Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
SUPPLEMENT SERIES
89
Editors
David J A Clines
Philip R Davies
JSOT Press
Sheffield
This page intentionally left blank
The
PROBLEM
of the
PROCESS
of
TRANSMISSION
in the
PENTATEUCH
Rolf Rendtorff
Translated by
John J. Scullion
Rendtorff, R.
The problem of the process of transmission in the
Pentateuch
1. Bible. O.T. Pentateuch.—Critical studies
I. Title II. Series III. Überlieferungs-
geschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch. English
222.106
ISSN 0309-0787
ISBN 1-85075-229-X
CONTENTS
Foreword 7
Translator's Note 9
Chapter 1
THE PROCESS OF TRANSMISSION
AND THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS 11
1.1 The new approach of Gerhard von Rad 12
1.2 The modification of this approach by Martin Noth 16
1.3 The documentary hypothesis maintained 24
1.4 The question of the 'larger units' 31
Chapter 2
THE PATRIARCHAL STORIES AS EXAMPLES OF A
'LARGER UNIT' WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF
THE PENTATEUCH 43
2.1 The stories of Joseph, Jacob, and Isaac 43
2.2 The story of Abraham 48
2.2.1 The variety of layers in the process of
transmission of the Abraham tradition 49
2.2.2 The promises in the divine addresses in the
Abraham story 52
2.3 The promises to the patriarchs 55
2.3.1 The promise of the land 57
2.3.2 The promise of descendants 61
2.3.3 The blessing 64
2.3.4 The guidance 66
2.3.5 The combination of individual
promise themes 68
2.4 The function of the promise addresses in the
composition of the patriarchal story 74
2.5 The absence of any definite reworking in
Exodus-Numbers 84
2.6 The larger units' in Exodus-Numbers 90
2.7 Traces of an over-arching reworking 94
Chapter 3
CRITICISM OF PENTATEUCHAL CRITICISM 101
3.1 The present state of pentateuchal criticism 102
3.2 The problem of the Yahwist 108
3.2.1 Literary analysis of the Yahwist 108
3.2.2 Characteristics of the work of the Yahwist 119
3.2.3 The theology of the Yahwist 126
3.2.4 Reasons against the acceptance of a
Yahwistic work 133
3.3 The problem of a priestly narrative in the
patriarchal story 136
3.3.1 The stories of Joseph and Isaac 138
3.3.2 The Jacob story 140
3.3.3 The Abraham story 146
3.3.4 Genesis 23 154
3.4 The priestly layer in the patriarchal story 156
3.4.1 Chronological notes 157
3.4.2 Theological'passages 163
3.4.3 The function of the priestly layer 167
3.4.4 No priestly narrative, but a layer of
priestly reworking 169
3.5 Synthesis 170
Chapter 4
CONCLUSIONS AND CONSEQUENCES 177
4.1 Dissent from the documentary hypothesis 178
4.2 The larger units' in the Pentateuch 181
4.2.1 The patriarchal story 181
4.2.2 The other 'larger units' 184
4.3 The problem of the synthesizing, final
arrangement of the Pentateuch 189
This book marks the terminal, for the time being, of many
years of confrontation with the basic methodological questions
of pentateuchal criticism. Discussions with colleagues of other
countries provided many a stimulus to concentrate more
intensively on these questions. And so it is no mere chance that
a variety of earlier papers on this complex of questions reflect
these discussions. In the lecture 'Literarkritik und Traditions-
geschichte' in Uppsala in 1965 (EvTh 27 [1967] 138-153) I still
supported the view that the current solution to the problems of
the Pentateuch was still the most plausible despite all critical
trimming. In my contribution Traditio-Historical Method
and the Documentary Hypothesis' in Jerusalem in 1969
(Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies,
pp. 5-11), I tried to show that as a result of a consistent
traditio-historical approach, the documentary hypothesis
could not be sustained. In Edinburgh in 1974, I finally ques-
tioned the existence of the main pillar of the documentary
hypothesis, the Tahwist' (T)er "Yahwist" als Theologe? Zum
Dilemma der Pentateuchkritik', VT Supp. 28 [1975] 158-66).
Here, a new approach to pentateuchal study is to be outlined
on a broader basis.
I have to thank many with whom I have been able to discuss
these questions in the course of the years. First, there are my
Heidelberg colleagues with whom the dialogue has been, and
is still being, carried on in a variety of ways. Then there are
my colleagues and friends in Jerusalem; after many earlier
meetings and discussions, they gave me the opportunity, as
guest of the Hebrew University in the winter semester 1973-
74, to devote my attention entirely to these questions and, in
intensive exchange with them, to clarify them further. Finally
there are Konrad Rupprecht, without whose constant consul-
tation and co-operation the book would never have appeared,
8 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
1 Ibid., p. 58.
2 Ibid., p. 59.
3 Von Rad sees the beginning of the Penuel story only in v. 25 (Eng.
v.24), op. cif.,p.59.
4 Op. cif.,p.59.
5 Op. ci*.,p.64.
6 Op. cit., p. 65.
16 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
1 Noth explicitly denies that the growth of the Pentateuch took place
in this way when he maintains that its 'form... is not the subse-
quent and final result of the simple grouping together and arrang-
ing in sequence of individual traditions and individual complexes o
traditions, but... at the very beginning of the formation of the tradi-
tions, there was a small number of themes that were essential for
the faith of the Israelite tribes' (op. cit., p. 2).
1. The Documentary Hypothesis 23
1 A History, p. 228.
2 Op. cit.,p.236.
3 Op. cit., pp. 40-41.
1. The Documentary Hypothesis 29
1 Op. cit., p. 238. Apart from the primeval story, Noth regards only
Gen. 18.22ff. as a passage of Yahwistic theological work.
2 Op. cit., p. 228.
1. The Documenatary Hypothesis 31
to the final stage of the text. If the question that the traditio-
historical approach is taken seriously, then, on methodical
grounds, the acceptance of 'sources' is excluded by reason of
an analysis made at the final stage, without its being verified
through the study of the formation of the tradition. It goes
without saying that the traditio-historical study makes use of
the varied insights and results of the literary-critical work so
as to unravel the layers and growth of the texts. It will itself, of
course, have to work with literary-critical tools and, for its
part, will have to give answers to the questions raised by liter-
ary criticism. And so it will have to proceed no less 'critically'
and also, to be sure, literary-critically. But it cannot from the
very start equate the literary-critical method of working with
the results carried over from the source theory, as is done so
widely today. This procedure identifies a particular method o
study almost exclusively with one of its conceivable results.
From a methodological point of view, the literary-critical
statement of the question too must always remain open to
results other than those of the traditional source division. And
this all the more so when it is to serve as an assistant to the
traditio-historical method.1
1 Genesis, p. 1.
2 Op. cit.,p.64.
3 Genesis 1-11.
4 Ibid.
1. The Documentary Haypothesis 35
legende'; 'Ex 1-15 in Bezug auf die Frage: Literarkritik und Tradi-
tionskritik', STL 5 (1952) 66-88.
1 Uberlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus. Eine Analyse von Ex 1-
15,1964, p. 121.
2 Op. cit.,?. 122.
3 See below under 2.6.
38 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
were only separated from each other by the inset Sinai pas-
sages in the course of the traditio-historical development.1
This question is in turn linked with historical, religio-histori-
cal, and traditio-historical questions, especially with the ques-
tion of whether Kadesh was ever a cultic centre for some or
for all the Israelite tribes. Noth has contested this thesis very
strongly,2 while others have accepted and elaborated it.3 But in
all this, the question of how the narratives came together in
their present arrangement has remained undiscussed. That
is, in our statement of the question: was there one (or several)
larger unit(s) with the theme 'Israel in the desert' whose
growth from individual narratives or suchlike smaller units
can be outlined.4
Finally, of particular interest is the discussion of the tradi-
tions about the Israelites' occupation of the land. At the begin-
ning of this century Old Testament scholarship in general
accepted that the traditions of the occupation of the land in the
book of Joshua were an immediate continuation of the penta-
teuchal presentation. The reason for this was that the texts in
Joshua were regarded as belonging to the pentateuchal
'sources'. And so one spoke of the 'Hexateuch'. Noth, in his
analysis of the book of Joshua, came to the conclusion 'the lit-
erary-critical theses, demonstrated above all for Genesis, are
not valid for the book of Joshua in the same enlightening way.
The reason for this is that it is not possible to arrive at inter-
nally coherent complexes for each of the accepted continuous
narrative threads'.5 Instead of continuous 'sources' in the nar-
rative parts of Joshua, he discerned a 'collector' at work, who
gathered together older traditions which had already been
partly joined together and shaped them into a 'very old whole
unit'.6
This means nothing else than that Noth here regarded the
occupation of the land traditions in Joshua as an independent
larger unit. It is surely not due to chance that this occurred in
1 A History, p. 16.
2 Ibid.
1. The Documentary Hypothesis 41 41
1 Genesis, p. 396.
2 Op. cit.,p.397.
44 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
the flight from Esau and the retreat from Laban. The Jacob
story then is supported by these two narratives 'as a bridge is
supported by two pylons... These two narrative blocks are
clearly markers indicating the guiding theological thinking*.1
Westermann too has arrived at essentially the same
division and designation of the constituent parts of the Jacob
narrative. Looking at the entire block of the Jacob-Esau-
Laban cycle of stories, he speaks of a 'group of coherent
narratives dominating the whole which can be called one
large narrative'.2 He says of this group that 'in the way in
which they are arranged they stand somewhere between the
type of short, self-contained Abraham narratives and the
Joseph narrative which forms a much larger and more
complex unit'.3
There is an independent Isaac story in Genesis 26. The lit-
erature for the most part does not evaluate this chapter as an
independent section, but looks at it within the frame of the
Jacob story. Gunkel puts it under the heading 'Survey of the
arrangement of the JE Jacob stories'; it is in brackets with the
additional note, 'inserted... by a later hand'.4 Von Rad writes:
'There are only two stories about Isaac (Gen. 26.6-11, 12-33)
which have been incorporated into the broad arrangement of
the Jacob stories'.5 In his Genesis commentary, however, it is
different. On the one hand it is fitted more firmly into the
'units of tradition'; on the other, he writes: These Isaac tradi-
tions have passed into the literture basically in their ancient
form and without any adjustment to the later and broad
arrangement of the patriarchal stories'.6 Gunkel too felt that
the Isaac story had its own character over against the other
patriarchal stories, and so surmised that the chapter liad
been taken from another related book of stories and inserted
here'.7
1 Genesis, p. 159.
2 As, for example, is the case in the Jacob-Esau and the Jacob-Laban
stories.
50 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
26.3
17.8
28.4)
1 Ibid.
2 Ibid.
3 In this and the following tables, texts which are not in direct divine
addresses are placed in round brackets.
58 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
12.7
24.7)
15.18
26.4
48.4)
15.7 to give to you this land as a possession
13.17 because to you will I give it
28.13 to you will I give it and to your descendants
13.15 to you will I give it and to your descendants for ever
35.12 the land which I gave to Abraham and to Isaac, will
I give the land
26.3 because to you and to your descendants will I give all
these lands
17.8 I will give to you and to your descendants after you
the land of your sojournings
(28.4 may he give to you the blessing of Abraham, to you
and to your descendants with you, that you may pos-
sess the land of your sojournings, which God gave to
Abraham)
12.7 to your descendants will I give this land
(24.7 to your descendants will I give this land)
15.18 to your descendants I give this land
26.4 I will give to your descendants all these lands
(48.4 I will give to your descendants after you this land as
an everlasting inheritance to possess)
(Translator's note: (1) the personal pronouns and the per-
sonal possessive adjectives 'you' and 'your' are always in the
singular in the Hebrew; (2) the word 'descendants' renders
the singular Hebrew word zera', lit. 'seed'.)
The table tries to trace a definite line of development in the
formalized phrases within the promises of the land. In some
cases God's address to Abraham runs: 'to you will I give it (the
land)' (13.7; the formulation in 15.7 is clearly outside the pat-
tern); in a number of other cases which occur in addresses to
all three patriarchs, the words 'and to your descendants' are
added to 'to you'. That it is a question of an addition here will be
readily discernible from the fact that in some cases 'and to
your descendants' has been inserted only after the verb (28.13;
13.15); in one case the verb has been repeated again in such a
way that it is very clear that the phrase is composite (35.12).
2. The Patriarchal Stories 59
22.17 I will increase your seed like the stars of heaven and
the sand that is on the shore of the sea
Over against these expressions, there stands another group in
which the word 'seed' does not appear. The assurance of the
great increase of descendants is, incidentally, entirely without
comparative images.
17.2
48.16)
17.2 I will increase you very, very greatly
(48.16 may they increase in number over the earth)
For the rest, the talk is of a 'nation' and 'nations' and
of 'peoples' , and of 'assembly'
21.13
12.3
21.18
46.3
18.18
17.4
17.5
17.6
17.16
17.20
35.11
28.3)
48.4)
21.13 I will make you into a nation
12.2 I will make you into a great nation
21.18 because I will make him into a great nation
46.3 because I will make you into a great nation there
18.18 he will indeed become a great and strong nation
17.4 you will become father of a number of nations
17.5 because I will make you father of a number of
nations
17.6 I will make you very, very fruitful, and I will make
you into nations, and kings will come forth from you
17.16 she will become peoples; kings of nations will come
from her
64 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
17.20 I will make him fruitful and increase him very, very
much; he will beget twelve princes, and I will make
him a great nation
35.11 be fruitful and increase! A nation and an assembly of
nations will come from you, and kings will come
forth from your loins
(28.3 may he make you fruitful and increase you, and you
will become an assembly of peoples)
(48.4 see, I will make you fruitful and increase you and I
will make you an assembly of peoples)
The idea of 'seed' is completely missing from this whole
group, as already noted. And so one can recognize clearly that
there are before us two different lines of tradition which differ
in the use of the word 'seed' as well as in comparative images
by means of which the numerous descendants are described.
There is a further terminological difference: the verb 'to
increase' hip'il) is used predominantly in the first group,
though it occurs also in the second; on the other hand, the verb
'to be/make fruitful' qal/hip'il) is found only in the second
group in combination with the notions of 'nation' etc. This too
makes clear that we are dealing with traditions that are inde-
pendent of each other.
and said to me: See, I will make you fruitful...' Likewise, the
whole divine address (consisting of two parts) in 35.9-12 is
introduced as blessing: Then God appeared to Jacob again
when he came from Paddan-aram and blessed him; and God
said to him: Your name is Jacob...'
Further, the idea of blessing (or the act of blessing) appears
within the divine address. In 26.3 it is linked with the assur-
ance of guidance ('I will be with you and bless you'), and the
promise of the land follows it. In 28.4 the possession of the land
is described as the immediate consequence of 'the blessing of
Abraham'. In 12.2 the promise of increase stands immediately
before the blessing ('I will make you a great nation and bless
you'); for the rest, the precedence that Westermann1 estab-
lished of the promise of blessing before the promise of increase
holds: 17.16, 20; 22.17; 26.24; 28.3.2
It should be noted further that the pronouncements of
blessing begin with both combinations of the groups of
promises of increase mentioned above, which use the expres-
sion 'seed' (22.17; 26.24), as well as with the others in which it
is missing (12.2; 17.16, 20; 28.3). This combination therefore is
on a different level in the process of the history of tradition
from the individual, independent development of both these
sequences of pronouncements.
It is striking too that the assurance of blessing for others
('clans' or 'nations') is always combined with promise of
increase—but in reversed order: in all five places where the
promise of blessing for others occurs, it is preceded by an
assurance of increase: 12.2-3; 18.18; 22.17-18; 26.4; 28.14.
Here too there is no difference with respect to the
formulations, with or without the mention of the 'seed'.
The obvious conclusion from all this is that the 'blessing' is
not an independent promise theme, but occurs always in
combination with other themes, and in the very large
majority of cases with the promise of numerous posterity.3
1 On the formula: H.D. Preuss, '... ich will mit dir sein', ZAW 80
(1968) 139-73; D. Vetter, Jahwes Mit-Sein—ein Ausdruck des
Segens, 1971. Talk of : in 26.24; 31.5, 42, presents a
problem of its own in connection with the formula; cf. 2.5 below.
2. The Patriarchal Stories 67
1
2. The Patriarchal Stories 69
1
70 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
1 On Gen. 17, cf. G. Ch. Macholz, Israel und das Land. Vorarbeiten
zu einem Vergleich zwischen Priesterschrift und deuteronomisti-
schen Geschichtswerk, Habilitationsschrift, Heidelberg, 1969,
pp. 42ff.
2 Cf. also Gen. 35.9-12, where a change of name from Jacob to Israel
occurs likewise in a divine address, and linked also with a promise
of increase.
2. The Patriarchal Stories 71
stylized phrases as in 12.7: 'to your seed will I give this land', cf.
15.18; 24.7. In each of these cases the context is exclusively
that of the promise of the land. It is scarcely by chance that we
are concerned here with these brief formulations, relatively
late in the process of the formation of the tradition, which now
speak of the 'seed' as the receiver of the promise. Likewise in
15.7, the promise of the land is not linked with other promise
elements; it is in a context stamped by deuteronomistic lan-
guage.
For the rest, on the one hand, the promise of the land is
combined with the promise of increase in such a way that the
latter, associated with it by the key-word 'seed', grows out of it;
in such cases, the promise of the land is the older in the process
of the formation of the tradition; on the other hand, it is the
reverse—the promise of the land is attached to the promise of
increase, formulated differently, so as to round off the general
theme of promise; in such cases, the promise of increase is
earlier in the process of the formation of the tradition than the
promise of the land. Finally, in some cases, the promise of the
land combines in a characteristic way with the assurance of
guidance.
The promise of increase occurs rather frequently without
the addition of other promise elements. Even when it is com-
bined with the promise of blessing, nothing of importance is
attached to it. The promise of increase, in combination with
the promise of the land, admits of two possibilities: the one, that
it grows out of the promise of the land, the other, that it is itself
the earlier element in the process of the formation of the tra-
dition and that the promise of the land has been added to it.
The promise of increase is also combined with the assurance
of guidance in particular ways.
reworking.
First, let us consider the Isaac story. It contains only two
divine addresses, one at the beginning (26.2-5), the other at the
end (26.24) of the collection of Isaac traditions. Neither has
any immediate connection with the narrative context; hence,
they can well be elements of the theological reworking of the
collection. Both divine addresses begin with the phrase *YHWH
appeared to him'. Both contain the element of the assurance of
guidance, 'I am with you',1 even though the language in
which it is expressed takes a somewhat different form.
When we look at the content of the two addresses, we find
that w. 2-5 present, as already noted in detail, a very complex
and many layered picture. It is clear, however, that besides the
guidance, the promise of the land stands underscored as the
centrepiece. In contrast, in the closing address in v. 24, only the
promise of increase is there with the guidance. They form,
then, the emphatic end-point of the theological interpretation
of the Isaac story.
The element of guidance plays an important role in the
Jacob story as well.2 It is there with all its force in the first
divine address to Jacob in 28.15. It marks the first decisive
intervention in the life-story of Jacob—the flight to Haran. It
appears a second time and is underscored at the next turning
point: in 31.3, Jacob receives the divine command to return to
the land of his fathers.3 It is particularly striking here that the
divine address (v. 3) breaks the narrative thread which i
resumed again in w. 4-5 with the words from v. 2. It is only at
the end of Jacob's address to his wives that the divine com-
mand to depart is mentioned and communicated directly
(v. 13). It is obvious here that the divine address with the
theme 'guidance' is not part of the narrative, but serves the
theological interpretation of the Jacob story in the context. The
theme appears yet again at the very end of the Jacob story: in
46.2-4, Jacob is the subject of a divine address before he sets out
1 In v. 12.
2 Compare, for example, (35.12) with (17.19).
2. The Patriarchal Stories 77
1 Talk of possessing the gate of one's enemies' in 22.17 does not occur
in 26.3; there, the gift of'all these lands' is assured.
2 See also the phrase 'because of Abraham my servant' in 26.24.
2. The Patriarchal Stories 79
conceivable that the plural form 'nations' had its origin in this
word play. The plural occurs twice more in Genesis 17 (w. 6,
16), and then in the passage that frames the Jacob story (35.9-
12), where there is an accumulation of ideas, 'nation and an
assembly of nations' (v. II).1
The promise of increase has certainly not been developed at
one stroke in the course of the reworking of the Abraham
story; rather, there has been a series of stages which, in part,
have had scarcely any connection with each other. We will
have to reckon here with a gradual growth of the tradition.
It is similar in the case of the promise of the land. We must
again begin with a text in which the promise is an immediate
constituent part of the context, namely 15.7-21. First, one
must note carefully that this verse is formulated in quite obvi-
ous parallelism to 11.31.
2.
11.31
15.7
11.31 he (Terah) brought them from Ur of the Chaldees to
go to the land of Canaan
15.7 I who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldees to give
you this land to possess
The gift of the land is here linked closely with the journey to
the land. 12.1, where Abraham is ordered to journey to the
land which YHWH will show him, fits nicely into this context.
The orientation of the promise of the land is different in
13.14-17. Here it is a matter of the assurance of the possession
of the land after the separation from Lot; it is the original
announcement of the occupation of the land where Abraham
is already living. Once again we must refer to the parallel
texts in 28.13-15, where a corresponding assurance is given to
Jacob.3
There is a further series of texts in which the promise of the
land is likewise the consequence of the promise of increase,
while the possession of the land is assured to the 'seed' as well.
1 Gen. 17.16; besides also D'D; outside the divine address in the
form in 28.3; 48.4.
2 So with the Sam and LXX; cf. BHS.
3 See above under 2.3.5.
82 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
1 The term 'narrative' is not at all appropriate for Gen. 12.1-9; see
above under 2.2.1.
84 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
process.
There are some further places, though quite sporadic,
where there are references to the promises to the patriarchs,
especially to the promise of the land. Exodus 13 contains cultic
prescriptions about the eating of the unleavened bread and the
offering of the firstborn. The prescriptions in both cases refer
to the period after YHWH will have led the Israelites into the
land. In each case it is said of the land, with certain differences
in the formulation, that it is that which YHWH swore to the
patriarchs to give to the Israelites (w. 5,11). There is talk here
of the oath which is found in the patriarchal stories in Gen.
22.16 and 26.3.* In these places, however, it refers not to the
promise of the land but to the promise of increase, whereas it
occurs in connection with the promise of the land only twice
outside the divine address (Gen. 24.7; 50.24).2 The reference
therefore is to a layer of tradition in the patriarchal story
which is relatively late and by no means central.
In the prayer of Moses, after the people had sinned by
making the golden calf, there is extensive reference to the
promises to the patriarchs: 'Remember Abraham, Isaac, and
Israel, your servants to whom you swore by yourself and to
whom you spoke: I will increase your seed like the stars of
heaven, and the whole of this land of which I have spoken to
you I will give to your seed, and they will take possession of it
for ever' (32.13). There is a clear echo of Gen. 22.16-17 with
the oath that YHWH swore by himself and the promise of
increase under the image of the stars; the promise of the land,
missing in Genesis 22, is added here. The address of YHWH to
Moses in Exod. 33.1 reads: TJp, go on your way from here, you
and your people whom you have lead out of the land of Egypt,
to the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: to
your seed I will give it'. The address corresponds almost word
for word to that of Joseph in Gen. 50.24, the citation of the
divine address to that in Gen. 24.7. And so it is a matter of the
two passages in which, in the patriarchal story, God's oath is
joined with the promise of the land. One can recognize again
1 For the connection with the tradition in Exod. 3.8, see below under
2.7.
2 Further detail see below under 2.7.
88 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
1 It is only here that the divine name YHWH occurs when God is
addressing himself to one of the patriarchs; and Jacob, when taking
up this episode in 32.10 (Eng. 9), says... In 46.3, the God of
the patriarch (Jacob) presents himself as "?«n.
2 Cf. further Exod. 15.2; 18.4.
3 See above under 2.5 (beginning).
90 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
having 'seen' what YHWH has done. One can discern then a
clear connection between the composition of Exodus 1-4 and
the overall composition of Exodus 1—14.1 But these questions
must be pursued further.
No particular demonstration is needed to show that the
Sinai passage is an independent larger unit. Express cross ref-
erences to the preceding complexes of tradition occur only in
isolation.2 The introductory divine address runs: *You have
seen what I did to Egypt and how I carried you on eagles'
wings and brought you here to me' (Exod. 19.4). There is only
a very general reference here to the event of the Exodus. The
references in Exodus 32 are more concrete. The Israelites say:
'As for this fellow Moses, who brought us out of the land of
Egypt' (w. 1, 23); YHWH says to Moses: 'your people, the people
you brought out from the land of Egypt' (v. 7); Moses uses the
same formulation about YHWH (v. II); 3 of the image of the
golden calf they say: 'these are your gods, Israel, that brought
you out from Egypt' (w. 4, 8). Here, it is a matter throughout
of fixed and formalized formulas which on each occasion have
been joined by as relative sentences for further precision. It
is only in v. 12 that this reference back to the leading out from
Egypt is used as an argument: 'Why let the Egyptians say: He
had evil intent when he led them out, to kill them on the
mountains and to wipe them from the face of the earth?'
Then, attached to this, comes the broad reference to the
promises to the patriarchs (v. 13).4
Finally, the situation in Exod. 33.1-3 is interesting. YHWH
commands Moses to set out with the words: 'Up, go on from
here, you and your people whom you have brought out of the
land of Egypt'.5 The link with the promises to the patriarchs
1 On the other hand, cf. Exod. 18, as well as Exod. 16.6; Num. 14.13,
19, 22.
2 Moses' message opens in v. 14 with reference to the 'ill-treatment'
that 'befell' the Israelites, so resuming a formulation already used
in Exod. 18.8.
94 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
evident.
This is all the more striking because the patriarchal stories
which we have examined closely as examples, show a very
thorough reworking in which a theological intent arranging
them was clearly at work. But this theological intent is not dis-
cernible in the same way for the Pentateuch as a whole. In
other words: the theological arrangement of the patriarchal
stories is not to be equated with the theological arrangement of
the Pentateuch. Rather, the patriarchal stories have under-
gone a theological interpretation and reworking which has
turned them into a self-contained piece of well moulded tradi-
tion which stands out clearly in all its own independence
within the Pentateuch. The reworking and arrangement of
the remaining units requires still more careful study; but it
has already become quite obvious that it will have to be of a
different kind from that of the patriarchal stories. Further
studies in the direction indicated will be hard put to it to alter
the judgment that the theological arrangement of the individ-
ual larger units within the Pentateuch cannot be equated with
the arrangement of the Pentateuch as a whole.
This does not mean, however, that an over-arching rework-
ing of the Pentateuch, which encompasses the different larger
units, would be in no wise discernible. Among the cross-refer-
ences mentioned, there emerges one particular group of texts
to which we must give somewhat more careful attention; they
are all concerned with one thing—that YHWH swore to the
patriarchs that he would give the land to them. Gen. 50.24
anticipates the exodus story. Joseph says to his brothers: 'God
will come to you1 and will lead you out of this land into the land
that he swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob'. Talk of
YHWH's oath is not very deeply anchored in the patriarchal
stories. It appears, however, in two texts which are important
for the composition of the patriarchal story as a whole, Gen.
22.16; 26.3. It is noteworthy that the mention of YHWH's oath
in 22.16 does not appear in a fixed formula as in the majority
of other cases;2 here, YHWH's address (i.e. through the mal'ak
1 On see above, p. 95 n. 1.
98 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
send an angel before you,1 and I will drive out the Canaanites,
the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the
Jebusites—to a land flowing with milk and honey'. We find the
same traditions joined together here as in Exod. 13.15. So then,
after a break in the journey by a stop at Sinai, the promise of
the land is again mentioned and confirmed when the journey
is resumed; at the same time it is said that this journey to the
land constitutes the realization of this promise.
The reference to the promise of the land in the prayer of
Moses in Exod. 32.13 is also to be seen in this context. The links
with the oath in Gen. 22.16-17 are once again clear.2 The
function of this cross reference at this place could be that, with
YHWH's express decision in Exod. 32.10 to annihilate the peo-
ple, the fulfilment of the promises to the patriarchs would
have become impossible; so Moses intercedes and counters
YHWH with his very own promises. These two passages then
complement each other. After Moses' intervention in Exod.
32.11-14, YHWH himself resumes the promise of the land to
the patriarchs in his command to journey on (33.1-3).
There are some further passages where there is mention of
the promise of the land to the patriarchs confirmed by YHWH's
oath in situations in which its fulfilment seems to be in danger.
In the prayer in Num. 11.11-15, Moses gives expression to his
doubts; he thinks that he cannot carry out the charge that
YHWH has laid upon him to bring the people into the promised
land (especially w. 14-15); YHWH's oath is mentioned here, in
however concise a form ('the land which you swore to their
fathers'). In the episode of the scouts in Numbers 13-14 also,
the realization of the promise is put in question: YHWH
declares that not one of the desert generation is to see the
promised land, with the exception of Caleb (14.22-24); and
once again YHWH's oath is recalled in the same concise form
(v. 23). (It should be expressly noted here that the rest of the
story of the scouts has no connection at all with the tradition of
1 Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1969, 1970 (2nd edn), p. 48. 5th
edn, completely revised and rewritten, 1984. English version of
Introduction to the Old Testament, 1970 edn (and incorporating fur-
ther revisions by the author to 1973 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1975), p. 44.
2 Emphasis added; see below p. 107 n. 5.
3 E. Sellin-G. Fohrer, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1969 (llth
edn). English, Introduction to the Old Testament (London: SPCK,
1970) trans. David Green.
4 Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 1964 (3rd edn) English.
3. Criticism of Pentaieuchal Criticism 103
division. But one cannot thereby get rid of the fact that, from
the time that Wellhausen formulated the now widely
accepted documentary hypothesis, there have been
distinguished scholars who have constantly supported the
division of this oldest pentateuchal source. This situation
carries all the more weight as the representatives of this view
have throughout been constant and convinced advocates of
the principles of some division in the sense of the 'later
documentary hypothesis'1 or, as Eissfeldt puts it: the latest
documentary hypothesis'.2 One must say then that in one
decisive and basic question, source criticism has not led to a
definitive conclusion, The reason for this is obviously that the
methods acknowledged by and large by all scholars are simply
not suited to answer conclusively the questions thrown up by
the texts of the Pentateuch.
The same holds, with the appropriate adaptations, for the
'Elohist'. The situation is still more complex here inasmuch as
not a few scholars contest the existence of an independent
'elohistic' source, while others on the contrary maintain that it
once existed as an independent work, but is preserved only in
fragments (so that it is better to speak of 'elohistic frag-
ments'); 3 still others think that one should consider the
'Elohist' 'as an originally independent and for the most part
preserved source layer'.4 Here too the methodology used is
inadequate to arrive at a final explanation.
As a consequence, great uncertainty dominates the separa-
tion of these two or three sources. As an example, one may cite
the most recent commentary on the book of Exodus by W.H.
Schmidt, the first fascicule of which appeared in 1974.5 When
considering the first part of the book, Schmidt cites C. Steuer-
1 A History, p. 10.
2 Op. cit., p. 10
3 Op. cit., p. 10, n. 15.
4 Op. cit., p. 103.
106 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
1 Exodus, p. 64.
2 Uberlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus. Eine Analyse von Ex 1~
15,1964, p. 26.
3 It is at the same time clear that, in such a procedure, one has aban-
doned the point of departure of classical pentateuchal criticism,
namely the question of an explanation of the breaks and repetitions
ascertainable in the present text, and by means of an in-built system
112 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
1 Introduction, p. 115.
2 Whether the summary details given by Steuernagel in his
Lehrbuch—4see above under p. 104 n. 1) pp. 203, 214-15, 233-34, can
be described as 'detailed' (so Fohrer), must be questionable.
3 Introduction, p. 93.
4 A History, p. 21.
5 The German word used is 'diffus'; it is not used in any polemical
sense, but only to state that the consensus consists only in a basic
conviction, but in detail cannot be more sharply defined.
6 Cf. also F. Stolz, Das alte Testament, 1974, p. 31.
7 And this all the more so in view of A. Jepsen's discussion, 'Amah
3. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 119
1 Genesis, p. Ixxx.
2 Ibid.
3 Op. cit.
4 See above under 1.
5 Op. cit., p. 85.
6 Op. cit., p. 85.
7 Op. cit., pp. 128-32.
8 Op. cit., p. 131.
3. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 121
used'.1
Is there anything then such as a Tahwistic style' or a
Tahwistic language'? Gunkel replies affirmatively: 'On the
other hand, there are collectors who are far removed from
passing on material transmitted without any alteration. They
have allowed the stories to penetrate their being; their
uniform use of language is a clear sign that the stuff of the
stories has passed through the mould'.2 Likewise Fohrer: 'In
any case, the source layers rest on the activity of individual
writers who show differences in both language and style'.3
The shape that the material had taken had already reached
such a point 'that the definitive literary version was for the
most part subject only to linguistic and stylistic reworking5.4
Noth's judgment is more reserved: 'The work of J and E
consisted largely in simply giving formulation to the
narratives transmitted, which gives one readily to reflect that
all sorts of modes of expression and stylistic characteristics
had already been given with the old tradition, so that the
ancient sources could not have yet become formal, tightly self-
contained, units'.5 Noth makes the explicit point that 'the
brief/detailed narrative style, without any attempt to balance
the individual narratives, has been preserved, each in the style
transmitted, in the final written form'.6 Thus he has basically
denied the existence of a peculiar Yahwistic style; for one
cannot seriously bring together under the common term
'Yahwistic style' texts in the "brief narrative style of Gen.
12.10-20 and texts in the 'detailed' style of Genesis 24—not to
speak of the 'novellistic style' of the Joseph story! In any other
area of the OT one would regard it as a serious methodological
error were an exegete to ascribe such fundamentally different
texts to a common author; rather the very difference in style
would be judged as evidence against common authorship.
Ought other standards hold for the Pentateuch? Or can other
common and convincing stylistic marks be found which,
1 Introduction, p.
2 Genesis, p. Ixxxv.
3 Introduction, p. 143.
4 Op. cit.,p. 144
5 A History, p. 229.
6 Ibid., n. 603.
3. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 123
although it has lost its essential basis and thereby its power of
conviction: for von Had, the arrangement of the larger blocks
was the decisive accomplishment of the Yahwist; Wolff holds
to this idea and underscores it heavily, while in this 'arranging
the material passed on', the 'self-expression' of the Yahwist
becomes very clear. But Wolff has to qualify this immediately
and say in the very next sentence that there is 'no reliable evi-
dence here', and that of the arrangement of the great blocks of
tradition there remains peculiar to him what 'is generally
regarded as his (the Yahwist's) literary accomplishment',
namely 'the contents of the great forecourt known as the
primeval story*. According to Wolffs opinion therefore and in
face of the present text—and we have no other!—one can not
give concrete details of what this compositorial accomplish-
ment comprises.
The picture is similar with Fohrer. In his view 'it is to be
noted to what extent the single event is brought into large
complexes and set under over-arching view points, and how
'history' (Geschichte) is shaped out of individual stories
(Geschichten). This is shown both by the structure of the
whole which is expanded around the primeval story and by
the special emphasis given by J'.1 He continues further:
'Striking here is the mingling of national (already noted) and
universal concepts'.2 As proofs are alleged Gen. 8.21 and
(without explicit citation) Gen. 12.3 (The other nations can
and so ought to share in its blessing?3). Another characteristic
mark of the present discussion is in evidence here: the argu-
ments for identifying the Yahwist (for his theology, see below
under 3.2.3) are taken predominantly, often almost exclu-
sively, from Genesis! It is not mentioned if the 'special empha-
sis' of J is demonstrable in other places as well.
According to Kaiser the Yahwist has 'in the traditions avail-
able to him undoubtedly moved the action of Yahweh firmly
into the foreground'.4 It is not said how this is done and to what
extent the action of Yahweh was originally expressed less
1 Ibid.
2 As shown above (2.3-2.4), there can be no talk of a promise motif or
motifs being passed on to the Yahwist.
3 See above under 3.2.1 (towards the end).
4 Wolff (op. cit., pp.!36ff.) talks of five much discussed bridge pas-
sages, exclusively from the book of Genesis, 6.5-8; 8.21-22; 12.1-4a;
18.17-18,23b-33.
5 See further R. Rendtorff, 'Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte',
EvTh 27 (1967) 138-53.
3. Criticism of Peniateuchal Criticism 127
1 Genesis (German, 1972, 9th edn; Eng. 1972, 2nd edn), pp. 214-15.
2 Theology of the Old Testament, I, p. 395.
3 A History, p. 238.
4 Op. cit.,p.239.
5 Introduction, pp. 84-85.
6 See above under 3.2.1.
7 Introduction, p. 151
8 Cf. Noth, op. cit., p. 239, n. 627.
3. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 129
1 'The Kerygma'.
2 For the claim that 20.7 belongs to the 'Elohist', see Wolff, op. cit.,
pp. 147f.
3 Noth, op. cit., p. 238.
4 Fohrer, Introduction, p. 151
5 Theology of the Old Testament, I, p. 395.
3. Criticism of Pentate uchal Criticism 131
1 Verses 22-23!
2 On this, cf. Wellhausen, Die Composition, 1899 (3rd edn), p. 25. He
holds Gen. 18.22b-33 to be an 'insertion', and the 'motive' for it was
a 'mood' that '(dominated) the Jewish people at the time when
Jeremiah and Ezekiel prophesied and the book of Job took form'.
Von Rad, Theology, I, p. 395, underscores the closeness to Isa. 53.3,
10.
132 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
1 Op. ci*.,p.l4a
2 See above under 2.1.
3 Cf. Wolff, op. cit., p. 133 on Gen. 22.16-17: This is a guide to under-
standing passages, in which the theme (namely, blessing) is not
directly sounded, in the intent of the Yahwist'.
134 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
1 A History, p. 10.
2 Ibid.
3 Op. cit.,p.l7.
4 Op. cit.,p.l2.
138 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
1 Genesis, p. 385.
2 I cannot understand how Weimar (op. cit., p. 185) can speak of the
Toledot-formula in Gen. 25.19 as 'having been prefaced by Pg to the
whole Isaac story as heading and structure-signal (?), although he
had already on p. 175 established the absence of the Isaac story in P.
3 See above under 3.3.1.
4 Genesis, p. 385.
3. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 141
texts in the story of Jacob and Esau to P;1 but now, one invokes
Elliger among others: 'Omitting Jacob's stay in Paddan-aram,
Pg only takes up again with Jacob's departure from there
(31.18ap,b).2 Now this is a remarkable and unreasonable
demand on the reader. According to P Isaac, in an unusually
detailed speech and with the most pressing of reasons, would
have required Jacob not to take a wife from 'the daughters of
Canaan', but to find one to go to Paddan-aram, the land of his
mother's family to find one, and would have sent him on his
way with a blessing extending far afield (Gen. 27.46—28.5).
But P would not have considered it necessary so much as to
register Jacob's arrival in Paddan-aram, not to mention a
report on the successful outcome of the commission to marry;
he would have been satisfied with a note about his departure
from there. Elliger plays down this dilemma when he writes:
'Jacob obeys by looking around for a wife among his mother's
relations'.3 He thus hushes up the fact that nothing at all is
reported of the execution of the commission.
But what of the quite isolated verse Gen. 31.18ap,b which
must now bear the whole burden of the thesis of a continuous
Jacob story from P? The exegete is obviously not at ease with it.
According to Noth we have here 'the rare appearance of a P-
fragment which must have been preceded by the now missing
P-information about Jacob's marriages.4 One recalls that for
Noth only for the P-narrative 'is there to be expected the
complete preservation of the original content'.5 All the more
inconvenient then is the appearance of such a 'fragment'!
Weimar too must concede after all that 'the beginning of the
unit has been broken off by Rp'.6
But why is the piece ascribed to P? Here the arguments are
taken almost exclusively from language. First, the word is
generally regarded as characteristic of P.7 However, if one
pieces which can be attributed to this source for the most part
only on very dubious grounds. In addition, many exegetes
have felt themselves compelled to rearrange the texts freely at
their discretion so as to construct some sort of reasonably con-
tinuous text. This is all in such utter contradiction to the pic-
ture that the advocates of the documentary hypothesis are
accustomed to paint of the P-narrative that, starting from
their own assumptions, it must be said that there is no coher-
ent Jacob story from P.1
3.3.3 The Abraham story
Let us now turn to the Abraham story \ It seems to offer the
clearest and most convincing narrative complex. First, Gene-
sis 17 stands out as an entity that is sui generis. It is the freest
composition' within the whole P-narrative.2 Nowhere in the
patriarchal stories is there a passage so extensively laid out, so
self-contained, and as a whole bearing the marks of the
priestly layer of the Pentateuch. Such comprehensive and
self-contained passages of a priestly character occur only
rarely in the rest of the Pentateuch. The few examples, such
as Gen. 1.1—2.4a or Gen. 9.1-17, are not as free compositions as
seems to be the case here. These reflections are important
because they are an advance warning against considering
Genesis 17 without more ado as a constituent part of a coher-
ent narrative; and more, the special nature of the passage
must be considered carefully.
The passages ascribed to P in the Abraham story, apart
from ch. 23 which is to be dealt with later, are for the most
part small or very small textual units. First, following on the
genealogy of Shem (Gen. 11.10-17), there are the pieces of
information about itineraries: the migration of Terah with his
family from Ur of the Chaldees to Haran with the chronologi-
cal note about his age at his death (11.31-32), then the migra-
tion of Abraham from Haran to the land of Canaan (12.4-5).
Questions begin again with the latter text. Noth has concluded
that 'a corresponding passage with the same content from the
old sources has had to give way to the P-passage, 12.4b-5,
here'. This is 'in the interest of retaining as fully as possible'
the content of P. We have already experienced the whole area
of problems that this last argument raises; Noth himself men-
tions them expressly a few sentences later. But whereas in the
Jacob and Joseph stories P-passages are supposed to have been
suppressed by the older sources, here the opposite is assumed.
Why? First, it is the chronological note about Abraham's age
at the time of his migration in v. 4b, which is ascribed to P; this,
however, is not in the problem area inasmuch as it would
hardly have suppressed a corresponding statement in another
source. In v. 5 we meet again an argument already well
known: linguistic usage 'proves' that it belongs to P
(Holzinger, Gunkel): and i and according to Holzinger,
i as well;1 further, the verb-form as in Gen. 11.31,
and elsewhere, would be a mark of P.2 There is no need to
3
repeat here the observations on and the view that
these are marks of P does not gain in probative strength by
repetition. The balance of tfsu meaning 'persons' and i
referring to the rest of one's possessions occurs again in Gen.
14.21, hence outside of the passages ascribed to P. It is
meaningless to claim as a mark of P; it is the most natural
and obvious way to state that somebody is departing and that
he is taking others with him, cf. Gen. 22.3; 24.10, 61; 31.23;
32.23 (Eng. 22). But such assertions are not untypical of the
method, because in this way different P-passages give each
other mutual support. The consequence of this is that the
refutation of such an argument unleashes a sort of chain
reaction and brings a whole series of texts into question. As for
Gen. 12.4b, 5, it need only be said that the chronological note in
v. 4b is to be seen in conjunction with other like notes, while
there is no occasion at all to take it out of its context, not to
mention the assumption that because the piece allegedly
belongs to P 'a corresponding passage with the same content
from the old sources has had to give way'. The passage Gen.
1 Genesis, p. Ixxxv.
2 See above under 3.3.1.
3 See above tinder 3.3.2.
148 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
1 Ibid.
2 Op. cit.,p. 124.
3 See above under 3.3.1.
4 See n. 12, p. 121 (= p. 174). Wellhausen, Die Composition, p. 14, does
not include 16.1 under Q (= P).
5 A History, p. 13.
6 Genesis, p. 124; Gunkel, Genesis, p. 264.
150 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
1 A History, p. 13.
2 Die Composition, pp. 19-20.
3 A History, p. 28, n. 86.
3. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 151
3.3.4 Genesis 23
One of the strangest phenomena in this area is that exegetes
almost unanimously attribute Genesis 23 to P. The arguments
have been passed on, unaltered in essence, since Dillmann
who based himself on Knobel (1852/1860!). The first argument
is the chronological data in v. 1. In many other cases, verses of
this kind are freed from any control by their context precisely
because of their assumed P-character; here, on the con-
trary—and only here—a chronological note of introduction is
used at the same time to assign the whole narrative to a par-
ticular source. A further argument is 'the juridical exactness'
(cf. esp. w. 17-18)';1 but this holds only from v. 17 onwards, not
for the body proper of the narrative. Gunkel mentions further
'the many repetitions in the narrative'.2 For the same reason
he should also reckon the extensive narrative of Genesis 24 to
P. When Dillmann speaks further of the 'artistic detail of the
presentation',3 he makes it difficult for the reader to harmo-
nize this with the image of P which the representatives of the
documentary hypothesis otherwise draw.4
Even today the special character of Genesis 23 within the P-
narrative is underscored. Procksch writes: This narrative...
is relatively quite fresh, though rather ancient in origin... a
new example that P has used older material available'.5
According to Fohrer the narrative 'is of material of Pales-
tinian origin'.6 Speiser sees in it a passage from J going back to
an older tradition in which only the introductory note belongs
to P.7 McEvenue does not follow this entirely,8 but notes: 'the
chatty, colloquial, style of Genesis 23 seems untypical of F, and
concludes from this that one must assume older material
available.9 According to von Rad, it has 'the appearance as if P,
1 Genesis, p. 273.
2 Ibid.
3 Die Genesis, 1875 (3rd edn), p. 309.
4 G. Ch. Macholz has written appositely of the style of Gen. 23: 'the
alleged "P-characteristics" have their basis in the subject-matter of
the text rather than in its "author"'. See above under 2.5.
5 Die Genesis, p. 526 (see above under 3.3.2).
6 Introduction.
7 Genesis, 1964, p. 173.
8 See above under 3.3.3.
9 Op. c#.,p.22.
3. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 155
1 Op. cit.,p.250.
3. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 157
cumcised
17.25 Ishmael, his son, was 13 years old when he was cir-
cumcised
21.5 Abraham was 100 years old when his son Isaac was
born to him
25.15 Isaac was 60 years old when they (Esau and Jacob)
were born
41.46 Joseph was 30 years old when he entered the service
of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.
without the information about the age, i.e. without the words
would present no syntactical difficulties at all,
whereas in the present form, there are syntactical problems,
as well as its being singular, in comparison with the
remaining chronological information in the patriarchal
stories. This suggests that here also one may assume the later
insertion of the note about the age.
It should be noted further that the ages are given for the
most part in round numbers: Abraham 75 (Gen. 12.4) and 100
(21.5), Isaac 40 (25.20) and 60 (25.26), Esau 40 (26.34), Joseph
30 (41.46).1 The 99 years of Abraham at his circumcision
17.24 are as it were a prelude to the birth of Isaac. Only the
chronology of Ishmael is not given in round numbers; but it is
clearly set in relationship to the circumcision and so to the
birth of Isaac. It is likely that circumcision at the age of 13 has
a special signification.
It is without doubt a question of a definite chronological sys-
tem here. Now that it has become clear that the chronologica
notes are not linked by connecting passages to a coherent nar-
rative, one will have to reckon this system, not to a particular
narrative 'source', but rather to a layer of reworking or
redaction.
Something similar holds also for the other chronological
data. First there are some texts to be mentioned which do not
allow themselves to be classified readily under the patterns so
far established. Gen. 16.3, in a circumstantial sentence which
seems to interrupt the narrative context, gives the informa-
tion that Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham so as to have descen-
dants through her. The note about the date is in the middle of
the sentence and runs in translation more or less: 'after Abra-
ham had been living 10 years in the land of Canaan'. This
agrees exactly with the rest of the chronology. Abraham is 86
at Ishmael's birth (16.16), i.e. 11 years older than at the time of
his departure from Haran (12.4). But it is remarkable that
this information is not given in the usual form, but within a
separate sentence. Obviously the author's concern was not
1 Cf. also Exod. 7.7 where, following the same principle, Moses is
reckoned as being 80 at the time of his dealings with Pharaoh;
Aaron's 83 derives from this.
3. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 161
it repeats again the age with the information about the death,
and with the prefixed . Here again another layer of rework-
ing is discernible.1
Looked at as a whole, the chronological data in the patriar-
chal story shows a variety of marks. Most of it can be divided
clearly into two groups: (1) information about the age of a per-
son at the time of a particular event, (2) information about the
entire lifespan in the context of the report of the death. There
are no discernible links between the two groups. It is remark-
able that there is nothing about Jacob in the first group, but
there is something about Esau; on the other hand, there is no
mention of Esau's death. All in all, it is clear that there has
been no uniform and consistent reworking.2
saying so explicitly; one could argue that the assurance 'I will
make you very, very fruitful...' in v. 6 is nothing other than a
pronouncement of blessing. But then one might also suppose
the idea of 'blessing' belongs only to a later layer of reworking
and for that reason was first missing from Genesis 17, which
obviously forms the point of departure for the whole group of
texts, and would only have been supplied later (in 17.16, 20, as
well as in the cross references); and one could also argue that
in Gen. 35.9 the word ^bless' has been put in front of the whole
complex of divine addresses, but that it is missing in the actual
promise address in w. 11-12. Finally, there could be a third
possibility: that originally there was talk of blessing at the
beginning of ch. 17, but that this idea has been eclipsed and
suppressed (w.2, 4, 7,...) by the idea of 'covenant' in
any case a clear distinction is made between the blessing for
Sarah and Ishmael (vv. 16, 20) and the covenant with
Abraham and Isaac (w. 19b, 21!). Whatever the case may be,
the connections between these four texts are clear, despite the
notable differences.
A further point common to this group of texts is that in all of
them the promise of the land comes after the promise of
increase. It was shown earlier that therein lies the peculiarity
of these texts against others in which the sequence is
reversed;1 the land promise in second place testifies to a later
stage of the tradition.
Some further observations may be made on the position of
this group of texts with the remaining promise addresses in
the patriarchal story. The formulation 'to you... and your
seed' is found in three texts promising the land; both expres-
sions follow immediately on each other twice (Gen. 17.8; 28.4;
the latter is not formulated as a divine address and shows
some peculiarities); once the verb stands between them, and
once it is repeated after them (35.12); once, there is only 'to
your seed' (48.4). And so these text do not stand out from the
other promises of the land as a self-contained group (see above
under 2.3.1, table of beginning). In three cases 'after you'
17.8; 35.12; 48.4) is added to 'seed'; this is a peculiarity of
this text group, as well as already mentioned (17.8;
1 Von Rad, "The Form Critical Problem', pp. 18ff., 53ff., 67f.
2 See above under 1.1.
3. Criticism of Pentateuchal Criticism 175
stuff than the documentary hypothesis in its strictest form was will-
ing to concede...' (see p. 6 n. 2).
1 J. Van Seters, 'Confessional Reformulation in the Exilic Period', VT
22 (1972) 448-59; N.E.Wagner, Tentateuchal Criticism: No Clear
Future', CanJT 13 (1967) 225-32; B. Diebner/H. Schult, 'Die Ehen der
Erzvater', DBAT 8 (1975) 2-10; 'Edom in alttestamentlichen Texten
der Makkabaerzeit', DBAT 8 (1975) 11-17; 'Argumenta e Silentio.
Das grosse Schweigen als Folge der "alten Pentateuchquellen"', in
Festschrift fur R. Rendtorff zum 10.5.1975, DBAT Beiheft
1, 23-34. H.H. Schmid has also argued for a late dating of the
Yahwist (May 1975: Fachgruppe Altes Testament in der Wissen-
schaftlichen Gesellschaft fur Theologie).
182 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
the one hand and the complex of traditions with which the
book of Exodus begins on the other.1 Thus study can free itself
from the necessity of having to assign the individual narra-
tives and stories (Sageri) each to a particular 'source'-author;
and it can, to take up an example already mentioned,2 set into
relief the profound differences between texts like Gen. 12.10-
20 and Genesis 24 without being forced to look for proofs
which would assign them to sources. And texts which are dif-
ficult to classify, like Genesis 14 and 23, can be simply studied
and evaluated in their own right.
And further, study can turn itself to the questions of the
structure of the patriarchal story under different presupposi-
tions. In particular, there was the very awkward situation in
the Abraham story whereby the exegete had to look for crite-
ria under which the individual narratives had been collected
and arranged, but in such a way that he was forced to span
certain texts. In the case of the *Yahwistic' Abraham story, he
had to carry on as if chs. 14; 15; 17 were not there, and
likewise again chs. 20-22.3 They were added anyway by a
redactor, and so did not merit any thorough consideration. A
new beginning may be made here.
In doing so, one would pursue more precisely the connec-
tions between the divine promise addresses and their context.
The reflections presented above still leave many questions
open in this regard. I have deliberately tried to avoid prelimi-
nary decisions about whether individual texts belong to par-
ticular 'sources',4 thereby leaving the way open for as unprej-
udiced analysis as possible; but I am very conscious that my
own insights are only a beginning.
Finally, one must investigate in more precise detail than has
been possible within the limits of this study, the collection and
arrangement of the patriarchal stories. In this area, the work
of R. Kessler on the 'cross references' offers further pointers
primeval story, the Sinai pericope, and, even though not with
the same clarity, the Moses and exodus narratives of Exodus
1-15.
What stands out above all in this is that clearly defined theo-
logical intentions were at work in the arrangement and inter-
pretation of these larger units. The present study has
expounded this in the case of the patriarchal story; it needs no
further demonstration for the primeval story and the Sinai
pericope; it is, in my opinion, sufficiently apparent for Exodus
1-15, so that one can maintain the same for this larger unit as
well. But this means that the theological intentions of the pre-
liminary stages of the Pentateuch as a whole are most clearly
grasped in these larger units. One can then trace a 'theology of
the primeval story', a 'theology of the patriarchal story', a
'theology of the Sinai pericope', and, I think, a 'theology of the
Moses and exodus narratives'—each of them with several
layers.
And so what is remarkable and characteristic is this,
namely that each of these theological outlines, each with its
own complexity, entirely self-contained, and at first with no
connection with one or several of the others, is set out. It goes
without saying that the attempt to present a 'theology' of the
individual 'sources' of the Pentateuch is incompatible with
this. Rather the concern, methodologically justified and neces-
sary, to discover the theological plans which precede and
underlie the present Pentateuch, must, in my opinion, find its
appropriate expression in the description of a 'theology* of the
individual larger units. Work on the Pentateuch has long
since taken this path, and it would be consistent with this
approach if it were to be freed from the hypothetical realm of
the documentary hypothesis.
1 Ibid.
2 See above under 3.4.
3 The information about the death of Moses in Deut. 34.7 is formulated
in a unique way, to which there is no parallel in the rest of the Pen-
tateuch.
4 One could see a connection in that the specific time is on each occa-
sion given in relation to another event, namely the beginning of
residence in the land of Canaan, or departure from the land of
Egypt, and that this other event is on each occasion in the infinitive
with a preceding lamed,
194 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
1 Except in the isolated passage, Gen. 15.13-16; cf. Kessler, op. cit.,
p. 340.
2 In Exod. 33.1, to the formula 'the land which I swore to Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob', is added: 'to your descendants (seed) will I give
it'. The formulation is very close to that used in Gen. 12.7; 15.18;
24.7.
196 The Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch
This gives new weight to the fact that towards the end of the
book of Numbers, especially in chs. 32-35, the deuterono-
mistic element appears clearly. In any case, it is clear that the
book of Deuteronomy cannot be sharply separated from the
remaining Tetrateuch'. The announcement of the death of
Moses in Num. 27.12-23 and the account of it in
Deuteronomy 34 show that the link between the two is
intended. The book of Deuteronomy in its turn cannot, in its
present form, be separated from the books that follow, because
they show too many common features. Finally, it is also clear
that the last sections of the book of Numbers are not
comprehensible when detached from this overall complex.
Noth dealt with this problem in detail1 and expressed the view
that 'one... (could) consider here, that this link was made in
the context of the great work of the redaction of the
Pentateuch'.2
Noth, because of his presuppositions, came to reject this
conjecture. His arguments rely in essence on the assumption
that there existed a tightly outlined *F-narrative and that this
work had been made the ground plan of the pentateuchal
redaction. And so in Noth's view, the fact that it is not *P* but
'Dtr' who dominates in the account of Moses' death in
Deuteronomy 34, favours the opinion that it must be a matter
of later redaction here. But this argument is rendered irrele-
vant when one does not reckon with such a tightly outlined
'P'-narrative. This holds likewise for the other argument of
Noth that the later existence of the Pentateuch 'as the basic
sacred writing of the post-exilic community... only becomes
really comprehensible if it already existed within the limits set
by the P-narrative and enjoyed special esteem'.3
This manner of argument would in any case carry little
conviction because of the assumption of an independent P-
narrative. The delimitation and canonization of the Penta-
teuch certainly presents a problem for our present view of the
literary history of its formation. But it can hardly be explained
by the conjecture of a 'special esteem' for a fictitious earlier
22, 25, 26, 26n7, 27-29, 32-34, 36, Steuernagel, C. 103, 114, 118,
37, 44, 45, 46n3, 47, 51n7, 90, 118n2
91nl, 103n3, 109, 114, 116, Stolz, F. 108, 118n6
121n6, 123, 125, 127, 128, 130,
131, 131n2, 132, 132n3, 154, 155, Vetter, D. 66nl
173, 174,1 77, 181nl, 183n3,184 Vriezen, T.C. 198, 198n3
184n2, 186n2, 206
Redfern, D.B. 109n2, 110n2 Wagner, N.E. 107
Rendtorff, R. 16nl, 23n2, 25nl, Weimar, P. 138, 140, 142, 142n2,
48nl, 61n2, 126n5, 182nl, 194n5 146nl, 163
Ringgren, H. 16nl Weiser, A. 38nl
Rost, L. 132n2 Wellhausen, J. 11, 47, 103, 106,
Rupprecht, K. 99nl 111, 131n2, 143n4, 144nl, 149n4,
150, 157, 172
Schmid, H.H. 181n2 Westermann, C. 11, 12nl, 21n7,
Schmidt, W.H. 103, 106, 110, 111, 33, 34, 45, 47nl, 53, 53nl, 56, 57,
112, 114, 123, 123n6, 179nl 60, 61n2, 64, 64nl, 65, 65n3,
SeUin, E-G. Fohrer 31n3, 85n2, 73nl, 85nl, 133, 134, 175n2,
102n3 183nl, 185nl,2
Seters, J. van 181n2, 204n2 Whybray, R.N. 110n2
Smend, R. 23n2 Wolff, H.W. 103n3, 114-116, 123-
Speiser, E.A. 138n6, 154 125,126n4,127,130,130n2,132,
Steck, O,.H. 33n3, 109n2, 132n2, 133, 133n3, 172nl, 185n6, 203n2
185n2
Zimmerli, W. 132n2, 168n6