Dating the Pentateuch

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Dating the Pentateuch

Post by DCHindley »

semiopen,

That 1976 study is by Hans Heinrich Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976).

There is a similarly named, but likely quite different, article by Konrad Schmid that was translated into English by Anselm C. Hagedorn. That article is online here:

http://www.theologie.uzh.ch/faecher/alt ... st_PDF.pdf

Konrad Schmid's article seems to want to do away with the concept of a Yahwist source (or sources), but it also appears to have been based on theological grounds (J is interpreted by the classic DH as representing a salvation history presupposing the settlement of Canaan by the Hebrews, and in effect justifying it, which Schmid feels is wrong). Kill the messenger ...

The book in which this translation occurs, A Farewell to the Yahwist?: The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation, edited by Thomas B. Dozeman & Konrad Schmid (SBL, 2006), seems to contain essays by a variety of writers, no all of whom reject an Yahwist source or sources. A downloadable PDF is here:

http://img2.timg.co.il/CommunaFiles/49106691.pdf

I am finding it very difficult to find reviews of the Hypothesis that are not flavored by apologetics. The wicki article you cited on the Yahwist source, at least in its present form, seems to have been done by an Evangelical seminary student. Notice the dependence on modern textbooks published by the likes of Hendrickson and Fortress Press.

However, an online SBL forum article is proving interesting and fleshes out what Rolf Rendtorff calls the Yahwist Crisis, caused by European scholars treating the Yahwist material as the product of a post-P final redactor in the 1970s and later:

"What Happened to the "Yahwist": Reflections after Thirty Years," SBL Forum, n.p. [cited June 2006].
http://sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleID=553

DCH
semiopen wrote: Jahwist -
Julius Wellhausen, the 19th century German scholar responsible for the classical form of the documentary hypothesis, did not attempt to date J more precisely than the monarchical period of Israel's history.[9] In 1938 Gerhard von Rad placed J at the court of Solomon, c. 950 BCE, and argued that his purpose in writing was to provide a theological justification for the unified state created by Solomon's father, David.[10] This was generally accepted until a crucial 1976 study by H.H. Schmid, called in English "The So-called Yahwist", demonstrated that J knew the prophetic books of the 8th and 7th centuries BCE, while the prophets did not know the traditions of the Torah, meaning J could not be earlier than the 7th century.[11] A number of current theories place J even later, in the exilic and/or post-exilic period (6th–5th centuries BCE).[12]
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Dating the Pentateuch

Post by DCHindley »

Sheez oh man!

I've been reading Thomas Christian Römer's article "The Elusive Yahwist: A Short History of Research" in Farewell to the Yahwist? mentioned in an earlier post.

Wow, some of these guys, especially the anti-DH ones, are so full of it!!! All sorts of snide comments, boastful statements, accusations that this or that scholar sounds "like a Protestant" or "classic liberal Protestant." A lot of veiled praise for reader response theory (= let the finally edited text speak for itself, for we cannot recover the underlying history that produced it if these final editors/redactors/compilers were as brilliant and inspired as we wish they were" (I made up that quote, FWIW, to mock their hubris).

I am going to take the "history of" articles or chapters by J Estlin Carpenter, Rolf Rendtorff and Thomas Christian Römer and see if I can tease out of them a progressive history of the development of the Documentary Hypothesis sans the hype, egos and wishful thinking these folks seem to exhibit. It will take a bit to digest.

DCH
semiopen2
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 5:37 am

Re: Dating the Pentateuch

Post by semiopen2 »

I'm actually reading Schmid's book. I'm a quarter of the way through it and just see him as an author.

The main point about the Jahwist seems to be that they (the European school) don't necessarily place him before the Priest. For example, the Priest wrote Genesis 1 and the so called Jahwist wrote Genesis 2 and 3. That's more or less obvious. There is also a consensus that Genesis 1 is during or after the exile. So Schmid is suggesting that Genesis 2-3 is later than Genesis 1. I'm sure the expression on my face was quite comical after reading that, it never occurred to me before.

I'm also reading Joel Baden's, The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library). He hasn't been dealing in dates but considers the Jahwist consistent and mostly criticizes the European School because they suggest too many layers in any given text.

One of the things I key off of is the history of the Sabbath. I suspect it is from the exile. Although my humble opinion is not worth a whole lot, that suggests that the Pentateuch had no references to the Sabbath (as we know it) before the exile. For example the Decalogue might be older and the Sabbath stuff added. I showed how easy that might be on FRDB once... just insert a few lines in Exodus and Deuteronomy.

For example in Deuteronomy,
12 Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the LORD your God has commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; you shall not do any work -- you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your ox or your ass, or any of your cattle, or the stranger in your settlements, so that your male and female slave may rest as you do. 15 Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt and the LORD your God freed you from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the sabbath day. (Deu 5:12-15 TNK)
Just my own experience, but I think that there is merit in considering layers.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Dating the Pentateuch

Post by DCHindley »

semiopen wrote:I'm actually reading Schmid's book. I'm a quarter of the way through it and just see him as an author.
Are you reading H H Schmid or Konrad Schmid? If it's H H's article, you must be able to read German (like an idiot I took Spanish in school, but don't remember a word of it). Konrad is "translated" into English, but I never could find out if his article was ever published first in another language. The titles of their articles are so similar, making me wonder if these two are related (maybe father-son).

DCH
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Dating the Pentateuch

Post by DCHindley »

My suspicion was correct:

Thomas Römer, "The Exodus in the Book of Genesis", (fr Stig Norin ed, Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 75, 2010, pp. 1-20)
http://www.academia.edu/1623287/T._Rome ... 0_pp._1-20
More then thirty years ago, the scholarly consensus on the composition of the Torah has been shattered to the extent that the “new documentary hypothesis”, prevalent until the seventies of the past century, is nowadays defended in its canonical form only by very few scholars. Published in 1975 and 1976, the studies of John Van Seters, Hans Heinrich Schmid and Rolf Rendtorff1 provoked a crisis in the pentateuchal research, which was unparalleled since Wellhausen and urged scholars to reflect anew on the dominant models. In Anglo-Saxon and French biblical research, a severe leaning towards synchronic methods has developed (structuralism, semiotics, reader-response criticism etc.) in a reaction to this crisis, and since some years a growing number of studies taking as their subject exclusively the so-called “final form” of a text or a book occur also in scholarly publications written in German. The holistic methods are an understandable reaction against the kind of literary criticism (widespread especially in the German exegesis) striving mainly for the reconstruction of a hypothetical Urtext and its following redactions, while the hermeneutical questions are left aside completely or are only marginally touched upon. Nevertheless, the historical-critical dimension of the research remains, in my view, unavoidable for the study of the Penateuch as well as for the whole of biblical exegesis in general. Diachronic analysis remains a crucial aspect of the scientific understanding of the Hebrew Bible. Admittedly, within the framework of the documentary theory the historical aspect has often privileged literary analysis at the expense of material, sociological, and anthropological factors.

1 John Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1975); Hans Heinrich Schmid, Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976); Rolf Rendtorff, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 147; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1976).
If you look this kind of thing up, conservative and evangelical Christians have begun to employ semiotics, structuralism, especially reader-response criticism, to preserve the sanctity of the received text and ignore or downplay the results of historical-critical investigation.
To: <crosstalk2@egroups.com>
Subject: Lingo & History, Pt 2 of 2
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 12:41:59 -0400

A good overview of Structural Exegesis applied to the NT text is Daniel Patte's Structural Exegesis for New Testament Critics (1990), which summarizes the meta-theory of A. J. Greimas into a six-step method: 1) defining complete discourse units, 2) identifying explicit oppositions of actions, 3) identification of convictions expressed by the subjects of opposed actions, 4) identification of the convictions expressed by the effects of opposed actions upon receivers, 5) identification of the pattern of the system of convictions being expressed, and 6) discerning the specific features of the discourse unit. John 3:1-21 and 10:1-18 are used as examples, and then this entire method is applied to John 4:4-42 and Luke 10:21-42.

According to Moore, Narrative Criticism has been redefined by a number of recent biblical exegetes. This "new dispensation's" roots and trunk derive from Redaction Criticism, onto which have been grafted elements of Secular Narratology (the main form of literary Structuralism). Secular Narratology is the "conception of the literary text as a communication between an author and a reader conducted through a set of intermediary personae (implied author, narrator, narratee, implied reader), joined to a conception of the narrative text as an autonomous story whose basic elements are plot, characters, and settings, with a preoccupation with the rhetorical techniques used by the author to transmit the story to the reader." (Moore, pp. 67-68).

The closest parallel Moore can think of to Narrative Criticism's employment of holistic readings was the "New Criticism" of the 1930's - 50's "for which the literary work of art, preeminently the poem, was an autonomous, internally unified organism, the bearer of a meaning that had to be validated first and foremost by the context of the work itself , as opposed to its historical setting." (Moore, pg. 68).

Secular Narratology is appropriated, he says, in order "to analyze plot, character, point of view, setting, narrative time, and other features of Gospel narrative, including the intratextual reader (at which point it shades over to reader-response criticism)." However, "Narrative criticism has no precise analogue in nonbiblical literary criticism." (Moore, pg. 131).

Reader-Response Criticism, for its part, is described as a "spectrum of contrasting positions, some centered on the ways in which literary texts guide, educate, and manipulate their readers (New testament reader-response critics fall mainly into this category), others more interested in how readers actually read (which may have little to do with subtle textual promptings), and still others centered on the factors that enable and delimit reading in the first place (competence, cultural or institutional location, gender, etc.)." (Moore, pp. 131-132).

Moore confesses that for a time he found the "new literary criticism" of the New testament (mainly Narrative Criticism coupled with Reader-Response Criticism) to be a way out of the dissonance he felt after his adoption of Historical Criticism some years beforehand. "Soon, however, a sneaking suspicion began to creep up on me ...: What if narrative criticism were actually a retreat from the critical rigor of historical scholarship? What if its not inconsiderable success were due to a widespread weariness with 'the unrest and difficulty for Christian piety' caused by centuries of historical criticism?" (Moore, pg. 115).

This suspicion was confirmed, he felt, by Mark Allan Powell's _What is Narrative Criticism?_ (1990). In a footnote Moore quotes Powell as cautioning that "we should be careful, however, not to disparage historical criticism simply because it raises questions that are difficult for people of faith. The struggles that historical-critical investigation engender are significant for theological growth. Employment of narrative criticism as a means of avoiding difficult or controversial issues represents, in my mind, a misuse of methodology." (Moore, pg. 116). However, Moore feels this caution is more than offset by statements that Narrative Criticism is quite compatible with "the interests of believing communities." It "is especially attractive to those who have been uncomfortable with the challenges posed by historical criticism." (Powell, pg. 88) To illustrate his uneasiness, Moore further quotes Powell: "By interpreting texts from the point of view of their own implied readers, narrative criticism offers exegesis that is inevitably from a faith perspective." (88-89)
DCH :silenced:
semiopen2
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 5:37 am

Re: Dating the Pentateuch

Post by semiopen2 »

DCHindley wrote:
semiopen wrote:I'm actually reading Schmid's book. I'm a quarter of the way through it and just see him as an author.
Are you reading H H Schmid or Konrad Schmid? If it's H H's article, you must be able to read German (like an idiot I took Spanish in school, but don't remember a word of it). Konrad is "translated" into English, but I never could find out if his article was ever published first in another language. The titles of their articles are so similar, making me wonder if these two are related (maybe father-son).

DCH
oops, Konrad... I guess all Germans look alike to me.
Mental flatliner
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:50 am

Re: Dating the Pentateuch

Post by Mental flatliner »

stephan happy huller wrote:
Half of the book of Daniel was written after the start of the Hellenistic crisis. I would argue that the books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles as we have them today were well after the end of the crisis, probably in the Pharisaic ambit. How did Esther get into the canon?
I don't have a problem with any of this but the Pentateuch is IMO is firmly dated to the Persian period. As I said I have very little interest in distractions beyond this text. As such I have taken over a Samaritan worldview even if I don't always agree with them.
This is a common claim, but it has never been supported (in fact, few people even think it through to the obvious).

For example, Genesis 1-11 are demonstrably Sumerian in origin (not Babylonian and Persian, and not Jewish). So you're going to have to make a case that someone in 5th century Persia learned Sumerian pictographs or Sumerian cuneiform and then lead an archaeological expedition to Ur or Uruk, dug up Sumerian tablets, translated them, and added them to the Bible.

(It's far more reasonable to believe Genesis as written, and give Abraham the credit for the stories, a man born in the Sumerian capital who had access to the tablets in the correct century.)

Dating the Penteteuch to the Persian Period is rife with literary and temporal problems. It's just not rational.
User avatar
spin
Posts: 2146
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:44 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Dating the Pentateuch

Post by spin »

Mental flatliner wrote:
stephan happy huller wrote:
Half of the book of Daniel was written after the start of the Hellenistic crisis. I would argue that the books of Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles as we have them today were well after the end of the crisis, probably in the Pharisaic ambit. How did Esther get into the canon?
I don't have a problem with any of this but the Pentateuch is IMO is firmly dated to the Persian period. As I said I have very little interest in distractions beyond this text. As such I have taken over a Samaritan worldview even if I don't always agree with them.
This is a common claim, but it has never been supported (in fact, few people even think it through to the obvious).

For example, Genesis 1-11 are demonstrably Sumerian in origin
Same banal unsupported (& unsupportable) assertion. Do try to demonstrate your claim, but I won't hold my breath as so far you've managed to substantiate nothing at all... other than your lack of substantiation.
Mental flatliner wrote:(not Babylonian and Persian, and not Jewish). So you're going to have to make a case that someone in 5th century Persia learned Sumerian pictographs or Sumerian cuneiform and then lead an archaeological expedition to Ur or Uruk, dug up Sumerian tablets, translated them, and added them to the Bible.

(It's far more reasonable to believe Genesis as written, and give Abraham the credit for the stories, a man born in the Sumerian capital who had access to the tablets in the correct century.)
For chrissake. Sumeria wasn't a country and didn't have a capital. The less you say means you make fewer mistakes.
Mental flatliner wrote:Dating the Penteteuch to the Persian Period is rife with literary and temporal problems.
Par for the course with your assertions.
Mental flatliner wrote:It's just not rational.
Yes, you may as well end with another assertion.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes
Mental flatliner
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 9:50 am

Re: Dating the Pentateuch

Post by Mental flatliner »

spin wrote:
Mental flatliner wrote: For example, Genesis 1-11 are demonstrably Sumerian in origin
Same banal unsupported (& unsupportable) assertion. Do try to demonstrate your claim, but I won't hold my breath as so far you've managed to substantiate nothing at all... other than your lack of substantiation.
I hope Oxford University meets your standards:

This is the Sumerian version of Genesis 2-3:
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/et ... xt=t.1.1.1#

This is the Sumerian version of Cain and Abel (Genesis 4):
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/et ... &charenc=j#

This is a legal document that duplicates the literary style of Genesis 5 and gives a very similar timeline from creation to the flood:
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/et ... &charenc=j#

This is the Sumerian version of the flood, predating the Epic of Gilgamesh by 200 years (Genesis 6-8):
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/et ... &charenc=j#

This historical document verifies life spans of over 200 years in the first paragraph (comparable in time to Genesis 11):
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/et ... &charenc=j#

This Sumerian myth expresses the hope that all the earth will come to Nippur to worship in a single language (See Genesis 6):
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/et ... &charenc=j#

This story describes the original migration of men into Shinar (Genesis 11):
http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/et ... &charenc=j#

***************
Maybe it would be easier if you showed me which part of Genesis 1-11 is NOT Sumerian?

(Somehow I get the picture this is the first time you've ever seen the body of Sumerian literature. To claim that Sumer didn't have a capital, though, I would categorize that as self-inflicted ignorance. All empires have capitals, and from 2100-2000 BC, the capital was Ur.)
semiopen
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:27 pm

Re: Dating the Pentateuch

Post by semiopen »

The first one, Enki and Ninḫursaĝa, isn't that much like Genesis 2-3.

http://www.answers.com/topic/enki
Enki figures in a Sumerian myth which is a parallel to the Hebrew story of Adam and the Garden of Eden. In paradisal Dilmun, now identified with Bahrain in the Persian Gulf, the water god lived with Ninhursaga; it was a happy place, where animals did not harm one another, and neither sickness nor old age was known. The only thing wanting had been sweet water, and this Enki provided– his union with the earth mother turned the island into a fruitful garden. A quarrel arose when Enki devoured eight plants grown by Ninhursaga. She pronounced on him the curse of death. It was effective: sickness attacked eight parts of his body, to the dismay of the other gods. Enlil was powerless to arrest Enki's decline, the situation appeared hopeless. Then the fox spoke up. It offered to bring Ninhursaga back to Dilmun, providing there was suitable reward. This happened and the earth mother created eight deities to heal her consort's afflictions.

There are obvious similarities between this myth and the biblical picture of paradise. In Genesis‘ there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole ground,’ while the eating of forbidden plants is distinctly reminiscent of the tree of life in Eden. The very idea of a divine paradise, a garden of the gods, was of Sumerian origin. Eve, Adam's spouse, and ‘the lady of the rib,’ Ninti, the goddess created to heal Enki–s side, also have something in common. We know that there was ‘planted upon Abzu’ a sacred tree, kiskanu, which acted as the central point for rituals. Though the term ‘tree of life’ does not occur in any surviving Mesopotamian text, it can be deduced from pictorial representations of ritual observances that the tree played a significant role.
The quote seems to make more of the similarities than is there... a fox instead of the serpent? I think we can categorize the similarities as vague, we can also state that they are well known.

I notice that your list is missing Genesis 1.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/sum/sum07.htm might be a more concise summary of your other examples.
Post Reply