Joel S. Baden. The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012. x + 378 pp. $65.00, cloth, ISBN 978-0-300-15263-0. Reviewed by Angela Roskop Erisman Published on H-Judaic (December, 2012) Commissioned by Jason Kalman (Hebrew Union College - Jewish Institute of Religion) Joel S. Baden’s recent volume, The Composi‐ The case studies illustrate key points developed in tion of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documen‐ the chapters through study of select pericopes, tary Hypothesis, may be one of the most lucid, showing the Documentary Hypothesis at work well-written treatments of the Documentary Hy‐ and providing good models of what efforts to ap‐ pothesis available. Baden takes a “show-and-tell” ply it to other texts might look like. Baden’s fram‐ approach to re-presenting this classic theory of ing of the entire discussion is pedagogically composition history, pairing chapters on each thoughtful and well executed, making this volume source document with detailed studies of selected highly accessible to beginner and advanced stu‐ texts. The chapters not only introduce readers to dents alike. the main characteristics and parameters of each Baden agrees with some well-worn critiques source document but also develop the overall of the Documentary Hypothesis--greater concern themes of his argument for the Hypothesis in an with historical development of religious ideas alliterative, easy-to-remember way. Baden argues than with literary issues, multiplication of posited for the continuity of J, as opposed to the disconti‐ redactors, overreliance on style and vocabulary-- nuity implicit in supplementary approaches that and seeks to present a refined version of it as a posit the redaction of small, separate blocks of tra‐ corrective. He reminds us that the Documentary dition. In contrast to studies of E that unsuccess‐ Hypothesis is fundamentally an effort to solve a fully tried to distinguish it from J on the basis of literary problem, a concern to explain the literary style, he argues for the coherence of E. His chapter integrity of the text as well as the incoherence we on D makes a case for the complementarity of law encounter as we try to read the Pentateuch as a and narrative within a single source document. whole. This is hardly a new point.[1] But Baden And he counters the common view that P is a helpfully brings us back in touch with the fact redactional layer by arguing for its completeness. that classic source criticism was conceived as Lit‐ H-Net Reviews erarkritik and strives to provide us with a more setting because he is looking for “narrative fow,” solid ground for doing this critical work. He em‐ broadly speaking, and the concept of setting is not phasizes that theme, style, and vocabulary can be an active tool in his critical toolbox. only secondary criteria for identifying composi‐ Baden is also imprecise in his use of literary tional layers, because more than one source can terms. For example, some of the “thematic ele‐ deal with a single theme, and all have access to ments” of P he identifies are actually themes, the resources of the Hebrew language. We must while others are not: cult and priesthood are focus instead on the “narrative fow” of the text themes, while “the heavy use of genealogies” (p. (p. 28) and the consistency of “claims about the 27) is a matter of genre, not theme. Moreover, he way events transpired” (p. 16). Problems with ei‐ is not consistent in his treatment of theme as a ther--such as irreconcilable contradictions, dou‐ criterion for distinguishing source documents blets that involve contradiction, and discontinu‐ that is secondary to the criteria of “narrative ities (for example, Moses is told to go up the flow” and consistent historical claims. At one mountain when he is already on it)--should be point, he includes theme and style in his defini‐ taken as primary indicators that we are dealing tion of “the hallmark of a unified composition” with multiple layers of composition. Baden cou‐ (p. 16), and the themes of meat complaint versus ples discussion of such problems with discussion leadership are among the primary criteria for of continuity, coherence, and completeness across separating J and E in his case study on Numbers select texts in an effort to argue that these layers 11. In fact, while Baden’s critique of the use of are independent sources rather than redacted theme, style, and vocabulary as primary criteria fragments. for distinguishing sources in classical iterations of If one is going to identify the main problem of the Documentary Hypothesis is right on target Pentateuchal criticism as a literary problem, as and his treatment of them as secondary criteria Baden rightly does, one needs a literary method understandable, the question of theme is consid‐ adequate to address it, and here this study is erably more complex. Plot, characterization, set‐ alarmingly weak. Literary criticism has given us a ting, point of view, etc., are employed as they are thorough set of precise terms and concepts to aid in a narrative typically in order to develop a par‐ in analysis, but Baden employs only a limited ticular theme or set of themes, so theme cannot range. When he speaks of “narrative fow,” one really be separated from consideration of these assumes he is talking about plot structure and to other elements. Perhaps to discuss what consti‐ some extent characterization. What about setting, tutes coherence (or incoherence) in a narrative-- point of view, genre, rhetorical strategy, and ideol‐ to address the literary problem of the Penta‐ ogy, to name a few? All of these things play a role teuch--we must carefully discuss how all of them in the construction of a coherent literary text, yet work together (or fail to, as the case may be) in Baden fails to adequately engage them, and some‐ any given text. times this results in problematic analysis of text. Baden’s treatment of literary criticism in this For example, he argues that the itinerary notices volume takes the form of a response to the typical in Exod 12:37 and 13:20 bring the Israelites to the formalist and structuralist approaches that be‐ sea in preparation for the sea crossing and that came popular in biblical studies in the 1980s, and they are simply “retracing their steps” in Exod his critiques of these approaches are excellent 14:2 (p. 205). But the places named in Exod 12:37 ones: They too often “focus on formal structure and 13:20 are nowhere near a sea, and only Exod over the narrative coherence of [a] passage” such 14:2 provides a plausible setting for the sea cross‐ that they fail to see textual difficulties (p. 10). Al‐ ing narrative. Baden misses this problem with the 2 H-Net Reviews ternatively, they acknowledge textual difficulties the Documentary Hypothesis or a more plausible but either ignore them as irrelevant to the fnal alternative to it. form or explain them away, often implausibly, as One must weigh these concerns against the el‐ features of style or rhetoric. Baden is right to egance and lucidity of Baden’s work in deciding bring our attention back to the fact that there are how it might be used. It is hard to underestimate real difficulties with the coherence of Penta‐ the importance of encouraging innovative think‐ teuchal narrative. But formalism and structural‐ ing that has a solid theoretical and methodologi‐ ism are only particular kinds of literary criticism, cal foundation, and this volume falls significantly yet his critique of them reads like a dismissal of short in these areas. But it is also hard to underes‐ literary criticism as a whole. Some literary and timate the value of models of good scholarly writ‐ linguistic theories are actually quite useful in ing that can be emulated, especially for students. dealing with the issues we face as we try to solve This latter feature, coupled with Baden’s very the literary problem of the Pentateuch, including helpful treatment of the history of scholarship, tools such as New Historicism, reception theory, makes it a good refresher course on the Documen‐ linguistic pragmatics, and conceptual integration tary Hypothesis and candidate for a course text. theory.[2] Certainly a variety others might be used One hopes that it might be issued in a more af‐ as well. It is a pity that Baden did not explore the fordable paperback form for that use. potential yield of literary critical tools for his task; Notes if he had, he might have avoided the problems identified here and produced a work with a much [1]. For example, John Barton, “Historical Crit‐ more solid theoretical and methodological foun‐ icism and Literary Interpretation: Is There Any dation. Common Ground?,” in Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Baden’s work is not merely a re-presentation Michael D. Goulder, ed. S. E. Porter, P. Joyce, and of the Documentary Hypothesis but also an ardent D. E. Orton, Biblical Interpretation Series 8 (Lei‐ defense of it against other current approaches to den: Brill, 1994), 7. the composition of the Pentateuch. One wonders if this defensive stance does not keep him from [2]. For use of these tools, see my The Wilder‐ thinking about possible approaches that have not ness Itineraries: Genre, Geography, and the yet been tried. Moreover, at points he loses sight Growth of Torah, HACL 3 (Winona Lake, IN: of his claim that the Documentary Hypothesis is a Eisenbrauns, 2011). hypothesis, or one “proposed solution to the liter‐ ary problems of the Pentateuch” (p. 32), and be‐ gins to depict it as the natural outcome of a care‐ ful reading of the text (p.