|
The Documentary Hypothesis Eight Lectures Umberto Cassuto [[Cassuto’s book does not represent the position of Traditional Judaism. Some of his remarks would be considered false textually, and objectionable religiously. Nevertheless, his critique of the methods and results of “Biblical Criticism” are devastating and deserve to be known. – D.G.]]
Lecture 1: Introduction and History The Documentary Hypothesis: -Prevailing theory of origin and authorship of Torah: (E, P refrain from using divine name J) -Scholars often disagree about details of sources: age, assigning, strata, divisions -but general agreement about basic principles -but some beginning to criticize theory seriously History of DH: -Witter (1711): poetic compositions served as source for Moses -Astruc (1753), father of Documentary Hypothesis (DH): two principle documents -Eichhorn (1780-3): German professional better than Astruc, French amateur -Vater(1802-5): Torah composed of many scrolls -Graf and Wellhausen -Parallelism of development of ideas, criticism and method with Homeric Studies, Why: -reciprocal influence -progress in techniques of research -trends and demands of the time -suspicion that investigators not objective Cassuto’s Project: -Approach text objectively -not with aesthetic and literary criteria of modern time -but of ancient East and Israel (re Cassuto’s Torah commentaries) -Mainly focus on narrative, mainly Genesis (as does DH), not statutes or Deuteronomy - if DH on Genesis is refuted a fortiori the rest -Attacks five pillars of DH: 1. Use of different divine names 2. Changes of language, style 3. Contradictions, divergences 4. Duplication, repetition 5. Composite structure in sections Lecture 2: God’s Names As Evidence for DH: -Historically main evidence for DH - Torah uses different divine names: J, E and others -Examples: Genesis 1:1=E E always until G2:4=J+E, then J+E almost (but G3:1,3,5) always until G4, then J often in G4 until G4:25=E Flood: sometimes J, sometimes E Etc., etc. -DH explains this: -Documents JEP (D not in Genesis) -Redactor selected sources, fused extracts -but leaves each extract in original form and names Cassuto’s Response: -READ the verses - notice that variation in choice of name is not accidental -but intentional, by design -Why we may not expect it to be accidental: -Torah’s aim to guide man in knowledge of God -Language of Torah is otherwise scrupulous in tiniest details -in most important and exalted respect - Divine names - will not be careless and indiscriminate! -So what is method of choice of name?… Character of the Names: -Names of different type: -E originally common noun, applied to both One God of Israel and to others (as was `El). -J is proper noun, specific name of Israel’s God -Israel’s ancestors realized there is One God (Kings I, 18:39) -common substantive E acquired signification of proper noun=J. -but J for particular Israelite God; E also for gods of gentiles (note Zechariah 14:9) -Analogy: certain city called Jerusalem or City Usage of Names: -reflects character of Names -Cassuto interested in their use throughout scripture, but also only in reference to Israelite God, proper noun (not simple appellative, pagan deities, in construct state, possessive suffix, stereotyped composite phrases) -Prophetic writings E never used in place of J -exceptions Jonah (exception proving rule): -content not prophetic but narrative literature -also note second part of Isaiah usage of `E-l (lecture 2) -Legal Literature (Torah and Ezekial) always J as name of God -Poetic Literature always use J (except for Wisdom-Literature-like poems…) -Wisdom literature (Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes) almost always E -Ecclesiastes always E -Proverbs E (and `Elo-ah) sometimes -Poetic portions of Job always E (but 12:9, and some MSS read E here) -2nd, 3rd books of Psalms (Wisdom literature influence) and Samuel I 23:1-7 -Narrative Literature (in Torah, Joshua to Kings II, Jonah, narrative portions of Job) E and J used Usage of names outside Israel: -Wisdom literature of ancient East usually refer to gods by appellative rather than proper name (as in Israel’s case) -Examples: Egyptian ancient texts, only use proper name when (a) quoting traditional sayings in fixed forms or (b) refers to particular attributes of the god Babylonians, only use proper names similar to (b) above Aramaic literature -Universal character of Wisdom literature Explanation/Method of Usage: -J used when Israelite character -personal conception and connection of J to Israel -Prophetic literature emphasises this, oppose non-Israelite conceptions (for second part of Isaiah see later) -Legal Literature, J gives laws, chosen for Israel -Poetic literature, expressing love for Israelite God J in personal way -E used when universal or abstract character -Wisdom literature - influenced by neighbours? -Proverbs exception -scribes wanted to give it an Israelite flavour (?) -Wisdom literature-like Psalms -influence of Wisdom literature -poet conveys general/universal idea of God or describes Him as God of whole world, all peoples Example Psalm 68, 47 - P47, eg., has both J and E: nations know E, but not as J; but J reigns over all -E used for specific reason often, so eventually used without special reason (so some E psalms not wisdom literature-like) -Sometimes J replaced by E since some thought universal E more progressive (?) -but note similarity (literary form) and differences (conceptual) between Israelite and non-Israelite usage -for Israel their specific God J is also and only E Cassuto’s Strategy (or what I think it should be): Criteria whether evidence (e) confirms hypothesis (h): Explanatory Power: 1. Would we expect e given h? (hopefully, yes) 2. Would we expect e given not-h? (hopefully, no) Prior Probability : 3. Simplicity of hypothesis? (hopefully simple; also scope) Bayes’s Theorem: Pr(h/e.k) = Pr(h/k) x Pr(e/h.k)/Pr(e/k) (k is background knowledge) Compare h=DH with h’=Cassuto, Pr(h/k) x Pr(e/h.k) vs. Pr(h’/k) x Pr(e/h’.k)
Lecture 3: More on Divine Names Usage of Names (cont.): -Post-Biblical -Different character of names maintained -Sadducees (Minnim) v. Pharisees -Sadducee aristocracy influenced by international (esp. Greek) wisdom literature -Sadducee see general designation of God E as more progressive -Book of the Covenant of the Damascus Community -theology close to Sadducee -Uses `El even in Biblical verses with J (re Psalm emendation above) -Pharisee lower class support national outlook -Pharisees/Rabbis preserve national form J -Even in greetings J used (not innovative, even in Lachish Letters) -Midrashic literature -Many names for God (Master of Universe, Holy One Blessed be He, Father in Heaven, etc.) -But not E (only in construct state as common nouns, or gentile gods) -Aramaic targums (Rabbinic) -Tetragrammation as double Yodh even where E -Liturgy (Rabbinic) -Proper name is J (pronounced `Ado-nai) -E used as common noun, construct or with possessive suffixes -Middle Ages Philosophical literature -E as proper name -international culture of time -philosophical/abstract conception of God -Modern Hebrew -Hashem personal -E impersonal/abstract/universal/philosophical -Narrative literature -intermediate between literature of E and of J -not entirely national-Israelite content -Stories about/relevant to whole world -incorporated with Israelite-monotheistic twist (re Cassuto’s commentaries) Details of Use of Names in Narrative Literature:
-context may make it possible to use either J or E (more relevant prevails) -Examples (confirmation): Genesis, Creation = E Creation of universe (possibly also similar - but non-monotheistic - traditions of East) Possible objection: Sabbath relevant to Israel Response: Sanctity for cosmic reasons predating Israel (Sabbath common knowledge to whole world?) Story of Eden=J (J+E) God as lawgiver, Moral content Personal, direct relations with man Not in conversation between Eve and evil snake, reverence J+E, to identify for first time J=E Creator of universe is Law-giver See similar pattern in Psalm 19 Eve’s Birth of First Child=J Partnership with God in creation (G4:1) Nearness of God Birth of Third Child=E Bereaved of two children (note Amos 6:10) But solace upon grandchildren=J (G4:26) Cain and Abel’s Sacrifices=J Offerings only to personal God (G4:3,4) Sages note E or Shad-day or Se-baoth never used regarding sacrifices (Sifre Numbers 143). Exception in Exodus 18:12 stresses that stranger brought sacrifice, lacks knowledge of J Rest of story God in ethical role=J Irreverent Expressions=E In likeness of E (G1:27, 5:1) Walked with E (G5:22,24- 24 ends with E since begins with E) But walk before J (G24:40) Son’s of E (G6:2, 4) Lamech (G5:29) Alludes to J’s curse on ground (G3:17) Story of Flood Universal, involves whole world (traditional story too?) Almost always E Parallel in covenants between Adam and Noah=E Regarding punishment of wicked and salvation of righteous Noah=J Regarding sacrifices, command regarding clean animals on Ark=J Moral judge, Lawgiver Direct personal relationship with God, fatherly mercy=J (G7:16) Regarding curse upon the ground=J (G8:21) Noah’s Blessings Shem=J (G9:26) Descendants of Shem attain knowledge of J Japheth=E (G9:27) Nimrod Proverb=J (G10:9) folk saying of Israel (who used J constantly in speech, see above) The Tower=J Character of story Israelite Material is not foreign (re reworked creation and flood?) Opposition to arrogance of man Relationship between man and God [also, moral judge?] Abraham=J Only J from G12 to G16 Abraham is father of Israel J’s paternal protection and providence But E in Circumcision Abaham is to be father of many nations (G17:2-8) Circumcision for all Abrahams sons (eg. Ishmael) (G17:9-14) Sarah also mother of nations (G17:15-16) E parallels covenant between Adam and Noah (where E used) Note 10 generation leaps Similar wording in blessings, etc. G1:28, 9:1,7, 17:2,6, 47:27, Exodus 1:7 Sign of covenants, G9:12,13,17, 17:11 Establishing of Covenant, G9:9, 17:7, Everlasting covenants, G9:16, 17:7,13,19 Same day, G7:13, 17:23,26 Cutting off, G9:11, 17:14 E in Promise of Land (G17:7, 8) Common noun J appears to Abraham in G17:1 J is to be Israel’s God, E (note Ezekiel 37:27) Alien Peoples=E Founding G19:29, 21:8-21, Revelation of God to, G20:3,6, 31:24, God’s conversations with, G20:11,13 21:22,23 Non-Israelite reference to God of Israel=J G26:28,29, 30:27 Etc etc etc Cassutos’ Conclusion: -Names occur as required by their signification and rules -not mechanical redaction work -First pillar of DH crumbles
Lecture 4: Style and Language Second Pillar: -Changes in style and language -vocabulary and grammar -DH explanation: each source has unique style and language -Example: sometimes “holidh” (“begot” in hiphil form); but sometimes “yaladh” (“begot” in Qal form) (Qal is usually of mother begetting, but occurs with respect to father in J, where Hiphil is expected) Cassuto’s Response: -DH determines source by language differences, then determines language difference by source (circular) -DH amends verses to fit with theory -DH fails to consider context of language differences -Example 1: Begot in Qal (=J): Irad begot Mehujael, and Mehijael begot Methushael, and Methushael begot Lamech (G4:18) Bethuel begot Rebekah (G22:23) Seventy Nations’ genealogy (G10) Begot in Hiph’il (=P) Genealogy of Adam to Noah (G5) Genealogy of Noah to Abraham (G11:10-26) -Response: Circular Reasoning: passages assigned to J because of Qal, then Qal supposed to be peculiar to J (?) The name J not present in genealogy of Cain (in G4), only in previous story of Cain and Abel Similarly J not in Seventy Nations’ genealogy (in G10), only in previous story of tower DH connects preceding narratives with J to genealogies and so assigns genealogies to J (but DH could have divided sections) (?) Alternative Explanation: Usage/Rules in Hebrew: -Yaladh occurs in sense of holidh (father) only in perfect (past) and participle (present), not imperfect (future) -Qal in imperfect used only of mother -For father in imperfect only holidh (but Proverbs 27:1 has different sense of Qal imperfect) So Torah could not be otherwise in genealogies of Adam, Noah (where father, imperfect with Waw conversive) But for perfect where both Qal and Hiphil allowed: -If passage starts with Niphal or Qal of mother, it will continue with Qal even for father (Niphal has affinity to Qal) -If passage starts with Hiphil, it continues with Hiphil Changes of language here is not peculiarities of various authors, but language rules applying to all -Example 2: Hekim/Nathan berith (“he established/gave a covenant”)=P, vs. Karath berith (“he cut a covenant”) in other sources -Response: Idioms not identical and used in different contexts -Karath berith=give assurance/promise -Hekim berith=fulfill assurance/promise Examples: God promises covenant with Abraham (G17:4) Soon after promises to establish (wahakimothi, of hekim) covenant (G17:7) Not redundant here, Hekim means to fulfill covenant previous promise (G17:4) Later God says he will establish (hakimothi, ‘akim) covenant through Isaac not Ishmael (G17:18-21) Clearly, God will fulfill previous promises through Isaac -Example 3: Bring up Israel from Egypt=E, vs. Bring forth Israel from Egypt=J -Response: Idioms not identical -Bringing up emphasises their coming to Israel, (goal in mind) -Bringing forth emphasises their leaving Egypt, (liberation from bondage in mind) Examples: Jacob descending to Egypt fear loss of the Land Reassured that he will have possession of the Land So “bring up” used (G46:4) Joseph says that God will bring up to Israel, And his bones to Israel (G40:24) In Covenant between the Pieces- go forth Liberation from bondage is emphasis (G15:14) -Example 4: Different personal Pronouns (I) `Ani=J, E `Anokhi=P In P `ani occurs about 130 times, but `anokhi only once (G23:4) -Response: Context not considered Statistics don’t consider context, sometimes unfair Note “`ani Y-H-W-H” is stereotype expression, so counts as one case even though used many, many times Also `anokhi 3 syllables, `ani 1 or 2 syllable, so effects rhythm [and emphasis] -All Genesis shows the following rules of usage of pronouns: 1. If subject of verbal-clause, `anokhi is used (examples G 16:5, 30:3). Single exception (G14:23) is sentence of unusual rhythm 2. If pronoun is in compound subject, following the verb, always `ani (G37:10) 3. If pronoun in nominativus pendens, and subject of rest of sentence is that pronoun, `ani is used (G17:4); if subject of rest of sentence is someone else, `anokhi is used (G24:27) 4. If pronoun emphasises pronominal suffix in verb then `ani used (G27:34, 38) 5. In noun-clauses, if wants to emphasise subject, `anokhi (G15:1); if does not want to emphasise subject, `ani (G41:9) Use of pronoun depends on rules of language not sources -Example 5: Terem=J, vs. B’terem=E -Response: Meaning not identical -Terem means “not yet”, adverb Example: Pharoah does not yet understand Egypt is ruined (Exodus10:7) -B’terem means “before”, conjunction Example: Isaac to bless before he dies (G27:4) -Example 6: order in numerals changes Compound numerals sometimes have units, tens, then hundreds etc. sometimes have hundreds, tens, then units etc. -DH: descending order (e.g. two-hundred and fifty) =J,E and D -DH: ascending order (e.g. fifty and two-hundred)=P -Response: Consider context again, ordering based on rules -When statistical or technical data offered, ascending order preferred -exactness needed and smaller numbers prominent Examples: Numbers 7:86, 7:13, Kings I 9:23 -When in narrative or poem, natural descending order preferred Examples: G6:3, Deuteronomy 31:2, D34:7, Kings I 9:14 But can it be a coincidence that ascending order occurs in passages assigned to P? -DH has P contain and characterized by statistical, technical genealogical, chronological data -Unsurprisingly, ascending order expected for these -In (few) narratives assigned to P, descending order appears Example: G17:24 As for Style: -Difference in style between sections -DH: P is dry -meticulous with details -stereotyped expressions -DH: J, E are exciting and colourful Response: - Of course, statistical, chronological, technical, genealogical data, etc. ascribed to P, will be dry! -The (few) narratives ascribed to P are as exciting as J, E -The (few) genealogical record in J are as cold as P Cassuto’s Conclusion: -Differences in style and language are reasonable in context and for rules of language -Second pillar of DH crumbles
Lecture 5: Divergences and Contradictions: Inconsistencies in text: -in ethics -in national/political issues -in methods of worship -in customs of time -conflicting/contradictory passages - DH explains by different sources/authors’ outlook Example 1: Inconsistency in Conception of God -Source J has God as God of Israel, righteous judge, personal being having relations with humanity, accepting their prayers, humanlike attributes, revealing Himself to man etc. -Source E has greater distance between man and God, appears in dreams, less concrete, reveals Himself to people awake through angels , etc. -Source P has even greater distance between man and God, transcendental, etc. Cassuto’s Response: -All explained by the character of the Divine Names and their contexts, see lectures 2 and 3 -With respect to differences in P and E, note E occurs in narrative, P in doctrinal, technical, etc. sections -Analogy: -author writes biography of father, a scientist, academic -describes father: -at home -with students -as scientist -writes book chronologically, different aspects occur together -calls father “father”, when describing private life -calls father “professor”, when describing scientific work -Will later reader reason according to DH as describe different sources/authors to explain different names and aspects father given? -Similarly, Torah describes different aspects of God as relevant, God’s acts or the perspectives He is viewed change, but God does not change. -Compare Dante’s Divina Commedia -colourful tales besides doctrinal sections -but a single author Example 2 (related to 1): Different Types of Divine Revelation -Three types of theophanies: -God revealed as more concrete, corporeal=J -God revealed in dreams/night visions=E -Speech only=P Seven instances before Moses and Cassuto’s response: 1. At covenant between Pieces (G15:1) -Use of Name J here contradicts DH -So DH proponents (Gunkel) alter text, remove word “vision” (!) so text fits with E (circular reasoning). 2. Revelation to Isaac (G26:24) -Use of Name J here, again -DH proponents remove whole verse! 3. Jacob’s (ladder) Dream (G28:12) -Use of Name J, again (G28:13) -DH proponents cut up entire section to produce parallel J section with more corporeal revelation of J and E section with dream 4. & 5. Dreams of Abimelech (G20:3) and Laban (G31:24) -Abimelech and Laban both strangers (King of Gerar and Aramean, respectively) and do not know J (see lecture 3) 6. Jacob’s (flock) Dream (G31:10-11) -irreverent to use J in context 7. Jacob’s (Egypt) Dream (G47:2) -In all utterances related to Egypt, story of Joseph and brothers, Jacobs leaving for Egypt and Israel’s settling and enslavement in Egypt, until revelation of J to Moses at Horeb, J not used, only E -J used in narrative of Potiphar’s wife, but not in utterances -used only once in Jacob’s Blessing (G49:18), which is a poem with different rules -In Egypt Israel in alien country, and oppressed not in Land given by J; knowledge of J decreased -Moses helps rehabilitation here (Exodus 6:2) -So DH has to reconstruct text to fit with theory -better consistent, explanation of text possible Example 3: Differences in Ethical Standards -J and E show morality and righteousness of Fathers, but also some questionable cases Example: Jacob’s deceit in obtaining Isaac’s blessing (G27) -P, in contrast, is never morally defective Cassuto’s Response -Jacob and Rebecca do sin -What is the Torah’s judgement? -Scripture tells narratives in an objective style; we learn God’s judgement in subsequent events -Consequences of Jacob’s deceit, Jacob & Rebecca’s punishment: -He goes into exile -Punished deed for deed: -Jacob exploited father’s blindness; Laban exploits Jacob’s “blindness” in substituting sisters in marriage -Jacob substituted in his brother’s place; sisters substituted -Note: G29:26 Laban says not custom in his country to marry younger before first-born; just as not custom for younger to usurp blessing of first-born -Rebecca’s Punishment: -To send son away -Note parallelism in command to deceive father, as to son to flee (G27:8, 27:43) (other problems, G12:10-20, 20, 26:7-11, 25:29-34, 30:25-43, etc. see Cassuto’s La Questione della Genesi) -But why no problems/sins in P at all? -P assigned little narrative (only Machpelah and Circumcision), but only dry records Example 4: Differences in Customs of Family: -In P new-born named by father; in J & E named by mother -DH: P and J & E come from different times, when custom of who names was different Cassuto’s Response: -In J & E mostly mother names -but a number of exceptions (14) versus rule (19 or 20) -also note majority changes to father in J & E since naming of Jacob’s children is one section -In P only four cases -but two assigned to P because father names child -third instance is unclear whether father names son -Better explanation of naming: -if etymology of name relates to father, then father names -if etymology of name relates to mother, then mother names -if no etymology given, one case naming by father, another by mother, sometimes indefinite who names Example 5: Conflicting Passages -Names of Esau’s three wives differ in two records -G26:34, 28:9 Esau’s wives: -Judith, Beeri’s (the Hittite) daughter -Basemath, Elon’s (Hittite) daughter -Mahalath, Ishmael’s daughter -G26:2-3, Esau’s wives: -Adah, Elon’s (Hittite) daughter -Oholibamah, Anah’s daughter, Zibeon (Hivite’s) daughter -Basemath, Ishmael’s daughter (other cases also, but some examined under duplicate narratives, Lecture 6) -DH differences from different authors Cassuto’s Response: -DH does not help here, explain inconsistency (?) -Blame shifts to redactor -Redactor/Editor should be more careful -Redactor is often claimed to tamper with sources elsewhere -Both records assigned to P -So DH has redactor change one account in P and introduce inconsistency by substitute another source -Another explanation: -Israelites have different traditions, include both, not favouring either, but for reader to decide -Many Talmudic instances of this(?) Cassuto’s Conclusion: -Most prominent evidence here; many more instances, see La Questione della Genesi -DH ignores context, offers poor explanation and alters text -No inconsistencies or better explanations for apparent inconsistencies than DH -Third pillar of DH crumbles
Lecture 6: Repetitions and Duplications Duplications: -Same story reappears, different in form, details Example: G1, 2 Repetitions: -Stories describe different events, but are very similar (in themes/motifs) Example: Matriarchs at kings -Sarah (G12:10-20; G20) -Rebecca (G26:7-11) DH on Duplications and Repetitions: -Different sources told same story differently -Redactor keeps repetitions and conflicting stories Duplication: G1, 2, Creation Story(ies) -First section: -uses E, assigned to P -describes creation of whole world, orderly -God as transcendant -Second section: -uses JE, assigned to J -vivid narrative -ethical theme -J’s direct relations with man Cassuto’s Response: -Different traditions in ancient east of philosophers v. masses -of world’s origin, mysterious speculations v. folk-tales -Torah maintained both, useful accounts, but refined with monotheism -First section describes how entire world created by One God -Second for moral teachings -But details of sections conflict? 1. First section has creation in six days; second talks about “The day” God made world (G2:4) -Day is expression, means the time God made the world Examples: Day mean time generally -Day when God spoke to Moses on Sinai (Numbers 3:1); but forty days -Day when David delivered from all enemies (Psalm 18:1, Samuel II 12:1) 2. First section creation begins with primordial waters; second section dry land -Problematic only if assumed to be independent sections -If we assume unity, then sections continuous 3. First section male and female created together (G1:27); second Adam first (G2:7), Eve later (G2:21-22) -General statement followed by detailed account -First is general account, man within world -Second is how created 4. First section plants are created before man on third day; second after man (G2:5, 9) -Plants in second section are “siah” (shrubs) and “esev” (herbs) of field -But other plants existed, and (contra Dillman) shrubs, herbs not most important -Negation implies that other plants existed -Note G3:18, thorns and thistles produced, and man punished to eat of “esev” of field -these species are consequence of man’s sin, -“siah” of field is thorns and thistles; “esev” of field, wheat and barley, etc. for food instead of fruit of Eden But all plants created on third day including these? -First section talks repeatedly about plants that yield seed (G1:11-12, 29) -Plants of third day can so reproduce -But “siah” and “esev” fields require God’s rain and Man’s tilling (which is consequence of sin) -As for G2:9, this explains earlier statement G2:8, general followed by detail 5. First section, beasts and birds before man; second formed from ground (G2:19) -God showed man all animals to name, and find helper -Cattle, important helper, not mentioned in G2:19 -Cattle already in garden (G2:20) -But other animals throughout world, not in garden, so God forms them for man there -Second section does not offer detailed description of cosmology as first, only heaven and earth incidentally -Second section is detail of creation of man, detailed follows general as style of Torah -So unified, continues sections. Also note: first tells of how good world of God (G1:31), second of how evil comes from sin (G3:16-19) Repetitions: Matriarchs and Kings -Sarah in Egypt (G12:10-20) assigned to J -Story parallels Israel going down Egypt (noted in Bereshith Rabba 40:8) -compare G12:1, 43:1, 47:4; G43:1, 47:4; G12:12, Exodus 1:16, 22; G12:14-15, Israel as slaves in Egypt; G12:16, 13, 2, jewellery at Exodus; G12:17, E11:1; G12:18, E12:31; G12:19, E12:32; G13:1, Numbers 13:17, 22; G13:3, E17:1, 40:36, 38, Numbers 10:6, 12, 33:2, 2 G13,3, 4, Israel fights first here in conquest west of Jordan -also compare G12:1-9, Abram’s went to Canaan, story of descendants entering land Abram comes from north to Shechem (G12:6-7), to Bethel-Ai (G12:8), note alter, to Negev (G12:9) and Hebron (G23:17-20), Jacob comes from north-east to Shechem (G33:18-20, 24:25-29), to Bethel, note put away idols (G35:2, 4), to Negev and Hebron (G35:27) Joshua conquers Ai (east of Bethel) first (Joshua 8:9), note builds alter after battle (near Shechem J8:30), in Shechem Israel to put away idols and builds sanctuary (J24:23, 25- 26). Same tripartite land division -Parallels teach that fathers signs for children, symbolically conquered land fulfillment of promise in children, God helps children as helped fathers -Similarly three stories of mothers advance Torah’s message here -Something done repeatedly is established, confirmed and fulfilled -note doubling of dream of Pharaoh proves that matter fixed, God will bring it about (G41:32, Torah explicit of method here) -Compare Roman historian Livy who incorporates similar stories Cassuto’s Conclusion: -DH has strange redactor repeating and contradicting himself -But duplications explained, as details, contradictions re/desolved -Repetitions easily explained in method, intentions of Torah -Fourth pillar of DH crumbles
Lecture 7: Composite Sections Composite Sections: -Internal parallels between verses -Superfluous, contradictory -DH: redactor culls from different sources on same story (sometimes own comments) Particular example (as method in previous lectures): -Example: Isaac’s blessing of Jacob (G27) -DH prizes this example -DH attributes to J and E -DH dissects for sources -Gunkel from verses 15, 16 and throughout: -15, Esau’s garments (noting God’s names, language, style)=J -16, Kid’s skins (etc.)=E The Story (read verses carefully): -Jacob, Esau contending for blessing belonging to chosen one (G25:23) -Don’t know which is chosen; doubt which is elder (G25:22, 26, both strive for first) -but clear who deserves it (G25:27, and tenor of whole section) -Isaac likes/weakened by influence of Esau (G25:28) -Rebecca likes Jacob, mother understands character (G25:28, no reason given, contrast Isaac for Esau) -Each brothers believes he is worthy, strives; Jacob also attains legal right (G25:29-34) DH and Cassuto’s Response: -Isaac invites Esau (G27:1-4, dimness symbolic, not recognizing Jacob’s right) -G27:1, DH deletes “and he said unto him, ‘My son’ and he said unto him ‘Here I am’”, since verse assigned to J and such expression in opening conversation of E -Cassuto: -But so simple expression peculiar to an author? -Even though sometimes found with E name (not used by J), also found where no divine name, and where J name (G22:1 but DH delete J here and substitute E!) -If words are deleted we need a new “elaw” (to him) in verse 2, showing verse not conversation’s beginning -G27:2-4, DH deletes “and make me savoury food…that I may eat”, attributes to E since parallels “game/venison” and “savoury food”, showing two sources (“savoury food” connected with Kid’s skins=E, “game”=J) -Cassuto: -New reconstruction of J and E strange: -J=Now therefore take, I pay thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow, and go out to the field, and take (hunt/prepare) me venison, that my soul may bless thee before I die. -main point is that he bring and prepare food for father -E=And he said unto him, “My son”, and he said unto him, “Here I am.” He said, make me savoury food, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat -valiant hunter is now a housewife -but passage as is, is clear and understandable -Rebecca overhears, can’t convince Isaac, so uses deception -She prepares food; Jacob will offer it and say he is Esau to receive the blessing -Blessing is rightfully Jacob, but should have trusted in God to intervene, not deception- Sin -G27:5-10, to “…bring me venison” assigned to J; “and make me savoury food…before his death” assigned to E. Venison/game attributed to J; Savoury food to E. -In E here J’s name occurs (G27:7), but DH deletes it -Cassuto’s Response: -At beginning of Rebecca’s words, assigned to J, is “Behold” (hinne); and in following portion ascribed to E, is “Now therefore” (we’atta) -but expressions “hinne-we’atta” are inseparable correlatives; premise/conclusion; antecedent/consequent -Check G27:2-3 -Jacob’s hesitation (G27:11-17): -afraid to seem a mocker (G27:12; note seem a mocker, Jacob is genuine, thinks he is really not a mocker, compare G19:14) -not afraid of deception (sin here; but Jacob does not doubt his right) -Words quick/short (G27:13-14) showing swiftness and exactness -Rebecca dresses Jacob in clothes and skins, each assigned by DH to different source and divide paragraph here -Cassuto’s Response: -Both clothes and skins necessary -Blind person compensates lack of sight with all other senses -Esau from Jacob differed in odour of the field and hairy -Clothes and skins needed to counteract this -Other senses also appear; taste- savoury food (Rebecca must prepare domestic animal to taste as wild animal, and hearing- Jacob failed to imitate brother’s voice (G27:22)) -Also note G27:16, “hilbisha” (she dressed, perfect) in middle; why not “Wattalbesh” (she dressed, imperfect with conversive waw) at beginning of sentence? -When in biblical narrative prose verb is twice in succession, Bible changes its tense and place: -first it is imperfect converted to perfect, next it is perfect -first it is at beginning of sentence, next afterwards -Examples: Wayiqra-qara (G1:5) Wayehi-haya (G4:2) Wayave-hevi (G4:3-4) Wayisa-sa’a (G5:4-5) Watehi-haya (G11:3) Etc. Watalbesh-hilbisha (G27:16) -Verses are clearly linked, inseparable: -hilbisha because previously Wattalbesh -Jacob brings food to father (G27:18-20) -Isaac first doubts, after convincing blesses -DH divides between J and E -Seems redundancy in parts -Cassuto’s Response: -No redundancy, every word is careful -Opens (G27:18), “My father…here I am” -parallelism with G27:1 shows antithesis/tragedy, Isaac’s original plan foiled, father does not know which son, so he asks “Who art thou, my son?” (G27:18) -Jacob answers “Anokhi Esaw”, recall Ani/Anokhi usage depends on emphasis: -Usually at introduction is “ani”, since will want to emphasise predicate (note G27:32) -but here is anokhi, Jacob will not emphasise his ‘name’ -Jacob says he’s done as father told him (G27:20), very vague, afraid to get caught in details; only later Jacob has surer flow, “Arise, I pray thee, eat of venison, that that thy soul may bless me” (G27:20) -Isaac uneasy, unconvinced, Jacob replies that he is firstborn Esau, Isaac then asks how he found, prepared food so quickly (G27:20) -Jacob insists God gave him success (G27:20) (maybe alludes that Providence guided events so he’ll get blessing) -Isaac still troubled, so feels son (G27:21, climax of tension 22, release 23) -Lingering doubt (G27:24)- response ‘ani, Jacob cannot emphasise in deceit -G27:25, Isaac accepts food -G27:26, kissing and blessing of son -Kissing of son not as confirmation, Isaac’s already accepted food, but for blessing -But smell of Esau’s clothes reaches father, confirms further, and so Isaac blesses son with reference to smell of field (G27:27) -But isn’t narration after already told “Then he blesses him” (G27:23) a duplication? -Rather, general statement followed by detailed, tension reduced for details of blessing -Also blessing is not to be divided among sources, unity evinced by: -for example, seven benisons upon Jacob (G27:28-29, each verb a benediction), as in blessings of Abraham (G12:2-3) and Isaac (G26:3-4) before him (seven is number of perfects, re Cassuto’s commentaries) -Same detailed reasoning, new exegetical method, applicable to rest of section as well as to other putatively composite sections Cassuto’s Conclusion: -Fifth pillar of DH crumbles
Lecture 8: Conclusion Conclusion: -Critics suggest DH must be refined, add detail change theories slightly -but arguments for entire theory fail -No cumulative argument possible: -arguments together don’t make theory more probable than not -each argument has no (?) explanatory power, so no cumulative force New Directions: -New theory -different ancient traditions present in Israel -Evidence: allusions to things not discussed in detail, but which Israel presumably understood: Examples: “The” cherub and sword of flame (G3:24) G5:24 G11:29 (Milcah and Iscah well known but no details given) G36:24 Etc. (re Cassuto’s commentaries) -Also consider Midrashim (preserves some of these traditions in some form; also note Shemoth Rabba 5:22) -Recognise Torah’s unity -Compare Dante’s Divina Comedia; many sources, themes, style changes, but work is fused and unified -Recognise Torah precedes prophetic writings -Recognise Torah and Prophets are continuous |