* 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
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
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.
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, 4thed. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1986), 449-466.
[14]Bruce K. Waltke, “Oral Tradition” in A Tribute to Gleason Archer, Walter C. Kaiser Jr.
