From: Peter Ruest (pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch)
Date: Mon Nov 25 2002 - 00:52:47 EST
The question of how to interpret the early chapters of Genesis has been
discussed repeatedly on this list. Unfortunately, more often than not,
these discussions have terminated in an impasse. One side insisted that
biblical texts reflect the knowledge and errors of the time and culture
of the writers, to which God accommodated Himself, even in ethical
questions. The other side insisted on wanting to find more than that in
divine inspiration of the biblical writers. The corollary of this is
that the former, when interpreting a biblical text, endeavor to sort out
(valid) theology from (often erroneous) packaging. The latter, on the
contrary, try to find out what God wants to tell us in the text as a
whole, as it stands, including the way it was formulated. (Of course, a
belief in strong divine inspiration doesn't imply any naive dictation
theory.)
As a consequence, some are trying to find interpretations which
harmonize between various biblical texts, and between these and what
extra-biblical information we have. But this whole approach is rejected
by those who are convinced that the "scholarly consensus" is that of the
results of the Historical-Critical Method, which sees mainly myths
(giving us, nevertheless, some valid theological truth) in the early
Genesis chapters.
A short introduction (of about 140 pages) into the way the Pentateuch is
usually interpreted in those scholarly circles using the
historical-critical and similar methods is: "Introduction to the
Composition of the Pentateuch" (Sheffield Academic Press, 1999, ISBN
1-85075-992-8) by Alexander Rofe, a Jewish scholar (there should be an
accent aigu on the e of Rofe: RofÈ). Paul Seely recently recommended it.
Rofe shows how the observation of some difficulties like duplications,
contradictions, inconsistencies in the text, combined with differences
in use of words and expressions (such as names for God), style, and
genre (laws, narrative, etc.) led scholars during the last 250 years to
divide up the text of the 5 books attributed to Moses, as well as
Joshua, Judges, Samuel, etc. into mainly 4 sources (J, E, P, D), which
were dated to between about the 8th and 5th centuries BC. The resulting
schemes were called the Documentary Hypothesis. Using many dozens of
biblical references (often giving the relevant expressions in Hebrew),
he shows how one such observation can lead to the next, until most of
the text is divided up, in a seemingly self-consistent system.
He then proceeds to discuss the dating of the different sources found,
some more recent alternative hypotheses, additional sources identified
(such as the "Holiness Code"), and some challenges to the Documentary
Hypothesis by the Form Criticism and History of Tradition methods. Rofe
indicates that such later criticisms not only make the standard
hypothesis practically superfluous, but also show that the original
model was strongly influenced by the unrealistic romanticism of 19th
century Germany, which produced 4 ingenious "heroes" J, E, P, D. He then
presents Cassuto's view that there never were any such 4 documents, but
rather some traditions, which were merged and given a new unity in the
Pentateuch. Rofe himself opts for a new variant of a fragments
hypothesis recognizing many different early and late traditions,
"adequately reflecting the richness of Israel's literature", which were
merged together mainly after Israel's Babylonian exile.
Finally, Rofe summarizes by saying that the Documentary Hypothesis will
remain a hypothesis and that many of its assumptions and conclusions
have been shaken. But he maintains that its 4 elements will endure: (1)
real difficulties in the text, (2) caused by combining different
sources, (3) style and content analysis sometimes identifies authors,
(4) some of the texts can be dated.
He also emphasized that today there is at least some "real" evidence
supporting the historical-critical method, in that a few cases of
combining and mending texts, such as the method postulates, have been
found: the (heretical) Samaritan Pentateuch combines Ex.18:13-27 and
Deut.1:9-18 into its Ex.18 text, and the Septuagint (Greek translation)
misses Josh.20:4-6, which the theory predicts to have been added later
(did the scholar proposing this know of the Septuagint lacuna
beforehand?).
After a thorough study of this book, I was impressed by the fact that
the great majority of the difficulties presented allowed for alternative
interpretations in line with an integer and harmonious inspired text,
while I trust that for the few remaining difficulties, for which I was
unable to find a harmonization, there could very well be one I didn't
see. Of course, each one of these many points raised by Rofe would have
to be discussed individually, but on the other hand, much of this
harmonization has been done repeatedly by people more competent than I
am. This much for Rofe's element (1), on which the other 3 elements
depend.
As a consequence, there is much less need for different sources (2). It
might be sufficient to postulate earlier sources for the whole book of
Genesis - earlier than Moses -, as well as some minor added remarks for
the other 4 books of Moses.
Undoubtedly, there are differences in content and style (3) between
different passages in the monumental work of the Pentateuch. Now,
differences in content are a completely invalid argument for dividing up
any text between different authors, as the same author certainly may
have written about different things. Differences in diction and style
may be occasioned at least in part by the differences in content, in
part by differing circumstances, in part by a desire for variety, and in
part by the fact that 40 years elapsed during Israel's wilderness
journey, in combination with the linguistic competence of the author.
In order to make a compelling case for attributing different parts of a
text to different authors, a statistical text analysis with significance
testing on the basis of other texts whose authors are known, and taking
into account the different subject matters, circumstances, etc. would
have to be conducted. I have never heard of such an analysis, and I
suspect we don't have the necessary Hebrew texts of known authorships
(or at least of known unity) and sufficient lengths, dating to Moses'
time, to do the required significance tests. Unless this can be done,
any definition of different sources is more or less arbitrary, and
consequently, the attempts under (4) to date the different texts will
also be futile.
Therefore, I feel at ease to treat the Documentary Hypothesis as one
hypothesis among others, rather than "the assured result of scientific
investigation, with which all competent scholars agree". I don't think
we have sufficient evidence to discard all alternative hypotheses out of
hand.
Furthermore, we must not forget the destructive effects this
historical-critical method - or at least the way it was applied - has
had. It has destroyed virtually all of Israel's history until the
Babylonian exile, together with much of the divine instructions and
commandments in the Pentateuch, not to mention all of the promises and
prophecies contained therein. Since both the OT and the NT faiths are
squarely history-based, it will never do to sort out (valid) theology
from (possibly or presumably) erroneous history. As for the early
chapters of Genesis, which form the theological basis of the OT and NT
revelations, their mythologization has handed over to man the job of
deciding what represents divine revelation and what does not, resulting
in many different "theologies". I don't think this is a sound way of
doing theology.
In various respects I don't agree with Luther, but I fully sympathize
with his exclamation, "Das Wort sie sollen lassen stahn, und kein' Dank
dazu haben!" ("They must not tamper with the Word, and shall not earn
any praise for that!" is my feeble attempt at translating it - maybe
you'd better look it up in an official translation, or ask George).
Peter
-- Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland <pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution "..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 25 2002 - 11:40:33 EST