumbled whole a mass of quite independent short written pieces." [Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch, 17]

4. Source Critical Studies The Fragmentary/Story-Cycle/Block Model: (R. Rendtorff & Blum) –“In this model the basic component of composition is the individual narrative that may have been brought together by one or more collectors or editors, or which may have come together as story-cycles, or developed over time as blocks of tradition that were combined on in the final stages of the Pentateuch's 'redaction'. The same could apply to the laws as well with each 'code' having it own history of development before its combination with the narrative framework. Inconsistencies, lack of coherence between smaller or larger units and lack of cohesion in the process of redaction could be accounted for by this model.” [van Seters, 28]

5. Source Critical Studies 3. The Supplementation or Expansion of a Basic Text Model: (Ewald, Bleek) –One basic source with numerous expansions. –"... there might originally have been a single, consistent, unified account composed by a single author, to which, for various reasons, later writers made additions, so distorting the original unity of the composition." [Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch, 17]

6. Source Critical Studies 3. The Supplementation or Expansion of a Basic Text Model: (John van Seters) –“This compositional model suggests that one can recover a basic Pentateuchal or Tetrateuchal text that was supplemented and expanded from time to time and that it was primarily the additions that created inconsistencies and destroyed the coherence and cohesiveness of the earlier text.” [van Seters, 28-9]

7. Source Critical Studies 4. Newer Documentary Hypothesis: –Hupfeld, 1853 the independent sources of P, J, E, D. –Reuss, Graf, Kuenen, and Wellhausen: place P at the end and dated it post-exilic and therefore: JEDP.

9. Documentary Hypothesis 1. Main Features: –“... the Pentateuch took shape in a series of stages in which, during the space of several centuries, four originally distinct books (‘documents’), each written at a different time, were dovetailed together by a series of ‘redactors’ to form a single work.”

10. Documentary Hypothesis 2. This was achieved in the following ways: –The earliest of these works was that of the a ‘Yahwist’ (J). It began with what is now Gen 2.4b, and its various parts are now found in Genesis, Exodus and Numbers, together with a few short passages in Deuteronomy. Whether it ended at this point or continued into the book of Joshua or beyond was disputed. It is not represented in Leviticus.

11. Documentary Hypothesis –The ‘Elohist’ work (E) began with the story of Abraham in Gen 15 and then followed the same general course as J. –J and E were subsequently combined to form ‘JE’ by a redactor (R JE ). The process of redaction involved the omission of parts of J and E, especially of the latter. –The third ‘document’, Deuteronomy (D), consists mainly of the book of that name.

12. Documentary Hypothesis –D was subsequently appended to JE by a second redactor (R D ), who also inserted a few passages into JE and incorporated a few passages from JE into D. –The final work, the Priestly ‘document’ (P), began with what is now Gen 1.1 and followed the same chronological scheme as J. Material from P predominates in Exodus and Numbers, and is the sole source of Exod 25-31; 35-40 and of Leviticus.

13. Documentary Hypothesis –P was subsequently combined with JED by a third redactor (R JED ) to form the present Pentateuch. –A few passages (e.g. Gen 14) are not derived from any of the main four documents but must be regarded as independent fragments. It is not possible to determine at what point in the above scheme they were inserted, but a late date for this is probable. A few other

14. Documentary Hypothesis passages were added after the bulk of the Pentateuch was completed. Both Fragment and Supplement Hypotheses therefore, retained a minor place in the scheme of the Documentary Hypothesis.” [Whybray, The Making of the Pentateuch, 20-21]

15. Cassuto’s Summary The use of Different Names for the DeityThe use of Different Names for the Deity Variations of Language and StyleVariations of Language and Style Contradictions and Divergences of ViewsContradictions and Divergences of Views Repetition, Parallel Accounts (Doublets), and Redundancy [Conflations]Repetition, Parallel Accounts (Doublets), and Redundancy [Conflations] Theological Unity of Each DocumentTheological Unity of Each Document

16. Jewish Scholarship The Jewish community did not respond positively to Wellhausen’s thesis due to the negative depiction of the Priestly-Second Temple-Early Judaism religion. U. Cassuto and others exemplify this stance. Yehezhel Kaufmann re-dated the sources, especially the P source so that it was more acceptable. [Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, 175-200] “... they tend to accept the basic source division of the documentary hypothesis, but maintain that P is not the latest source but that it antedates Deuteronomy and reflects the worship of Solomon's temple. P may therefore come from much the same period as J. Some of the more important works from this school of thought have come from A. Hurvitz, M. Haran, J. Milgrom, and M. Weinfeld.” [Wenham]

17. Adjustments 1. Noth, Martin: –"G (Grundlage = a common basis) underlying J and E according to Noth: "The situation at hand cannot be explain very well except by postulating a common basis (Grundlage) for the two sources, for which both - independently of each other - have drawn the nucleus of their content. In those elements of the tradition where J and E run parallel, they concur to such an extent that their common Grundlage already must have existed in a fixed form, either one

18. Adjustments fixed in writing or one which had already been quite distinctly formed according to structure and content in oral transmission. The question as to whether this Grundlage was written or oral can hardly be answered with any certainty; but then, traditio- historically this is not of great consequence.... Every thing which J and E concur can be attributed to G." [Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, 39]

19. Adjustments 2. Rad, Gerhard von: 2.1 The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch 2.2 The Hexateuch was simply an expansion of the historical creed(s) found in Deut 6:20-24, 26:5b-9 and Josh 24:2-3. 2.3 The Exodus and the Sinai Tradition was separate from the Creedal tradition.

20. Adjustments 3. Cross, Frank Moore: –Cross school claims that J and E cannot really be separated positively therefore the "Epic Sources." –" By "Epic" we mean JE and the epic of which J and E were, in origin, oral variants." [Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 6] –P is the final editor

21. Recent Developments 1. Questioned Material: 1.1 "First, historical scholars have questioned a number of its basic aspects: the dating of the earliest pentateuchal stratum (“J”) to the ninth or tenth centuries, the existence of an independent elohistic document (“E’) or identifiable elohistic supplementary layer, the limitation of deuteronomistic and post- deuteronomistic elements to the book of Deuteronomy, and the idea that the priestly material ever existed separately as a priestly document." [Carr, "Controversy and Convergence...", 22]

22. Recent Developments 1.2 "Second, biblical scholars attuned to debates in literary theory outside of biblical studies have increasingly asked whether we can say anything meaningful about the formation of the Bible. Some have drawn heavily on the “new” literary criticism or more directive types of reader-response criticism to argue that the text is actually far more unified than we previously supposed, that it is seamless where we once mistakenly saw indicators of sources or redactions. Alternatively, other scholars more influenced by postmodern literary theory have argued that the text is far more complex than we supposed." [Carr, "Controversy and Convergence...", 22]

23. Recent Developments 2. John Van Seters: 2.1 Abraham in History and Tradition (1975); Prologue to History (1992); The Life of Moses (1994); The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary (1999) 2.2 "... crucial parts of the Abraham story conventionally assigned to the tenth century Yahwist were actually part of a post- deuteronomistic Yahwhist." [Carr, 23] 2.3 "... non-priestly pentateuchal texts show signs of dependence on deuteronomistic and prophetic traditions." [Carr, 23] 2.4 "... the historiographic form of the non- priestly Pentateuch is best understood as part of a broader sixth-fifth-century historiographic movement in the Mediterranean, a movement also seen in the works of early Greek historians." [Carr, 23]

24. Israel Knohl 1. The process starts in the premonarchic time with the oral composition of poems now embodied in the Torah. 2. The writing of the Priestly Torah takes place in Jerusalem, between the tenth and the eight centuries B.C.E. 3. The composition of the E source and the Covenant Code (Exod 20:19- 23:33) in the northern kingdom of Israel occurs in the first half of the eighth century B.C.E.

25. Israel Knohl 4. In the second half of the eighth century B.C.E., the stage moves back to Jerusalem, where the Holiness Code (Lev. 17-26) and the J source are composed and the E is redacted by the J circle. 5. In 622 B.C.E., the Book of Deuteronomy is published by Josiah in Jerusalem. 6. After the exile in 586 B.C.E., the activity moves to Babylon, where the final redaction of the Torah takes place. 7. The last act is the publication of the Torah by Ezra in Jerusalem in the middle of the fifth century B.C.E.