Table of Contents Introduction 1 Chapter One: The Scholarly Origins of JE 11 Hermann Hupfeld 13 Karl Heinrich Graf 19 Abraham Kuenen 24 Julius Wellhausen 27 August Dillmann 37 Eduard Riehm 40 Conclusion 43 Chapter Two: JE and the Documentary Hypothesis in the Twentieth Century 45 Hermann Gunkel 46 Gerhard von Rad and Martin Noth 48 Rudolf Smend, Otto Eissfeldt, et al 51 Paul Volz and Wilhelm Rudolph 54 Rolf Rendtorff, et al 60 Brevard Childs 78 John Van Seters 85 Richard E. Friedman 94 Conclusion 97 Chapter Three: The Relationship of D to J and E 99 Deut 1:9-18: Appointing of judges 106 Deut 1:19-45: The spies 114 Deut 2:2-3:11: Edom, Sihon, and Og 130 Deut 3:12-20: Apportioning the Transjordan 141 Deut 4:10-14; 5:2-5, 19-28; 9:8-21, 25-10:5: Horeb 153 Deut 8:15-16: Testing in the wilderness 172 Deut 9:22-24: Additional examples of disobedience in the wilderness 173 Deut 10:6-9: Travel and the Lévites 179 Bibliografische Informationen digitalisiert durch http://d-nb.info/992561043 X Table of Contents Deut 1 l:2b-6: The acts of YHWH 181 Deut 23:4-6: Ammonites, Moabites, and Balaam 184 Deut 25:17-19: Amalek 184 Deut 31:1-8: The authority of Joshua 185 Conclusion 188 Excursus: The Relationship of P to JE 197 Chapter Four: RJE - The Reliance on the Redactor 209 Factual Discrepancies 211 Genesis 16:8-10 211 Genesis 21:32, 34 and 26:15, 18 213 Exodus 4:13-16, et al 218 Exodus 34:1, 4 221 Exodus 32-34 223 Terminological Overlap 225 Genesis 20:18 228 Genesis 28:21 230 Genesis 31:3 232 Exodus 3:7 234 Secondary Additions 236 Exodus 3:14, 15* 237 Exodus 4:21-23 238 Covenant Code expansions 239 Deuteronomic affinities 241 Patriarchal promises 243 The Effect of the Expansion of the Redactor 248 Patriarchal promises 248 Exodus 32-34 249 Exodus 34:1, 4*, 28 251 Conclusion 253 Chapter Five: The Singularity of the Redactor(s) 255 Combining Documents 258 Block Sequence 260 Interweaving Texts 261 Insertions 263 Factual Corrections 265 Genesis 33:18a 265 Genesis 35:9 267 Table of Contents XI Genesis 39:1 268 Exodus 3:4 269 Exodus 34:29 271 Numbers 16:24, 27, 32 271 Derivative Additions 273 Exodus 4:21 273 Numbers 13:26 275 Numbers 32:9, 11,12 276 Numbers 32:33 277 Deuteronomy 1:39 278 Pattern Corrections 279 Exodus 9:35, 10:20 279 Numbers 32:29, 30 281 Amalgamating Verses 282 Exodus 31:18 283 Exodus 34:4 284 Numbers 13:26 285 Conclusion 285 Chapter Six: Unstated Assumptions Underlying the JE Theory 287 Conclusion 305 Bibliography 315 Index of Biblical Citations 327 Index of Authors Cited 337.

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Pious and Critical Scholarly Paradigms of the Pentateuch Â•Fl
Author Biography Spencer is a third year History major from Martinez, California. In addition, he is perusing a minor in Religious Studies. His major research interests involve the study of the Old and New Testament, as well as military history. After graduation, he hopes to take his passion and research to seminary, where he can further his study of the field and history of Biblical criticism. Morgan Pious and Critical Scholarly Paradigms of the Pentateuch — during the 19th & early 20th centuries by Spencer Morgan Abstract This paper examines the antithesis between Christian scholarship and modern higher criticism of the Pentateuch during the 19th and early 20th centuries. During the 19th century, the popularization and eventual hegemony of the Doc- umentary Hypothesis revolutionized the field of Biblical studies. Modern criti- cal scholars claimed that Moses did not write the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) during the 15th century BC, but rather it was the product of a later redaction of at least four separate documents: J, E, P, and D. Writing hundreds of years apart and long after Moses, their authors reflect not the ancient covenantal religion of Moses, but rather various periods in the evolution of Israel’s religion. The implications of the Documentary Hypothe- sis bring into question the historicity and theological validity of not only the Pen- tateuch, but also the Christian New Testament which presupposes it. The goal of this research is to identify the foundational presuppositions, conclusions, and contextual consciousness that both the modern critics and the Reformed body of Christian scholars opposing them brought to their scholarship.
[Show full text]
“As Those Who Are Taught” Symposium Series
“AS THOSE WHO ARE TAUGHT” Symposium Series Christopher R. Matthews, Editor Number 27 “AS THOSE WHO ARE TAUGHT” The Interpretation of Isaiah from the LXX to the SBL “AS THOSE WHO ARE TAUGHT” The Interpretation of Isaiah from the LXX to the SBL Edited by Claire Mathews McGinnis and Patricia K. Tull Society of Biblical Literature Atlanta “AS THOSE WHO ARE TAUGHT” Copyright © 2006 by the Society of Biblical Literature All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by means of any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permitted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission should be addressed in writing to the Rights and Permissions Office, Society of Biblical Literature, 825 Houston Mill Road, Atlanta, GA 30329 USA. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data “As those who are taught” : the interpretation of Isaiah from the LXX to the SBL / edited by Claire Mathews McGinnis and Patricia K. Tull. p. cm. — (Society of biblical literature symposium series ; no. 27) Includes indexes. ISBN-13: 978-1-58983-103-2 (paper binding : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 1-58983-103-9 (paper binding : alk. paper) 1. Bible. O.T. Isaiah—Criticism, interpretation, etc.—History. 2. Bible. O.T. Isaiah— Versions. 3. Bible. N.T.—Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. McGinnis, Claire Mathews. II. Tull, Patricia K. III. Series: Symposium series (Society of Biblical Literature) ; no. 27. BS1515.52.A82 2006 224'.10609—dc22 2005037099 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free, recycled paper conforming to ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (R1997) and ISO 9706:1994 standards for paper permanence.
[Show full text]
William Robertson Smith, Solomon Schechter and Contemporary Judaism
https://doi.org/10.14324/111.444.jhs.2016v48.026 William Robertson Smith, Solomon Schechter and contemporary Judaism bernhard maier University of Tübingen, Germany* During Solomon Schechter’s first years in the University of Cambridge, one of his most illustrious colleagues was the Scottish Old Testament scholar and Arabist William Robertson Smith (1846–1894), who is today considered to be among the founding fathers of comparative religious studies. Smith was the son of a minister of the strongly evangelical Free Church of Scotland, which had constituted itself in 1843 as a rival to the state-controlled established Church of Scotland. Appointed Professor of Old Testament Exegesis in the Free Church College Aberdeen at the early age of twenty-four, Smith soon came into conflict with the conservative theologians of his church on account of his critical views. After a prolonged heresy trial, he was finally deprived of his Aberdeen chair in 1881. In 1883 he moved to Cambridge, where he served, successively, as Lord Almoner’s Reader in Arabic, University Librarian, and Thomas Adams’s Professor of Arabic. Discussing Schechter’s relations with Robertson Smith, one has to bear in mind that direct contact between Schechter and Smith was confined to a relatively short period of less than five years (1890–94), during which Smith was frequently ill and consequently not resident in Cambridge at all.1 Furthermore, there is not much written evidence, so that several hints and clues that have come down to us are difficult to interpret, our understanding being sometimes based on inference and reasoning by analogy rather than on any certain knowledge.
[Show full text]
Prophets Postcolonially Initial Insights for a Postcolonial Reading of Prophetic Literature
ARTICLES PROPHETS POSTCOLONIALLY INITIAL INSIGHTS FOR A POSTCOLONIAL READING OF PROPHETIC LITERATURE Steed Vernyl Davidson Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary / Graduate Theological Union This article examines the conception of the genre prophetic literature and how a postcolonial examination probes its production. A postcolonial engagement can offer more than simply anticolonial resistance dis- course as can be gleaned from the theo-political contexts of prophetic material. Drawing on Homi Bhabha’s reflection on ‘the book’, other postcolonial theorists, as well as genre theory, the article traces elements that constitute a ‘prophetic book’ and interrogates the power of the canonical category ‘prophetic literature’. In the end it offers three defining features of a postcolonially resituated reading of prophetic literature. The relationship between Biblical Studies and Postcolonial Studies rests on the presumption that at multiple levels the Bible exists as a product of empire. This presumption readily leads to the application of postcolonial theory to the reading of biblical texts without a preliminary interrog- ation of the literature that constitutes the body of texts called ‘Bible.’ While biblical critics pay attention to the socio-cultural milieus that generate major portions of the Bible such as Greco- Roman society (Moore 2006; Carter 2001; Liew 1999), classification of biblical material into prophetic literature, gospel, apocalypse, and so on remain unexamined from a postcolonial per- spective. Since the synchronic/diachronic option that the general field of Biblical Studies insists on may be a false choice for most postcolonial biblical scholars, users of postcolonial theory in relation to the Bible tend to probe the Bible as literature from the perspective of what Homi Bhabha regards as ‘the edict of Englishness and the assault of the dark unruly spaces of the earth’ (Bhabha 1994, 107; Sugirtharajah 2005, 2003, 2002, 2001; Boer 2008).
[Show full text]
The Theological Development of the Young Robertson Smith by Donald R
81 The Theological Development of the Young Robertson Smith by Donald R. Nelson Dr. Nelson, Assistant Professor in the Department of Humanities at Michigan State University, was awarded his doctorate by that university in 1969 for a thesis on "The Life and Thought of William Robertson Smith, 1846-1894". Here he studies the early influences on Robertson Smith's thought, and finds that these included deter minant philosophical influences as well as those of philological and historical study. RITING in 1889 of the impact of theories of higher criticism upon W the Christian's understanding of the Old Testament, Mary Augusta Ward interpreted "the present collapse of English orthodoxy" as resulting from "one cause only-the invasion ofEnglish by German thought."l Though doubtless there were believers who contested her assessment of the state of the Faith, few would have contradicted her notion that in recent decades British religious insularity had been breached by a theological barrage of Teutonic origin. The publication in 1860 of an incendiary little volume titled Essays and Reviews was a clear warning that the Channel no longer provided protection against "German rationalism." The chief intention of its seven Anglican contributors was to "break down the conspiracy of silence" that they felt had kept otherwise educated people in ignorance of the revolutionary developments that had long before occurred in German theology and biblical study.2 Essays and Reviews, its non-committal title notwithstanding, sparked two ecclesiastical trials and a literary battle of considerable magnitude. When in the eighteen-seventies and eighties the German "historical consciousness" first made its way to Great Britain on a scale sig nificant enough to warrant Mrs.
[Show full text]
Wellhausen, Julius (1844-1918)
Das wissenschaftliche Bibellexikon im Internet (WiBiLex) Wellhausen, Julius (1844-1918) Meik Gerhards erstellt: Mai 2018 Permanenter Link zum Artikel: http://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/stichwort/34720/ Wellhausen, Julius Meik Gerhards Julius Wellhausen gilt als „Bahnbrecher in drei Disziplinen“ (Smend 2006): der Alttestamentlichen und der Neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft sowie der Arabistik. Der Artikel widmet sich Wellhausens Werk als Alttestamentler (vgl. dazu auch Kraus, 255-274; Graf Reventlow, 302-316; Smend 2013b, 436-453; kürzer: Perlitt 2. Au. 1967; Spieckermann; Smend 2006, 16-26; Kratz 2015a, 71-77; 2015b). Seine bedeutendste Leistung auf diesem Gebiet liegt in der Erarbeitung eines neuen Bildes der Geschichte Israels, das ältere Ansätze der Forschung aufnehmend auf der Abb. 1 Julius Wellhausen. Spätdatierung der Gesetzescorpora des Pentateuchs beruht. Das betrit neben dem → Deuteronomium auch die bis dahin üblicherweise früh datierten priesterlichen Gesetze (→ Pentateuchforschung). Wellhausen zeigt auf, dass das kanonische Bild der Geschichte Israels von exilischen Bearbeitungen im Geist des Deuteronomiums geprägt ist (so im Hexateuch und in Richter bis 2Könige; → Deuteronomismus) oder in nachexilischen Neufassungen im Geist der → Priesterschrift vorliegt (→ Chronikbücher). Trägt man entsprechende Überarbeitungen ab, zeigt die ältere Geschichtsschreibung und Prophetie, dass Israel bis in spätvorexilische Zeit keine schriftliche Gesetzesgrundlage hatte und weder → Monotheismus noch Kultuszentralisation (→ Josia) kannte. Wellhausens Rekonstruktion der Literargeschichte und der politisch-religiösen Geschichte Israels konnte eine Fülle von Spannungen in den Texten erklären und auösen und wurde so zu einem bis heute prägenden Meilenstein der Forschung. Der Artikel stellt auch die Frage nach dem theologischen Ansatz, der Wellhausens historische Arbeiten bestimmt. Die Frage hängt mit dem „ersten großen Problem einer Wellhausen- Biographie“ (Jepsen, 261) zusammen: den Gründen seines Wechsels von der Theologischen in die Philosophische Fakultät.
[Show full text]
Philhellenism and Orientalism in Germany Suzanne Marchand
Philhellenism and Orientalism in Germany Suzanne Marchand Introduction. The divergence of the disciplines Most readers of Lynchos will probably know something about the history of classical scholarship, and, understandably, regard the period of post- 1790 secularization and specialization as one of great progress. That it was, in many respects; the sharpening of text-critical skills and the driving out of wild speculations and politicized argumentation did indeed lay the foundations for the professionalization of classical scholarship, especially in the university-rich territory of German-speaking central (and especially northern) Europe. But a great part of this professionalizing process – and one under-reported in such classic accounts as Ulrich von Wilamowitz- Moellendorff’s History of classical scholarship (1921) – also entailed the closing of some doors.1 Most obviously being slammed shut were the passageways that once allowed scholars to wander between classics, theo- logy, and the study of the ancient Near East; and as classics and classicists increasingly claimed one set of rooms in the house of ancient history for themselves, they compelled others, too, to adapt to new accommodations. That accommodation is by no means so well-known a story; in part this is the result of the way in which the history of nineteenth-century orien- talist scholarship, too, fails to recognize not only the deep roots of the discipline but also its ongoing focus on the ancient world, and long-lasting classics-envy.2 It is my contention that one gets a much richer and better picture of changes in the disciplinary landscape and the significance of the disciplinary divergences that began around 1790 by recognizing that Orientalistik was, like classics, a child of Christian humanism; it was, importantly, the sibling left to tend the cavernous old house when the classicists remodeled their rooms and locked the doors.
[Show full text]
Canonical Reading of the Old Testament in the Context of Critical Scholarship
CANONICAL READING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF CRITICAL SCHOLARSHIP - -■11111.44.0411,■.--- ROLF RENDTORFF In the early seventies of this century a new term appeared in biblical scholarship: Canonical Criticism. It was James Sanders who explicitly introduced this term in his essay Torah and Canon (1972). The discussion on this program was from its very beginning also closely linked to work of Brevard Childs. In the meantime this term and its manifold implications are widely used and debated. Let me first of all say something about terminology. The word 'canon' has been used, of course, much earlier in Bible scholarship, but under a different aspect. We can now distinguish between two main aspects of canon studies. I quote the categorization by one well-known expert in this field: Sid Leiman in the foreword to the second edi- tion of his book, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture (1991), speaks about two related but distinct categories, not to be confused with each other. The one category may be termed 'canonization studies.' Its focus is on the history of the formation of the biblical canon from its inception to its closing. The other category has been termed 'canonical criticism.' Its focus is primarily on the function of the biblical canon throughout the reli- gious history of a particular faith community. For the latter Leiman mentions explicitly Childs and Sanders, "among the founders and major proponents." In my eyes the first category is very important, not only from a historical point of view but also to understand under what circumstances and religious conditions the canon of the Bible, as we now have it, came into being.
[Show full text]
HOPES-AND FEARS ROLF RENDTORFF University Of
THE PARADIGM IS CHANGING: HOPES-AND FEARS ROLF RENDTORFF Universityof Heidelberg This has been a great century in Old Testament scholarship. At its dawn we find a number of names that have left their stamp on the whole century, and the ideas of these scholars still serve as guide- lines in many areas of Old Testament studies. I name three of them: Julius Wellhausen, Bernhard Duhm, and Hermann Gunkel. Wellhausen, in a sense, represented the conclusion of one epoch of research and, at the same time, the opening of a new one. The question how to interpret the history of the origins of the Pentateuch was discussed throughout the whole of the nineteenth century, and different models were proposed and applied. Now one model gained the upper hand: the "newer documentary hypothesis". It was not invented by Wellhausen. His own contemporaries, for example, Heinrich Holzinger in his famous Einleitung in den Hexateuch (1893), called it the "Graf Hypothesis", because Karl Heinrich Graf was the first to publish the new hypothesis. But Wellhausen was so fas- cinated by it, and his impact on Old Testament scholarship of his time was so overwhelming, that during the following decades it be- came more and more the Wellhausen hypothesis, as it is to this day. Let us consider for a moment what happened when, after a short while, this new theory became commonly accepted. In a more tech- nical sense, it was the victory of the "documentary hypothesis" over the earlier "fragment hypothesis", and in particular over the "sup- plementary hypothesis" that had been widely accepted in the de- cades before Wellhausen.
[Show full text]
The Documentary Hypothesis
Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 12/1 (2001): 22Ð30. Article copyright © 2001 by Greg A. King. The Documentary Hypothesis Greg A. King Pacific Union College How did the Pentateuch or Torah come to be written?1 What process was in- volved in its composition?2 That is, did the author simply receive visions and write out word for word exactly what he or she3 had heard and seen in vision? Did he make use of written sources? Did he incorporate oral traditions? Who was the principal author anyway? Do these questions really matter? If so, why? While many average church members consider Moses the author of the first five books of the Bible, most biblical scholars of the last century have maintained that questions related to the composition of the Pentateuch are best answered by referring to the documentary hypothesis. This is the popular label for the theory of pentateuchal authorship and composition that has dominated most liberal biblical scholarship for the past century. In fact, so thoroughly has it dominated the field that some scholars simply assume it to be correct and feel no need to offer evidence to support it.4 This in spite of the fact that recently penetrating critiques from both 1The term Pentateuch refers to the first five books of the Bible and is a transliteration of a Greek term meaning Òfive scrolls.Ó The term Torah, though it has other meanings also, is sometimes used to denote the same five books and is a transliteration of a Hebrew word meaning Òinstruction.Ó See the discussion of these terms in Barry Bandstra, Reading the Old Testament (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1995), 24.
[Show full text]
Authorship of the Pentateuch
M. Bajić: Authorship of the Pentateuch Authorship of the Pentateuch Monika Bajić Biblijski institut, Zagreb [email protected] UDK:27-242 Professional paper Received: April, 2016 Accepted: October, 2016 Summary This piece is a concise summary of the historical and contemporary develo- pment of Pentateuch studies in Old Testament Theology. This article aims to provide information on the possible confirmation of Mosaic authorship. The purpose is to examine how the Documentary Hypothesis, Fragment and Su- pplemental Hypotheses, Form and Traditio-Historical Criticism, Canonical and Literary Criticism have helped to reveal or identify the identity of the author of the Torah. To better understand the mentioned hypotheses, this article presents a brief description of the J, E, D, and P sources. Key words: Pentateuch, authorship, Mosaic authorship, Torah, Documen- tary Hypothesis, Fragment and Supplemental Hypothesis, Form and Tradi- tio-Historical Criticism, Canonical and Literary Criticism. In the most literal sense, the Pentateuch 1 (or Torah) is an anonymous work, but traditional views support the belief of Mosaic authorship (Carpenter 1986, 751- 52). Yet, with the advent of humanism and the Renaissance, the sense of intellec- tual freedom and upswing in research have led to the fact that many have begun to read the Bible critically, trying to challenge its text as well as the traditions and beliefs that are formed from it (Alexander 2003, 61-63). One of the most commonly attacked beliefs is Moses’ authorship of the Torah. There has been an 1 Taken from the Greek translation LXX. Pentateuch is derived from the Greek word pentateu- chos, which means a five-book work, known as the Books of Moses (Carpenter 1986).
[Show full text]
Julius Wellhausen, Anti-Judaism, and Hebrew Bible Scholarship
religions Article Unapologetic Apologetics: Julius Wellhausen, Anti-Judaism, and Hebrew Bible Scholarship Stacy Davis Department of Religious Studies and Theology Saint Mary’s College, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA; [email protected] Abstract: Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918) is in many ways the ancestor of modern Hebrew Bible scholarship. His Prolegomena to the History of Israel condensed decades of source critical work on the Torah into a documentary hypothesis that is still taught today in almost all Hebrew Bible courses in some form. What is not taught as frequently is the anti-Judaism that underpins his hypothesis. This is in part due to unapologetic apologetics regarding Wellhausen’s bias, combined with the insistence that a nineteenth-century scholar cannot be judged by twenty-ﬁrst century standards. These calls for compassion are made exclusively by white male scholars, leaving Jewish scholars the solitary task of pointing out Wellhausen’s clear anti-Judaism. In a discipline that is already overwhelmingly white, male and Christian, the minimizing of Wellhausen’s racism suggests two things. First, those who may criticize contextual biblical studies done by women and scholars of color have no problem pleading for a contextual understanding of Wellhausen while downplaying the growing anti-Judaism and nationalism that was a part of nineteenth-century Germany. Second, recent calls for inclusion in the Society of Biblical Literature may be well intentioned but ultimately useless if the guild cannot simply call one of its most brilliant founders the biased man that he was. Keywords: Wellhausen; anti-Judaism; historical context Citation: Davis, Stacy. 2021. Unapologetic Apologetics: Julius Wellhausen, Anti-Judaism, and Hebrew Bible Scholarship.
[Show full text]