ONE HUNDRED YEARS OFOLD TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION Ronald E. Clements 0 \\ The Westminster Press Philadelphia Copyright 0 Ronald E. Clements 1976 Published in Great Britain under the title A Century of Old Testament Study PUBLISHED BY THE WESTMINSTER PRESS @ Philadelphia, Pennsylvania PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 9 8 ‘7 6 5 4 3 2 Contents Preface vii 1. Introduction 1 2. Interpreting the Pentateuch 7 To Gillian and Marian 3. Interpreting the Historical Books 31 4. Interpreting the Prophets 51 5. Interpreting the Psalms 76 6. Interpreting the Wisdom Literature 99 7. Interpreting Old Testament Theology 118 8. Retrospect and Prospect 141 Index of Authors 151 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Clements, Ronald Ernest, 1929- One hundred years of Old Testament interpretation. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Bible. O.T. - Criticism, interpretation, etc. - History - 19th century. 2. Bible. O.T. - Criticism, interpretation, etc. - History - 20th century. I. Title. BSl16O.C56 1976 221.6’6 76-23236 ISBN O-664-24747-4 List of Journals and Series ATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testa- ments BA The Biblical Archaeologist BIGIT Bib&he Kommentar, Altes Testament Preface B WANT Beitrlge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testa- ment BZA W Beihefte zur ZAW The following work requires some explanation as to its purpose since it is neither an introduction to the Old Testament in the accepted sense FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und nor a comprehensive history of the ways in which the Old Testament Neuen Testamentes has been interpreted since Wellhausen. It is no more than a sketch of the latter, and to have attempted the larger task would have required a HAT Handbuch zum Alten Testament volume much greater in size than I have been able to offer. My aim has been to provide the student and general reader with some picture of the HKAT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament main lines of interpretation which have affected the study of the Old Testament, with a particular emphasis upon questions of methodology. JBL Journal of Biblical Literature In doing this I have concentrated upon the work of a few scholars whose contributions appear to me to have been particularly significant and in- KHAT Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament teresting in this respect. I have also endeavoured where possible to show some of the inter-connections which relate the work of various SAT Die Schriften des Alten Testaments in Auswahl scholars to each other. Within each of the chapters which deal with the main sections of the Old Testament canon I have endeavoured to main- SBT Studies in Biblical Theology tain a broadly chronological outline of development. Two major departments of the study and interpretation of the Old Th.B. Theologische Biicherei Testament have been almost entirely left out of my treatment. One of these is the linguistic and philological examination of the text and Th.Z. Theologische Zeitschrift language of the literature and the other is that of Palestinian and Near Eastern archaeology. For these omissions I would wish to venture the WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen following reasons, besides my own lack of competence in these Testament specialized fields. One is that both fields of research affect the entire Old Testament, so that to consider them would have required a separate ZAW Zeitschrift fiir die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft section in each of my main chapter divisions. The other is that each of vii these departments of study has grown so enormously in the past century that they properly require separate treatments of their own if they are to be described in a sufficiently meaningful way. For practical reasons I have kept footnotes to a minimum and references to literature to what is essential for a proper understanding of the chronological perspective. I hope I have provided enough informa- tion for the reader to be able to find some further treatments of the main issues that are discussed. That my selection of developments may appear somewhat arbitrary has been unavoidable in order to keep the 1 work within a reasonable length. I have also found it necessary at times to indicate where I think scholars have been wrong, without being able to set out all the reasons for my doing so. Undesirable as this is, it seems Introduction to me preferable to making the survey no more than a catalogue which remains neutral in its conclusions. I hope that the reader who is unable to accept my judgements will at least see the point of them. My indebtedness to other scholars should be apparent throughout the The years since 1870 have witnessed an immense scholarly involvement book, although I have avoided so far as I have been able to do so the in the study and interpretation of the Old Testament, closely matching repetition of discussions and surveys which are readily available in in effort and range that devoted to the study of the New. Both other volumes. It remains for me to express my particular thanks to Dr Christians and Jews, as well as historians and orientalists who have ad- Cecil Northcott of the Lutterworth Press for his kindness in suggesting mitted allegiance to neither faith, have been intensively occupied with that I should write this book. sifting the documents, searching out relevant parallels, and repeatedly asking how, when, and why this literature came into existence. Since R. E. Clements the beginning of the Christian era the Old Testament has been used and 1976 read in substantially the same form as that in which it exists today, and its earliest literary sources go back approximately a millennium more. The reasons which led to the quest for a fresh critical understanding of the origins and significance of the Old Testament are certainly to be traced to the years before 1870, and most of the methods and tools of literary and historical scholarship had already become available, and had been tested, by this time. In fact many of the conclusions about the structure and origin of the Old Testament which broke so disturbingly upon the Church and the world in the next decade through the writings in Germany of such scholars as J. Wellhausen and B. Duhm, were cer- tainly not entirely novel or unprecedented. In a great many respects they represented a refinement and consolidation of views that had been propounded for a number of years. What was new was the strength of the case that was now being eagerly canvassed for a fresh critical ac- count of the historical rise of Israel and its religion, and the clarity with which the case was now presented. It made a warm appeal to a wide cir- cle of competent scholarship who were readily able to examine the . Vlll evidence on which it was based. In the minds of the leading exponents of In recent years it has frequently been widely claimed that a cloud of this higher criticism, as this study came to be called, it was clearly felt suspicion and error hangs over the pioneers of the newer criticism of the that no one had anything to fear from its new truth. Faith would not be Old Testament on account of their particular theological and overthrown, but rather strengthened, and given a new and more solid philosophical presuppositions. Most especially the purported foundation on which to rest. Knowledge of the historical facts about the Hegelianism of Wellhausen has been alleged to constitute a serious origin of the Old Testament, and the Israelite religion from which it had weakness, and to show that the fundamental assumptions of this in- emerged, would provide a sure foundation upon which faith could build. tellectual enterprise were mistaken. Such a claim can only be main- Hence in the writings of the new generation of critical scholars there tained by substantially disregarding the facts, and by looking away from is to be found an evangelical fervour about the manner with which the the actual evidence adduced by these scholars in support of their views. new insights were publicized and presented. Where breaks were sharply This is not to say, of course, that they were altogether without presup- made with traditional Christian and Jewish views about the Old Testa- positions, which would undoubtedly have required that they should ment there was felt to be a welcome deliverance from hampering bonds have ceased to be children of their own time. A. Kuenen, the dis- and new and more lasting ties made with truth, morality and piety in a tinguished Dutch scholar whose work on the history of Israelite religion broad human setting. Where the older Christian view of the Old Testa- stands out as a major achievement of pioneering critical work on the Old ment as a book of ancient prophecies about the coming of Jesus Christ Testament,4 displays a note of rationalism which cannot be entirely was being set aside, it was felt that it was nevertheless being replaced by denied. So also W. Robertson Smith’s attraction to Kuenen’s work a fresh and more scholarly apologetic which showed that in the Old lends to his own writings something of the same colour. Furthermore Testament were to be found the moral and spiritual foundations of a un- we cannot deny features in Wellhausen’s assessment of Israel’s religion iversal religion. This found in Jesus Christ the fullest embodiment of its which betray touches of philosophical idealism reminiscent of Hegel. own earnestness. That WelIhausen was drawn to the earlier work of Wilhelm Vatke on As far as Great Britain was concerned this new religious enthusiasm Old Testament theology, which was quite markedly Hegelian in its for the critical approach to the Old Testament is well illustrated in the views, is also not to be denied.5 Yet all these factors in no way amount to writings of W.