I've been reading through an article in the most recent Journal of Biblical Studies entitled "The Yahwist: The Earliest Editor in the Pentateuch." Many of you know that just as there are theories about the sources of the Synoptic Gospels, there are theories of sources behind the Pentateuch.
100 years ago, Julius Welhausen's famous JEDP was being discussed and modified (and blasted). But of course the discussion has continued for 100 years, apparently with German scholarship still taking the most interest in such things. Welhausen's theory is not sacrosanct among scholars by any means--scholars can make their name by dismissing theories as well as suggesting new ones. A great deal has happened in discussion of this issue since him.
Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is still important in some circles for various reasons. Some pack more punch than others. Potentially the most powerful argument for Mosaic authorship is the way Jesus and the NT authors refer to it as "Moses says." But I'm not sure that this isn't simply "incarnated" speech, referring to the books in the way all the Jews of the day referred to the books. In any case the NT use of the OT is not a straightforward thing, since NT authors regularly read the OT "spiritually" rather than "historically."
This is the only significant argument for Mosaic authorship, since the books themselves don't "want" to be read that way. Genesis never mentions Moses and throughout the other four Moses is mentioned in the third person--we are told about Moses in them, including about his death. Nowhere is Moses said to be the author of the books themselves. From the standpoint of listening to these texts (rather than imposing ideas on them), we would not conclude that Moses put them in their current form. Of course sometimes faith requires belief in that which goes against the evidence.
In any case, the author of this article argues that someone he calls the "Yahwist" was the earliest editor of the material that is currently the Pentateuch. This author, he argues, spliced together six already existent stories, including those of Adam, Abraham and sons, Joseph, Moses, exodus, and Balaam. Later a priestly writer edited in further material, and Deuteronomy was added.
I have no stake in this debate and am not arguing for it. You might, however, find the web version of his "Yahwist" source interesting. The stuff in bold is what he thinks the Yahwist inherited and the italics is the Yahwist's editing, if I understand the site correctly.
http://www.at1.evtheol.uni-muenchen.de/personen/levin/texte/yahwist.pdf
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
thanks, ken...if i remember correctly, the Welhausen theory has a prophetic and a priestly writer... as you well know, the prophetic represents those who speak to the "king" (leadership) for God and the priestly is the one who represents God before the people...Am I "on target" in assuming that the priest represents TRADITION (structure and order), while the prophetic represents REASON (challenge to the "power" structure)!!! It is reasonable to serve Yahweh. So, it is interesting that Deutoronomy was added "later" (by the priestly writer?) to protect the "power" (judgment/standard) of the "tradition". This would be where Paul says that Jesus (the prophetic) as the "end of the Law"..SO, could we assume that, just as in our form of government, that the prophet/priest element are those in elected offices, who are to represent the people before government...it is unfortunate, though, that the people have sometimes been "oppressed" by BIG GOVERNMENT AND BIG CORPORATIONS (as Big plans have a "life of their own" see "Becoming Evil")!!! We see this in our local tax increases...because, BIG GOVERNMENT cannot meet the local needs like it should...without waste and with wisdom...But Big government Is necessary for a country such as ours, when it comes to international affairs (the "forever" debate over federalism and centralization (I forget the name)...and that is the work of the State Department!!! I am looking forward to "thinking' along those lines...The Church, as an institution, is not in political power,(nor should it be) except with those individuals who are "called" to it..and that is a priestly and prophetic role!!
The Divine Right of Kings and Israel as a chosen nation are not the "abosolute" today...If we work for peace...then just as Israel's Six Day War was destructive of "pan Arabism" (secular Arab states), which led to fundamental religious Islamisn!!!And that is the "war of today"...I am reading on Iran right now...in "The Economist"...
I've decided that you read my posts allegorically, Angie, and see their items as allegories of modern politics ;-)
The older JEDP theory was the idea that there were two epics, one perhaps belonging to the northern kingdom and one to the southern. One used LORD, Yahweh (or in German Jahweh) to refer to God. The other used Elohim (the more generic word God). These at some point were spliced together to form JE, a unified epic.
Then in this theory, Deuteronomy was written about the time of Josiah and "discovered" in the temple.
Finally, in the theory, a priestly writer after the exile added Genesis 1 and other material to make the Pentateuch as we now have it.
There have been a number of recombobulations since then. Few now accept the existence of E, for example. I've heard talk of H, or a holiness source with Leviticus stuff.
Not my area...
I think when you talk about universal justice, then aren't we talking about international politics? I think the "problem" of "universal history" was a problem that Hans Conzulman discussed in his book on "Jews, Gentiles, and Christians"....because Israel's history was "reconstructed"...to ethnocentric terms...And yes, I guess I am thinking in allegorical terms...it's hard to do otherwise, being so weak in history...and sometimes I think that is dangerous...AND, Ken, anything that you "share" that is "outside your expertise" would be informitve to me, as I am so uninformed...and I'm trying to rectify that...as I don't want to be ill-informed when I converse with those we will be exposed to in the State Department. I want to be a good steward and representative!
NO
Post a Comment