Old Testament and Higher Criticism: The Priestly Source

* This was a paper I did in seminary.  The goal was to understand and critically analyze the higher critical constructs of the JEDP theory regarding the composition of the Pentateuch. 

REVIEW OF BERNHARD ANDERSON ON THE “PRIESTLY TRADITION”

2014

Bernhard Anderson discusses the concept of the “Priestly tradition” in his book Understanding the Old Testament.[1]  He outlines the nature and formation of this source for the Pentateuch.  He then provides some discussion about the theological perspectives found in this source.

            The Priestly tradition (P) is part of the larger construct of multiple sources alleged to underline the Pentateuch (J, E, D, and P).  Of these four sources P was originally thought to be the oldest of the sources but current critical scholarship has abandoned this idea since, in the words of Anderson, “it is evident that in style and theological outlook this work reflects the worship and theology of the Jerusalem temple.”[2]  This places the final redaction of P after the Fall of Jerusalem, sometime during the Exile.[3]  Anderson is quick to point out that “the date of literary composition does not necessarily provide an index to the age of the material itself.”[4]  The Priestly writers were using oral sources that they built upon and interpreted.[5]  They made these modifications out of a motivation to “authorize the views and practices of Jerusalem priests by showing that they had their origins at Sinai.”[6]  The methodology by which the P source is isolated from other sources is articulated by Anderson 

as follows: “After we take from the Pentateuch the Old Epic tradition (J and E), and after 

Deuteronomy is subtracted, the residue belongs to the Priestly tradition…”[7]

            The P source is seen to be marked by a certain theological perspective regarding the divine plan in Israel’s history. Anderson states a central concern of P: “In the Priestly view, the succession of divine covenants represents a history of God’s dealings with the world on the basis of pure grace (sola gratia), unconditioned by human performance.”[8]  Anderson breaks down the text into three periods:[9]

1.    Creation to Flood: climaxing in God’s covenant with Noah

2.    Noah to Abraham: climaxing in God’s covenant with Abraham

3.    Abraham to Moses: climaxing in God’s covenant with Israel at Sinai

The first section (creation to flood) is marked by affinities with other ANE creation stories.  This section also “reflects a long history of liturgical usage and bears the marks of intense theological reflection over a period of many generations.”[10]  The second section (Noah to Abraham) juxtaposes the violence of humanity and the graciousness of God in sparing Noah and making covenant with him.  In the third section (Abraham to Moses) there is an emphasis on the tabernacle, sacrifices and holy days—“everything found between the Old Epic story of the making of the covenant (Exod. 24) and the departure from Sinai (Num. 10:11ff.).”[11]  Anderson notes that these three successive periods were marked by a sequence of names for the deity which is distinctive for each period: (1) ‘Elohim, (2) ‘El Shaddai, and (3) Yahweh.[12]  Thus, the P source has a distinctive formation and theological perspective. 

            Although the P source is a staple of critical Old Testament scholarship it is not beyond criticism.  When the focus is simply on the differing theological nuances contained throughout the Pentateuch then those who engage in this critical scholarship have many exegetical and theological insights.  For example, Anderson’s insights regarding the structure and meaning of the Genesis account that speaks of the “image of God” are worth noting.[13]  The problems arise when the historicity of the Pentateuch is called into question by the use of a lengthy process of development that occurs on the oral traditions being passed down.  This notion of an evolving oral tradition has been called into question by Bruce Waltke.[14]  By examining the literature from ancient Near East documents and inscriptions he has shown that ANE cultures preserved their cultural heritage through written texts and not through oral traditions subject to alteration.  He concludes, based upon this comparative study, that there is very little evidence for a flexible oral tradition in these cultures.

            Sometimes the details of a passage that is alleged to be from the P source fit better within an earlier time period.  One such example is Abraham’s purchase of cave at Hebron for a burial place for Sarah (Genesis 23).[15]  Kenneth Barker mentions how this fits better with the ancient Hittite laws. He writes:

Law 47 stipulates that when a landowner sells only part of his property to someone else, the original and principal landowner must continue to pay all the dues on the land.  but if the landowner disposes of an entire tract, the new owner must pay the dues. Apparently Abraham wanted only the cave, with no complications or further financial or social obligations, but Ephron knew that Abraham had to deal quickly in order to have a place to bury Sarah; so he insisted that Abraham buy the entire lot and assume responsibility for the dues as well.  Abraham evidently agreed to this arrangement for the sake of family needs.[16]

 This leads Barker to conclude: “This is a better and more probable background to the story than the dialogue-document kind of contract known from the late eighth century B.C. and chiefly in the Neo-Babylonian period.”[17]

          Although the “Priestly source” is affirmed by many, there are reasons to be skeptical. Those who affirm P can, at times, have genuine exegetical and theological insights but there is no need to follow them in their denials of the historicity of the Pentateuch in favor of an evolutionary view of Israel’s history.

---

     [1]Bernhard W. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 4^thed. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1986), 449-466.

     [2]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 451.

     [3]See the chart on page 453 of Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament.

     [4]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 452.

     [5]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 453.

     [6]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 452.

     [7]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 451.

     [8]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 455.

     [9]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 455.

     [10]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 456.

     [11]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 463.

     [12]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 463-464.

     [13]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 458.

     [14]Bruce K. Waltke, “Oral Tradition” in A Tribute to Gleason Archer, Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood , eds. (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1986), 17-34.

     [15]Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 461.

     [16]Kenneth L. Barker, “The Antiquity and Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives,” in A Tribute to Gleason Archer, Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood , eds. (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1986), 134.

     [17]Barker, “The Antiquity and Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives,” 134.

Old Testament and Higher Criticism: Understanding the "J" and "E" Sources

 * This was a paper I did in seminary.  The goal was to understand and critically analyze the higher critical constructs of the JEDP theory regarding the composition of the Pentateuch.  

UNDERSTANDING “J” AND “E” SOURCES

2014

 

The articles in The Anchor Bible Dictionary on the “Yahwist (‘J’) Source” and the “Elohist” source are basic overviews of critical scholarship regarding sources for the Pentateuch.[1]  This paper will summarize both of these articles as well as provide some brief comments of critical interaction.

            The Yahwist (J) and Elohist are considered both the anonymous author(s) and the sources developed by these author(s). The J and E sources are considered literary hypotheses that seek to explain both the phenomena and history of the Old Testament.[2]  The contemporary understanding of these sources is founded in the work of those scholars in the early 19^th-century who noticed that the creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 utilize different names for God—Yahweh and Elohim.  Based on this it was thought that this was the result of two different sources. Besides the use of different names for God these sources were also thought to have different styles and theological emphases.

            The J source was originally thought to be the oldest source but the least discernable among all the sources. The main components of J were considered to be (a) the primeval history, (b) the patriarchal saga, and (c) the “national saga” which consisted of the birth of Israel, the exodus, and the entry into the land.  “J” eventually came to “designate the remaining text material once the more easily recognizable layers… been subtracted.”[3]  Later von Rad would develop the idea of J and date it during the Solomonic reign (c. 950-930 BC).  Subsequent to this scholars such as Rose and Van Seters would date J during the post-exilic time period.  

            The source J is said to contain distinctive theological elements.  Yahweh is presented as a universal Lord and yet at the same time gracious to humanity.  “Whatever good happens to the chosen of YHWH is not due to their own merit, but to the gracious and hidden forbearance of God.”[4]  

            The understanding of J has undergone change from its original inception in the early 18^th-century. Rendtorff argued:

“J” is a very fragile construction.  The substance of J is traditionally obtained by way of subtraction of the more easily recognizable other sources, and there are no positive criteria for the attribution of a single text to the J source.[5]

 

De Pury highlights the current situation when he asserts that, “No new scholarly consensus is yet in sight.”[6]

            Similar to J the scholarly understanding of the Elohist (E) source has undergone development and modification. Originally dated to the 8^thcentury, this dating is still held to by many but other dates from the 9^thand 10^thcenturies also are considered by some. There has been debate as to how to delineate E from other sources—especially the J source. One of the ways offered to specify the E source as well as to ascertain its theological features is by noticing the “double narratives” in Genesis: Gen 12.10-21//20.1-18; 16.4-14//21.8-21; 26.26-33//21.22-34.  In each of the pairings listed the second is considered to have come from the E source.  Jenks summarizes the importance of these narrative parallels:

These parallel narratives constitute the most important source information about the characteristic traits of E, for here the E narratives can be analyzed in contrast to similar J traditions.  Characteristically, the E versions of these triple and double narratives use Elohim instead of Yahweh; they focus on the nature of divine revelations or disclosures to humanity, which in E generally occur in dreams; they include reflections on problems of sin, guilt, and innocence; and they emphasize the “fear of God.”[7]

 

            These characteristics culled from the double narratives are then used to isolate other sections of the Pentateuch, which also belong to E.  This, in turn, allows for an even greater reconstruction of the overall theological perspectives and emphases of E.  Jenks mentions four such themes: prophetic leadership, the fear of God, covenant, and a theology of history.  These perspectives all serve to push forward a prophetic agenda that seeks to correct Israel and her leaders.  “E’s urgent plea in time of decision is not only for a correct institutional balance between kings and prophets, but for a deeply-felt religious response to loyalty and awe before God.”[8]

            The positing of multiple sources for the Pentateuch, of which J and E are a part, disallows for the traditional view of an essentially Mosaic authorship of the first five books of the Bible. Although these sources have become standard fare among critical scholars they are not above criticism.  First, it will be remembered that the entire idea of multiple sources finds its beginnings in the use of the different names for God found in Genesis 1 and 2.  This has always been a dubious method as Gleason Archer argues:

The documentarians assume that Hebrew authors differ from any other writers known in the history of literature in that they alone were incapable of using more than one name for God; more than one style of writing, no matter what the difference in subject matter; more than one of several possible synonyms for a single idea; more than one theme-type or circle of interest… The whole structure of source division has been erected upon exclusivist assumptions demonstrable for the literature of no other nation or period.[9]

 

Even some critical scholars recognize the “weakness of the traditional argument based on the distinction between the divine names YHWH and Elohim.”[10]

            Second, the multiple source hypothesis rests upon crucial assumptions about oral tradition.  Jenks argues, “The most important development in 20^th-century Pentateuchal criticism has been the realization that the Pentateuchal sources derive from oral traditions, and that oral traditions continued to play a part in the development of narratives until a relatively late date.”[11]  This understanding of oral tradition has been called into question by Bruce Waltke in his analysis of ANE writings.[12]  He concludes that there is little evidence for a flexible oral tradition. Furthermore, in light of the literacy levels displayed in these ANE cultures there is little reason to believe that Israel would not keep its history in a stable written form.

            The division of the Pentateuch into multiple sources is common understanding within critical Old Testament scholarship. Once certain assumptions are made regarding the basis of division then the process of dividing the text into various sources begins.  Critical scholarship shows very little interest in critically probing its foundational presuppositions about the text.  Conservative evangelical scholars have looked at this critical methodology and have offered various avenues of response.

SOURCES CITED

 

Archer Jr. Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament, rev. ed. Chicago, Ill.: Moody, 1974.

de Pury, “Yahwist (‘J’) Source.” Pages 1012-1020 in vol. 6 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary 6 

vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.            

 

Jenks, Alan W. “Elohist.” Pages 478-482 in vol. 2 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary 6 

vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

 

Waltke, Bruce K. “Oral Tradition.” Pages 17-34 in A Tribute to Gleason Archer.  Edited by 

Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood. Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1986.

---

     [1]Albert de Pury, “Yahwist (‘J’) Source,” ABD 6:1012-1020; Alan W. Jenks, “Elohist,” ABD2:478-482.  

     [2]de Pury refers to these sources as “a scientific hypothesis” (p. 1013) but this is surely a misnomer.  The canons of scientific methodologies are not in play in understanding or testing the J and E sources.

     [3]de Pury, “Yahwist (‘J’) Source,” 1013.

     [4]de Pury, “Yahwist (‘J’) Source,” 1015.

     [5]de Pury, “Yahwist (‘J’) Source,” 1017.

     [6]de Pury, “Yahwist (‘J’) Source,” 1018.

     [7]Jenks, “Elohist,” 479.

     [8]Jenks, “Elohist,” 482.

     [9]Gleason L. Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament, rev. ed. (Chicago, Ill.: Moody, 1974), 110.

     [10]de Pury, “Yahwist (‘J’) Source,” 1017.

     [11]Jenks, “Elohist,” 479.

     [12]Bruce K. Waltke, “Oral Tradition” in A Tribute to Gleason Archer, Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood , eds. (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1986), 17-34.