1.2 History of Research:

1. 1.2 History of Research: ATPS-BOT620

2. 1.1 Beginnings of Critical Inquiry Wisdom of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus): ". . . the concern for authorship and book production that first emerged in late antiquity. The Wisdom of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus), written in the early second century BC, is the first Jewish book in anything like the modern sense of the term that has come down to us, and one in which the author for the first time identifies himself (Sir 50.29). From about the same time polemical requirements led Jewish apologists to compare Moses favorably, as lawgiver and compiler of the national epos, with his Greek counterparts." [Blenkinsopp, Joseph, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible, 1]

3. 1.2 Beginnings of Critical Inquiry Josephus: ". . . Josephus . . . names Moses as author of five books containing the laws and traditional history (Apion 1.37-40)." [Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible, 1-2] "Of these, five are the books of Moses, comprising the laws and the traditional history from the birth of man down to the death of the lawgiver. This period falls only a little short of three thousand years. . . ." [Josephus: Against Apion, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray, 1.37-40]

4. 1.3 Beginnings of Critical Inquiry Celsus (2nd Century): "The following passages appear to have some bearing upon the question of the Mosaic writings Thereafter Celsus [says Origen], 'attacking the first book of Moses, which is called Genesis, says: "So they undertook to construct genealogies from the first seed' (of mankind), calling to witness the obscure and ambiguous expressions of cheats and impostors, darkly hidden sayings, falsely interpreting them to foolish and ignorant folk." [Gray, Old Testament Criticism, 18]

5. 1.4 Beginnings of Critical Inquiry Celsus: "And again: "Then Celsus carped at the story of the dove, that he might appear to have read the book Genesis, but could say nothing to prove that the tale of the dove was an invention. Next, turning the Scriptures into ridicule, as his wont is, he changes the raven into a crow, and supposes that Moses wrote down the story (of the Flood), fraudulently corrupting the Deucalion narrative current among the Greeks. Unless forsooth does not believe the

6. 1.4 Beginnings of Critical Inquiry writing to be the work of Moses, but of several persons which this expression 'they, falsifying and corrupting the Deucalion story,' shows, and this: 'for I suppose they did not expect that these things would come to light.'" [Gray, Old Testament Criticism, 18-19]

7. 1.5 Beginnings of Critical Inquiry Nazarites: "It does not appear that in their beliefs they differed materially from other Christians, except in regard to the Pentateuch; and this, according to the orthodox writers, they steadily refused to accept. Epiphanius, who wrote three volumes against eighty different heresies, formulates their offense in this direction as follows: "And they accepted the Fathers named in the Pentateuch, from Adam until Moses, as evidently abounding in true piety. But the Pentateuch itself they did not accept, though they acknowledge Moses, and believe that he received the Law; yet not this one, they say, but another." [Gray, 20-21]

8. 1.5 Beginnings of Critical Inquiry "And John Damascenus, writing of them in the eighth century, says : "The Nazarites dogmatically deny that the books of the Pentateuch are the work of Moses, and maintain other writings in their stead." [Gray, 21]

9. 1.6 Beginnings of Critical Inquiry Ptolemaitanes, or followers of Ptolemaeus, the gnostic disciple of Valentinus: "In reference to another heretical sect, that of the Ptolemaitanes, or followers of Ptolemaeus, the gnostic disciple of Valentinus, Epiphanius gives the substance of a letter addressed by Ptolemaeus to Flora, whom he calls his sister, in which the writer states that the Law (sc., the Pentateuch) did not proceed from a single lawgiver, but was tripartite in character, ascribing one part directly to God, another to Moses, and the third to the elders of the people." [Gray, 21]

10. 1.7 Beginnings of Critical Inquiry The Ezra Tradition: "Jewish tradition concerning the authorship and composition of the Hebrew Scriptures centers in and derives from the story of the work of the Great Synagogue, which is said to have had Ezra for its first president, and to have included Nehemiah, Zechariah, Haggai, and Malachi among its members. In the selection and revision of the ancient writings and the preparation of the canonical library which, according to Jewish tradition, constituted the chief work of that famous body, the share assigned to Ezra was the editing, or rather, the rewriting of the Pentateuch; and this he was enabled by divine inspiration to dictate to

11. 1.7 Beginnings of Critical Inquiry five secretaries at once precisely as Moses had first set it down. For the tradition involved the disappearance of the Mosaic autograph to begin with, and a subsequent reproduction by Ezra the Scribe. " [Gray, 26-27]

12. 1.8 Beginnings of Critical Inquiry Patristic Period: "The only categorical criticism of the Old Testament which has come down to us from patristic times is reported by Anastasius the Sinaite, patriarch of Antioch at the end of the seventh century, in his Hodegos, or Guide of the Way. Anastasius tells us that while he was making a visitation in the East, a number of so-called �difficulties� were submitted to him by some recent deserters from the orthodox Church, and gives a long list of these �aporia,� nearly all of which refer, as might be expected, to the New Testament. . . ." [Gray, 45f.]

13. 1.8 Beginnings of Critical Inquiry "These �difficulties� cover a wide field in Pentateuchal criticism. The Mosaic authorship; the discrepant statements in Genesis; the absence of a prohibition extended to the woman concerning the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; the chronological difficulty involved in the contradictory statements in Genesis and Exodus (according to the Septuagint) concerning the duration of the bondage in Egypt; the nonobservance of the term of human life fixed before the Flood; the contrast between the will of God in respect of sacrifice communicated through the prophets and the complicated Levitical system of oblation and burnt-offering. " [Gray, 45-47]

14. 1.9 Beginnings of Critical Inquiry Ibn Ezra, Abraham: "When in the twelfth century the Spanish scholar Abraham Ibn Ezra chose, in his commentary on Deuteronomy, to voice his misgivings, he felt obliged to do so in a kind of code: "Beyond Jordan . . . if so be you understand the mystery of the twelve . . . moreover Moses wrote the law . . . the Canaanite was then in the land . . . it shall be revealed on the mountain of God . . . then also behold his bed . . . then you shall know the truth." [Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible, 2]

15. 2.1 To the Sixteenth Century Bodenstein, Andreas (or Carlsbad; 1480-1541): "In this respect the following extract from his treatise On the Canonical Scriptures, published in 1520, is of extreme interest. "Let us add that many books are to be trusted as far as the facts are concerned, but in regard to the narrator of the transactions, we can but speak with uncertainty concerning many canonical books. It is certain that Moses divinely received and gave to the people the Law of God; but doubt can be entertained as to whose is the composition of the five books of Moses and the thread of the narrative. For in the same way that we recognize

16. 2.1 To the Sixteenth Century a man before we see him, by the shape of his body, we also decide in other matters. Thus, from the manner of a treatise we conjecture it to be that of an author whom we have previously been in the habit of reading. Now the manner of the narrator appears to be different when Moses speaks and when the historian relates a transaction in a simple way." [Gray, 53ff.]

17. 2.2 To the Sixteenth Century Martinengo, Ascanio: "The last critical note of the sixteenth century was furnished by the Great Glosses on Genesis (Padua, 1597) of Ascanio Martinengo. This author comes to the conclusion that Moses derived the material for the books of the Pentateuch from ancestral and other ancient records, which he proceeds to enumerate. After the publication of Martinengo�s book biblical criticism seems to have rested for more than half a century; and it was not until the middle of the seventeenth century that it made its reappearance with the publication of Hobbes�s Leviathan." [Gray, 59-60]

18. 3.0 16th Century & Onward Hermeneutical Problems that the Reformation Initiated: 3.0.1 Background: 3.0.1.1 "�The foundations of modern biblical criticism were laid in the Renaissance with the recovery of knowledge of Greek and the editing and printing of ancient sources. Historians could show that present practices were developments from more primitive customs, and the question was raised as to whether or nor the present Church was truly faithful to the beliefs of

19. 3.0 16th Century & Onward the primitive Church. The Reformation, both a popular and a nationalist movement, took these humanist questions and turned them into a principle, that the Church should return to the sole authority of the primitive charters as contained in the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT. It rejected the authority of the LXX and the Latin Bible.� [O�Neill, J. C., �History or Biblical Criticism,� ADB, I, p. 726-7]

20. 3.0 16th Century & Onward 3.0.1.2 "Luther used the doctrine of justification by faith alone as an instrument to deny apostolicity to the epistles of James, Jude, and Hebrews as well as to the apocalypse. Zwingli used philological arguments to question the Church�s interpretation of the words of institution of the Lord�s Supper. Once the Bible was seen as the sole authoritative basis of the Church�s life, biblical criticism designed to maintain and strengthen the position of the various churches that claimed this basis against other churches of the Reformation and against the, Roman Catholic Church and heretics became a central and crucial activity. Ten new German universities were founded between 1527 and 1665 to provide for

21. 3.0 16th Century & Onward this need. Critics of the Reformed and Lutheran churches from without and within resorted for justification of their position to criticism of received scholarly opinions about the Bible." [O�Neil, J. C., �Biblical Criticism,� ADB, Vol I, p. 727] 3.0.1.3 Primacy of Scriptures: "Within that interpretative circle of scripture and church, Reformation exegesis no longer gives decisive weight to the teaching church, equipped with sacramental authority, but to the scripture. The church is also warned that it is in constant peril of shattering on itself and the weight of its tradition, and thus while on earth is always in need of

22. 3.0 16th Century & Onward reform and is only on the way to spiritual consummation." [Stuhlmacher, Peter, Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation of Scripture, 32-33] 3.0.1.4 Priority of Exegesis: "Within the horizon of the so-called exclusive particles . . . - solus Christus, sola scriptura, and sola fide -which belong together and cannot be separated, the task of scripture exposition in the Reformation can be unequivocally and clearly fixed: Exposition must be an exegesis applied to the scriptural texts which traces out the gospel and serves its preaching. Rather than relinquishing to the teaching office of the church the definition and

23. 3.0 16th Century & Onward summary of the many-layered witness of scripture to the one truth of faith, exegesis must now discover the gospel on its own." [Stuhlmacher, 33] 3.0.1.5 Exegetical Method: "Understandably, this new, theologically central position given to scripture interpretation at once bad consequences for method. It is not merely that Luther and Calvin-the one as pioneer, the other as theoretician and brilliant executor of Reformation exegesis-make Humanism�s philological interest their own, and reach back of the Vulgate to, the original biblical texts. Allegory is also evicted from its place as the

24. 3.0 16th Century & Onward dominant method. Now an exegetical method is needed which first of all facilitates return to and theological penetration of the original meaning of Holy Scripture." [Stuhlmacher, 34f.] 3.0.1.6 Exegetical Goal: "In the place of ancient church and medieval allegory with its ascent of knowledge, the Reformation brings a theological exposition of scripture, which is discriminating in respect of its content, rooted in history, and emphatically concerned for the original meaning of scripture. The goal of the exegetical procedure is to facilitate the preaching of the gospel." [Stuhlmacher, 35f.]

25. 3.1 16th Century & Onward 3.1.1 Grotius (Huig de Groot, 1583-1645) "During the busy decades of his diplomatic career Grotius was working on Annotationes to all the books of the Bible. Only those on the gospels (1641) and the OT (1644) were published during his life; two additional ones completing the NT were published posthumously (1646 and 1650). So far as he is a "critic," his criticism touches peripheral books of the canon. . . . But Grotius� true significance lies, not in occasional critical insights like the above, but in his quiet assumption of a right to study, analyze, and scrutinize the books of scripture exactly as one does any other book. In this he seems to be the

26. 3.1 16th Century & Onward pioneer among modern men." [Grobel, K., �Biblical Criticism,� IDB, Vol. 1, p. 409]

27. 3.1 16th Century & Onward 3.1.2 Hobbes, Thomas (1588-1679) "Thomas Hobbes knew the legal writings of Grotius and presumably also the Annotationes - they had all been published before Hobbes�s Leviathan appeared in 1651. Hobbes�s real interest is neither in scripture nor in theology but in the theory of the state. Seeking a source of ultimate authority for the state, he turns his candid and rational eye to examine the Authority of authorities, the Christian scriptures. He does so with all the freedom of Grotius but with keener awareness of what he is doing, and now

28. 3.1 16th Century & Onward systematically inquiring after the authorship and date of each writing (of the OT, at any rate)." [Grobel, K., �Biblical Criticism,� IDB, Vol. 1, p. 409] "And first, for the Pentateuch, it is not argument enough that they were written by Moses, because they are called the five Books of Moses, no more than these titles, the Book of Joshua, the book of Judges, the Book of Ruth, and the Books of the Kings are arguments sufficient to prove, that they were written by Joshua, by the Judges, by Ruth, and by the Kings. For in titles of Books, the subject is marked, as often as the writer." [Hobbes]

29. 3.1 16th Century & Onward "We read in the last chapter of Deuteronomie, ver 6. concerning the sepulcher of Moses, that no man knoweth of his sepulcher to this day, that is, to the day in which these words were written. It is therefore manifest, that those words were written after his interrement." [Hobbes] "For it was a strange interpretation, to say Moses spake of his own sepulcher (though by Prophecy), that it was not found to that day, wherein he was yet living. But it may perhaps be alledged, that the last chapter only, not the whole Pentateuch, was written by some other man, but the rest not; Let us therefore consider that which we find in the Book of Genesis, chap. 12. ver. 6. �And Abraham passed through the land to the place of

30. 3.1 16th Century & Onward Sechem, unto the plain of Moreh, and the Canaanite was then in the land; which must needs be the words of one that wrote when the Canaanite was not in the land ; and consequently, not of Moses, who dyed before be came into it. Likewise Numbers, 21. ver. 14. the Writer citeth another more ancient Book, Entitled, The Book of the Wares of the Lord, wherein were registered the Acts of Moses, at the Red-sea, and at the brook of Arnon. It is therefore sufficiently evident, that the five Books of Moses were written after his time, though how long after is not so manifest." [Hobbes]

31. 3.1 16th Century & Onward "But though Moses did not compile those Books entirely, and in the form we have them; yet he wrote all that which he is there said to have written: as for example, the Volume of the Law, which is contained, as it seemeth, in the 11 of Deuteronomie, and the following chapters to the 27, which was also commanded to be written on stones, in their entry into the land of Canaan. And this also did Moses himself write, and delivered to the Priests and Elders of Israel, to be read every seventh year to all Israel, at their assembling in the feast of Tabernacles. And this is that Law which God commanded, that their Kings (when they should have established that

32. 3.1 16th Century & Onward form of government) should take a copy of from the Priests and Levites ; and which Moses commanded the Priests and Levites to lay in the side of the Arke; and the same which having been lost, was long time after found again by Hilkiah, and sent to King Josias, who causing it to be read to the people, renewed the Covenant between God and them." [Hobbes]

33. 3.1 16th Century & Onward 3.1.3 Isaac de la Peyr�re "From a remarkable book by Isaac de la Peyr�re, entitled A Theological System from a Preadamite Hypothesis, published in 1655, and designed to show the existence of man upon the earth previous to the creation related in Genesis, the following extracts are of interest in connection with the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch: "I know not by what author it is found out, that the Pentateuch is Moses his own copy. It is so reported, but not believed by all. These reasons make me believe, that these Five Books are not the Originals, but copied out by another. Because Moses is there, read to have died. For how could

34. 3.1 16th Century & Onward Moses write after his death? They say, that Joshuah added the death of Moses to Deuteronomie. But, who added the death of Joshuah to that: book which is so called; and which is reckoned as being written by Joshuah himself, as the Pentateuch by Moses?" [Gray, 83f.] "De la Peyr�re also refers to Deuteronomy 1.1, "Beyond Jordan," Deuteronomy 3.11 ("For only Og King of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon?"); 3.14 ("Jair the son of Manasseh took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of Geshuri and Maachathi; and called it after his

35. 3.1 16th Century & Onward own name, Bashan-Havoth-Jair, unto this day"); also 2.12 and 22 (concerning the defeat of the Horim by the descendants of Esau and their settlement in Seir); from which latter verse, by a comparison with Psalm cviii:9, and other references to Edom, he concludes that the date of that portion of Deuteronomy was subsequent to the reign of David." [Gray, 84f.]

36. 3.1 16th Century & Onward 3.1.4 Spinoza, Benedict (1632-77) "One scholar who had no difficulty cracking the code was Spinoza who, in the eighth chapter of his Tractatus Theologico-politicus, published in 1670, listed the biblical verses alluded to, verses which according to Ibn Ezra may not have been written by Moses. (The passages in question are Deut 1.1; 3.11; 27.1-8; 31.9; Gen 12.5; 22.14). To these Spinoza added arguments of his own, leading to the conclusion that 'it is thus clearer than the sun at noonday that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses but by someone who lived long after Moses.'" [Blenkinsopp, 2]

37. 3.1 16th Century & Onward "1. The frequent references to Moses in the third person. 2. The statements concerning Moses in the last chapter of Deuteronomy. 3. The calling of places in Genesis and elsewhere by names which did not come into use until a later period (e.g. Genesis xiv:4, "And Abraham pursued as far as Dan," the name of the place being at that time Laish.) 4. The prolongation of the history beyond the time of Moses, (e.g. Exodus xvi:34, "And the children of Israel did eat manna until they came to a land inhabited; they did eat manna until they came to the borders of the land of Canaan," in conjunction with Joshua v:12, "And the manna ceased on the morrow after they had eaten of the old corn of the land,� and the mention of the kings of Edom in Genesis xxxvi:31)." [Gray, 96f.]

38. 3.1 16th Century & Onward 3.1.5 Simon, Richard (1638-1712) "The French Oratorian priest Richard Simon, a contemporary of Spinoza and one of the pioneers in the critical study of the Pentateuch, discovered the need for prudence the hard way after publishing his Histoire Critique de Vieux Testament in 1678. Simon acknowledged the role of Moses in the production of the Pentateuch, merely adding the suggestion that the work owed its final form to scribes active up to the time of Ezra." [Blenkinsopp, 3] "Moses cannot be the Author of the Books which are attributed to him."

39. 3.1 16th Century & Onward "He found four general groups of facts to disprove the Mosaic authorship of the entire Pentateuch: (1) those passages which have a different historical background than the time of Moses, e.g. Deut 34; Gen 12.6; Num 21.14; (2) repetitions 'of an identical thing in the Pentateuch - repetitions that apparently are not at all from Moses but rather from those who made the collection of the sacred books and who joined together several readings or explications of the same words, without considering it necessary to remove anything from their copies that would clarify the text,' as e.g. in Gen 7.17-24; Exod 31.14-16; Lev 3.9; (3) the many minor cases of poor order (e.g., the mention of woman in Gen

40. 3.1 16th Century & Onward 1.27 before her creation is described in the following chapter), which Simon attributed to the fact that the books in ancient times were written on small scrolls or separate sheets, the order of which could easily have been changed; and (4) the variety of literary styles throughout the Pentateuch, which seems to indicate that the author could not have written all of it. . . . ' Moreover, whether a book or a history or a simple parable or a history mixed with parables, it is at any rate no less true or no less divine.' Simon's awareness of these distinctions marks the onset of biblical criticism." [Knight, Douglas A., Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel: The Development of the Traditio-Historical Research of the Old Testament, with Special Consideration of Scandinavian Contributions, 47]

41. 3.1 16th Century & Onward 3.1.6 Witter, Henning Bernhard (1683-1715) "That the German pastor Henning Bernhard Witter (1683-1715) was able to develop the earliest documentary hypothesis was due above all to his historical approach to the Pentateuch as a body of literature with concrete origins and purposes. Confining his attention especially to the book of Genesis, Witter made the following basic statement: "From these sources which were handed on by the traditions of the Father and by the oral tradition, with the support of the God, Moses put together the Pentateuch." There was nothing unusual about this opinion since the same position was held by Simon, Calvin, Le Clerc, and

42. 3.1 16th Century & Onward others prior to him. He did not ever vary from the traditional view of Mosaic authorship of Genesis. The significant difference, however, was that Witter not only posited pre-Mosaic sources but also sought to identify them in our present text. . . . Witter's criteria for distinguishing between sources consisted of differences of style, repetitions of content, and alternation between divine names." [Knight, 55-56] "Did Witter initiate a new understanding of tradition or transmission? This must be answered in the negative, for in essence his view was a continuation of the vague, undeveloped notion that Moses received some traditional materials

43. 3.1 16th Century & Onward from his ancestors. Witter's contribution was that he simply designated certain specific portions of Genesis as having been pre-existent to Moses." [Knight, 56]

44. 3.1 16th Century & Onward 3.1.7 Astruc, Jean (1684-1766) ". . . the extensive source-critical work of the French physician Jean Astruc (1684-1766). Like his predecessors, Astruc recognized the existence of oral tradition in the pre-Mosaic period but was very skeptical that it was capable of retaining accurately all the details (especially names, ages, topographical descriptions) included in Genesis. Consequently, Astruc suggested that Moses had old literary memoirs at his disposal � two of these

45. 3.1 16th Century & Onward sources being major and ten being fragmentary. Moses assembled these strands into our present Genesis. In contrast to Simon who found post-Mosaic portions in this book Astruc attributed everything to Moses. Like Witter's Astruc's work represented an advance inasmuch as the pre-Mosaic material � simply identified as such, without specification, by critics prior to them � was assorted into distinct groupings and classified as ancient sources. But aside from this, he did not attempt to investigate this prehistory, nor did he regard these sources as changing, growing traditions produced by the community." [Knight, 56-57]

46. 3.1 16th Century & Onward "The phenomena which to him cry for explanation are chiefly three: (a) repeated narratives of the same event; (b) the strange distribution of Elohim and Jehovah (Astruc uses this mistaken medieval form of the Tetragrammaton); (c) chronological confusion." [Grobel, K., �Biblical Criticism,� IDB, Vol. 1, p. 410-11] 3.1.8 Brouwer, Peter "In the same year that Astruc's book appeared, Peter Brouwer defended at Leyden his dissertation: "Whence did Moses learn the facts described in the book of Genesis?" in which he maintained that the Hebrew leader had access to

47. 3.1 16th Century & Onward previous documents, chiefly historical or genealogical, in compiling his history; and cited such introductory titles as: "These are the generations of," or "This is the book of the generations of," as showing the existence of ancient records introduced in this manner, from which Moses composed the account contained in Genesis." [Gray, 146-47]

48. 3.1 16th Century & Onward 3.1.9 Michaelis, Johann David "In his Introduction to the Divine Writings of the Old Covenant, published in 1787, Michaelis firmly upholds the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, subject to the addition of those passages which Moses could not possibly have written, and a few later interpolations; and summarises his argument by saying that Moses owed his material to: (1) written memorials, (2) historical poems, (3) hieroglyphics and (4) folklore." [Gray, 150-51]

49. 3.1 16th Century & Onward 3.1.10 Herder, Johann Gottfried (1744-1803) ". . . Herder's romantic, anti-rationalistic understanding of man and the world led him to elevate the aesthetic character of the archaic expressions of Hebrew life. He sought to shift the emphasis from a critical undermining of the Bible on the one side and from an unquestioning orthodoxy on the other side - to a full, intuitive appreciation of the human elements permeating the Scripture. This occasioned some profound

50. 3.1 16th Century & Onward advances in the on-going under-standing of tradition and transmission. . . ." [Knight, 58] "According to Herder's conception, the document constitutes "the bridge from timeless poetry to time-bound history, the intermediary concept between poetical Invention and history. This Is the fruit of Herder's awareness that poetry is not to be compared with the fine arts but with history, from which It also springs. The document assumes the character of life congealed in writing." [Knight, 58-60] "Herder conceived of an organic growth of tradition out of poetry." [Knight, 58-60]

51. 3.1 16th Century & Onward "A clear understanding of our prime traditio principle of interpretation by subsequent generations can also be observed in Herder's writing." [Knight, 58-60] "Also at the literary stage this process continued by means of subsequent redactions." [Knight, 58-60]

52. 3.1 16th Century & Onward 3.1.11 Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried (1751-1827) "In the second volume of his Introduction to the Old Testament Eichhorn deals specifically with the authorship and composition of the sacred books. In regard to Genesis he argues: (1) only such a man as Moses could have been the author; (2) the book is compiled from ancient written records; (3) among these are certain independent documents; (4) most of the book is composed of parts of two distinct histories, whose separate identity is discernible from the repetitions in the text and also from the variation in the style of the divine appellation. In his assignment of the material of the two accounts he follows in the main the division of Astruc, with a few unimportant variations." [Gray, 153-54]

53. 3.1 16th Century & Onward 3.1.12 Nachtigal, Johann Christoph (1753-1819) "Another noteworthy advance occurred in this same period - a contribution which has almost totally been overlooked and forgotten. Johann Christoph Nachtigal (1753-1819) published under the pseudonym Otmar a series of articles in 1794-95 dealing with the gradual formation of the Old Testament. Varying from other critics in the period immediately after the source-critical ground had been broken by Witter and Astruc, Nachtigal conceived of this formation as a

54. 3.1 16th Century & Onward complex process in which both oral and written traditions were transmitted down to later generations and in the course of time were put into first smaller compilations and then ever larger ones until the entire corpus of the historical books was finally reached." [Knight, 61]

55. 3.1 16th Century & Onward 3.1.13 Ilgen, Karl David (1763-1834) ". . . Carl David Ilgen, who in 1794 succeeded Eichhorn in the chair of Oriental languages at Jena, and in 1798 published a small volume bearing the somewhat magniloquent title of: Documents of the Archives of the Temple of Jerusalem in their Original Form. This book, which carried on its second page the subtitle, "Documents of the First Book of Moses in their Original Form," consists of a division of Genesis into three independent narratives, assigned to three writers, whom the author styles respectively: "The First Elohist," "The Second Elohist," and "The First Jehovist." [Gray, 169]

56. 3.1 16th Century & Onward 3.1.14 Geddes, Alexander "From intrinsic evidence, three things seem to me indubitable. lst, The Pentateuch, in its present form, was not written by Moses. 2dly, It was written in the land of Chanaan, and most probably at Jerusalem. 3dly, It could not be written before the reign of David, nor after that of Hezekiah. The long pacific reign of Solomon (the Augustan age of Judaea) is the period to which I would refer it; yet, I confess, there are some marks of a posterior date, for at least of posterior interpolation."[Quote of Geddes from Gray, 175]

57. 3.1 16th Century & Onward "But though I am inclined to believe that the Pentateuch was reduced into its present form in the reign of Solomon, I am fully persuaded that it was compiled from ancient documents, some of which were coeval with Moses, and some even anterior to Moses. Whether all these were written records, or many of them only oral tradition, it would be rash to determine. From the time of Moses, I think, there can be no doubt of their having written records. From his Journals, a great part of the Pentateuch seems to have been compiled. Whether he were also the original author of the Hebrew cosmogony, or of the history prior to his own days, I would neither confidently assert, nor positively deny. He

58. 3.1 16th Century & Onward certainly may have been the original author or compiler, but it is also possible, and I think more probable, that Solomon was the first collector and collected from such documents as he could find, either among his own people or among the neighbouring nations." "Some modem writers, indeed, allowing Moses to be the author of the Pentateuch, maintain that he composed the book of Genesis from two different written documents which they have attempted to distinguish by respective characteristics. Although I really look upon this as a work of fancy, and will elsewhere endeavor to prove it so; I am not so self-sufficient to imagine that I may

59. 3.1 16th Century & Onward not be in the wrong, or that they may not be in the right. The reader who wishes to see the arguments on which they ground their assertion may consult Astruc or Eichhorn." [Quote of Geddes from Gray, 176]

60. 4.0 Source Critical Studies 4.0.1 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.

61. 4.0 Source Critical Studies 4.0.2 Fragment Hypothesis: (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]

62. 4.0 Source Critical Studies 4.0.3 Supplementary Hypothesis: (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]

63. 4.0 Source Critical Studies 4.0.4 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.

64. 5.0 Documentary Hypothesis 5.0.1 Main Features: Stated briefly and in purely literary terms, the Documentary Hypothesis states 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.

65. 5.0 Documentary Hypothesis 5.0.2 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.

66. 5.0 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 (RJE). 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.

67. 5.0 Documentary Hypothesis D was subsequently appended to JE by a second redactor (RD), 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.

68. 5.0 Documentary Hypothesis P was subsequently combined with JED by a third redactor (RJED) 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

69. 5.0 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]

70. 5.1 Presuppositions �An evolutionary, unilinear approach to Israelite history. It has long been recognized that Wellhausen built his theory on a now-discredited evolutionary philosophy with its roots in the thought of G.W.F.Hegel.� [Whybray in Garret, Rethinking Genesis, 16] �The possibility of dividing the Pentateuchal texts on the basis of stylistic criteria.� [Garret, ibid.]

71. 5.1 Presuppositions �A simple conflation of documents by redactors. According to the theory, the redactors simply conflated the texts at hand by the �scissors-and-paste� method of cutting up each document and then joining the whole into a continuous narrative.� [Garret, ibid.] �Easy determination of the purposes and methods behind the documents and redactions. The early framers of the Documentary Hypothesis thought they could deduce the purposes and methods of

72. 5.1 Presuppositions the redactors, despite the fact that enormous cultural difference existed between the scholars who studied Genesis and the men who wrote it. More than that, scholars came to have strange perceptions of the writers of the documents over against the redactors. In particular, it was assumed that each writer aimed to produce a single, continuous history but would tolerate no inconsistency, repetition, or narrative digressions. The redactors, on the other hand, were said to be utterly oblivious to every kind of contradiction and repetition.� [Garret, ibid.]

73. 5.2 Analysis The use of Different Names for the Deity Variations of Language and Style Contradictions and Divergences of Views Repetition, Parallel Accounts (Doublets), and Redundancy [Conflations] Theological Unity of Each Document

74. 6.0 Adjustments 6.1 Noth, Martin: "G (Grundlage = a common basis) underlying J and E by 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

75. 6.0 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]

76. 6.0 Adjustments 6.2 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] "Perhaps the term "epic" best designates the constitutive genre of Israel's religious expression. Epic in interpreting historical events combines mythic and historical features in various ways and proportions. Usually Israel�s epic forms have been labeled "historical." This is a legitimate use of the term "historical." At the same time confusion often enters at this point. The epic form,

77. 6.0 Adjustments designed to recreate and give meaning to the historical experiences of a people or nation, is not merely or simply historical. In epic narrative, a people and their god or gods interact in the temporal course of events. In historical narrative only human actors have parts. Appeal to divine agency is illegitimate. Thus the composer of epic and the historian are very different in their methods of approach to the materials of history. Yet both are moved by a common impulse in view of their concern with the human and the temporal process. By contrast myth in its purest form is concerned with "primordial events" and seeks static structures of meaning behind or beyond the historical flux. The

78. 6.0 Adjustments epic cycle of the Israelite league was taken up into the prose Epic (JE) sources in the course of the early monarchy. The Pentateuch itself may be described as a baroque elaboration of these Epic sources." [Cross, viii-ix]

79. 7.0 Recent Developments 7.1 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]

80. 7.0 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]

81. 7.0 Recent Developments 7.2 John Van Seters: 2.1 Abraham in History and Tradition (1975); Prologue to History (1992); The Life of Moses (1994). 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

82. 7.0 Recent Developments Mediterranean, a movement also seen in the works of early Greek historians." [Carr, 23]

83. 7.0 Recent Developments 7.3 Erhard Blum: 7.3.1 Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (1990); Die Komposition der V�tergeschichte (1984). 7.3.2 K-D combine at Gen 12-50 and Life of Moses unit immediately after the exile, after the DHtr. The Promise theme therefore come from the K-D. 7.3.3 K-P is then a further redaction.

84. 7.0 Recent Developments 7.4 Frank Cr�semann: 7.4.1 The Torah (1992, Eng. 1996). 7.4.2 Deals basically with the legal material: Covenant Code; Deuteronomic Code; the Priestly writing; and the combination of these texts. 7.4.3 CC - early 9th �Northern; Deut. � freelandlords during the Josiah to Jehoahaz period; Priestly � exilic attempt to deal with the exile; Combination � Persian period, coalition of debtors & priests.