DOCSLIB.ORG

Why the Documentary Hypothesis Is the Frankenstein of Biblical Studies Duane Garrett

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Why the Documentary Hypothesis Is the Frankenstein of Biblical Studies Duane Garrett The Undead Hypothesis: Why the Documentary Hypothesis is the Frankenstein of Biblical Studies Duane Garrett Duane Garrett is a professor of Old A stock feature of the classic “grade B” established result of biblical scholarship Testament at Gordon Conwell Theologi- horror movie is the undead creature who in universities and theological schools cal Seminary. He has served the Inter- relentlessly stalks innocent people and around the world. Books and mono- national Mission Board by teaching in terrorizes an otherwise quiet village. graphs rooted in it still frequently appear. Southern Baptist seminaries in both Whether it be Frankenstein, the Mummy, Laughably, some of these books are Korea and Canada. Dr. Garrett is the Dracula, or simply crude, grotesque zom- touted for their “startling new interpre- author of many articles and books, bies with rotting flesh falling off their tations” of the history of the Bible while including two Old Testament commen- limbs and faces, these villains share a in fact doing little more than repackaging taries in the New American Commen- common trait. They all have already died old ideas.1 If the sheer volume of litera- tary series. He is currently working on a and usually have already been buried. But ture on a hypothesis were a demonstra- commentary on the Song of Solomon then, either through the blunder of some tion of its veracity, the documentary for the Word Biblical Commentary investigator or the work of some evil hypothesis would indeed be well estab- series. genius, they rise and walk again. The lished.2 Nevertheless, while the dead dilemma posed by these undead mon- hand of the documentary hypothesis still sters is obvious: How do you kill some- dominates Old Testament scholarship as one who is already dead? its official orthodoxy, the cutting edge A similar creature stalks the halls of research of recent years has typically been biblical studies. It is routinely raised up highly critical of the theory.3 from the grave in classrooms and it In 1991 I published Rethinking Genesis,4 haunts textbooks and monographs that which was one of a number of books pub- deal with the Hebrew Scriptures. Wher- lished within about a decade to challenge ever it roams, it distorts the analysis of the the documentary hypothesis and suggest text of the Bible, confounds readers, and a new approach to the background of produces strange and irrational interpre- Genesis. Notwithstanding the fact that tations. This undead creature sometimes this work and several major challenges to goes by the quasi-mystical sounding the hypothesis from established critical sobriquet “the JEDP theory,” but it is bet- scholars received some significant atten- ter known by its formal name, the docu- tion—but virtually no rebuttals speaking mentary hypothesis. in favor of the documentary hypothesis The time has come for scholars to rec- —J, E, D, and P continue to be paraded ognize that the documentary hypothesis before university students as the original is dead. The arguments that support it documents behind the Pentateuch. have been dismantled by scholars of Evangelical readers should not be san- many stripes—many of whom have no guine about this fact. Despite the assur- theological commitment to the Bible. The ances of some quasi-confessional scholars theory is, however, still taught as an that it really does not matter where Gen- 28 esis comes from, the documentary after K. H. Graf and Julius Wellhausen, hypothesis is fundamentally incompatible who gave it its classic expression.5 In the with belief in even a minimal historical English-speaking world, the theory was core of the Pentateuch. If the hypothesis popularized especially by S. R. Driver. is true, then the Pentateuch is essentially fiction. Worse than that, it is a confused, The Documentary Hypothesis self-contradictory fiction with no unified Briefly Described theological message. It is with this in The theory asserts that behind the mind that I return to this topic and seek Pentateuch are four source documents, to make readers of this journal aware of called J (Yahwist), E (Elohist), D (Deu- the basic issues. teronomist), and P (Priestly Code). J, the oldest, begins at Genesis 2:4b and The Background of the includes large portions of Genesis as well Documentary Hypothesis as portions of Exodus and Numbers and The documentary hypothesis began a few short texts in Deuteronomy. It is with the speculations of Jean Astruc often dated to the early monarchy period (1684–1766), who suggested that he could and is thought to have its provenance in uncover the sources of the Pentateuch by Judah. In Genesis, J refers to God as using the divine names Yahweh (“the Yahweh for, according to the hypothesis, LORD”) and Elohim (“God”) as a guide. He J believed that people began using the placed passages that use the name Elohim name Yahweh early in the antediluvian in one column (A), those that use Yahweh period (Gen 4:26, a J text). As a theologi- in another (B), and passages with “repeti- cal statement, J is often regarded as the tions” in a third column (C), and inter- work of a great, original thinker who gave polations in a fourth column (D). His shape to the Old Testament idea of the suggestion led scholars to believe that the history of salvation. distinction in the divine names—that is, E is somewhat later than J but follows whether a given text calls the Deity the same basic story line as J. Genesis 15 “Yahweh” or Elohim—was the primary is the first extant E text. E comes from the marker of the origin of that text. Using northern kingdom. In Genesis, E refers this basic criterion, scholars accounted for to God as Elohim rather than Yahweh the development of the Pentateuch as it because, according to E, the name Yahweh exists today in various ways. Some sug- was not revealed until the exodus period gested a “fragmentary hypothesis” (Exod 3:15, an E text). E is more sensitive (which asserts that the Pentateuch was to moral issues than J but it views God as compiled from a mass of fragmentary somewhat more distant from man. J and sources) while others postulated a “sup- E were subsequently redacted into a plemental hypothesis” (which asserts that single document by RJE (R = “redactor”). a single document lies at the core of the In the redaction, much of the E material Pentateuch, but that many fragmentary was edited out and thus lost to posterity. sources have been added to it). But the D was written at the time of Josiah’s triumphant theory of Pentateuchal origins reformation and is essentially the book of was the documentary hypothesis, often Deuteronomy. According to 2 Kings 22, called the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis Hilkiah the priest found a copy of the law 29 of Moses when the temple was being and the ancient Near Eastern world of the restored. In the documentary hypothesis, text itself. In addition, scholars were however, Deuteronomy was actually willing to tolerate a glaring inconsistency written at this time as a kind of pious in their approach to the problem. They fraud to justify Josiah’s reformation. D assumed that each document writer (such does not have a characteristic divine name as J) aimed to produce a single, con- but uses both Yahweh and Elohim. The tinuous history but would tolerate no redactor RD subsequently combined the inconsistency, repetition, or narrative texts JE and D. digressions. They believed that the redac- P was written in the postexilic period. tors, however, were oblivious to con- It begins at Genesis 1:1 and includes large tradiction and repetition when they portions of Genesis, Exodus, and Num- combined the documents. bers and all of Leviticus. It is said to Stylistic differences enable scholars to dis- represent the triumph of the postexilic tinguish one source text from another. Early priesthood and it attempts to justify their advocates of the documentary hypothesis form of worship and codify their religion. felt they could easily separate one text In Genesis, P refers to God as Elohim since, from another on the basis of style. P, for like E, it assumes that the divine name example, is said to have a formal, seg- Yahweh was first revealed at the exodus mented, and rather aloof style while J is (Exod 6:3, a P text). It is dominated by supposed to have written in a flowing and genealogies, priestly regulations, and a dramatic narrative style. This perception very formal manner of narration. P was is reinforced by the fact that formal texts soon redacted into JED by RP. The (such as Genesis 1, descriptions of the tab- Pentateuch was thus formed.6 ernacle and its offerings, and genealogies) are routinely assigned to P while texts Defining Principles of the such as Genesis 2—4 are for the most part Documentary Hypothesis assigned to J. But this is more a matter of One must recognize that according to content than of style. The whole Penta- this theory the four documents were each teuch is in standard (albeit somewhat composed first of all as independent, con- lofty) biblical Hebrew. tinuous, single narrations and only later Ancient editors (redactors) simply were brought together and edited into the conflated their source documents without present work. The scholars who devel- attempting to correct obvious contradictions oped the documentary hypothesis either or smooth out problems created by joining the explicitly or implicitly followed a number documents together. That is, the redactors of basic principles in their research. simply merged the texts at hand by the It is easy to determine the purposes and “scissors-and-paste” method of cutting methods behind the documents and redactions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1) Meeting Your Bible 2) Discussing the Bible (Breakout Rooms for 10
    Wednesday Wellspring: A Bible Study for UU’s (part 1) Bible Study 101: Valuable Information for Serious Students taught by Keith Atwater, American River College worksheet / discussion topics / study guide 1) Meeting Your Bible What is your Bible’s full title, publisher, & publication date? Where did you get your Bible? (source, price, etc.) What’s your Bible like? (leather cover, paperback, old, new, etc.) Any Gospels words in red? What translation is it? (King James, New American Standard, Living Bible, New International, etc.) Does your Bible include Apocrypha?( Ezra, Tobit, Maccabees, Baruch) Preface? Study Aids? What are most common names for God used in your edition? (Lord, Jehovah, Yahweh, God) The Bible in your hands, in book form, with book titles, chapter and verse numbers, page numbers, in a language you can read, at a reasonably affordable price, is a relatively recent development (starting @ 1600’s). A Bible with cross-references, study aids, footnotes, commentary, maps, etc. is probably less than 50 years old! Early Hebrew (Jewish) Bible ‘books’ (what Christians call the Old Testament) were on 20 - 30 foot long scrolls and lacked not only page numbers & chapter indications but also had no punctuation, vowels, and spaces between words! The most popular Hebrew (Jewish) Bible @ the time of Jesus was the “Septuagint” – a Greek translation. Remember Alexander the Great conquered the Middle East and elsewhere an “Hellenized’ the ‘Western world.’ 2) Discussing the Bible (breakout rooms for 10 minutes. Choose among these questions; each person shares 1. Okay one bullet point to be discussed, but please let everyone say something!) • What are your past experiences with the Bible? (e.g.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • The Documentary Hypothesis
    THE PENTATEUCH in the battle for I So, thirdly, Israel must keep the covenant announced publicly to the whole nation, for the ; with a series of wholeheartedly. 'Love the LORD your God with Lord's appearance on the mountain was too ter­ s and how the all your heart and with all your soul and with all rifying. Instead they were made known to rng the secular your strength' (6:5) sums up the whole message Moses alone (Ex. 20: 19-21; Dt. 5:5), who then Levi (chs. 34 ­ I of Moses. This meant keeping the Ten Com­ passed them on to the people. o the establish­ mandments given by God at Sinai (ch. 5). It Moses' role as a mediator is stressed those guilty of meant applying the Commandments to every throughout the Pentateuch. Time and again ~ I i sphere of life. The second and longest sermon laws are introduced by the statement, 'Then the land was more Ile land in which of Moses consists of a historical retrospect LORD said to Moses'. This implies a special in­ vas therefore, a followed by an expansion and application of the timacy with God, suggesting that if God is the Jfe: especially of commandments to every sphere of Israel's life ultimate source of the law, Moses was its chan­ . (ch. 35).It was, in Canaan; the laws in chs. 12 - 25 roughly nel, if not the human author of it. This impres­ for ever, and the follow the order of the commandments and ex­ sion is reinforced most strongly by the book of :signed to ensure pand and comment on them.
    [Show full text]
  • The Miracle at the Sea Remarks on the Recent Discussion About Origin and Composition of the Exodus Narrative
    The Miracle at the Sea Remarks on the Recent Discussion about Origin and Composition of the Exodus Narrative Jan Christian Gertz* 1 Introduction: The Exodus Narrative and the Debate about the Formation of the Pentateuch The story of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt in Exod 1–15 “constitutes the point of crystallization of the great Pentateuchal narrative in its entirety.”1 It is, therefore, hardly surprising that the Exodus narrative plays an important role and often served as a paradigm in the recent debate about the formation of the Pentateuch.2 As a result there is much controversy about these chapters in pentateuchal scholarship. The classic formulation of the New Documentary Hypothesis assumes a Yahwistic, Elohistic, and Priestly source in Exod 1–15, as well as several pre- and post-priestly additions that were joined in successive stages. If we survey the commentaries and monographs of recent years, we find copious refutations and modifications of this model.3 By name but hardly with regard to approach, * My sincere thanks to my colleague Anselm C. Hagedorn for the translation of this article. The research was done while I was part of the group “Convergence and Divergence in Pentateuchal Theory” at the Israel Institute for Advanced Studies in Jerusalem and supported by the eurias Fellowship Programme. 1 Martin Noth, A History of Pentateuchal Traditions (trans. with an introduction by Bernhard W. Anderson; Chico, Calif.: Scholar Press, 1981), 51; trans. of Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1948), 54. 2 Cf. inter alia Marc Vervenne, “Current Tendencies and Developments in the Study of the Book of Exodus,” in The Book of Exodus (ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel and Judah
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-02431-1 — The Legacy of Israel in Judah's Bible Daniel E. Fleming Excerpt More Information part i INTRODUCTION Israel and Judah © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-02431-1 — The Legacy of Israel in Judah's Bible Daniel E. Fleming Excerpt More Information 1 Why Israel? The Bible would make a fascinating historical source, if only we could figure out how to use it as such. It is unique as a written corpus from the ancient world, not because it is religiously sacred, though perhaps its uniqueness is a result of the process that made it so. The Bible regales us with tales from the world of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia, offered from the perspective of the runaways and the defeated. It reports the reigns of kings not in the voice of royal propaganda but with distance and capacity for critique. It presents what are cast as the ruminations of men who spoke for God against both the people and the powers that led them. All this writing may date to settings long after the occasions portrayed, yet the literature is patently a patchwork of reused materials, not always well understood, certainly not a straightforward work of unified fiction.1 Often, current discussion of the Bible’s relationship to history revolves around the notion of “historicity.”2 Did it happen, or happen the way the story says? Did the individual characters exist? More broadly, does the story preserve some memory or knowledge of the time portrayed? If the answer is “no” or there is significant doubt about the matter, it can be difficult to make a case for historical investigation before the date of the latest editor’s hand, and this will in no way illuminate the object portrayed.
    [Show full text]
  • GENESIS in the PENTATEUCH Konrad Schmid I in the Heyday of the Documentary Hypothesis It Was a Common Assumption That Most Texts
    GENESIS IN THE PENTATEUCH Konrad Schmid Introduction In the heyday of the Documentary Hypothesis it was a common assumption that most texts in Genesis were to be interpreted as elements of narra- tive threads that extended beyond the book of Genesis and at least had a pentateuchal or hexateuchal scope (J, E, and P). To a certain degree, exe- gesis of the book of Genesis was therefore tantamount to exegesis of the book of Genesis in the Pentateuch or Hexateuch. The Theologische Realen- zyklopädie, one of the major lexica in the German-speaking realm, has for example no entry for “Genesis” but only for the “Pentateuch” and its alleged sources. At the same time, it was also recognized that the material—oral or written—which was processed and reworked by the authors of the sources J, E, and P originated within a more modest narrative perspective that was limited to the single stories or story cycles, a view emphasized especially by Julius Wellhausen, Hermann Gunkel, Kurt Galling, and Martin Noth:1 J and E were not authors, but collectors.2 Gunkel even went a step further: “‘J’ and ‘E’ are not individual writers, but schools of narrators.”3 But with the successful reception of Gerhard von Rad’s 1938 hypothesis of a tradi- tional matrix now accessible through the “historical creeds” like Deut 26:5– 9, which was assumed to have also been the intellectual background of the older oral material, biblical scholarship began to lose sight of the view taken by Wellhausen, Gunkel, Galling, and Noth. In addition, von Rad saw J and 1 Julius Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (3rd ed.; Berlin: Reimer, 1899); Hermann Gunkel, Genesis (6th ed.; HKAT 1/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964 [repr.
    [Show full text]
  • A Farewell to the Yahwist? the Composition of the Pentateuch In
    A FAREWELL TO THE YAHWIST? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid Society of Biblical Literature Atlanta CONTENTS Abbreviations ...............................................................................................vii Introduction Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid..................................................1 Part 1: Main Papers The Elusive Yahwist: A Short History of Research Thomas Christian Römer ..........................................................................9 The So-Called Yahwist and the Literary Gap between Genesis and Exodus Konrad Schmid .......................................................................................29 The Jacob Story and the Beginning of the Formation of the Pentateuch Albert de Pury ........................................................................................51 The Transition between the Books of Genesis and Exodus Jan Christian Gertz ................................................................................73 The Literary Connection between the Books of Genesis and Exodus and the End of the Book of Joshua Erhard Blum ..........................................................................................89 The Commission of Moses and the Book of Genesis Thomas B. Dozeman ............................................................................107 Part 2: Responses The Yahwist and the Redactional Link between Genesis and Exodus Christoph Levin ....................................................................................131
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    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
    [Show full text]
  • Creation in the Prophetic Literature of the Old Testament: an Intertextual Approach
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Andrews University Journal of the Adventist Theological Society, 20/1-2 (2009):19-54. Article copyright © 2009 by Martin G. Klingbeil. Creation in the Prophetic Literature of the Old Testament: An Intertextual Approach Martin G. Klingbeil Helderberg College South Africa 1. Introduction The topic of creation in Old Testament theology for most of its recent history has been neglected and has often been relegated to the level of a subheading within the sections of soteriology, covenant, trinity, or any other possibly relevant section: “Nevertheless, creation to this day has been one of the ‘proverbial step-children’ in the recent discipline of Old Testament theology.”1 While Rendtorff only diagnoses the problem, Brueggemann, in looking for a rationale, refers the responsibility for the peripheral position of creation in theology to the dichotomy between the Israelite faith and Canaanite religion, or history and myth, that found its way into biblical theology during the earlier part of the last century through scholars like Gerhard von Rad in Europe who suggested that creation was 1 Rolf Rendtorff, “Some Reflections on Creation as a Topic of Old Testament Theology,” in Priests, Prophets and Scribes. Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp (ed. Eugene Ulrich, John W. Wright, Robert P. Carroll and Philip R. Davies; JSOTSS 149; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 204-12. 19 JOURNAL OF THE ADVENTIST THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY subservient to salvation,2 or Ernest Wright in the USA who maintained that “Israel was little interested in nature.”3 A number of scholars moved beyond the paradigm created by von Rad4 and recognized the prominence of creation in the theological thinking of the Old Testament, both in terms of position and content.
    [Show full text]